MovieChat Forums > The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) Discussion > Why the handheld camera ? Why ?

Why the handheld camera ? Why ?

posted 12 years ago by minidodo
35 replies | jump to latest

This was the perfect movie! Probably the best in the trilogy!

1) Who wants to make a realistic, entertaining action block buster more realistic, to the point of overdoing it ?
2) And who still thinks hand held camera adds real realism ? Yes, in 1997, it was different. But now ?
3) We don't look at the world thru a hand held camera. Yes, our head is not perfectly stationary.. but its not like our head is tied to the chair while watching cinema - its still moving. Our eyes gives us a pretty neat view of the world... which a hand held doesn't.
4) After 2 hours my eyes get tired and it doesn't make for a pleasant viewing.

My vote: Hand held camera has served its purpose in cinematic history.. it reminded us realism is good. But on the net, it reduces the end user experience. And it no longer adds the realism its supposed to.

What do you think ?

[–] ksmail-1 12 years ago

What annoyed me was the added shaking camera effect in the editing process, it was good in the first two movies but in the third it seemed way over the top and really distracting.

[–] minidodo 12 years ago

agreed, it was so distracting that I lost the "suspension of disbelief"...

--
Well, do ya, punk?

[–] SeanDx 12 years ago

Couldn't agree more about the use of hand-held cameras.
Too often they are over-used to the extent that the intelligent viewer is irritated enough to be reminded they are watching a movie, which is unforgivable for a film director.
It's one thing if the scene is a bustling crowd of journalists following a politician down a corridor, or a chase, but I hate when two people are calmly talking and the camera is bobbing and shaking like the cameraman is not just holding the camera in one hand but trying to change his trousers at the same time.

Constant complaining by the viewers in places like this might just help to create an awareness in the industry that it's not welcome.

[–] minidodo 12 years ago

Thanks for sharing your perspective. Fully agree, that there are some shots where it makes sense but is very easily overdone.

I hope some filmmakers scan thru these forums...! I've posted this on several movies and yet to hear an opinion which likes handheld camera! :)

--
Well, do ya, punk?

[–] nocakeforyou 12 years ago

I saw your identical post in District 9. I have a few things to say.

Holding a camera handheld is very different from the shaky camera look. Shaky camera should be easy to identify, but any shot in the entire movie that is not perfectly stationary or follows a smooth, planed movement, is shot handheld. I garantee that far more shots that you think were shot handheld in this movie. Merely shooting handheld is completely and fully a part of cinematography and will not go away.

The shaky camera look was done very extremely in the Bourne movies, but it is not intended to add realism. It is intended to create more intense, heart-pounding action. It's your say whether or not the technique worked, and to form an opinion, but it's not your say of how the director should shoot his film. It's like looking at a painting and saying, "he should have done this differently."

If you want to advise directors and cinematographers against using the shaky camera look nonetheless, that's fine. Send them a letter or email. But posting on this website is a terrible way to contact them. It makes it sound like you're scolding us, the users, while doing nothing about it.

My opinion is that the shaky camera in Bourne was somewhat distracting, but gives the movie its own style.

[–] kcode112358 12 years ago

I'd rather have handheld camera stuff to block and work around things that the overuse of CGI most films use nowadays.

[–] nocakeforyou 12 years ago

Agreed. The more you see of something, the more there is to disbelieve.

[–] minidodo 12 years ago

> It's your say whether or not the technique worked, and to form an opinion,
> but it's not your say of how the director should shoot his film

When did I say that ??? It'll be extremely arrogant of me to even think I can tell
a movie maker to stop doing something.

If you read my post:
. I ask "why".
. I explain my experience and my view point using bullet points.
. I cast my vote in the end.
. And I ask for others to chime in with their opinion.

My aim is to get a constructive discussion going on the topic of handheld camera
and hope that it acts as a feedback to movie-makers (either positive or negative,
I am not even trying to control that). The choice to accept that feedback is
theirs.

--
Well, do ya, punk?

[–] morphinapg-1 9 years ago

While the shaky cam did add intensity, the musical score would have done that on its own as well. The shaky cam makes it so that it's hard to follow the action, which makes the story more confusing. The first movie didn't seem to have these problems, as it was directed by a different director than the second two, which both have this issue.

[–] nocakeforyou 9 years ago

The musical score is very important in establishing the tone of a movie, but it is the images which really drive the movie and must tell the story visually.

Consider this: when you leave the theater, chances are you forget the score first, unless it is recognizable like a classic film score or an experimental Tron-type score. Second you will forget the dialogue, except in cases of very memorable quotes or a movie like Snatch where the dialogue of the entire film is highly memorable. What stays with you when you think of that film, and what you will remember the most, is the images, if the story is told through dialogue, you forget it. But if it is told visually, it stays with you. That's why you don't have to be blind and unable to hear the score to appreciate the fact that the intensity and speed of the film is etched into the screen. I still think it is a valid opinion to say that this was used to excess, but I don't contest Greengrass's shooting style as I find it very effective for the very brisk pace of the story.

[–] Jonny_B_Lately 12 years ago

As an "expert" (notice the quotation marks) on all things regarding movies that way over-reached the original intent of the script I will attempt to answer your questions.

1) Who wants to make a realistic, entertaining action block buster more realistic, to the point of overdoing it ?

Not me. I think I know what you mean. Great story, excellent acting and action scenes that jump around so much you have no idea what's going on.

2) And who still thinks hand held camera adds real realism ? Yes, in 1997, it was different. But now ?

New technology and Greenglass just could not resist using it. This happens to the best of them. Assuming a technological breakthrough will add a new, unexplored dimension to your film, and finding out, too late, that it totally bolluxed it up.

3) We don't look at the world thru a hand held camera. Yes, our head is not perfectly stationary.. but its not like our head is tied to the chair while watching cinema - its still moving. Our eyes gives us a pretty neat view of the world... which a hand held doesn't.

Our brains are built-in steady cams. See my answer to number two above.

4) After 2 hours my eyes get tired and it doesn't make for a pleasant viewing.

I was on the verge of throwing up. So kudos to you for not tossing your lunch.

This completely and totally ruined the movie for me. As I said above great acting and an excellent story. And when it comes time for the requisite action scenes you don't know what the 'eff' is going on.

Made me feel like I wasted my time AND money.

Watta ya lookn here for?

[–] kcode112358 12 years ago

I watch the movie often and it doesn't bother me, it's an artistic choice and it does have it's own style. He didn't realize 'too late' that it wasn't working, they loved the look since they used it for the next movie and Green Zone, so obviously it wasn't a mistake.

[–] minidodo 12 years ago

I am sorry, I am totally with Johnny on this.

If they did it again in Green Zone (which I haven't seen), it doesn't prove
that "it wasn't a mistake"; though it strongly *suggests* that they are too
much into the idea to see the flip side.

And I'm no-anti-fanboi: In fact, I am a big big Bourne series fan and
it runs in the family. I borrowed my Bourne books from my dad's collection.
And I loved the movies too. I loved 1 & 2. I would've totally loved 3 as well -
if it had not given me a headache by the end.

--
Well, do ya, punk?

[–] minidodo 12 years ago

Thanks for your detailed assessment - surely we are not alone (people who could've
loved the movie but for their method of filming it).

> I was on the verge of throwing up. So kudos to you for not tossing your lunch.

I think it after dinner ;)

--
Well, do ya, punk?

[–] nocakeforyou 12 years ago

My opinion is that shaky camera action scenes work well if you still know at every moment what is going on. The shaky camera was intense in this movie, but at least for me, it never lost me.

[–] minidodo 12 years ago

Looks like it worked for you. In my case, it was too distracting/disorienting
to hold the "suspension of disbelief".
--
Well, do ya, punk?

[–] kadajawi 9 years ago

Hm. I don't need to be in the movie to love watching it. I often watch just scenes of it to marvel at the film making, at the action set pieces. Every single shot is so beautiful, and works so well. Despite, or thanks to the shaky cam.

[–] jigc23 12 years ago

Precisely why I didn't give it a 10

"I used to love her but I had to kill her"

[–] spasek 12 years ago

Sorry, but I disagree. The hand-held effect added to the tension, and to me, it was a masterful technique to use in these films. The short shots along with the hand-held camera just made the film all the more suspenseful, not to mention the fantastic musical score.

As someone who has seen literally thousands of movies, is an established film critic, and has seen nearly everything from the 30s to the present, I have disagree with your assessment that the hand-held form has served its purpose. It adds much realism to films like these, and obviously more and more filmmakers are using the technique, although I haven't seen it used as well as in the Bourne films.

Alfred Hitchcock said it best, "it's all about what you don't see. Let the audience fill in the blanks."

Try not to rely on your eyes so much, and use your imagination more!

It's true that I never read responses.

[–] Degree7 12 years ago

Paul Greengrass is one of the few directors who actually uses the technique well.

Greatest Films Not in the IMDB Top 250http://www.imdb.com/list/bc9x1QAFat0/

[–] quitsas 9 years ago

True, Greengrass handles it well. it can seriously suck and many times does with other directors attemps