SD on 8/8/2007 at 19:52
Quote Posted by lunatic96
I honestly don't get people saying they can't tell what's going on in the fight. It doesn't seem that difficult at all to me to tell what's going on. The "shakey" camera just seems to ratchet up the perceived intensity of the fight.
Bizarre isn't it. It's like those weirdos who complain about headbob in video games. I think they must walk around with their necks permanently in a brace or something.
Also, what:
Quote Posted by polytourist97
You realize that you're comparing Paul Greengrass, a hack-job director who ruined a promising movie franchise by making two otherwise enjoyable movies nearly unwatchable, to Monet?
Greengrass a hack? Are you sure you're not thinking of some other Paul Greengrass, rather than the Paul Greengrass who is one of the most talented and exciting directors of his generation?
DaveW on 8/8/2007 at 20:35
I think the shakeycam gets to a degree in Supremacy where it does get quite annoying. It's not like the camera shakes with blows, it just randomly shakes all the time. It works in some of the scenes, but when it cuts to another and it's still shaking around for no reason it kind of ruins it. It certainly wasn't hard to tell what was going on, that's just exaggeration.
jtr7 on 8/8/2007 at 20:51
SD and lunatic96. Maybe you should specify exactly who you are referring to.
The majority of the posts about the shakey-cam are not anti-ShakeyCam, but anti-crappy-use-of -ShakeyCam. In the clip provided above there a several times that the action swings out of view, you hear the sound effect, it swings back into view. A tighter shakiness would have helped a lot. Not this staggering, swaying, "drunken cameraman" that can't even keep the action in the frame.
Martek on 9/8/2007 at 00:59
Quote Posted by jtr7
In the clip provided above there a several times that
the action swings out of view, you hear the sound effect, it swings back into view. A tighter shakiness would have helped a lot. Not this staggering, swaying, "drunken cameraman" that can't even keep the action in the frame.
That, I suspect, is yet another technique, like flash-cutting, most frequently to hide weakness in the ability of the performers or choreographers to convincingly act out or plan out the fight.
Supremacy had too much of both techniques; I think for that reason. Perhaps Matt Damon isn't quite your Jason Statham when it comes to action (I think Jason has become quite good at being an "action" star; and really does fighting well).
Nevertheless, I'll probably see Ultimatum when it comes out on DVD. Both Identity and Supremacy were pretty decent, shaky-cam and flash-cutting aside.
Martek
failure2comply on 9/8/2007 at 15:59
Imagine watching porn through shakey cam. You'd never see the action. It would just be a quick blur of flesh here, an open orifice there. What the hell? Leave shakey cam for amateur videographers or at least to pros who actually know how to use it.
Ulukai on 9/8/2007 at 18:08
Cue embarrassing silence
polytourist97 on 9/8/2007 at 18:17
Quote Posted by SD
one of the most talented and exciting directors of his generation?
Really? As if no-one else could pull some guy off of the street and say "alright, you, hold the camera, and don't worry if you miss half-of what's going on, we're going to assualt the audiences senses so much with quick-cutting later on that they won't know what hit them. No Matt, you don't really need to worry if that works or not, they won't be able to tell or actually ever establish what's going on as it's happening, because we're trying to put them IN the action! That's the point!"
Always quick-cutting and using hand-held (and zooming...which also was annoyingly overused in the film) basically gets rid of a majority of the work a director is supposed to do: setting up shots, framing things so that the audience knows what they're supposed to notice and what is taking place in a scene, making sure each shot actually is used for advancing the narrative, rather than just filling space and time. As much as I've hated the last couple of Michale Bay films, at least I could actually see what was going on most of the time(probably to the films' disadvantage).
Muzman on 9/8/2007 at 19:24
If you think that's what a film director does you're a moron. And anyway, as much as you can't stand it, considerable craft goes into this shakeycam style for exactly the reasons you mention. The idea is to show people just enough (so you see referencing the impressionists isn't so far off the mark) and it wouldnt work at all if the continuity and the acting weren't right (see a million student knock offs for examples). You all piss and moan about the effect, but you knew what was going on, more or less, and that craft is why. Feel free to debate the artistic merits of the style (I'm a bit ambivalent to it myself) but don't call it a cheap out when it is anything but.
Greengrass is a master storyteller, His other films (
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280491/) confirm (
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475276/) this and the coherence and narrative drive of the Bourne films might not be there under another director, regardless of their style in a fight scene.
For those that find this style anatema to the form, might I recommend some Honk Kong Actioners heavy on the slo-mo and/ore wire work from 20 years ago. Or some Jean Claude Van Damme films from around the same time. You know the ones where they show every hit three times from different angles.
Ko0K on 9/8/2007 at 23:34
You expressed your opinion, buddy. Dismissing other people's arguments as "piss and moan" is not the way I would try and validate my own argument, but whatever.
I certainly do not believe for a second that the shaky cam maneuver was meant to be a cop-out, at least not intentionally. However, that style of martial arts (depending on where you look it up, either Kali or Krav Maga are mentioned) does not waste a single movement and is a very pragmatic and lethal combat technique. When that is shown off in full view in one movie and blurred in the next movie of the same series without any apparent reason to justify it, is it so hard to understand that some people may feel cheated? What is there to argue here, really?
(edit) What I'm getting from this debate is that inconsistency across the trilogy is more of the issue here than the camerawork itself.
failure2comply on 10/8/2007 at 00:00
Well, in my opinion the camerawork for the second installment sucked so much in terms of fight sequences it actually blowed. But I still somewhat enjoyed it.
