Shaky Camera Syndrome

PRODUCER: I need to see your progress thus far. Show me the film reels from today.

DIRECTOR: Alright (puts reel on projector and turns projector on). Here's the big fight scene. As you can see, we just used a basic pan. I think it will play really well, and it will definitely flow in editi—

PRODUCER: No.

DIRECTOR: Wait . . . what?

PRODUCER: These shots just won't do. I can see what is going on too well. Shake the camera.

DIRECTOR: You want me to sha—

PRODUCER: Shake the camera! I don't care what you have to do to accomplish it! You can throw the camera in the air, give the camera to a mental two-year-old, put the camera on a lawn mower engine—I just want shaky cam!

DIRECTOR: Umm . . . okay . . .

     Shaky Camera Syndrome

     

Shaky cam is an often hand-held filming technique that throws away balanced, steady camera work for a more unrehearsed and nervous feeling. This nervous feeling is achieved through a lot a movement and fast cuts. Over the past couple decades or so, shaky camera has steadily gotten more exposure in Hollywood, starting with documentaries and branching into regular features.

     

With all of this being known, still no (competent) director of a feature film would choose to use the shaky camera technique in even three frames of their movie. I believe this to be so true that I created the above conversation as an attempt to even slightly justify a director's use of shaky cam in a feature, and even that turned out to be . . .ridiculous. So what are the actual reasons why some film-makers find shaky cam appropriate?

1. It adds intensity to action sequences
2. It brings a degree of realism to movies
3. It heightens suspense in thrillers

But are these legitimate reasons, or are they simply poor excuses that allow film-makers to bask in the lazy and uninspired fad that is shaky camera? Obviously it's the latter.

1. It is impossible for a shaky camera to increase the intensity in an action or fighting sequence. Who Because it is hopeless to try to figure out what is going on! All that is seen in shaky cam combat scene is a shot of a body part hitting another body part--a quick cut--an unknown body falling to the floor--a quick cut--a flailing hand (maybe?) making contact with somebody's face--a quick cut--and somebody running away from the fight as the bunny rabbit holding the camera bounces along right after him.


Now shaky cam, if used sparingly and smartly, can be effective. For example, in the Bourne series shaky cam is used to depict Bourne's paranoid, quick mind. But that one good use of shaky cam doesn't stand to negate that if the watchers cannot decipher the character they're invested in in a particular sequence, then what are their emotions being stacked behind? Nothing. Without audience emotion, it's impossible to build a scene properly, and, like Rue in the shaky cam-ridden Hunger Games, the intensity of a sequence is dead.

2. Film is escapism. It's a way to get out of real-life and to be transported into a glamorized world. The audience knows this, so why is it necessary to try to make a film more realistic by shaking the camera around as if one of the characters is holding it? The attempt to make the movie more enthralling is not only lagging, but it's a resounding fail. Why? Well in some instances shaky cam COMPLETELY takes a viewer out of a picture because of cases of motion sickness, headaches, and nausea.


Is shaky cam really giving people a more realistic perspective, anyways? Last time I checked, my POV doesn't consist of constant shakes, rattles, topsies, turvies, dips, and dives. But, then again, I am not a bobble head or a Parkinson's patient.

3. Building suspense in a film is a delicate and difficult art, and it shouldn't rely on the jerking and jarring nature of a camera. If you look at the work of the Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock, it is blatant that the building of suspense is best when it is constructed naturally through CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT AND STORY. Those are the elements that should be focused on in a film and a shaky camera simply destroys that focus.

Hitchcock's slow-panning camera work not only supported the story being told, but it complimented it. Absolutely nothing in a film (especially not the building of suspense and tension) is complimented when the camera is shaking like it's Leonardo DiCaprio at the end of Titanic. Suspense is earned through careful storytelling and attention to detail, not through broken tripods and shivering hands.

But, sadly, even with my cries against shaky cam, it will continue to run rampant throughout Hollywood. Why? There will always be money-hungry producers and lazy, obedient directors. What modern cinema needs to end shaky cam and other lazy forms of directing is more admiration towards the likes of Christopher Nolan, Alfred Hitchcock, Frank Capra, Quentin Tarantino, and Joss Whedon and less given to the Michael Bays of the movie-making universe.There needs to be a revitalization of film-makers' passion and creativity, and only then will Shaky Camera Syndrome be cured.