Cinematography : Tripods... a lost art? by Simon King

Whenever camera movement for a shot or sequence is discussed, the first question must be "Why"? "Because its cool" should not be an acceptable answer. The most important answer is explaining how the camera movement will enhance the story, move it along, and make it better. Once that is established then a discussion of methods and visual impact can take place. Moving the camera has implications in many other areas; i.e. sound, set dressing, and extras but the biggest is in lighting. The lighting will now have to work from a variety of angles which creates another series of compromises. It is complicated but moving cameras can be involving, build excitement and be a stunningly lyrical dance. Movement in moving pictures is wonderful. Dollies on track, cranes, steadicams, gyroscopic stabilizers and a host of other aids let us choose exactly what we wish to show and how we wish to show it. If I choose hand-held it is not out of necessity. It is because that is how we wish to tell the story. But it enhances the story and doesn't draw unwanted attention to itself. It is good hand-held. Hand-held for no reason, not well operated, using ergonomically nightmare cameras is the stuff that is annoying. Too lazy to get the tripod? With luck, the shot is there because someone could explain why it was a good idea. but it is unwatchable and worse takes the viewer out of the story. It breaks the magic. All because of bad operation and direction. It seems that it is really just the result of people not being able to seriously and honestly evaluate what they have done. Nobody sets out to make a bad picture, but it happens because nobody wants to admit it isn't good. Seeing the content of picture is a good starting point to enjoying the picture. Proper camera support for the story is an absolutely basic step in telling motion picture stories. Sit down and look at what you are doing. If it just seems "good enough", then go do it again because it isn't.

I believe "Emotion = Motion" is from one of the "self-help" industry "gurus" who take your money to help you to help yourself which defeats the idea of self help but does enrich said "guru". Catchy phrase though I'm not entirely comfortable with it pertaining to the subject at hand.

As I said, self-help industry gurus. Tony Robbins in this case. Thankfully their exposure is not always global so you may not have had the opportunity to avoid watching the presentation. Movement plays an integral part of the emotional makeup of a scene it is not just influenced by it.

Would it be all right if I could borrow a few of your brain cells to hammer through the thick skulls of all too many self described "Directors"? I promise to do so most gently so no damage befalls them (the brain cells). :-)

Definitely a benign dictatorship. But it takes a while to get there As there is the old industry joke goes, "What is the only entry level position on a set?" "The director"

Ahhh Mr. King, I knew you would have an opinion on this. When you refer to movement being done in post you are correct... for movies done by people who understand the value of post. But the typical indie film maker does not think "I'll shake this up in post to add tension." No, they just can't figure out what that 1/4" screw hole is for in the bottom of their D5. And... an action script does NOT require animated camera movement! Check out North by Northwest; that camera was nailed to the legs and the action played out in front of it. Try the opening big stone ball sequence in Indiana Jones; no shaky cam action (real or post) there. What else... Lawrence of Arabia, Blow-Up, Frenzy... I could go on. My point remains: Let the action and acting speak for itself and don't rely on camera (or post) trickery to tell the story. It doesn't.

Or perhaps because Hitchcock didn't need it to tell a brilliant story. That film has many elements of action in it but at the time there was no theme of "action." It would seem you are suggesting films should be made for the lowest common denominator (social network users) rather than tell a story that stands the test of time. Let's look at camera shake another way... If two people are having a conversation in a coffee shop. Why is it necessary to shake the camera? Is it to make it look like I am part of the conversation? If so, stop it. Just like I don't need 3-D to tell me that the coffee cup in the women's hand is closer to me than she is and that the window is behind her. I have a brain and can make the instantaneous calculations necessary to understand the perspective without spending millions to make the coffee cup jump out of the screen. By the same token, I do not need someone to shake the camera to make me feel like I am in the room.

I agree, while the 'hand held' look can be great, you have know that you will be making the film in that style from day 1 (the first line you write) for it to actually work and not just look cheap because the camera is no longer a camera, but another person within the shot. Almost everything I shoot is locked on a tripod and really the only movement is with a slide or a dolly, but with that said, occasionally I will go hand held for that 'walk along shot' to give a stronger sense of being with the character.

It's easier to add a handheld look to a stable shot than it is to stabilize what looks like a DP with Parkinson's Disease.

Mr. King, The "Is it a film or is it a movie?" question is too typically film school fodder. BOTH are ENTERTAINMENT. True, if you are responsible for a Chinese financed hoped-for blockbuster then blow stuff up and shake the camera like a British nanny. But there are still folks (like me) who will go see Closed Circuit and be happy to see the camera ALLOWING the story and acting to play out.

Actually, (with tongue slightly in cheek) they are ALL movies now since almost no one is shooting on FILM anymore!

Kids have moved beyond YouTube... the vids are too long. Vine is the new YouTube.

Ahhh... I remember the good old days when people said you would never be able to monetize 2± minute vids and no one would post something with only 140 characters and rap wouldn't last and "I'll never shoot digital" and "why would anyone want a personal computer?" and... well, I guess we should stay away from the words "can't" "never" and "always". Now, back to my original point: Any indie film can increase its production values exponentially simply by nailing the camera to a FIRM tripod and letting the MOTION part of motion pictures do its thing. Do we agree or not?

"Most camera shake is done in post"? "Most" encompasses a lot of ground. Sorry but I would disagree for the vast majority of productions out there. If there is any handheld shaking it is camera generated not post simulated. The question is good handheld or bad handheld, not fake handheld. Image shake after the fact could be done on film with an optical printer. Hitchcock could have done so, but somehow seems not to have made that choice. It did take more skill and knowledge than being able to click a menu item in a VFX program and hope it finishes rendering before mom shouts down to the basement that dinner is ready.

Post shake being added to a shot or sequence that wasn't shot handheld nor planned for some movement can usually be attributed to the need to cover up three things; bad acting, bad directing or bad art direction. The best reason to obscure things in this fashion is because they were not well done in the first place. This "movement" does not bring you into the action but does serve to take you out of the story. Moving things in post is a move across an existing 2D image, in camera, the movement is in an actual real 3D world. a completely different spatial look and feel.

Robots vrs. Psycho and robots win every time? Psycho (1960) Budget app. $800K Box office $35M domestic $50 worldwide Forbidden Planet (1956) Budget app. $1.9M Box Office $3.2M Forbidden Planet introduced "Robbie the Robot". So much for that one

Camera movement is not camera "shake" added in post. Movement is great for telling stories, but handheld for no reason or bad handheld is not good and adding shake in post is not making it better. Using examples that include shows I know intimately doesn't really help you. There is shake in Star Trek outside of a few battle sequences when the ship is attacked? Where? You saw shake anywhere in House of Cards, even though there was no use of handheld, steadicam or zooms as a stylistic decision for the series??? Again, where? Movement is not shake.

Thomas I guess I misunderstood when you wrote, "Most of the shake and jitter you see Is actually done in post. Each shake is rendered out so it looks more raw and guerrilla, to create depth in the scene". I think I understand now.

"The way we approached the visuals was incredibly calculated, which reflects the story, which is about manipulation and power. The cinematography was about being calculated and being extremely specific with the frame, NOT MOVING THE CAMERA WITHOUT IT HAVING A MEANING (my emphasis). It was using darkness for the drama and creating a sense of the danger." -Eigil Bryld, Director of Photography, House of Cards. Based on the popularity of House of Cards I believe it is disingenuous to say "modern audiences need camera movement."

Are "modern audiences" so numb that they are unable to understand a story unless it bounces around in front of them? Hmmm... I guess Broadway better put gimbals under the stages. If the story sucks and the acting sucks and the art direction sucks the movie will NEVER be Oscar-worthy simply because you chose to shake the living crap out of it in post. It will still be crap. Why not have a compelling story, brilliant acting, wonderful art direction and let THOSE elements tell the story rather than making the audience nauseous with excessive camera movement. I am sure you own a tripod ;) and I hope you would agree there are moments (at the very least) where an effective story can be told by putting the camera on the legs, switching it on and walking away so the story can be told NATURALLY and ORGANICALLY. If shaking is going to be the only way movies can be made in the coming years then I am sure there will eventually be a revolt and, as has happened in every industry, there will someday be a return to reason and stories will again be told for the value of the story. When that happens I am sure tripods will again be a vital part of the cinematographer's toolbox.

"Ask Bob Dylan - the times are a-changin (and he's too old to sell to anyone under 50)" A VERY dangerous generalization! When the time comes to put one of my screenplays to the test I can assure you (if I have the opportunity to produce) I will select a DP based on them being able to let the story play out as it was written. Sure, I may not get a chance to sell action figures but I don't think there are any Woody Allen action figures out there. Better to be remembered for your personal creativity and dedication to the artform than your ability to use silicon to enhance a crap story.

500 years from now people will still read Shakespeare, watch Citizen Cain, appreciate Rembrandt, and listen to Beethoven. Very few will be watching old Transformers flicks or, God forbid, listen to 1D!

How about this... Use a tripod or don't use a tripod. But if you are going to be involved with my work you had better have seen CK, NxNW, Psycho, Chiinatown (and a slew of "modern" films that do not involve Megan Fox) and you better damn well know the difference between 1D and the Rolling Stones and be able to sing lyrics to at least one Queen song. And you better be able to produce a shot WITH a tripod that works better than one without. Otherwise... "Next."

Some of this thread has taken on a lot of aspects of "Groundhog Day". Evan you are acting like a troll.