Camera motion -- how much is a good thing?

[Pete Wilie]

In case anyone is interested, I just started a new thread:
Excessive Camera Motion?

This discusses the documentary style shooting used in "Bloody Sunday".

[Stephanie Wilson]

Obviously, I don't have a life which is why I am having such fun posting like a mad woman to this site on a FRIDAY NIGHT. Oh well. Okay, here's my skinny. I went to SDSU and received a B.S. in television production a thousand years ago. I'm 49 with 22 years of PBS and network news experience and am now trying to start my own little independent production company. Okay, way too much boring stuff. On to the subject at hand.

What they taught us then was that a camera movement or transition should be motivated and/or justified. Because if it isn't you are only drawing attention to the medium; i.e. the camera. The viewer should never be more interested in the camera moves than the message of the film and/or video. Also, I was taught, quite correctly in my view, to have the ACTORS move through the frame to create movement and changes in depth of field, blocking, etc. not the camera. Of course moves made with finesse to REVEAL something should be used, without question. But moves just for the sake of moves, at least in my opinion should be avoided. If you want to see a master at movement through a static cam please rent a copy of "BLOWUP"

Thanks for reading.

Stephanie

[Stephen van Vuuren]

I'm a big fan of the "shoot your subject" i.e. "know what your subject is".

I think you have to ask yourself "what is the subject of this shot"? What I am I trying to communicate with this shot? What will my audience understand when they see this shot on both a conscious and unconscious level?

If you don't have the answers to these questions at either a logical and/or intuitive level, then you see the "unmotivated" (read Michael Bay) camera moves because you really don't know what the shot is about. Maybe in Bay's case the subject is actually "cool camera moves" so in his case he's very successful :)

[Seun Osewa]

Oops, this was meant to be a new topic.
[hr]
Hello,

I'm thinking of shooting a short film with only static shots, because static shots require only a tripod and are very compressible on the web or DVD.

Do you think that's even possible? Is zero camera motion a feasible style?

Thanks.

[Dylan Pank]

Originally Posted by Stephanie Wilson

<...>
What they taught us then was that a camera movement or transition should be motivated and/or justified. Because if it isn't you are only drawing attention to the medium; i.e. the camera. The viewer should never be more interested in the camera moves than the message of the film and/or video. Also, I was taught, quite correctly in my view, to have the ACTORS move through the frame to create movement and changes in depth of field, blocking, etc. not the camera. Of course moves made with finesse to REVEAL something should be used, without question. But moves just for the sake of moves, at least in my opinion should be avoided. If you want to see a master at movement through a static cam please rent a copy of "BLOWUP"

Thanks for reading.

Stephanie

It's an interesting point and one I think gets repeated in many film schools. The error is (and I speak as a big fan of static beautifully composed images a la Kubrick and Ozu) the idea that camera movement itself carries no meaning.

At a basic level camera movement acts as a form of puncuation, in tandem with editing. A slow dolly in to a character as he speaks or listens emhasises his dialogue or reaction.

In Saving Private Ryan or Blair Witch Project, the shaky camera signify documentary realism, and are read by audiences so.