For the assignment Quick Cuts 2, I chose to answer Question B. Question B asks the following: “Which do you prefer in movies - a still camera that captures shots or a frenetic moving camera that captures shots? Explain why by providing 1 - 2 specific examples.” My answer to this question is a bit complicated because why I typically prefer movies with a still camera, I am not opposed to movies with a moving camera. It depends on the type of movie I’m watching, how often and how frantic the camera moves, etc. There are a lot of components to this question that make it difficult to answer. However, for the sake of choosing one or the other, I choose movies with a still camera.
I like movies that use a still camera because everything is always in focus. You can always see everything in the shot without having to run your eyes all over the screen trying to see what is in the shot. With a still camera, you never feel like you missed something and have to constantly rewatch the same scene over and over again to capture everything. I personally don’t watch a lot of movies with a moving camera because I always feel like I’m missing something or not seeing the whole picture. I then keep rewinding and rewatching. The whole time I’m watching the movie, I feel too rushed to quickly scan through the scene for me to actually enjoy watching the movie.
An example of a movie with a still camera is the film Easy A, which was directed by Will Gluck. This is a film that I love and constantly rewatch anytime I see that it is playing on TV or it pops up in my “For You” section on Netflix. This film never has any frantic movements, I never have to rush to catch anything, I never have to rewind. The way the movie is set up, it goes at a bit of a slow pace. I think this is mostly because it is telling a story inside the movie and the movie is slow so the viewer can catch all the little bits and pieces that come together at the end. By this I mean, throughout the entire movie the main character, Olive, is telling her story of the past couple weeks through a live video so everyone will know the truth about the rumors floating around school about her. She splits her story up into different parts, and narrates each part before the movie cuts to a sort of flashback of that scene.
I don’t have anything against movies that use frenetic moving cameras, but they aren’t my first choice. There are different elements of likability for this type of camera. By this, I mean that there are different qualities that I like and dislike. For example, if the camera is moving slightly or in a few scenes then I have no problem with it. However, if the camera is moving frantically, especially if it moves like that through most of the movies, then I’m not a fan. I understand that it makes it seem more real and like the viewer is actually there, but most of the time I can’t actually see anything I am supposed to see because all I can focus on is how the camera is moving so much. The movement doesn’t let me focus on anything else except it.
As an example of a movie with a frenetic moving camera is the film The Blair Witch Project, which was directed by Adam Wingard, Eduardo Sanchez, Daniel Myrick, Ben Rock, and Joe Berlinger. This film involves a lot of frantic movements when they are snapping the camera around to try and “capture” the Blair Witch on film or when they are running through the woods. Through almost the entirety of the film the camera is constantly moving and it's hard to focus on what is happening. It is a tactic to make the experience seem more real to the viewer, but for me it is simply distracting and actually makes it less real for me personally.
Comments