This is a blog post that’s been bubbling at the back of my mind for quite some considerable time, however I’ve never quite had the motivation to sit and write it … until I finished watching the last Star Trek: Picard. It struck me as I was watching it, that by the end of the series, it had suffered more than it’s fair share of what I call “the dreaded shaky camera” syndrome – and that provided the necessary motivation to sit down and finally write this.
I titled it “Shaky Cameras (and Supercreeps)” after the 1981 Bowie track “Scary Monsters and Supercreeps”. Because I thought it scanned well as a title. Mainly.
The Portable Camera
I have absolutely no doubt that when the film camera was made sufficiently small enough to become portable, it was a real boon for the filmmaker. As far back as the 1890’s (according to Wikipedia, anyway) there have been cameras small enough to be portable and record a decent picture on either 16mm or 35mm film – and subsequently other formats, too. (Indeed, I remember from the Doctor Who DVD documentaries that the video camera became truly portable (at least for the BBC) during the late sixties\early seventies, for when Doctor Who became colour.)
The early film – and television – directors basically had two choices if they wanted to film moving shots (up until the mid 1970’s). They either mounted their cameras on a track, or the camera was held by the cameraman, who walked with it whilst filming. Those films or television programmes that were filmed using handheld cameras inevitably were filmed in a particular style, as it relied heavily upon the cameraman to be as steady as possible whilst filming, in order to prevent a jumpy picture. Whilst this was not entirely possible (if the cameraman was running, for example) – and without going into cinematic history too deeply – the style was dubbed Cinéma Vérité, or documentary style. The style derived from the fact that sometimes the cameraman followed their subject for the documentary piece on foot, being in essence the eyes and ears of the audience or of the interviewer. The resulting motion and “gentle” bouncing of the camera as the cameraman moved, was dubbed the documentary style, or Cinéma Vérité.
The Steadicam
Then, in 1975 an American cameraman called Garrett Brown (presumably fed up with trying to keep his handheld still!) invented a framework of weights and balances mounted from a body-worn sleeve, that would enable a cameraman to move reasonably freely whilst holding the framework-mounted camera steady. This innovative design (still used extensively today) was called the Steadicam. A Steadicam essentially combines the stabilised steady footage of a conventional tripod mount (a static shot) with the fluid motion of a dolly shot (a camera mounted on track) and the flexibility of hand-held camera work. While smoothly following the operator’s broad movements, the Steadicam’s armature absorbs jerks, bumps, and shakes.
Manna from Heaven?
From 1975 then, film and television makers have had the ability to film moving action without the aid of tracks or booms and have it filmed as if it was a statically mounted camera. This, of course not only opens up the possibilities for documentary or news-making (having the ability to track an interviewee whilst walking, for example), but also opens up the possibilities for using locations where a dolly track would be difficult to set up. A good example of this was the first Steadicam test performed by Garrett Brown himself, filming Sylvester Stallone running up and down steps in the film Rocky. To have filmed that sequence using conventional cameras would have been much more expensive, using handhelds would have been far more shaky!!
Hoorah for Steadicam … oh.
So the Steadicam has been used in countless motion picture films and television programmes since 1975. However, some directors deliberately shoot their action sequences as if it were with a hand held camera. Indeed, some even go as far as to make it a “feature” of their films, to induce feelings of ad hoc, electronic news-gathering, or a documentary film feel. It is supposed to suggest an unprepared, unrehearsed filming of reality and is supposed to provide a sense of dynamics, immersion, instability or nervousness.
It must be said that a few films and television series have indeed used the faux Cinéma Vérité effect to good use. An example would be the British The Thick of it, intended as an observer’s point of view on a (supposedly) world of British politics. At the far end of the scale (and bordering on the “is it just a little too shaky?”) was the superb US reboot of Battlestar Galactica. Again, meant to portray a documentary style, incorporating fast whip pans (turning the camera around very quickly) and rapid zooms in and out, the entire four series were shot in that style.
And there are (of course) quite a few films and television series that have not used the effect well!
Keep it Bloody Still!!
Back in the era where things were not shot entirely on film (television series, in particular) and before the advent of HD (and now 4k and 8k) cameras, the set designer wasn’t really obliged to make things that well, or at least in great detail, as the resulting programme was not shot in HD and therefore the viewer was not able to discern the fineer detail in the shots.
This was great as far as budgets went, as the money spent on sets etc. wouldn’t eat a large percentage of the series or film’s budget. However, with the advent of HD (and the aforementioned 4 and 8k) set detail is able to be picked out by the viewer in its full detail. Therefore, the amount of money spent on sets must surely have increased and the time taken to dress the sets must take longer (and therefore also more expensive).
Doesn’t it therefore make sense to show that detail on screen, show that you’ve paid attention to the fine detail (as we can actually see it in 4k!) rather than bounce around all over the place able to see nothing for more than a few milliseconds? You might as well have shot it in a black box.
A sequence shot with a handheld in the Cinéma Vérité style does not allow you to see much of the set on screen. Indeed, it doesn’t allow you to see much of the action either!
Consider fight, or action sequences. Two (or more) protagonists fighting with each other (think Bond or Bourne films, for example). The action is shot with handheld, but is so bouncy and fast cut, that you can neither make out action, or background. If I pay to watch a film at either the cinema or bought on Blu-ray, I want to see all of it – not some of it!
Why Do You Do It?!…
… is the question that still lies unanswered. Most people I speak to on the subject agree with me – it’s distracting, sometimes sickening (quite literally in a few people’s cases!) and doesn’t add anything to films or TV series. I would have loved to have watched Battlestar Galactica if it hadn’t have been filmed with shaky-cam. I really would. Maybe the Fast & Furious films may have been just a little more enjoyable without all that jiggling up and down. (I do actually enjoy those films, just think how much more enjoyable they would be if I could actually see them!)
And the same goes for Picard. Although not all of the series suffered from the shaky cam, some of it did. I think it detracted from what would be a 110% superb series otherwise. The amount of detail that went into the costumes for example, (and certain “other” sets) are lost due to shaky shots and jump cuts.
Epilogue
I just wish it would stop. There’s no need for it and it enhances nothing in a film or programme. The technology has been around for decades to eliminate the shaky camera. So why not use it.
In terms of the technology, commercial Steadicams have been around since 1975. Now 48 years later in 2023, the technology, the availability and the accessibility of not just actual (branded) Steadicams, but a myriad of different brands, models and sizes are available at a cost to suit any pocket. There are even gimbals available for use with mobile phones, for your average YouTube or TikTok influencer ( 🙄 ).
So really speaking, there’s no excuse.