Did you like the camera work?

Because IMDB deletes threads, the previous discussions of exactly this topic are now gone, but I can assure you there were plenty of them. The general consensus seemed to lean more to the "odd" than to the "liked it." I think I even mentioned the establishing shot of a farmhouse in a previous thread.

I can get the use of Dutch angles in, say, the tense scene between Adams and Hamilton - but even there, it had to be radically overdone to distinguish it from the ordinary everyday nothing-much-going-on-here shots that were canted wildly off level. All they needed were a few cutaways to cards reading "Oooof!" or "Blammo!" and we would've had an episode of Batman.

The fact it was waaaay overdone is supported by the numerous mentions on this board. And the dutch angles were just the most obvious elements of cinematographer-gone-crazy-itis. In addition:

-Shaky-cam, as you mention. Quite a bit of it. Even static shots were bouncing around. I don't know if they were just too lazy to set the camera up right or what.

- Bizarre compositions, with most of the frame filled with shadow, black or nothing, and the characters way off in a corner. Sometimes there was a thematic reason for this I guess, other times, I don't know.

- Extreme lenses, e.g. shooting a conversation between John and John Quincy with a near-fisheye lens ... the camera must have been about 12 inches from Giamatti's nose. Yeah, yeah, I get it: we're saying something about the state of their relationship. You don't need to hit us over the head with a baseball bat.

Usually such "off" camera work is meant to portray something - an illness, a hallucination etc.

Here, I couldn't see why they did it (esp. outdoors!).

So I've put it down to the director and DP being "artsy". I had hoped it was something more! (It annoyed me intensely after a while, too, because it was so overdone.)

Hooper had a lot of irritating directoral quirks in The King's Speech as well - I really hated George's first meeting with Lionel Logue, where he's scrunched up in the corner of the screen. Whether or not it serves a symbolic purpose, it looks dumb.

There were moments where the directoral style is appropriate, but generally I'd say the Dutch angles and camera tricks are overdone.

"I shall tread uncommon wary and keep my pepperbox handy."

I thought it was okay.

A more straightforward shooting approach would have been fine, though.

Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.

[deleted]

NO i did not
It is crazy just like his other crap camera work in Les Miserables and Kings Speech
no reason for it other than a desire to be different, which shows no confidence in the material he films, and instead he wants to be given some strange notoriety for filming everything as though it is set in a world of sea saw and sea sickness, i was expecting the cutlery to slide off the dinner table, it is utterly stupid and shows he is a complete amateur unsure of the material and stories he films, and has No confidence whatsoever in the material, and wants to be the star of his movies, it is quite pathetic that this man is given the opportunity to take such liberties , and it is a scandal that we as audiences are subjected to his buffoonery.
I had hoped it was the fault of his cinematographer called Cohen, who was responsible for the same crazy nauseating inducing camera angles in Les Miserables, but no!! Cohen was not working the camera on this series! So it is this unbearable director , Tom Hooper, after all!
Please stay well away from the Freddie Mercury Biopic
PLEASE!



freddiemercurybiopic.wordpress.com

I loved it very interesting far away,angles,panning away I kind reminded me of a certain 40s noir movie but can't remember,but def did the cam work

Distracting. Was it (the use of 'Dutch angles,' described in previous threads) used in an attempt to put the viewer in the scene? Give the action more 'immediacy?'

For whatever reason, it seemed overused.