The ever annoying 360 degree camera angle

JohnS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2001
Messages
4,957
Location
Las Vegas
Real Name
John Steffens
I don't think there is a more annoying camera angle/movement than the 360 degree one.
Now sometimes, if used correctly and effectively, it's fine!
But, when it's unneccessary it's down right awful. It almost makes me dizzy.
I'll give a perfect exmaple.
Pacific Heights when Melanie Griffith and Laurie Metcalf are standing in the hallwayy of the courthouse, and they are talking, the camera spins and spins and spins.
TERRIBLE!!!
anybody else notice this or have another movie to mention about??
------------------
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
Theirs a famous scene in Carrie when Sissy Spaceck and William Katt are dancing at the prom, when this occurs, however in this case, it's for a particular reason. It starts kinda slow and is at first meant to show that Carrie is happy for once, but then it starts to go faster and faster giving off a feeling of urgency and anxiety, and you started to get the feeling that somthing terrible was going to happen.
Examles like this are fine, but when thay do it just for the hell of it, that irritates me. Hell, Micheal Bay has built a whole carreer on making the audience dizzy!
------------------
Warner Bros. is officially dead to me.
 

Greg_S_H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 9, 2001
Messages
15,845
Location
North Texas
Real Name
Greg
There's a pretty famous one in Vertigo, but it serves a purpose. Now, what I hate are these new-fangled fast zooms and 360º still shot movements. They were cute at first in commercials, but they don't belong in a narrative context. An exception would be the Matrix, where it is a plot element. If you want to see an example of how terrible it can be, though, watch that one Creed video. Sorry, don't remember the name of the song, but they use both effects excessively. Just awful.
 

Cees Alons

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 31, 1997
Messages
19,709
Real Name
Cees Alons
I guess it was considered a "difficult" shot once and should surprise us (hey.. no cameras and movie people and stuff"). But if that's the idea, it fails, because we don't expect to see anything but the proper environment.
Cees
 

Dominik Droscher

Supporting Actor
Joined
Sep 11, 2000
Messages
531
I think Michael Ballhaus has perfected this move and as far as I am concerned I always liked his execution of it. I don't know why he never won an oscar for his work I absolutley love his cinematography.
------------------
-Dominik Dröscher ICQ: 25318265
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes."
 

Gavin K

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 9, 2001
Messages
104
In Kiss the Girls there was a really annoying 360 move that had absolutely no point, other than the director couldn't figure out any other way to frame the subjects. Lazy filmmaking.
On the other hand, Scorcese's use of 360 in Color of Money was pretty darned cool.
------------------
"Wow, what a dramatic airport!"
 

Rich Malloy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
3,998
The one that annoys me is in UNBREAKABLE (the young Samuel L. Jackson being presented the comic book). I can almost see the camera operator doing his job - it's a flourish without a purpose.
(Odd, because I otherwise love Night's generally unobtrusive and "objective" camera, as well as his preference for the long-take. I think this particular shot stands out even more in the context of Night's usually restrained and oddly mature style.)
------------------
"Only one is a wanderer; two together are always going somewhere."

Al's DVD Collection
Al's Criterion Collection
 

MichaelPe

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 22, 1999
Messages
1,115
If you're one of the 12 people that actually saw "Original Sin", then you probably noticed that annoying 360° camera shot. This shot made the film (even more) unwatchable.
 

Agee Bassett

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 13, 2001
Messages
922
I don't think there is a more annoying camera angle/movement than the 360 degree one.
Now sometimes, if used correctly and effectively, it's fine!
But, when it's unneccessary it's down right awful. It almost makes me dizzy.
I'll give a perfect exmaple.
Pacific Heights when Melanie Griffith and Laurie Metcalf are standing in the hallwayy of the courthouse, and they are talking, the camera spins and spins and spins.
TERRIBLE!!!
I refer to this as the "Stanley Kramer maneuver", as he seems to have been, if not its inventor, certainly its earliest proponent (Inherit the Wind, Judgement at Nuremberg, etc.). Though I see nothing wrong with the technique per se (as long as it serves a dramatic purpose within the scene), gratuitous overuse of it must rank among the most annoying ostentatious devices in filmdom.
As a side note, and not meant to reflect upon JohnS' comments, how are his above remarks any different from those of Luis in http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/Forum9/HTML/007428.html
Perhaps I err in stirring a smoldering pot, but can someone explain to me the difference here?

------------------
The Devil & Daniel Webster (1941)
"Cinema is simply letting the audience fill in the blanks." - David Lean.
 

JohnS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2001
Messages
4,957
Location
Las Vegas
Real Name
John Steffens
quote: If you're one of the 12 people that actually saw "Original Sin", then you probably noticed that annoying 360° camera shot. This shot made the film (even more) unwatchable.[/quote]
I saw this last night. Are you refering to the part where Billy is on the train, and sees Antonio & Jolie leaving the station, and the camera swirves 360 around Billy?
------------------
[Edited last by JohnS on August 23, 2001 at 03:25 PM]
 

MichaelPe

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 22, 1999
Messages
1,115
I saw this last night. Are you refering to the part where Billy is on the train, and sees Antonio & Jolie leaving the station, and the camera swirves 360 around Billy?
Actually, I was referring to the shot when Antonio Banderas is following Angelina Jolie inside the brothel.
 

Dave L

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 20, 2000
Messages
101
If I remember right, Claude LeLouche used it to excess in the ending of "A Man and a Woman" back in the 1960s. Dizzying is the correct word for it as it added nothing to that lightweight love story.
 

Gavin K

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 9, 2001
Messages
104
"As a side note, and not meant to reflect upon JohnS' comments, how are his above remarks any different from those of Luis in this thread ? We receive JohnS' statements in the correct spirit, yet we take Luis to task for comments absolutely no different in manner of expression?
Perhaps I err in stirring a smoldering pot, but can someone explain to me the difference here?"
Honestly, I can't see a difference. Both threads concern examples of directors using tools that really stick out, rather than subtly convey something. As with any tool, it depends on the skill of the director and the point he is trying to make, as to wether or not the scene works. And, inevitably, some viewers will appreciate it, some will not. Soderbergh is the current hot director right now, so I'm sure Luis' thread has garnered a lot more attention, and ire, because of this.
Also, cinematography affects the entire film, a 360 shot is just that, a single shot. So by criticizing the use of filters in Traffic, one is saying the entire mood and vision set by the director is wrong, and so is everyone who liked the look of the film. So this, too, will generate a bigger response than criticizing a 360 shot, which is simply saying that the director just got a little lazy. Criticizing the 360 shot doesn't necessarily insult the viewer.
Just my humble opinion, of course.
------------------
"Wow, what a dramatic airport!"
 

JohnS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2001
Messages
4,957
Location
Las Vegas
Real Name
John Steffens
Basically what I'm saying, is that some directors misuse the camera angle/ It isn't necessary sometimes.
Try viewing Pacific Heights and view that scene I mentioned previously, and you will understand why the 360 degree camera angel/movement isn't needed for that scene.
Sometimes it's effective, other times it's not.
That all I'm stating
------------------
 

Gavin K

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 9, 2001
Messages
104
And all Luis said was that excessive artistic filtering isn't always necessary, an example being Traffic. Same argument, different trick of the trade. Yet Luis got slammed in his thread.
Back on subject, I'm pretty sure the Kiss the Girls 360 shot was just as annoying as the Pacific Heights shot. It was so obvious, and had no point that I could discern that instead of concentrating on what the characters were saying or doing I started thinking why is the camera spinning? Is it supposed to look cool? Who cares? Could the director not find any other way to frame up all of the actors? Is it ever going to stop spinning?
When a mind starts to wander that much, the director has definitely screwed up.
------------------
"Wow, what a dramatic airport!"
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
344,882
Messages
4,723,506
Members
141,351
Latest member
muskantdramu