I wanted to, I really did. Unfortunately for me, the director and DP decided to utilize the "MTV Grind"-method of camera work filled with quick and jerky pans, zooms and tilts. They may have been going for a particular style, but it doesn't work for me. It's as if they gave the camera to a meth addict who just downed a case of RedBull. Completely distracting.
And yes, I can make it through Paul Greengrass' movies (I own the Bourne movies), and have watched several seasons of '24'. But this I can't stomach. :( Sad too as I really enjoy Michelle Pfeiffer.
I agree, the also added in the most annoying soundtrack possible. It is as if they were trying to distract the viewer from the fact this is one of the most horrible movies ever made. It didn't work.
Thank you! I was beginning to think that I was the only one to notice this. Films shot like this make me wonder just what they are teaching in film schools these days. The great cinematographers of old must be spinning in their graves.
Exactly. I thought this was the absolute worst way to shoot this picture. How do you have the likes of Sean Penn, Michelle Pfieffer, Laura Dern, Diane Weist, Loretta Devine, and Dakota Fanning, yet still feel the need to 'help' out their rich performances by doing so many tricks and quick cuts. No dude, just hold the camera on them and let their performances live and breath. A cast of this caliber doesn't need help or tricks; you save those camera tricks for a *beep* MTV music video or a fluffy action picture that needs quick cuts and tricks to hide how vapid it is.
It's a testament solely to the performers that I was able to find merit in this movie despite the awful direction and very weak, implausible script. The performances truly did get to me and they are what made it worthwhile.
I just started out as a DP and from what I've learned so far about the craft, the style and the mood is pretty much what a DP focuses on (mood through the various shots). Sometimes the mood is set more subtle and suppose to have a more subconscious effect. The effect that end up alienating some audience members like yourself. To everyone else it probably had a more profound effect (consciously or not). I'm not a big fan of the handicam style of shooting either. It's funny that you mention saving camera tricks for fluffy action pictures because the camera styles that Micheal Bay uses in his movies irritate me more than any other Director's. He has tons of unnecessary close ups of action that is painful to watch for me.
I agree with justpeachy91 I just watched this and noticed the shaky camera movements too but I definitely think it's to put everything in perspective of Sam's emotions. I learned about this sort of cinematography in school and this is a method one of my professors talked about frequently.
I can't say it worked for me. I mean I just didn't mind it, I think my eyes were instinctly told it's the way movie was to be seen. So I didn't find it annoying, just wondered what the purpose was behind the style of the camerawork, and I just learned that now from reading this thread. Anyway it really was obvious from all the shaking and panning that the filmmakers were not doing it on purpose. I don't think it's that bad to watch, and it shouldn't matter if you like watching this type of filmmaking or you enjoy seeing actors perform at an extraordinary level although it's understandable, and fair to say, not everyone is going to like the shaky cam..
i think it worked well. made you feel like you were seing things through the eyes of sam. i think thats the whole point of the differnet styles of camera work. the style of filming fitted sams personality.
Yeah, I agree with you as well. The shaky cam, jarring cuts etc are supposed to give you insight into Sam's emotional state... I get it. It's also done to such an extreme that it's completely distracting and annoying. Why rely on such superficial tricks to try to get me to understand the mind of the character? Doesn't the director have faith in the talent of the actor or the script to accomplish it?
Taken to its extreme, should a movie about a blind character show nothing but a blank screen for the entire duration of the film?
I thought that this was another thread about liberalism in Hollywood pushing mental handicaps (or whatever is the right term) down one's throat currently.