I know I’m not the only person to have noticed the preponderance of the shaky camera technique in modern cinematography. Like any techniques, it can be used to good effect. Let’s examine shaky camera in detail.
First of all, let me define what I mean by “shakycam”. That is the technique of shaking a camera as though it is hand held. That is, the image shakes side to side as though the cameraman is walking or it jitters rapidly as though the cameraman cannot hold it steady as he alternates between focus points. Like anything, there are degrees varying between mild swaying and violent shaking.
Now, let’s examine cases where such a technique might be used. The most obvious is when the image is supposed to be one shot by an amateur. For instance, when an investigator is viewing “witness video”. In this case, the footage is supposed to have been shot by an amateur with a hand held camera. The degree of shakiness will, of course, depend on the shooter’s circumstances. If he is running toward the action, the image will probably move around violently. If he is walking, it will probably be a gentle sway. If he is standing still, it might even approach tripod stability.
Sometimes, the shakycam effect is used to make a shot feel more dynamic. In this case, the camera motion is meant to suggest that we are physically there, following the subjects around, even when such a situation would be patently absurd. However, used judiciously, this trick can engage audience members in a scene more than a series of static steady shots can. Used to excess, it can cause the audience to reach for anti-nausea medication (or simply close their eyes).
Neither of the preceding uses of shakycam are particularly annoying unless used to excess. However, there is another use which is particularly notable. Fights or other high action scenes. By using a rapidly shaking, swaying, panning, etc., camera angle, one leaves the viewer in significant doubt about exactly what is or was going on during the scene. This is because we can only compensate so rapidly for changing camera angles and, thus, we are rapidly confused by the motion overload. In case you’re wondering why such motion is so much more confusing on the screen than when you are dashing toward a fight on the street, it is because we have other physical cues to our own motion while running and those cues allow our brains to filter that motion out more effectively. We do not have those cues when watching a movie.
So why are film makers moving toward shakycam fights and high action scenes? It’s partly because it adds more dynamicity to the scene, but mostly it disguises errors and even allows prolonging a fight scene by editing together various angles of the same three punches/kicks in sequence. With the unstable view, no viewer is going to be able to pick that out, or at least is going to have some level of doubt. This is particularly effective when combined with the rapid cut technique where you do not stay with any particular shot for more than a second or so.
Another reason for shakycam techniques is to disguise poor backgrounds, poor effects shots, and even disguise the use of stunt doubles. While the last can be excused to some extent, the others are inexcusable. If your backgrounds or effects are bad enough that you feel you must disguise them, use some other technique that does not leave the audience motion sick, including blurring the background, using similar stylistic techniques to those of animé (minimal or no backgrounds during high action sequences), etc.
All of the above is bad enough in a 2D film. But it gets particularly problematic when combined with the assaultive 3D so common in modern cinema. Not only do you have the 3D effects causing eye strain and potential nausea, you have the vomit-inducing rapid cut shakycam scenes doing the same. Come on, people, I go to movies to be entertained, not to feel ill for an hour afterward!
I have not touched on digital effects combined with shakycam. I assume exactly how a shot is acquired is not relevant to the use of any particular camera technique.
Now, what is the solution to all this annoying shakycam fight scene stuff? It’s simple. Go back to choreographing fight sequences longer than three punches. Film them with steady cameras. Resist the temptation to cut to different angles continually during editing – stick with an angle for a while. Allow the audience to marvel at the execution of the fight sequence rather than leaving them baffled about just what happened. If you must show different angles, only do so when it adds something to the action, like showing a particularly nice facial expression on one of the combatants.
If, instead of trying to hide lack of choreography during fight scenes, you are disguising poor sets, backgrounds, etc., instead try to make the action compelling enough that the set fades into the background where it should be anyway. Use the “blurred background sharp focus” technique. Do anything that does not make the audience nauseated by the process. Or better yet, get better sets, or use strategic camera angles (which works for disguising stunt doubles, too).
In all, I long to see skilled cinematography replace low-brow trickery in the motion picture business (and that includes television).