A Plea For Coherent Action Scenes
Posted by Dirty Harry on Monday, January 5th, 2009
However, in recent years, there’s been an increasing trend towards, what seems to me, a bit of madness in the editing suite.
I first noticed it, or it was at its most obvious, in Michael Bay’s Transformers movie (and I say this as someone who likes many of his films). That’s perhaps the first film I’ve seen that’s ever made me feel old. Because while the effects were stunning, the build up was good and the idea of seeing big mechanical constructs whacking seven shades of shit out of each other was utterly endearing, I got to a point where I had absolutely no idea what was going on. Genuinely: none whatsoever.
So fast were the edits, and so tight were the shots, that for too much of the running time, I felt like I was watching flashes of colour going by, as if I was undergoing a glorified new and experimental eye test. I understand that film editing theory often remarks something along the lines of ‘when was the last time you saw a film that was too quick?’, but if anyone is asking that question, I’d like to stick my hand up in the air right now. …
But then I sit through something like Quantum of Solace (a film so aching to be a Bourne sequel it’s staggering, but perhaps that’s a conversation for another time). The opening sequence of Quantum is cut so ridiculously fast, for no obvious such effect, that again, I didn’t feel like I was supposed to – or be allowed to – know what was going on. It’s not the only recent example: just this week, Stuart’s review of Transporter 3 noted the decision to “edit the fights down into an incomprehensible mess of flashing lights and sound effects”. I’ve not seen Transporter 3, but as a devotee of action cinema, I do understand where he’s coming from.
So if this, then, is the latest trend in Hollywood action films, can I now please ask that it stops, in favour of giving the viewing audience a chance to see what’s going on?
The writer of this open letter forgives the Bourne series under the heading of style, but as that series marched on it also became more and more incoherent. But overall what’s so frustrating about The Worst Trend To Hit Film Since Time Began is that you know some dynamite action is going on here but you can’t freakin’ see it.
This “style” of filmmaking absolutely ruins these films for me. Even though it sucks, I can sit through Die Another Day again and again, but the idea of another helping of Quantum of Solace is borderline unbearable. Same with Cloverfield, which had the potential to be an interesting little B-flick and probably would have made twice the money had it been at all coherent.
I might give Paul Greengrass and the first two Bourne films a pass (the third had me thinking about buying stock in Dramamine) and define his shaky-cam madness as a sort of style, but for my money this trend is much more often than not just plain old laziness.
The planning of actor and camera choreography to pull off an action scene the audience can both follow and find exciting might be the most difficult thing to do on film. The best way to do this, of course, is to create characters the audience cares and worries about, but let’s not ask for too much. What this quick-cut, hodgepodge, herky-jerky nonsense allows a director to do is, well, nothing. On set, they simply throw the camera around and then sit in the comfort of an air-cooled edit suite to cut a bunch of color and movement together into something they will then defend as art in that abstract sense we all know deep down inside is crapola.
Toss in a little sound — created on an air-cooled sound stage — with the fury, and call it a day.
This isn’t a style, it’s a crutch.
Filed in General |
Nate Winchesteron 04 Dec 2008 at 7:36 am 1It’s something you realize when you watch some japanese movies or other programs. They know how to film action and many scenes are of a static camera where the principals go at it like street fighter 2.
I wonder, do you think it’s the director’s laziness or the actors? Can you imagine Bruce Lee doing the shaky cam? Of course not! His every movements were art and he wanted you to see them. Would Matt Damon seem as impressive or ass-kicking as Bourne if he didn’t have the shaky cam?
Sharon Fergusonon 04 Dec 2008 at 7:40 am 2The only complaint I had about Quantum was the chase scene at the beginning - it *was* done so fast and in such an impossibly tight situation that I got to the point where was thinking there was no WAY that even a person like Bond could get out alive.
but then I thought “this is a Bond movie - arent I supposed to think that?”
Still, I *liked* Quantum…even if the girl that was sent to drag Bond back to London against his will looked more like an extra catwalk model. I wanted to call M and ask her “are you for real? You want that bag of bones to drag BOND back to England for you?”
But then maybe that was her point…*shrug*
It was a Bond film. I like Daniel Craig. I enjoyed it.
Stickwick Staperson 04 Dec 2008 at 7:43 am 3Good point, Nate. Are the editors trying to mask the director’s laziness or the actors’ lack of ability?
brandonon 04 Dec 2008 at 7:44 am 4this is where we could use the early john woo aproach to editing fight scenes/shootouts: yet it can be nuts but make it comprehensible….or just do it in one long take
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTCymujrkMg “famous hard boiled hospital shootout”
still my favorite recent fight comes from the film “Oldboy” yeah the movies pretty disgusting (morally at the end especially)….but man, what a fight scene… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxZenU-R84U
Michaelon 04 Dec 2008 at 7:50 am 5I could not agree more, and we aren’t the only ones who feel this way. I’ve had this exact conversation about films a dozen times in recent months and have yet to meet anyone who likes the shaky-cam style of action filmmaking. I first saw it - and liked it - in the opening of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. It was groundbreaking then, and well done and worked there. Now what we have are overindulgent (and lesser skilled) directors playing one-upsmanship with each other as to who can be the most visually ‘cutting-edge.’
I keep hoping this trend will fade away, but I don’t see any indication of this happening soon.
Michaelon 04 Dec 2008 at 7:55 am 6“still my favorite recent fight comes from the film “Oldboy”
And that fight was done in one shot and one take and was crystal clear.
Another great action sequence I’ve mentioned before is the four minute single steady-cam shot in THE PROTECTOR of Tony Jaa working his way up a huge set of circular stairs in a hotel, moving from room to room, fighting dozens of opponents. Every move is clear and real and exciting. Some of the most incredible camera work in one of the most amazingly shot action scenes ever.
Thomas Talionison 04 Dec 2008 at 8:08 am 7This was my problem with Batman Begins. I couldn’t tell if Batman was winning or losing.
I think Cloverfield showed more than was expected.
There was a couple of fight scenes in Quantum that were slowed down and detailed, despite the opening.
The faster/blurrier the action, the harder it is to suspend disbelief, bordering on insulting to the movie goer.
Robert Lindseyon 04 Dec 2008 at 8:15 am 8I complained about this in my reviews of QoS and The Dark Knight. I find it extremely annoying. I won’t watch Borne again (ha ha) because of the shakey cam.
Plissken79on 04 Dec 2008 at 8:16 am 9I liked Quantum as well, but the first two action scenes are a bit of a mess, especially the foot chase, it is hard to see what is going on. Oddly, the later action scenes are much more coherent, perhaps they brought another editor in over a different name.
Hopefully we are moving away from this trend, many of the action scenes in Batman Begins were rather hard to follow, but Nolan did a much better job with The Dark Knight
Kiton 04 Dec 2008 at 8:18 am 10I could follow both TRANSFORMER and (to a certain extent) CLOVERFIELD pretty well.
I actually enjoyed CLOVERFIELD as a low-budget B-flick.
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN contains among the best use of shaky cam.
QUANTUM OF SOLACE on the other hand . . .
Christian Totoon 04 Dec 2008 at 8:21 am 11Had the EXACT same response to “Transformers” …
I … feel … old.
But it made a ton of dough — meaning it clicked with the masses. So it begs the question - are audiences 30-years-old and older complaining about this while today’s teens lap it up, or is it a problem for audiences of all ages?
John McClainon 04 Dec 2008 at 8:22 am 12The shaky-cam was well used in Blair Witch, which for me was the first time I saw the “technique”. It was new and when all I see from Hollywood is one stolen idea after another, I enjoyed something different. Now it is overdone like the child switching with the parent story after Big was a hit and so on. It is not talent, it is throwing together so much so fast that to criticize it causes an immediate backlash of “your just too old to get it” or “you just don’t get it”. I will be glad when it finally runs it’s course and we get the new thing to steal from.
Die Hard Fan
Rather Readon 04 Dec 2008 at 8:26 am 13I know why they filmed the fighting scenes in Batman Begins like they did - they wanted to give a feeling that Batman wasn’t quite human. But still, I couldn’t tell what the heck was going on. I wanted to SEE Batman!
ScottDSon 04 Dec 2008 at 9:11 am 14I actually thought Michael Bay reigned it in for Transformers (compared to his work on The Island).
And DH, it would be great if you did “retro” reviews of the first 20 (pre-Craig) Bond films. I’d love to read them.
Nate Winchesteron 04 Dec 2008 at 9:14 am 15There is one commentary or interview (I can’t remember which or where) where they talk about wanting Batman’s fighting to be more “ninja-like” in Begins (hence the docks scene where the bad guys just… disappear) but were aiming to let us see more in the Dark Knight.
It wasn’t too bad, but I kind of enjoy the “mystery fighting” in the first one. Where the bad guys just vanish when one of them blinks. But then… a movie of nothing but that would be boring. I think it’s best when, like the animate series, they do a mix. When dealing with nameless goons, you just watch Batman toy with them. With named guys, let’s see the punches thrown.
Danilaon 04 Dec 2008 at 9:31 am 16NOT doing this is what made Die Hard 4 much better than it had a right to be. The movie is actually re-watchable.
boqueronmanon 04 Dec 2008 at 9:37 am 17Speaking of the horrible mess that is Quantum of Solace, the best of all the Bond movies (IMHO), From Russia With Love, also happens to have one of the best non-martial arts fight scenes on film. The battle between Sean Connery and Robert Shaw is superior for a number of reasons besides good editing: it’s personal (between two great actors whose characters have been assiduously developed), it’s claustrophobic (in a railroad sleeping compartment), it’s real (everything within reach was used as a weapon), it’s life and death, and, you know that Bond has the winning edge in his tricked-out briefcase, but, damn, CAN HE GET TO IT. Action film making at its finest.
Carolynon 04 Dec 2008 at 9:47 am 18May I add another thing to Simon Brew’s excellent take on incoherent action scenes? I.e., something else is responsible for that incoherence besides laziness and lack of talent.
Contempt for the audience.
We’ve all seen the director’s contempt for our beliefs, our country, our values, etc. So why stop there? Just toss in contempt for our viewing pleasure as well. If we don’t understand what the hell’s going on, who cares? We’re already too dumb to understand Iraq should be abandoned, Obama is the Messiah, and Palin is an idiot for not aborting Trig - so why should we be able to understand what’s going on in an action scene?
This all reminds me of that scene a few years ago where an editor warns Truman Capote that his High Society friends will recognize themselves in his vicious putdown of them in ‘Answered Prayers’. And Truman just floats in his swimming pool and giggles, ‘Nahh, they’re too dumb.’
Yeah, that’s Hollywood’s opinion of us, all right. And their action scenes prove it.
ECMon 04 Dec 2008 at 9:53 am 19I hope Christopher Nolan is reading this post as the weakest thing about his films–nearly ruining Batman Begins for me (Dark Knight was better but not good)–is exactly what is being addressed in this excerpt.
moviebobon 04 Dec 2008 at 9:57 am 20Personally, I’ve always preferred the Hong Kong/Japanese approach to action cinema: Everything in focus and choreographed the nth degree, and if it STILL doesn’t look “awesome” enough crank the slo-mo on the best-looking individual shots. I see movies to see movies - if I want to feel like I’m actually in the middle of a fistfight I’ll go get into one.
But that’s just me. Shaky-cam is like any filmmakers tool, it’s only as good as the filmmaker using it. GOOD directors like Paul Greengrass and (to an extent) Peter Berg use it carefully and deliberately in service of mood and tension - or occasionally to imbue certain scenes with an undercurrent of caught-on-camera immediacy. BAD filmmakers use it, yes, as a crutch to make bad action scenes look more exciting than they actually are. “Transformers” is the worst offender (in soooo many other respects) I can think of in recent memory: Badly-designed CGI “characters” smashing into eachother with no sense of action geography whatsoever.
eeyoreon 04 Dec 2008 at 9:57 am 21The “shaky” as seen on TV is worse. Good when used spying on “24″ and stupid when looking at “Friday Night Lights.”
Michaelon 04 Dec 2008 at 10:13 am 22“GOOD directors like Paul Greengrass and (to an extent) Peter Berg use it carefully and deliberately”
I disagree, Greengrass’s misuse of shaky cam made the Bourne films difficult to watch. It takes a real talent (or lack there of) to take a good story, good script, good actors, great production values and virtually unlimited budget and make a movie that so many people complain about because of its near unwatchability during action sequences.
JohnFNWayneon 04 Dec 2008 at 10:51 am 23I had to see Transformers twice to get anything that happened in the final battle scene. I enjoyed it a lot more after I “got it” but leaving the theater with vertigo the first time, it was only the films themes, my taste for buttery popcorn movies, and the film’s pro-military message that put me back in the seat.
As mentioned earlier, Private Ryan is what popularized this. Spielberg was trying to give the feeling you were on the beach. It worked well for him, but since then lessors have used this tool and not nearly as effectively, i.e. Cloverfield.
Patrickon 04 Dec 2008 at 11:09 am 24It’s not just the shaky cam, it’s the quick editing, where shots don’t last for more than a second. Tony Scott does a lot of this, so does Peter Berg (Hancock and Friday Night Lights were not as good as they could have been because of it). The first Bourne film, directed by Doug Liman, wasn’t as bad as the next two, where Greeengrass took over, I find those hard to watch. I have a feeling it’s a phase that won’t last, and 20 years from now, we’ll look back at these movies and that shaky cam-rapid editing style will look very dated.
Here is my idea of a model action scene, one of the best ever filmed -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONHHdjyyVHo
Patrickon 04 Dec 2008 at 11:21 am 25I sort of liked Cloverfield, but that was in spite of the excessive shaky cam. Obviously the idea was it was amateur video, but even given that it was so shaky and blurry that it looked like (and this is actually the case in reality) someone who was willfully trying to make a choppy shaky blurry video. Even amateurs have seen movies and have some idea that you want to hold a camera steady and not whip it rapidly back and forth, so they went overboard with that concept.
Nate Winchesteron 04 Dec 2008 at 11:33 am 26Moviebob… for once we totally agree on something. (wait… maybe this is the 2nd time).
Striker Zon 04 Dec 2008 at 11:48 am 27I have a particular loathing for the Bourne movies because I am a fan of the Bourne books. In the books, the main character was a moral, competent man, continuously drawn back into a high stakes cat-and-mouse game against Carlos the Jackal, and similar villains (not to mention the support of a loving woman who DIDN’T DIE). The movies throw all of that out the window, and transform him into the intelligence community’s equivalent of Jason Voorhees - go to where he lives, and display immoral behavior, and he will hunt you down and murder you.
Striker Zon 04 Dec 2008 at 11:56 am 28And Brandon, thanks for linking the Oldboy fight. Been hoping to see that for a while now.
Zundfolgeon 04 Dec 2008 at 12:12 pm 29Patrick is correct. The shootout in Heat is probably one of the greatest shootouts in film history.
And I find myself agreeing with Movie Bob … there’s got to be a hundred talented stunt coordinators living in Hong Kong that would LOVE to relocate to LA and show ‘em how its done.
NeoConJedion 04 Dec 2008 at 12:26 pm 30I thought the Transformers had some of the most sustained action scenes in recent memory.
I didn’t see Michael Bay use the shakey cam as a crutch at all — it would’ve been pretty stupid considering it took the effects team something like 32 hours to create one frame of the robots doing their thing.
newguy40on 04 Dec 2008 at 12:43 pm 31There is a certain amount of “shaky cam” in Band of Brothers and Black Hawk Down, too. I felt the technique was useful. Note in Band of Brothers “Day of Days” episode, the almost very close ups during the running fight in the rifle pits when they assault the artillery. Again… I thought it was effective. Gave me a feel for the claustrophobia, fear and rush.
I could follow Transformers pretty well and the same for Cloverfield. But, I did feel that I was missing out on detail that I would have liked and enjoyed connecting too. I did not feel that way with Band of Brothers, Black Hawk Down and especially the initial scene at Omaha beach in Saving Private Ryan. Just the opposite in fact.
Perhaps well made war movies have less in common with the pure action/adventure plots?
Nick Nayloron 04 Dec 2008 at 12:59 pm 32I think that the action sequences in The Bourne Identity were much better than the Greengrass followups. Doug Liman knows how much/little to use it where Greengrass it seems just wants a documentary feel in all his movies, all the way back to Bloody Sunday.
Also, my favorite use of the shaky cam has to be Run Lola Run. The shaky cam was there for a reason, not just to make it look action packed (the same way the use of different film stocks were used for a reason, not just effect).
Michaelon 04 Dec 2008 at 1:31 pm 33I have mentioned the Tony Jaa steady cam fight in THE PROTECTOR a couplke of times. For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about you can find it here. Just imagine the skill and preparation that went into its setup and execution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZnjKIAz0iQ
Harry R. Wilkenson 04 Dec 2008 at 2:05 pm 34All those action scenes suck, especially the car stunts. It’s just chewing-gum for the brain! Like this, the moviemaker doesn’t need to find ideas for intelligent dialogues. They do no more care if the moviegoer really understands what’s happening. Where are the good old times where you couldn’t even SEE a car in Hitchcock and other real thrillers?
whiskeyon 04 Dec 2008 at 2:30 pm 35DH — watch the First Bourne movie, “Bourne Identity” directed by Doug Liman. It’s convenient to whitewash him out of the films, but his job in setting up the action sequences, particularly the Mini-Cooper chase and the sequences in the US Embassy in Switzerland and the Paris Apartment.
Now compare them to the later films.
No shaky cam in the first, the action is comprehensible and also TELLS you about the character of Jason Bourne. Which is why the current action stuff is terrible.
Bourne’s character is shown to be ruthless, deadly, terribly efficient in a crisis, and a human weapon in the Embassy scene, yet vulnerable and alone in the scene with Potenta immediately afterwards.
This is the whole point of Action films — the “action” defines the character in a way the audience immediately grasps. It’s not the dialogue as much as the action that cannot be explained any other way and reveals the true self of the characters. Bourne is BOTH human weapon of deadly efficiency and a scared, lonely amnesiac. That’s why the first film worked and the Greengrass films just coasted lazily off Liman’s excellent direction.
The shaky cam stuff is the mark of lazy and incompetent directors who cannot shoot action, and can’t reveal character.
Greengrass? A hack who has no ability to reveal character through action. He’s better off in drawing room pieces where actors can cover his incompetence.
Another example of great action is the first Die Hard movie. You always get the sense of cat-and-mouse, cowboys and indians, in the movie. With just how outmatched, desperate, and tough Willis is in that movie. McTiernan may have personal issues, but he’s proven to be a great action director (check out his “13th Warrior” in how the action also flows and shows the characters).
maatkareon 04 Dec 2008 at 2:35 pm 36And yet…most of the movies criticized above were extremely successful…the average film viewer seems to be fine with the way those action scenes were shot. “Quantum” is the highest grossing Bond film ever, I believe, and all three Bournes made a mint each as well. I’m not saying it’s art, and directors/producers tend to copy styles they think are successful, which leads to hackery, not necessarily contempt for the audience. I think they try too hard to out-do eachother–ie I can bet there are dvd’s of other movies in editing suites and they rip off as much as they dare. I haven’t seen Quantum, and avoided Cloverfield because it just looked dumb, but I enjoyed the Bournes and Transformers and the movement didn’t bother me. I remember 25 years ago when MTV debuted and the quick cutting of videos was the Worst Thing Ever. I suppose this is the evolution of that style.
wfon 04 Dec 2008 at 2:50 pm 37No, it doesn´t make me feel old. I know when I see an incoherent mess. The problem is not so much the shaky cam, the problem is directors who film everything from 16 angles, then cut the film into little six frame pieces which are randomly put together. A good action director like James Cameron never has to fall back on that: he can build long sequences full of awesome action and tension and quiet moments and climaxes within climaxes and you always know where everyone is and what at is going on.
LarryDon 04 Dec 2008 at 2:52 pm 38The choppy editing during the climatic fight is what ruined The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen for me.
Say what you will about it, but Van Helsing got that part right. You could follow the multi-front fight in the climax, and it flowed together perfectly into the final confrontation between Van Helsing and Dracula.
Robon 04 Dec 2008 at 3:09 pm 39As far as being too old for movies, I’m 25, and I couldn’t follow QoS at all. There’s an airplane scene late in the film which is cut so fast I had no idea which plane was where relative to the other, and I still don’t know what was supposed to have happened that caused Bond to win. The camera zoomed in on…something, but it was too fast to catch what it was or why it allowed him to beat the other guy. I thought all the action in QoS was pointless because you couldn’t follow it.
When I got home from watching QoS I popped in Fist of Legend, my favorite Jet Li martial arts flick, to cleanse my palate. Why is it that American directors are never content to just point a camera at a fight scene and let it roll? Is it too much to ask that I be able to see what’s going on, and get a sense of space?
I often hate anime fight scenes for the same reason. Some animators just have the fighters existing in separate spaces with no sense of where they are relative to each other. In recent years, some of the CGI anime-style films (like the recent Final Fantasy 7 CGI film) have the characters existing relative to each other in an actual environment and it’s much more enjoyable.
I gave Cloverfield a pass because of its concept, but starting with Bourne 2 I’ve been bewildered by this complete destruction of the action scenes for no gain. My favorite action flick is still Terminator 2, which had no goofy camera angles and no quick cuts, despite its complex stunts and difficult (for the time) CGI.
StevefromMKEon 04 Dec 2008 at 3:46 pm 40Oy, I’m way late on this one.
Was just going to agree on Saving Private Ryan being about the only movie that the “shaky” cam works on, but also the new Battlestar Galactica does it to a certain extent. Though it seems more of enhancing the effects where they quickly focus in and out, to fool your eyes into thinking you’re seeing something real when it’s obviously CGI.
Opuson 04 Dec 2008 at 3:57 pm 41Action scenes are no less important to a film than any other scene and the problem seems to be anymore they are simply viewed as “action” scenes. We should learn more about the characters and they should move the story forward, just like any other scene in the movie. But first they must be coherent and watchable.
I don’t think action scenes should be edited any differently than any other scene. If you can’t use the same editing style on a pure dialogue scene then you shouldn’t use it on an action scene.
Regarding Cloverfield or Blair Witch for that matter, I don’t think they fit into this catagory. The shaking camera was the style for the entire film and didn’t have the zillions of quick cuts like Transformers and QoS.
I happened to have loved both films.
Campaspeon 04 Dec 2008 at 5:09 pm 42I highly recommend David Bordwell’s essay on what he calls the “run and gun” style of Greengrass. He goes into the history of the style (it isn’t new, even James Wong Howe used it), talks about the movies using it now (not just action pictures) and then breaks down a short sequence from The Bourne Ultimatum. Bordwell goes over Greengrass’s arguments for using run-and-gun style for the Bourne movies. Then Bordwell offers his own explanations of what Greengrass may be aiming for, as well as what inadequacies the director may be trying to mask.
http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?m=200708
I do think it is a style. But some directors are definitely using it as a crutch.
Kiton 04 Dec 2008 at 5:41 pm 43How about a list of Top 5 Action Scenes?
brandonon 04 Dec 2008 at 7:54 pm 44michael,
awesome to see The Protector, loved that fight scene (though the Hammer fight in Oldboy is still my favorite)
i just dont think directors/editors in hollywood today want to even try to do something like the “tracking-one-take-hospital shootout” in Hard Boiled…
hell, they dont even want to try the awesome Heat shootout (yes many takes, but not one “really” shaky cam at all, you can clearly see whats happening in every shot)
……damn those asians and their long take, completely understandable action scenes!;) another one from korea….7 minute real cool (the way it was shot) shootout from “Breaking News” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8GsDPToSDo
Bloody Samon 05 Dec 2008 at 2:12 am 45A good movie fight scene is comparable to a good dance scene, in terms of choreography, camerawork and the level of talent the onscreen performers bring to the scene.
When an actor hasn’t the physical talent, or enthusiasm, to convincingly carry his own weight in a fight scene? Just shake the camera all around, cut it quick and use a barrage of sound FX to communicate what the actor (and the filmmakers) should be doing honestly. Bluntly put, Shaky-Cam Is Cheating.
Imagine if all of Travolta’s dance scenes in Saturday Night Fever had been shot Shaky-style, loaded with visually incoherent closeups (both regular and extreme), cut together with no logical rythm, out of time with the music being danced to…
…because, instead of Travolta, the Shaky-Cam Hack had cast a less-athletic and able actor to play a great dancer and needed to hide that fact with a whole lotta Shaky-Cam and absolutely no master shots of the dance choreography, since, truth be told, a choreographer would’ve been a waste of money and time for the production.
Audiences would’ve rebelled and word-of-mouth would’ve killed that picture its opening weekend. I’m afraid it’s going to take an interminable string of similar box-office flops before the anti-Shaky-Cam philosophy has a chance of taking hold in contemporary Hollywood.
SWM in MAon 05 Dec 2008 at 6:43 am 46Coming in late to this one, but building on what B. Sam said earlier - the reason the Omaha Beach scene in Saving Private Ryan works (despite the shaky cam) is that Spielberg & the editors do a masterful job of getting across to the viewer the geography of the place (beach is like so, Allies are here, Axis is up there on the cliff with big nasty guns) AND also somehow keeps the viewer informed of where the heroes are on the beach and where they are in relation to the fortifications.
And, to top it off, it allows us to get a view of the characters. All of them are scared spitless, but they have a job to do and go about it with deadly earnest.
Kiton 05 Dec 2008 at 7:15 am 47SWM in MA,
Exactly!
Saving Private Ryan actually proved that good action scenes are like most good scenes. Only good with a good director.
SPR used it effectively while QoS used it ineffectively (stick to Neverland Forster).
misterdon 05 Dec 2008 at 3:12 pm 48I think it depends on the intent of the scene.
With Batman Begins, I felt they were trying to show Batman strike-and-vanish, leave the crooks confused, rather than have him in protracted wire-fu fights. That is totally in keeping with the character and his MO, so it worked for me. Batman is not Bruce Lee.
With Cloverfield, the shaky cam is part of the conceit. If you were there on the scene, you wouldn’t see much save some isolated clips of action. It added a sense of presence and immediacy. Contrast this with the abyssmal Diary of the Dead, which tried a similar “found footage” format, yet somehow every single “kill shot” was perfectly framed for the camera. It completely undermined the premise.
With Quantum… no real excuse. Maybe one sequence that was supposed to be disorienting, I could understand, but we’re following Bond in this story, and Bond never seemed out of sorts in these action sequences.
misterdon 05 Dec 2008 at 3:17 pm 49SteveFromMKE
The concept for filming BSG was to try as much as possible to film it as if it were happening, not as if it were a staged show. If you see a Viper flying by the camera, they wanted it framed as if there were a real cameraman trying to catch real ships as they flew by. Same with the zoom ins and zoom outs.
Now they’ll admit the style was limiting, and as time progressed they have compromised more, which has led to some very nice battle scenes (the battle over New Caprica being a good example).
Georgeon 05 Dec 2008 at 10:38 pm 50I agree to a point. Private Ryan’s open I think was the first time I’d noticed that jarring fast cut shoot / edit style. I think philosophically the new directors are trying to make the audience understand just how confusing a high stress situation can be. Bringing them into the confusion the character is trying to sort through while all hell is breaking loose all around him. In the end though I think it’s creating too much of a reality. The audience does need to be able to absorb what’s being presented to them. Old Boy’s hall fight was simply amazing.
flyingtigeron 06 Dec 2008 at 10:59 am 51I was womdering if it was me, but today’s action scenes are so boring and confusing. During the first starwars perquels, I was bored. People shooting. explosions. Yawn.
I recently watched Jerama Johnson, and the few short fight scenes in that movie were better than any action movie I have seen in years.