Subjective and tour de force camera movements

Discuss film culture and criticism
Message
Author
User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:24 pm

#26 Post by zedz »

tryavna wrote: There's also the camera-turning-upside-down trick as the mob storms the castle in Passion of Joan of Arc. (Is that similar to what goes on in the Sensoria video, Zedz or Scharph? I haven't seen it.)
Not really. In the video the camera starts at ground level (maybe even literally - a sub-Ozu position), rises high into the sky in an arc and comes down on the other side of the action, all the while focussed on the same central point - it's like a perfectly semicircular track around a central point, but vertical rather than horizontal. It's a Michael Snow move.

But the magic is that over the brief duration of the shot you have a complete view of the entire landscape (you start off by looking where you're going to end up and you end up by seeing where you sttarted off), and there's no trace of any apparatus that could effect the move. The shots are of the band members traversing a junkyard and stuff like that, if I recall.

Hey, I've even managed to dig out my old VHS of Gasoline in your Eye. The video was directed by Peter Care (not Case), and the 'cinematographer' (these are bootstrap productions, so I'm sure we're talking operating as well) was Care himself, or Gary Wraith, or both. (In the case of this particular shot, I'd say 'both'). Take a bow, guys. Peter, you're even forgiven Johnny Yesno
User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

#27 Post by Scharphedin2 »

zedz wrote:Hey, I've even managed to dig out my old VHS of Gasoline in your Eye. The video was directed by Peter Care (not Case), and the 'cinematographer' (these are bootstrap productions, so I'm sure we're talking operating as well) was Care himself, or Gary Wraith, or both. (In the case of this particular shot, I'd say 'both'). Take a bow, guys. Peter, you're even forgiven Johnny Yesno
Actually, the "Gasoline..." tape (or, some other collection of CV's videos deserve a DVD release). Aside from "Sensoria," which was the show stopper, Mallinder and Kirk enjoyed to play around with found footage. Borough's was one of their heroes, and several of their videos were cut-up affairs that had your head smarting at the end of five minutes. Also, the tape included a track called "Diffusion," which I never managed to track down on an audio release, the video featuring the descent of a nude woman down a staircase, cut-up, and re-played endlessly to fit the beat of the song -- the experience has never left me. "Automotivation" and "Slow Boat..." also stand out in memory. "Cabs were Fab..."

Sorry, Schreck, to insert an underground music chat in this excellent thread (although, somehow I think you will not mind too much).

In order to contribute something to the original the topic. When talking about the moving camera, I imagine that I am not the only one, who was first made conscious of the impact of tracking shots by the films of Orson Welles. A whole thread could be dedicated to that topic alone; for me Magnificent Ambersons is the most graceful display of Welles' mercurial use of the camera, even if several of his tour-de-force tracking shots were truncated in post production on this particular film. There is still the amazing shot early on at the Ambersons' ball, when the camera enters the mansion together with a group of guests, and just goes on and on through the various rooms, and in and out of the conversations of different people at the party. Later, there is the severely edited backwards track (I believe), when the Major has died, and the family is consoling each other.

More recently, I was awestruck by the choreography of both crowds and camera in Goulding's Razor's Edge, when Larry and Isabel are shown making their rounds of the Paris nightlife. In the brief moments that it takes the camera to travel from one end of a dancehall to the other, a whole palette of human interactions are displayed from the tenderness of dancers on the floor to the outbreak of an argument and ensuing fistfight in the far distance.

And, then, the most subtle use of tracking shots can hold immense emotional impact. In Ozu's Early Summer, the camera probably moves no more than a handful of times; one instance is when the family has invited their uncle to a play, and there is a brief tracking shot down the aisle of the theatre, showing the audience from behind, as they are watching the play. Much later in the film, Ozu returns and performs the exact same tracking shot in the same theatre, only, this time with no audience, just the empty seats. Likewise, in Sansho, at the very end, there is a tracking shot (if it can even be called that) of at most a couple of feet, with Sansho in the foreground, as the mother enters her hut.

I would not venture an off-the-cuff explanation of the emotional impact of these tracking shots by Ozu and Mizoguchi. However, at the moments when these tracking shots occurred, these stories all of a sudden seemed in some strange way universal -- almost as if the brief motion of the camera suggested some spiritual level hitherto unrevealed.
jonjao
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:19 am

#28 Post by jonjao »

Many cite Mizoguchi and Ophuls as masters of elegant camera movement. My personal favorites are early Bertolucci films, especially BEFORE THE REVOLUTION and THE CONFORMIST - the latter, in particular, having some of the most audaciously - and almost swooningly - balletic camera movement.
User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:24 pm

#29 Post by zedz »

Jissoji Akio's Mujo (This Transient Life) has hands-down the most stunning and innovative camera movement I've seen in a film for years. It's a classic Japanese New Wave package (incest, murder, slap-in-the-face cynicism, hallucinatory visuals) moonlighting as a Buddhist parable, and it's visually stunning from end to end. In an era filled to the brim with Japanese masters of the cinemscope frame (Ichikawa, Imamura, Yoshida), Jissoji turns the Academy ratio into an unimaginably lively and flexible space, blocking and masking huge swathes of it or radically decentring many images.

The camera movement in the film is just as audiacious, with multiple variations on the lateral tracking shot. Sometimes it accompanies a running figure; sometimes it tracks on a diagonal angle to the movement, racing to meet the action (and possibly over- or undershooting the movement of the characters); sometimes it's entirely independent of the characters, smoothly scuttling along the edges of buildings or along pathways. There's a signature shot that recurs a few times in the first half of the film where the camera tracks laterally along the side of buildings, briefly glimpsing the action of the characters on a plane perpendicular to the track in the passageway between two buildings as it scoots past. It's a wonderfully disorienting move: a clearly purposeful motion to which the film's nominal action is scarcely incidental. This camera movement provides a nice correlative to the extremely self-conscious visual compositions, in which the characters and actions are similarly subordinate to an aesthetic which often places more value on abstract compositional values, architecture and landscape.

In terms of unique camera movements, an encounter between two characters late in the film is captured by an entirely unmotivated swaying camera. The characters remain in one place while the camera tracks laterally back and forth, pendulum-like, placing the characters out of frame at the extremes of the track. Jissoji compounds the ritualised formality of the movement by additionally having one of the characters run into the background and back again, at a sharp right angle to the similar movement of the camera.
User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:03 pm

#30 Post by Gordon »

How was the bowling ball point-of-view shot in the Coen's, The Big Lebowski achieved? I have always been impressed by that shot, but I saw the film last week and it really got me wondering how they did it. Any factual info on this, brothers?
Cinesimilitude
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:43 am

#31 Post by Cinesimilitude »

Gordon wrote:How was the bowling ball point-of-view shot in the Coen's, The Big Lebowski achieved? I have always been impressed by that shot, but I saw the film last week and it really got me wondering how they did it. Any factual info on this, brothers?
I don't know how they did it, but I would make an axle with large wheels on each side and clamp the camera with a wide lens on the middle. then you just roll it along. I just watched the scene again, and it does slightly speed up as the camera is coming down(which the weight of the camera itself would effect), so I think that's how they probably did it.
User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:03 pm

#32 Post by Gordon »

But the effect has the characteristic of rolling, tumbling - the lens faces in all directions: facing the surface of the bowling lane; facing the pins; facing the ceiling, etc, so that means that the camera was being rotated forward (towards the pins) by some means, not simple pushed forward. This would be difficult to accomplish smoothly, as the weight of the camera would have to be balanced somehow.
Narshty
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:27 pm
Location: London, UK

#33 Post by Narshty »

Indeed - that's what SDM just said. Imagine the camera solidly attached, so it can't spin independently, to two big wheels on either side of it, then roll the contraption forward and the camera appears to be doing somersaults (or, indeed, taking on the POV of a bowling ball).
User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:03 pm

#34 Post by Gordon »

Ah, I get the picture now! You could even use the gutters as tracks for the wheels - they'd have to far apart so that they didn't get into the frame. The Coens are great at coming up with audacious shots like that!
Nothing
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:04 am

#35 Post by Nothing »

Given the size of a 35mm camera, they may well have had to scale-up the size of the bowling-lane set as well.
User avatar
Cold Bishop
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:45 am
Location: Portland, OR

#36 Post by Cold Bishop »

Harvey Domino wrote:Love this shot, one of Taxi Driver's best (I hope to never learn he swiped it like he swiped the 360-degree pan in the garage from Godard). It's a great shot, though is it mysterious? The camera - and the director - and even the viewer at this point - know that Travis should not be calling Betsy, they know the "relationship" (such as it was) is over. The camera/director/viewer are moving on, ready to make their exit, but Travis stays where he is. I think it's the saddest shot in the film.
Shock Corridor if I recall.... sorry.

One shot that comes to mind was the ending to In a Year of 13 Moons. The tracking shot, with everyone revolving around Elvira, as his interview tape plays.

The final shot of Electra Glide In Blue. The backward track on the highway.
Cinesimilitude
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:43 am

#37 Post by Cinesimilitude »

Gordon wrote:But the effect has the characteristic of rolling, tumbling - the lens faces in all directions: facing the surface of the bowling lane; facing the pins; facing the ceiling, etc, so that means that the camera was being rotated forward (towards the pins) by some means, not simple pushed forward. This would be difficult to accomplish smoothly, as the weight of the camera would have to be balanced somehow.
The rod would have to be aligned with the center of the lense, and then weighted correctly to achieve the rolling effect. Also, the height would have to be so the lense skims the ground when facing down.
Nothing wrote:Given the size of a 35mm camera, they may well have had to scale-up the size of the bowling-lane set as well.
Yes, that's extremely likely.
User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:03 pm

#38 Post by Gordon »

Cold Bishop wrote:The final shot of Electra Glide In Blue. The backward track on the highway.
Yeah, Conrad Hall created some amazing shots for that movie and he wasn't even supposed to be the DP, but they couldn't find anyone in time, so Hall stepped in.
User avatar
davida2
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:16 pm
Location: chapel hill, nc, usa

#39 Post by davida2 »

It seems to me that Hirokazu Kore'eda's films are constructed (or contrived) to not call attention to their technical qualities, which is why the short resturant scene in Distance is rather startling, with some hypnotic back-and-forth movement between several characters as a discussion grows more heated.

I'll have to go back through Harakiri and Death By Hanging - I'm sure there's an example or two within both films, but both films also feature so many moments of virtuosity that it's tough to remember quickly...

Then there's the key drop early in Scorsese's After Hours...
User avatar
pauling
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: St. Paul, MN

#40 Post by pauling »

When I was younger (and now, actually) I always loved the scenes from The Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2 where the camera is the demon racing through the woods, cabin and in one memorable moment, smashes through a car's windshield. Great stuff.
User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#41 Post by Fletch F. Fletch »

pauling wrote:When I was younger (and now, actually) I always loved the scenes from The Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2 where the camera is the demon racing through the woods, cabin and in one memorable moment, smashes through a car's windshield. Great stuff.
Ah yes, the famous shaky cam... a camera nailed to a board with two grips on either side running as fast as they can...

My fave shot from Evil Dead 2 is the flying eyeball POV ending with it going right in the woman's mouth...
User avatar
Damfino
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:42 am

#42 Post by Damfino »

For my money Rouben Mamoulian is an incredibly overlooked filmmaker in all aspects, but I've always been impressed by his camera finagling. His 1931 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is full of fantastic work. The POV shots are really effective, the close up on the horror then the moving back to put it in perspective (like the murder in the bedroom with the statue of the lovers nearby, and the final shot ending with pulling back into the "flames of hell" from the fireplace) and the most obvious is the way he showed The Transformation with the layers melting upon layers... very spooky.

Love Me Tonight also impresses me, not only in the way he constructed everything ("the birth of the song" opening the film is one of my all-time favorite scenes in cinema, period!) but the way he filmed the romantic and the comedic scenes almost identically, which set them up to be married later in the movie perfectly.

Besides being brilliant his stuff is just fun as hell to watch. He basically directed dynamic silent films with sound (at least earlier in his career), which really makes them stick out in my memory.
User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:46 pm

#43 Post by HerrSchreck »

Agreed about Mamoulians early stuff. From my post which opened up this thread:
the iconic Mamoulian masterpieces of early sound mobile camera (itself almost an oxymoron, as the dawn of sound essentially hammered all cameras to the floor) including the astonishing masterworks APPLAUSE, CITY STREETS, and of course JEKYLL & HYDE;
Almost more than anybody else, Mamoulian demonstrated that a moving camera was not mutually exclusive to the coming of sound. I consider 1929's APPLAUSE (fabulous disc from Kino along with LOVE ME.. and a loaded disc, extras wise) equally astonishing a film debut as KANE, and as a film far more satisfying.... not to mention HIP! What a cool film, so raspy & hard edged here, yet so limpid and delicate there (i e the burlesque scenes & hardboiled city scenes in general, versus the sensitivity of the scenes with her daughter). The mise en scene of the backstage interludes, with the chunky dancers doing their vulgar excersises as the camera tracks along with the daughter (also with the doctor during the childbirth) are just fantastic. One of the finest films in the world. And no debut was more astonishing.

I know Mamoulian went tepid as the 30's moved into the 40's etc... but that run from (presented in reverse)
Queen Christina (1933)
Love Me Tonight (1932)
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
City Streets (1931)
Applause (1929)

is just mind boggling. I've yet to see SONG OF SONGS from 33 so I can't comment.

And then of course there is GOLDEN BOY. Nice article on him from sensesofcinema.
User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#44 Post by tryavna »

HerrSchreck wrote:I know Mamoulian went tepid as the 30's moved into the 40's etc... but that run from (presented in reverse)
Queen Christina (1933)
Love Me Tonight (1932)
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
City Streets (1931)
Applause (1929)
I must confess that I heartily enjoy his 1940 film The Mark of Zorro every time I see it -- though it's certainly more of a studio product than an auteurist work. I do, however, think that Mamoulian attacked the climactic duel between Power and Rathbone with gusto. I love the fact that it takes place in a cramped little office; in its claustrophobia, I've always felt that Mamoulian intended this scene to be the antithesis of the grand athletic swordplay of the Flynn-Warners swashbucklers.
User avatar
Baron_Blood
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:12 am
Location: Existential Hell

#45 Post by Baron_Blood »

Two of my favorite films filled with Tour De Force camera movements are Zulawski's Possession and Zwartjes's Living. Of course, Argento and Fassbinder are obvious masters of camera movement.
User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:46 pm

#46 Post by HerrSchreck »

Too lazy to check if this was mentioned but of course LA HAINE's wonderful rooftop craning extraveganza during FUCK THE POLICE, and the outrageous use of the steadicam in COME AND SEE, which--watched again yesterday-- truly has one of the finest first halves in cinema history. The psychology up there on screen in combination of all the visual elements, acting and that extraordinary sound design is just absolutely breathtaking.

I absolutely adore the tracking shot through the windy autumnal cemetary following the crypt-robbers in FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLFMAN. I love that whole opening sequence in fact (I love the whole film in truth... comfort film heaven). On the same note is the Karl Freund-imitation (of the screw up to the window in DRACULA from the asylum rear yard "He probably wants his flies again" "No Martin! No..") in VAMPIRE BAT.
User avatar
miless
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:45 am

#47 Post by miless »

Gordon wrote:How was the bowling ball point-of-view shot in the Coen's, The Big Lebowski achieved? I have always been impressed by that shot, but I saw the film last week and it really got me wondering how they did it. Any factual info on this, brothers?
They attached a camera to a remote control car (they probably used one of those ultra-light/compact 35mm cameras from Arri, or something) and followed the ball (I seem to remember seeing footage of this)
Nothing
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:04 am

#48 Post by Nothing »

miless wrote:
Gordon wrote:How was the bowling ball point-of-view shot in the Coen's, The Big Lebowski achieved? I have always been impressed by that shot, but I saw the film last week and it really got me wondering how they did it. Any factual info on this, brothers?
They attached a camera to a remote control car (they probably used one of those ultra-light/compact 35mm cameras from Arri, or something) and followed the ball (I seem to remember seeing footage of this)
The Arri 235 wasn't around in 1997 - it's not that small, either.
User avatar
miless
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:45 am

#49 Post by miless »

Nothing wrote:
miless wrote:
Gordon wrote:How was the bowling ball point-of-view shot in the Coen's, The Big Lebowski achieved? I have always been impressed by that shot, but I saw the film last week and it really got me wondering how they did it. Any factual info on this, brothers?
They attached a camera to a remote control car (they probably used one of those ultra-light/compact 35mm cameras from Arri, or something) and followed the ball (I seem to remember seeing footage of this)
The Arri 235 wasn't around in 1997 - it's not that small, either.
okay, then maybe it wasn't the Arri 235, which I never mentioned, (they did have other "lightweight" cameras then, however)... But I am positive that they attached a camera to a remote control car (probably specifically made for a camera) to follow the bowling ball.
User avatar
Poncho Punch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: the emerald empire

#50 Post by Poncho Punch »

You're thinking of a different shot. The one previously mentioned is from a fantasy sequence, looking out one of the holes on the bowling ball.
Post Reply