Oh no, I hate shaky cam.
How many times have you heard this?
Plenty I guess.
Now, taste is one thing, you can hate the use of a particular technique if you want,
but like every form of art you owe it to try to understand it, to understand why it is
here and what is its purpose if you want your criticism to be accepted or even valid.
Now, it is true that the use of shaky cam has been popularized the past 10 years or so,
but where does it come from?
Why would a director of photography specifically use this way of filming instead of a Google
critically acclaimed tracking shot?
Well, there are reasons, but first I want to put aside the very low budget movies.
There is a point in the process of making a film when you have to set a budget and cinema
gear is expensive.
Though the amount of DAY videos and cheap alternatives is getting bigger and bigger
with people making formidable pieces of machinery with cheap material, but most of the short
internet videos shot in shaky cam choose this particular technique because it's cheaper.
Even though making a good shaky shot takes some gear too if you want it to be watchable
and digital stabilization or shakes are not really going to help you with that.
Now some movies have to use an unstable point of view.
Let's take the Spanish movie Rec or record from Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza.
The film is supposed to be a lost tape from a journalist trying to survive the horrors
happening in a building full of, well, weird people to say the least.
Here, the shaky cam helps the immersion because it's part of the character.
The cameraman tries to have as many natural reactions as he can while trying to tell story.
It's effective because even though he's battling for his life, his character has to keep filming
for the people outside to witness what happened.
It's part of his job and it's repeated to us many times.
It's understandable that people can have a physical reaction of an easiness in front
of it but it serves the story.
Now let's get to the reason why I'm discussing this.
Paul Greengrass and all the hate he received.
Greengrass is the director of the Bourne trilogy, well, most of it, which has the reputation
of being the kickstarter of the shaky cam trend.
Well, first it is not.
I understand that the first stone was thrown by the NYPD Blue TV show.
Most of the transitions and scenes were the perfect example of shaky cam that gives us
this sense of presence and urgency.
This is why I, in some respects, appreciate this technique.
In the Bourne movies, Greengrass, which was a director for TV documentaries, had to ask
himself this question.
How do I make the audience feel that this character is so smart, so trained and fast,
that they can't keep up with him?
The constant use of shaky cam was the answer.
The camera is not only moving and shaking, it has trouble following the action.
I think the point is to mimic how you and I would react in this situation, how overwhelmed
we would be by the constant flow of information.
I'm not talking about the plot, which is not that complicated.
I'm talking about the general thinking process of the character, how he will manage to get
out of a situation not taking the time to explain to you how he did it.
It gets to a point where during conversations the camera loses focus on the characters or
focuses on a place where it shouldn't.
Now picture yourself being a former secret agent with the brain working at top speed
all the time.
How do you think your focus would work?
It is true that the use of shaky cam does not limit itself to the character of Jason
Bourne, but most of the characters are either stressed, in a hurry or completely lost, which
are emotional states that happen to match the shaky cam style too, in my opinion.
Now I seem to be praising this type of filmmaking, but I am not, and I think my complaints are
the same as the rest of you.
I hate shaky cams, in movies where shaky cams have no proper reason to be.
What works for me in Paul Gringrass' filmmaking is that his themes and his characters are
functioning with this style, not saying that these movies are flawless, but there is justification
for the use of the technique, and it is being used from beginning to end, which is very
important.
The problem lays in other movies, where you'll have dialogues filmed on a tripod, movements
filmed with a dolly, and fights or pursuits filmed with a shaky cam.
In a film where you are a passive witness, the camera has absolutely no reason to lose
focus or to film something else than the characters, except maybe if the context calls for it,
like in Saving Private Ryan for example.
This method can be used when we have a reason to be unable to follow the action, but two
persons punching each other in the face for 30 seconds is not something you need 12 wobbling
shots for, especially in the age of 3D movies, where some action scenes are already confusing
enough for the reason.
Well, this is my opinion, but I would love to hear yours, and do not hesitate to share
it with me.
I wish you well, and I'll see you another time, bye.
