Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Billy Will PAY for the Tripod

In the past few years, a form of filmmaking has emerged that has become all the rage, and while I used to find it interesting, I now officially cannot stand it, and I want to send anyone who decides to use the method on a trip to film school, my treat. I don't want to come off as some pretentious film snob or something, because I'm not, but I just don't understand how a filming like this is reviewed and sent out to the public. Especially without a warning and anti-nausea medicine.

I'm talking of course, of "shaky cam".

I saw a movie last week that had the worst I had ever seen. I've been okay with it sometimes. I defended it during THE BLAIR WITH PROJECT, and I commended it during CLOVERFIELD. Mostly because it was SUPPOSED to be a nervous guy behind the camera, walking and shaking. It fit the story. But when action movies like the BOURNE movies or other movies in that genre use the same method, it's just LAZY! It's just CHEAP. I don't buy the "Oh, it's slam-bang put you in the middle of the action!!" kinda of shooting. Mostly because I can't tell what the middle is, the front, the back, anything. A scene may start, and shaky cam begins, and I don't even know what characters are in the scene anymore. It literally makes me dizzy. The camera man is RUNNING and IS literally in the middle of the action, but the human arms can only move so fast and follow so much. It's as if they put the camera on a trampoline and people just started jumping on it. It's chaos, and it's pointless, and it's stupid. I shouldn't dread movies. But I also shouldn't wonder what big budget movie is going to have the filming quality of the footage I used to film of my family parties when I was 7 years old. Sometimes it's as if the camera guy forgot he had even hit record. I don't wanna say I'd do a better job, but, well, I'd do a much better job.

No comments:

Post a Comment