[Bond]

--- Anyway that's enough from me about shaky cams. What did everyone else think about the retconning? Clever, no?

By retconning, you mean saying David Webb was always Bourne's name, like in the novels, or the use of Matt Damon's picture from Good Will Hunting on his passport?

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

Argh; I'd meant not to say any more on this, but I've been untrue in the past as well.

I think it's fair to say his style is limited if he's only done a few films. That's more or less the definition of "limited." Out of curiosity, I looked up IMPERIAL LIFE IN THE EMERAL CITY on imdb. The first topic of discussion was "I hope they don't have the same shaky camera action." So I suppose other people are reacting to it as well; I was amused enough to post there.

His IMDB page is split pretty evenly with people who either really like him as a director or can't stand him because of the "shaky cam." Personally, I don't place too much stock in the overwhelming bulk of IMDB posters' hysterical comments whether I agree with them or not. A little much along the "OMG THIS IS THE WORST FILM EVAR" variety for pretty much anything and everything.

I think it's worth pointing out to that this isn't really a Directorial Style. As a gimmick, it had already been tried before by other directors, so it's now pretty much just a trope. I think it was more effective when Woody Allen used in on HUSBANDS AND WIVES. Mainly I say this because his takes were long and the style led to the notion that the film was a documentary. Greengrass's films are chock full of editing and background music, so they don't look like documentaries at all. They don't in fact look real to me at all since the style calls so much attention to itself.

Again, difference of preference. I don't find it distracting at all. You call it a gimmick, I think it's a very recognizable filmmaking "signature" for him. Neither of us are ultimately wrong.

And his films only resemble documentaries, but they're not strictly following the same model of editing or presentation...hence why he typically makes "docudramas," not documentaries. Personally, I found Flight 93 and Bloody Sunday to be very unique in how they skillfully straddled the line between a documentary/re-enactment and a drama/action films, much of it due to how Greengrass shot the films. Now granted, I don't think his style was as effective with the Bourne films and will ultimately get tiresome if he continues to make more straight up action or drama films...but I think it will lend itself very well to a film like ILITEC since it very much is grounded in reality and will lend itself well to his docudrama style like Bloody Sunday and F93 did.

Hey remember the Steadicam use in Kubrick's films? FULL METAL JACKET in particular was great; the camera was right there in the action, we followed characters as they moved, and the takes were long. In among such shots were closeups, slo-mo inserts, and lots of tripod-stable wides for perspective. The music was minimal as well, and what we got there was something that looked like a doc but was controlled and choreographed as hell. And you had a real sense of what was going on!

Agreed? I guess I was supposed to disagree here, but it's not like I'm saying or have said that non-"shaky cam" films are bad or can't have the same effect of the "shaky cam" filmmaking style. I appreciate any number of shooting styles so long as they make me as a viewer enjoy more the film as a whole. It's not like I want "all shaky all the time"...I simply don't understand why people get so worked up over hating it, and not just with these films or this filmmaker. It really seems to be something that even when used sparingly drives some people into a fury, and I find that baffling. I guess at the end of the day people are just going to vary wildly when it comes to what they find tolerable when it comes to filmmaking.

This post has been edited by MyPantsAreOnFire: 13 August 2007 - 10:13 PM

[Bond]

Indeed. Can't we all just... get along?

[civilian_number_two]

"It really seems to be something that even when used sparingly drives some people into a fury, and I find that baffling. "

I would find that baffling as well. That's why I was careful to mention that lots of films use it sparingly, and that some of them are masterpieces. The Greengrass films use the technique to a ridiculous extent; he's turning into a new Shyamalan (whose stylised, long steadicam takes are just cribbed from Hsiao-hsien Hou).

I appreciate that you never actually said that you prefer all shaky all the time over any film with a stable camera or a wider frame, but you did say "I find steadier shots in action films with a lot of hand to hand combat to be boring and make the fights look too staged and fake." This is what I'm taking exception to; you're clearly saying that outside of Martial Arts films, the only exception you allowed, that ALL action films with Greengrass's style will seem less staged and less fake. Basically, that Greengrass's style is superior and less boring to all other styles. You didn't even say SOME films, so yeah, you're expected either to disagree and say you hated FULL METAL JACKET, or you're meant to reverse yourself, which I suppose is what you did.

[Bond]

Shakey-cam is like a drug: it feels great in small doses, but too much and you throw up.

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

I appreciate that you never actually said that you prefer all shaky all the time over any film with a stable camera or a wider frame, but you did say "I find steadier shots in action films with a lot of hand to hand combat to be boring and make the fights look too staged and fake." This is what I'm taking exception to; you're clearly saying that outside of Martial Arts films, the only exception you allowed, that ALL action films with Greengrass's style will seem less staged and less fake. Basically, that Greengrass's style is superior and less boring to all other styles. You didn't even say SOME films, so yeah, you're expected either to disagree and say you hated FULL METAL JACKET, or you're meant to reverse yourself, which I suppose is what you did.

Well, that's simply a misunderstanding that's my fault since I didn't clarify. When I say "action movies," it is a broad term, but I'm not talking about something like FMJ. To me, that's a war film and a completely different beast. An action film for me is anything from Die Hard to the Matrix films to the Bourne films...films that focus on an individual (usually) caught up in a series of violent adventures, and yes, with many of those films, especially the supposedly "grittier" or more "realistic" ones, I almost always prefer the use of the so-called shaky cam, Greengrass or otherwise. I was never saying that not using the shaky cam makes them BAD fight scenes...just that to me I never can really get out of the whole "oh, that's just staged" feeling when watching. I can enjoy it, but I don't find it too terribly exciting. I don't need to see exactly how the fight goes down in these type of films...it's almost more like I'm interesting in seeing how the filmmaker portrays the emotion and panic and intensity, etc. of the fight as opposed to the details of the actual combat, and I think the shaky cam usually lends itself better to that. And yes, at the end of the day, if I have to pick between the two when it comes to "realistic" action films, I will pick the shaky cam every day and six times on Sunday.

Re-reading the part of your post that I quoted it struck me sort of odd...are you trying to somehow "catch" me in something? If so, why? How can either of us be wrong here? All I've been talking about is what I personally prefer when it comes to how films like the Bourne series are shot.

This post has been edited by MyPantsAreOnFire: 13 August 2007 - 11:40 PM

[Bond]

We're all picky, here, I suppose...

Let's try to find, oh, how should I say, a happy medium?

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

We're all picky, here, I suppose...

Let's try to find, oh, how should I say, a happy medium?

Ye olde agree to disagree? Works for me.

Poetry!

[Bond]

And now, together, all as one, let us post, and have some fun!

Poetry!

[civilian_number_two]

And yes, at the end of the day, if I have to pick between the two when it comes to "realistic" action films, I will pick the shaky cam every day and six times on Sunday.

Re-reading the part of your post that I quoted it struck me sort of odd...are you trying to somehow "catch" me in something? If so, why? How can either of us be wrong here? All I've been talking about is what I personally prefer when it comes to how films like the Bourne series are shot.

Fine. I think that Greengrass is gimmicky; you think his gimmick makes his films preferable to all other films in the same genre (noone is using exclusive tighht closeups and deliberately shaky handheld camera tro the extent he does). You were happy to talk about FMJ a few posts ago, but now that it leads to a contradiction, you exclude it as not relevant to the discussion. "War" movies are different from "action" movies. I don't see why of course, since they after all deal even more than most action films with "real" situations, and the handheld work, with the archaic lenses, was employed specifically to emulate WWII combat footage. But whatever. Incidentally, I only mentioned it after you introduced SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and BAND OF BROTHERS, which favoured handheld doc-style camera work amid other styles. Apparently you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place, and no, I'm not trying to "catch" you at anything. Of course when we're talking about opinions neither of us can be "wrong," but anyone can use spurious arguments when trying to prove a point. I was just calling you on one.

----

Spoiler:

Bond, by "retcon," I mean introducing a notion in a later film as though it had been a part of the continuity already established. Usually this is bad. A typically bad retcon is the "Sandman killed Ben Parker" crap thrown in to SPIDERMAN III. In BOURNE ULTIMATUM, they made it as though the majority of the film had occurred before the epiulogue to SUPREMACY. I thought that was super clever, and something I can't remember having seen before.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 14 August 2007 - 04:30 AM

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

Fine. I think that Greengrass is gimmicky; you think his gimmick makes his films preferable to all other films in the same genre (noone is using exclusive tighht closeups and deliberately shaky handheld camera tro the extent he does). You were happy to talk about FMJ a few posts ago, but now that it leads to a contradiction, you exclude it as not relevant to the discussion.

But I'm not excluding it. You're trying to present it as somehow tripping me up, and I really don't see how it does. It's not like I'm trying to "hide" from FMJ as that it proves absolutely nothing "wrong" about my opinion, nor is that even possible. You're essnetially trying to treat this as a debate where one of us is going to come out over the other, and I'm not sure why. Is my opinion really that disagreeable to you?

"War" movies are different from "action" movies. I don't see why of course, since they after all deal even more than most action films with "real" situations, and the handheld work, with the archaic lenses, was employed specifically to emulate WWII combat footage. But whatever.

I don't think you'd have to look to far to find most people would distinguish war films from action films a la the Bourne, Die Hard or Indiana Jones films. It's kind of surprising and odd to me that you would lump those type of films and war films together, but hey, to each their own.

Incidentally, I only mentioned it after you introduced SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and BAND OF BROTHERS, which favoured handheld doc-style camera work amid other styles.

Yes, I brought them up to ask other people here what they thought of them because of my overall point of how surprised I am at how so many people seem to out and out loathe any significant use of the "shaky cam" in films and I wanted to see if that extended here to projects that typically by and large beloved like SPR and BOB. I wasn't trying to some divert or explain my way out of anything...I was simply curious of everyone else's opinions when it comes to shaky cam use in those films. You'll notice that's why I also brought up Traffic, too. I didn't bring up any of those films to somehow prove anyone wrong...I was simply curious to see if anyone's vitriol for this filmmaking style extended to other acclaimed projects.

Apparently you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place,

What? That's ridiculous. Now you're telling me what I should and shouldn't bring up when it comes to discussing what we each prefer when it comes to how films are shot and edited?

and no, I'm not trying to "catch" you at anything.

Could have fooled me. You very quickly left behind any attempts to have a discussion about our different positions on shooting styles to focus on attempting to trip me up and somehow find "proof" that my opinion is wrong(?). You may not think you're doing it, but I'm here telling you as the person you're responding to that that's how it's coming across repeatedly, and I fail to see what it accomplishes. If you refuse to recognize that, well, I can't control that.

Of course when we're talking about opinions neither of us can be "wrong," but anyone can use spurious arguments when trying to prove a point. I was just calling you on one.

I don't belive so at all, nor do I see why such a thing is even necessary. Nothing of what I've brought up is supposed to "prove" me right, so I don't see how I can even have an "Argument" in the first place. I'm simply presenting everything as "hey, this is a style of filmmaking I tend to prefer; I love it's use in these films; what do the rets of you think?" Apparently you're not going to even entertain the idea that I simply wasn't getting my point across clearly or that you misunderstood me. I don't see why that isn't option since we're simply discussing personal opinions on filmmaking as opposed to having some kind of debate where one person needs to prove the other wrong or deceitful. I have absolutely no reason to try and backtrack or lie or evade or whatever else you think I'm doing here because we're just talking about movies! I've explained my opinions up until this point and will happily continue to do so and would love to continue discussing those topics with you, but I don't appreciate the continued dissection of my posts as opposed to the subject at hand as if you need to somehow "prove" that my (non-existent) argument is flawed and therefore less valid. Again, I didn't think we were having that type of debate and don't see why we should over a subject as personal opinion-driven and subjective as this. I apologize for any confusion or miscommunication along the way and I'll definitely try to be more clear from here on out.

This post has been edited by MyPantsAreOnFire: 14 August 2007 - 10:17 AM

[Bond]

Spoiler:

Bond, by "retcon," I mean introducing a notion in a later film as though it had been a part of the continuity already established. Usually this is bad. A typically bad retcon is the "Sandman killed Ben Parker" crap thrown in to SPIDERMAN III. In BOURNE ULTIMATUM, they made it as though the majority of the film had occurred before the epiulogue to SUPREMACY. I thought that was super clever, and something I can't remember having seen before.

Spoiler:

Me, neither. At first, I thought they were rehashing the concept from the second film and was angered that they would go to such lows, but once I got home and looked it up on Wikipedia, I was pleasantly surprised to find out that it was the same event. Though the line about the tape was cut, I realized it made sense.

This post has been edited by Bond: 14 August 2007 - 07:53 PM