"A spectre is haunting contemporary cinema: The shaky shot," writes film scholar David Bordwell. He may need a new timepiece to clock the ever-quicker duration of the average shot length (ASL) in movies such as The Bourne Ultimatum (that's Matt Damon, as Bourne, pictured), a film that worked on my central nervous system like amphetamine. I was so pumped after the screening that I could have taken "the Rocky steps" at the Philadelphia Museum four at a time. For me, Bourne director Paul Greengrass put me in Bourne's running shoes and palpitating heart.
But what was exhilarating for me is off-putting to many other moviegoers who reached for the Dramamine to counteract the motion sickeness they experienced, as Roger Ebert reports in a recent column.
In his consideration of the "run-and-gun" effect employed by directors such as Greengrass and Tony Scott, Bordwell cites a Hong Kong cinematographer's saying about the shaky camera. "The handheld camera covers three mistakes: Bad acting, bad set design, and bad directing." True. But the "unsteadicam," as Ebert dubs it, also cinematically expresses a sense of physical and psychic instability that you can't get from the well-wrought, deep-focus single-take shot.
For moments of emotional catharsis, give me a continuous take in deep focus. For pure action -- and that's what Bourne is -- I enjoy run-and-gun.
Your thoughts? Any movies spoiled for you by the jittery handheld camera?
Comments (9)
One movie immediately pops to mind: The Blair Witch Project. I don't normally suffer from motion sickness, but the handheld jerky cam made me so nauseous, I had to close my eyes or risk becoming publicly ill in the movie theater. The Blair Witch Project ceased to be a fun, low budget, scary film and instead became the only film to ever actually make me physically ill, all thanks to excessive shaky cam.
Posted by Andarko | August 28, 2007 3:08 PM
Posted on August 28, 2007 15:08
I agree with Andarko. TBWP was an unpleasant experience.
I also agree with Carrie. I LOVED "Bourne" and "United 93".
Posted by Bob E. | August 28, 2007 9:43 PM
Posted on August 28, 2007 21:43
Bourne didn't bother me at all, and I can't say I can think of any film off the top of my head that the so called queasy-cam actually makes me queasy. The only time it bothers me is in the really bad student films I'm sometimes subjected to, then again, often times the shaky cam is the least of their problems.
Posted by Justine | August 29, 2007 12:05 AM
Posted on August 29, 2007 00:05
Having been distracted with summer things, I'm actually on my way to see Bourne U today. I'll definitely be aware of the motion aspect.
I remember a friend leaving the theater mid-way through Woody Allen's "Husbands & Wives", but what I most recently reacted negatively to was this summer's "Transformers", which had such rapid camera movement creating swirls of color that I thought some shots looked like spin art.
Posted by Mario | August 31, 2007 9:15 AM
Posted on August 31, 2007 09:15
Like most things, form follows content. In the case of Bourne, the frenetic pace and constant motion are appropriate, given his situation and state of mind. The opposite can be seen in a little-seen gem called "The GoodTimesKid," by Azazel Jacobs, son of avante garde stallwart Ken Jacobs. The camera doesn't move, mirroring the characters' lethargy, except for one magnificent tracking shot and one bar room brawl. Bourne is contantly on the run, from his antagonists and towards himself, so the camera is also always moving. The characters in GoodTimesKid are stationary, both physically and psychically, so the camera is stuck in one place.
Posted by abramorama | September 2, 2007 2:51 PM
Posted on September 2, 2007 14:51
Absolutely agree with Abramorama that the run-and-gun cinematography in Bourne expresses the character's agitation and palpitation, which is why it worked for me. Haven't seen the GoodTimesKd, but that's an excellent example of the corollary.
Thanks,
Posted by Carrie | September 2, 2007 7:06 PM
Posted on September 2, 2007 19:06
Thanks for mentioning the Ebert and Bordwell articles. All of it added depth and expanded the fun of watching the Bourne series while giving a name to the film style frequently seen, called run-and-gun.
Posted by Mario | September 4, 2007 12:31 PM
Posted on September 4, 2007 12:31
If the camerawork is shaky, I just move back further in the cinema. I was ready to be immersed in the music of Dave Chappelle's Block Party, only to be surprised that everything was handheld, so I moved to the back and had a great time.
Other than that, abramorama is right... it's all about the movie. I love the frenetic camerawork of a Tony Scott film like Man on Fire, and hate the camerawork of a Tony Scott film like The Fan.
Posted by Godard | September 4, 2007 10:18 PM
Posted on September 4, 2007 22:18
Breaking the Waves made me feel nauseous and I had to take a break in the middle of the movie to calm my stomach. I think that the Dogma Style hand held camera effect was compounded by the fact that it was a small theater and I was up too close, and also the emotional tone of the movie, which at the end was just short of despairing.
Posted by Arvid | September 24, 2007 8:03 PM
Posted on September 24, 2007 20:03