jump to navigation

My God, There Wasn’t a Single Handheld Shot in 2 Hours and 18 Minutes December 18, 2007

Posted by acmd1838 in Commentary.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
trackback

In this day and age the style of movies like the Kingdom prevails. While I’ll not hide my secret love for Jamie Foxx, or my very apparent appeal for Chris Cooper, the movie lacked substance. After all, there was only one shot in the entire thing that employed more than a shoulder for stabilization (when they are looking into the blast crater and Chris Cooper is spewing off bomb facts faster than Jason Bateman’s quips).

And while I’ll admit, the movie did keep me entertained for an hour and a half, it didn’t leave me with anything. Even Bad Boys II left me with the desire to watch it again…and to become a narcotics detective.

But the antithesis to the Kingdom complex of frequent zooms and nearly unrecognizable shots is lesser known in today’s cinema. For some reason, directors today are hooked on to the idea that action can only be captured hand held, even the Coen Brothers succumbed to the temptation in No Country for Old Men (when Tommy Lee Jones approaches the motel).

But this theory is not showcased in every movie. All 2 hours and 18 minutes of the Shawshank Redemption are stabilized and stylized to perfection, and yet the viewer is kept in firmly planted in his seat. While watching Tim Robbins crawl through sewage is not as bone jarring as Jaime Foxx hunting terrorists, seeing the prison fight scenes does get your heart beating, and they don’t need quick cuts or screaming guitars to do so.

It’s in these camera movements that Frank Darabont is able to propose a contrast, as the graceful movements of the camera contradict the harsh crimes occurring on screen. Such choices prove that quick editing and quicker movements are not required to portray violence. A single, directly overhead shot can capture the essence of a fight, and through its simplicity allow the viewer to digest the situation. Instead of trying to comprehend what’s going on behind all the cutting, the watcher is able to watch the action, and comprehend its significance. Such processing is not possible in movies like the Kingdom, as the watcher must focus his energy keeping up with the editor.

Many see the use of longer shots as shying away from the task of editing. Such films as Children of Men and anything from Kenneth Branagh can be seen as cop outs, opting to shy away from the editing room. But I disagree. These shots require a higher level of skill than any editor could reproduce, and while these shots might only be appreciated by a small minority, it proves that action can be captured in different ways and still be effective.

It’s nice to see that directors are branching out these days, that directors like Alfonso Cuaron and Paul Thomas Anderson are ignoring the quick cutting trend, and sticking to their visions. While quick editing may be the current craze, it’s good to know that directors are still getting creative, and mixing the styles together. Who knows what the Kingdom 2 will hold.

Comments»

No comments yet — be the first.