Re: Fast cutting or shaky camera operating, which do you prefer?
28 Weeks Later is another offender with unnecessary shaky cam. Every time the 'zoombies' attack, the cameraman gets an epileptic seizure and the trigger-happy editor gets Parkinson's.
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Off Topic → Fast cutting or shaky camera operating, which do you prefer?
28 Weeks Later is another offender with unnecessary shaky cam. Every time the 'zoombies' attack, the cameraman gets an epileptic seizure and the trigger-happy editor gets Parkinson's.
I'm a little late to the party on this thread.
Something that is hardly mentioned is the difference in sound design between shaky-cam and more conservative scenes. I find that I often enjoy the sound in the shaky-cam scenes more. I guess the lack of coherent picture to match allows more creative freedom on the sound end. It really allows the sound effects to shine.
- Branco
The reason for that is the sound is literally the only reason you have an idea what is going on in those scenes. The image is so incoherent, they are forced to use the audio to try to convey what is even happening. Seriously, try watching the Quantum chase with no sound. There was a video essay about this about a year back.
I've mentioned here before how I love Quantum of Solace and think it's the best of the Craig Bonds... to the agreement of no one. Part of it, I'm sure, is that I never had any problem understanding what was going on in any of the action sequences. Am I the only one? I've seen review after review and post after post complaining about how incoherent these scenes are, but I never had any problem following them.
That said, it's not my PREFERRED style of shooting action. I like it better than Sam Mendes' action cinematography, which just kind of sat there for me. But I think Casino Royale strikes the best balance on the action front. The camera is frantic and participatory when appropriate, but Campbell also gets back with a wide and lets you know the geography and find your bearings. I think the parkour chase is one of the better action scenes in modern film.
For my money though, nobody does it better than Spielberg in his prime. All three Indiana Jones films are shot perfectly when the action rolls around. Saving Private Ryan, as bullet said. Hell, even Duel. Jurassic Park's action feels a little dull now, but I'm going to chalk that up to technological restrictions.
I've mentioned here before how I love Quantum of Solace and think it's the best of the Craig Bonds... to the agreement of no one. Part of it, I'm sure, is that I never had any problem understanding what was going on in any of the action sequences. Am I the only one? I've seen review after review and post after post complaining about how incoherent these scenes are, but I never had any problem following them.
That said, it's not my PREFERRED style of shooting action. I like it better than Sam Mendes' action cinematography, which just kind of sat there for me. But I think Casino Royale strikes the best balance on the action front. The camera is frantic and participatory when appropriate, but Campbell also gets back with a wide and lets you know the geography and find your bearings. I think the parkour chase is one of the better action scenes in modern film.
For my money though, nobody does it better than Spielberg in his prime. All three Indiana Jones films are shot perfectly when the action rolls around. Saving Private Ryan, as bullet said. Hell, even Duel. Jurassic Park's action feels a little dull now, but I'm going to chalk that up to technological restrictions.
Casino Royale really is awesome action-wise, and the one big reason is the editing. Pitch-perfect. That plus the choreography being very good makes the stairwell scene feel as one long take just switching from camera to camera, and the geography can be followed to well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAPzMrEXIyA
They just hold on shots 5-6 frames longer than inferior action editing, and that gives you just enough time to follow what is happening, and there is plenty of interspersed 2-3 second shots where you can orient yourself 100%.
And I saw Quantum of Solace in the theatre. 3rd row. You didn't know what was happening at any point of the car chase, or the boat chase. They literally cut every half-second for long periods, as far as I am concerned they can make like a tree. God, now I'm angry just for remembering that experience...
Just counting now, the first 40 seconds of the Quantum car chase has less cuts than the entire stairwell scene in Casino, about 1:40 in length. And when I say counting, try just counting the cuts in QoS. Jesus, my brain almost had a meltdown.
Why it makes me mad is that it has 2-3 very awesome 1 second moments that I really want to love. I love big things crashing into things, so the police car smashing into the house is great, but the greatest one is the bad guys getting shot by bond, and their car flying over the edge of the road. The sound of the impact and the engine revving... Why could I not get that in a better context.
Last edited by TechNoir (2013-03-01 21:16:56)
Casino Royale really might be the best american action film of the 2000s forward. The airport chase is also outstanding, clear geography but very intense.
The editing rhythm is part of that, I think another thing that really makes it is the way the sequences are allowed to build. That Parkour sequence is probably close to 10 minutes, which is very long by modern movie standards. A fight or chase scene in the Bourne mold tends to be very short, the Quantum car chase is 2 minutes. The added length lets the action scene breathe and have its own 3 act structure, and makes it a memorable set-piece that stands out in your mind. This is something that Speilberg absolutely mastered with the Indiana Jones series, every action set-piece is memorable and stands out in your memory.
A movie like Quantum, or the Transformers flicks, has tons of action in volume, but it tends to be lots and lots of short sequences. Quantum probably has like 10 different action scenes, maybe more, and they're all under 3 minutes, whereas Casino Royale has maybe 4, but more in the 6-10 minute range.
I think this is why a lot of modern action films feel monotonous, none of the action stands out or is memorable enough to make an impression, so all you end up remembering is kind of a fog of explosions. That's certainly my experience with the Transformers series.
Last edited by bullet3 (2013-03-01 22:05:56)
I will point out that I fucking LOVE the car chase that opens Quantum of Solace. One of my favorites ever.
- Branco
I will point out that I fucking LOVE the car chase that opens Quantum of Solace. One of my favorites ever.
- Branco
Ugh. Really? I wish I could, but all I see are flashes of hubcaps, shots that always cut away too quickly, and small sequences where they splice 5 cuts together in a 1-second timespan and expect people to follow the geography and in the scene.
I dug it when I watched it on video, because it's very much about "oh shit you're in the chase and things are coming at you and you have 0.5 seconds to react...WATCH OUT THERES A TRUCK COMING".
But on re-watches it really falls apart for me and feels week. Especially if you go back and look at the history of bond and movie car chases, it feels so small scale and forgettable. Its so short, there's very little actual stunt work (like 1 spin and 2 crashes), but they use the editing to fabricate an intensity that isn't really there. They also squander what seems like it might be a good location, because you can barely even tell where the hell they're driving through.
I dunno, when you stack it up against Ronin, To Live and Die in LA, or even the Casino Royale and Skyfall openings, it feels really weak for what is a 200 million dollar movie.
I dug it when I watched it on video, because it's very much about "oh shit you're in the chase and things are coming at you and you have 0.5 seconds to react...WATCH OUT THERES A TRUCK COMING".
But on re-watches it really falls apart for me and feels week. Especially if you go back and look at the history of bond and movie car chases, it feels so small scale and forgettable. Its so short, there's very little actual stunt work (like 1 spin and 2 crashes), but they use the editing to fabricate an intensity that isn't really there. They also squander what seems like it might be a good location, because you can barely even tell where the hell they're driving through.
I dunno, when you stack it up against Ronin, To Live and Die in LA, or even the Casino Royale and Skyfall openings, it feels really weak for what is a 200 million dollar movie.
I feel I always mention it in these circumstances, but Fast Five has the best car chase, or indeed action sequence, I've ever seen. It is everything the quantum chase could have been, 10 minutes of pure car on car/object pornography.
bullet3 wrote:Casino Royale really might be the best american action film of the 2000s forward.
James Bond movies are American action films, now?
Actually, they are. The Broccolis are US citizens. MGM is an American studio.
fcw wrote:bullet3 wrote:Casino Royale really might be the best american action film of the 2000s forward.
James Bond movies are American action films, now?
Actually, they are. The Broccolis are US citizens. MGM is an American studio.
And the Bond movies are produced by Eon Productions, based in Piccadilly, London, made from a base at Pinewood Studios with predominantly British talent and always featuring British heroes, storylines and sensibilities.
But my question was more about what entitles a movie to be considered 'American'. It makes no more sense to me to refer to Bond movies as American as it would to refer to 'Harry Potter' or 'Doctor Who' as American, even if the funding for those were 100% US-sourced or the executive producer happened to have a US passport.
It's an old argument. In the animation world, where something is written in one country, storyboarded in another, and animated in the third, how do you describe its nationality? Is a Japanese movie only released with English dialog with US actors no longer an anime? In general, I go with who does the writing/storyboarding. Applied to live action, this would mean The Fifth Element is a French film
this would mean The Fifth Element is a French film
It shows
Sorry, I guess the more accurate statement would've been "Western" action film. The main distinction was versus Asia, where they know how to stage great action scenes and do it on a regular basis. It's only in the West that its unique lately for an action movie to actually have good "action" you can follow in it.
Sorry, I guess the more accurate statement would've been "Western" action film. The main distinction was versus Asia, where they know how to stage great action scenes and do it on a regular basis. It's only in the West that its unique lately for an action movie to actually have good "action" you can follow in it.
And Eastern films to have more mindless action...I guess we're trading off styles between the sides
I fucking hate shaky cam and fast cutting. It ruins action scenes, turning what should be a combative dance-like sequence into an incoherent headache. I'll gladly take the action scenes in Haywire, Skyfall and The Raid over the messes in Quantum of Solace and the Bourne franchise.
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.