why do they ever use hand held cameras in movies?

[abefroeman]

I just watched Bourne Ultimatum and I almost had to turn it off. I stuck it out because it was a good movie. But the camera is all shaky through most of the action scenes. Why do directors do this? It is not creative. It is not fun to watch. It just makes me sick to my stomach and distracts from the movie.

Argggh.

Narc also had handheld cameras and I had to turn it off after about 10 minutes.

 

[markw]

It's an "artistic choice".

They think it adds to the effect and generates excitement and/or tension.

I agree with you, though. That was my main complaint about "Batman Begins" as well.

 

[jonnythan]

They're probably not even shaking the cameras manually. They might be hand (or shoulder) mounted for mobility, but a lot of the shaking and stuff is probably added post-production.

The idea is that it makes you feel more like you're right there in the action.

 

[zhimbo]

It is not creative. It is not fun to watch. It just makes me sick to my stomach and distracts from the movie.

Hand-held cameras can be very effective - it definitely creates a different mood. With the BU, it wasn't just the hand-held cameras, it was the off-kilter framing and the style of editing. And the shaking. (Hand-held doesn't have to mean "shaky", necessarily.) Mood accomplished...but, unfortunately, nausea accomplished, too.

It's one things to make things feel "off-balance" or "unstable" for effect for certain scenes...but directors should really think about what it means to make an entire movie start-to-finish disorienting. That's moving from creating a mood to punishing the audience.

The thing I hate about Shaky-camera-syndrome is how it allows directors/editors to be absolutely lazy about constructing action scenes. Instead of creating an interesting action/chase/fight scene, they just mish-mash a bunch of shaky, fast-moving images together and add sound effects. Never mind that you can't actually tell what the hell is going on...