What's Up With Monochromes & Shaky Cams?
 

While acknowledging that (some) stories may benefit from innovative camera work & color palettes, what is with this current obsession with the shaky cam that looks as if the cinematographer was hired while on his way to rehab to shake the DT's. Also, why is it considered "artistic" to produce movies almost solely in various shades of blues, yellow, green, brown, etc.?

I can see the color schemes benefiting period pieces (sepia tones...although it can cause severe eye strain when overdone) or even be suggestive of drab, mechanized future worlds...but this is getting ridiculous.

And the absolute worst, IMHO, is the prevalence of the shaky, jerky, slightly-out-of-focus images that are constantly moving around in the frame...it sometimes gets so distracting that it becomes hard to concentrate on the story dynamics. I don't know why anyone bothers to study cinematography anymore...heck, I was an "expert" when I was a teen shooting old 8mm silent movies and never even knew it...I just thought I couldn't keep the camera still.

Other than the disturbing lack of originality in "independent" films...which seem to have gotten just as formulaic as major studio releases...disfunctional protagonists overcome odds to find happiness, yada yada yada...these two trends are becoming terribly annoying.

Lazy, lazy film-making.

Re: What's Up With Monochromes & Shaky Cams?
 

Lazy, lazy thread-placement.

Re: What's Up With Monochromes & Shaky Cams?
 

Well, I never went to Thread School.

Re: What's Up With Monochromes & Shaky Cams?
 

Do you despise black and white film?

Re: What's Up With Monochromes & Shaky Cams?
 

Shaky cam has always been a sore topic for a lot of people, it fits some movies (Quarantine, Cloverfield, Blair Witch) as it assumes a prespective, it annoys in other films (Quantum of Solace, the Bourne sequels).

The color tone was generally used in lower budget flicks, though the hue color is now used to evoke a general feel for a movie (at least the blue color like, again, used in the Bourne sequels) -- there was a guy on the rottentomatoes forum that, for every movie released with that hue, would go on a bitching spree about how it was cutting corners and using cheaper film, and that was it. That said, other than low budget flicks and say Payback and I guess A Snake of June (which is an all out Blue and White movie), I don't really see this all that often.

Indy flicks have always been like that, it isn't anything new. People like imposing their views on the "human condition" by using slightly different characters in a very similar template.

Re: What's Up With Monochromes & Shaky Cams?
 

It's a stylistic choice. You do realize that the cinematographers who shoot these movies are highly trained professionals, right?

As a videographer myself, I can attest that it is actually harder to shoot this way. It's more spontaneous and fluid, and you don't get the benefit of locked down shots that you can frame up before you start rolling.

Re: What's Up With Monochromes & Shaky Cams?
 

Like any stylistic choice, or technological advancement, it is abused, but there is nothing inherently wrong with either trend. They have been and will continue to be used effectively.

Re: What's Up With Monochromes & Shaky Cams?
 

Here's my theory:

Movies are shaky to disguise that they are using CGI effects, and it's easier to match computer animated material to flat lighting and a limited palette.

If you ever watch newsreaders closely, you will see that they move their heads and blink a lot to disguise that they are reading a teleprompter. If a movie's camerawork is shaky, it makes it easier to drop in animation.

When talkies first came out, all audiences cared about was that their pictures had dialogue, and they didn't care how well the rest of the movie was done. Today, audiences enjoy bad movies if they had good CGI effects. Instead of making good movies, it's a lot easier to create CGI effects and warp the rest of the movie to fit them.

Then, when Hollywood sees that shaky, flat, desaturated pictures like Gladiator make lots of money, they do more of the same.

Re: What's Up With Monochromes & Shaky Cams?
 

Um...as someone who has done a lot of video animation and compositing in my life, it is about 10 billion times harder to match animation to blurry, moving video than it is to "locked down" shots. One of the many reasons I think Cloverfield is so great - they made something very difficult look absolutely seamless.

Re: What's Up With Monochromes & Shaky Cams?
 

I've never done any kind of animation, but my immediate thought when reading his post was, "How can it possibly be easier to match animation to a shaky-cam shot than to a static camera shot?? That doesn't make sense."

Re: What's Up With Monochromes & Shaky Cams?
 

Blame James Cameron. You can tell it's night time because everything is blue.

Re: What's Up With Monochromes & Shaky Cams?
 

When it's used simply to draw attention to itself, yes.

Re: What's Up With Monochromes & Shaky Cams?
 

Shaky cam has been overplayed for a long time now to the point where it is now annoying and cliched.

Re: What's Up With Monochromes & Shaky Cams?
 

I think the point was that people wouldn't notice it as much because they can't get as good of a look at it. He said it was easier to match the flat lighting and desaturated color, not the shakiness.

I still haven't actually seen the movie so I can't comment on its quality, but I was a bit disappointed that Speed Racer did so poorly, since it dared to be colorful.