In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Ask FlickChick
Does Restless, Jerky Bourne-style Camera Work Make You Sick?
Matt Damon in The Bourne Supremacy courtesy Universal Pictures
Question: Much has been made about Paul Greengrass' handheld-camera work in The Bourne Ultimatum, and the fact that both Supremacy and Ultimatum have been hits makes me certain that filmmakers will keep doing it. But I can't be the only person who gets nauseous watching these films. The incessant movement is difficult to watch. Rarely does the camera stop long enough for the viewer to process a shot... even the quietest moments can't be still. Matt Damon is great and I'd like to say I enjoyed the movies, but when I have to go home and take something for headache and nausea, that can't be good. Am I alone in this? — Daryl
FlickChick: You're far from alone — some critics and a lot of moviegoers have complained about the restless, shaky handheld-camera work and superfast editing in The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) in particular and movies in general.
Filmmakers generally use restless, jittery camera work to establish a you-are-there atmosphere; sometimes it's meant to look as though there's an amateur behind the camera, other times it's just meant to look nervous and edgy. Combining this kind of camera work with rapid-fire editing is a natural for action sequences if you want audiences to feel as though they're in the thick of it, experiencing the same sensory overload as the characters rather than sitting back and watching things unfold at a distance. There's also a line of thinking that the combination of a nervous camera and rat-a-tat editing goes a long way in covering weak performances, lazy staging and inadequate production design; by the same token, it can be a real boon to filmmakers working on low budgets by turning what could be liabilities produced by not having the money to create a polished look into assets — look at The Blair Witch Project (1999) and Cavite (2005). Among mainstream filmmakers, Tony Scott is a repeat offender: Man on Fire (2004) and Deja vu (2006) are real eyeball rattlers and I actually turned off Domino (2005): I wouldn't say I felt nauseated, but it was giving me a headache. But I think the technique works really well in the Greengrass Bourne films, as well as in his United 93.
The only time I ever remember feeling ill because of rapid camera movement was during Woody Allen's Husbands and Wives (1992), and I think a lot of that was that I was forced to sit very close to a very wide screen. Being forced to whip my own head back and forth to follow the action is what did it, and that was actually less about the fact that the camera work was deliberately unsteady as it was Allen's choice to use swish pans in a domestic drama.
Readers: Weigh in, please.
Question: I was wondering if you could help me with this movie title: All I remember about the movie is that it was on TV a lot in the '80s when I was a kid and it had some sort of premise like the movie Rat Race. I remember these groups of people all searching for clues to money. The only parts I think I remember correctly involve a bag of money under a bridge in a fish tank and a clue or something underneath a bridge in a bird's nest. Any ideas? — Phillip
FlickChick: It could be the all-star flop Scavenger Hunt (1979), but I think the better bet is Midnight Madness (1980), which I know got heavy TV play in the 1980s and has a substantial fan club as a result. But I haven't seen it and it's not on DVD, so I can't swear to it.
Question: After seeing Hairspray I was wondering what other film musicals are based on older, nonmusical films that were remade into stage musicals. Little Shop of Horrors comes to mind, but I can't think of any others. — Eric
FlickChick: There aren't a lot. Little Shop of Horrors (1986) is indeed one: It started life as Roger Corman's microbudget horror-comedy The Little Shop of Horrors (1960), became the Off Broadway musical Little Shoppe of Horrors in 1982 and then went back to the screen with new tunes intact.
And The Producers, of course: First came Mel Brooks' aggressively un-PC 1968 film, then the massively successful 2001 Broadway musical and finally the shockingly charmless 2005 musical film. Bob Fosse's 1975 musical theater piece Chicago is rooted in the nonmusical play by Maurine Watkins, which was filmed twice — as Chicago (1927) and Roxie Hart (1942), with Ginger Rogers — and then filmed as a musical in 2002.
These examples aren't quite the same, but they share musical/nonmusical and stage/screen connections:
The Women was originally a long-running, nonmusical Broadway play (1936), then a 1939 nonmusical movie and then a movie musical under the title The Opposite Sex (1956).
The French/Italian nonmusical film La Cage Aux Folles (1978) became a Broadway musical in 1983, but was then filmed as the nonmusical The Birdcage (1996). And the 1956 French stage musical Irma La Douce moved to Broadway — still a musical — in 1960, but became Billy Wilder's nonmusical film (1963). Star Shirley MacLaine was, ironically, then best known for her work in stage musicals like The Pajama Game.
PS: A coworker reminded me of Phantom of the Opera, which was made several times as a straight horror film before finding new life as a 1986 Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. It was then made into a movie musical in 2004. Thanks, Gerry!
Question: I have been hearing about a movie called Solstice, starring Elisabeth Harnois and Shawn Ashmore, for about a year now. Have you heard anything about this movie, and if so, do you know when it is supposed to be released? Also wanted to say how much I love the podcast!! — David H.
FlickChick: Thanks, David! Solstice, a New Orleans-set remake of Danish director Carsten Myllerup's 2003 Midsommer, wrapped in May 2006. It was directed by Daniel Myrick, who codirected The Blair Witch Project (1999) and subsequently shot The Objective, which is in post-production. Solstice is being released by Endgame Entertainment and I've seen references to an October 2007 release date, which certainly makes sense for a horror movie. The official site has nothing on it except Myrick's blog, which hasn't been updated since August 2006. I have a call in to Endgame, and I'll keep you posted.
Send your movie questions to FlickChick.
See Maitland McDonagh and Ken Fox review this week's new flicks on the Movie Talk vodcast.
Hear Maitland on the weekly podcast TV Guide Talk.
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2007 10:40 AM
|
If there is action, let me see the action. Don't make my frame of reference active. Sometimes these fight scenes just look like blurs. So I'm not seeing anything! The only thing worse is keeping the monster in shadows for an entire film.
Shakeycam? It's why I could never sit through a single epsiode of NYPD Blue. I will take a Hitchcock lockdown shot ANY day.
|
|
Aug 23, 2007 12:01 PM
|
The funniest one-sentence review of all time has to be this review of The Bourne Ultimatum:
"Can someone get this f***ing guy a steadycam?!"
I don't remember where I read it, but I thought it was hilarious 
The shaky picture thing really is a tight-rope. If it's done right, it can be stunning, but if done wrong it can completely derail a movie. It is unfortunate that it makes some people feel queasy, but that's the price you pay, I guess. I love Paul Greengrass' work, he really knows what he is doing.
Personally, my favourite use of it is the opening scene in Strange Days when we see through the eyes of a robber as he's sticking up a restaurant, and how he gets chased by the police and finally falls to his death. That scene combines two really difficult cinematic techniques, a single long take and hand-held camera, to great effect
|
|
Aug 23, 2007 12:08 PM
|
I have to be honest; I just watched Deja Vu and cannot remember any shaking cameras.
Does this mean that I have become desensatized? Maybe it means that my eyeballs are now on strings and may fall out of their sockets without warning?
|
|
Aug 23, 2007 12:31 PM
|
|
There's a big fight scene in Ultimatum that definitely has the quick edits and shaky camera, and I think it works great. If it hadn't been done this way I think it might have looked choreographed like a Jackie Chan fight scene. J.J. Abrams' Cloverfield movie will probably be pretty shaky, for that in-the-moment feel, if the trailer is any indication.
|
|
Aug 23, 2007 12:52 PM
|
I remember seeing "Blair Witch Project" at the theater and having to walk out to the lobby twice, not because I was scared but because it was making me nauseous...
And I totally agree with you on "Domino" as well. I could handle "Man on Fire" by the same director, but it seemed like he used the same technique turned up to 11 (which is a little more than 10) for "Domino." Much as I like Keira Knightley, I had to change the channel before it was over... Hope everything worked out...
I have to say I also got sea sick watching "The Perfect Storm" at the IMAX, but that wasn't because of shaky camera work, it was just SO realistic...
|
|
Aug 23, 2007 1:31 PM
|
I have that motion sickness problem with shaky cam, and won't watch Bourne Ultimatum until it comes out on DVD (when I can view it on a smaller screen). The two films that forced me to walk out of the theatre early looking green were Dancer in the Dark and Bourne Supremacy.
And Midnight Madness! I loved that film as a kid and watched it every time I caught it in the early days of HBO. If I recall correctly, Michael J. Fox was in tha film when he was about 13 or 14. So cute.
|
|
Aug 23, 2007 2:12 PM
|
|
About MIDNIGHT MADNESS... it came out on DVD a few years ago. its mostly known for being Michael J Fox's 1st American movie (before Family Ties)
|
|
Aug 23, 2007 2:47 PM
|
When done well it works. I think it the Bourne movies it works to create the feeling that you're right there in the middle of the action. When it's over done it is distracting.
The only time that I remember getting nauseous because of camera work was during a recent Movie Talk vodcast! Get those people a f-ing steady cam!
|
|
Aug 23, 2007 3:23 PM
|
|
Shaky cam has been around for some time. I first remember seeing it in music videos, 20+ years ago. I also remembering hearing a reviewer say it was the wave of the future - quit cuts and shaky cams! He said it would be the only way to hold the attention of the younger viewers. I thought 'no way'. Now it seems to be everywhere. I get motion sick so if it's too bad I close my eyes. But movies like Man on Fire, I thought it used the right combination with a steady cam and I was fine with it. I will see the new Bourne on a small screen. I hope I get to watch enough of it with my eyes closed!
|
|
Aug 23, 2007 3:58 PM
|
The two films that forced me to walk out of the theatre early looking green were Dancer in the Dark and Bourne Supremacy.
I walked out during Dancer in the Dark - and I was nauseous too - but it wasn't because of the shaky camera!
|
|
Aug 23, 2007 4:11 PM
|
|
Thanks for the link... perhaps I need to introduce myself to Midnight Madness! But I have a feeling it's a movie that plays better if you saw it for the first time at a formative age. For me, that movie is Beastmaster (1982) -- it was on all the time when my roommate and I first got cable and both of us retain an everlasting affection for Marc Singer and his ferrets.
|
|
Aug 23, 2007 6:59 PM
|
I HATE shaky cameras. When I suspect the movie has been filmed with one, I purposely make sure I'm sitting in the last row.
What drove me even crazier in Ultimatum was when you had a close-up shot of a two person conversation, you'd see half of Bourne's face, covered by the back of the head of the other guy/girl. aarrrggghhhhhh! MOVE THE STUPID CAMERA!
|
|
Aug 23, 2007 9:14 PM
|
|
For non-musicals turned into musicals, what about The Philadelphia Story and High Society?
|
|
Aug 24, 2007 12:37 PM
|
|
|
