Half Nelson (Andrij Parekh) & The Squid And The Whale (Robert D. Yeoman) - technique used in their films
Posted 22 September 2006 - 08:10 PM
In Half Nelson and The Squid And The Whale both cinematographers employ what seems to be this hand held technique which lends the camera an instability, organic, feels like the camera is moving (which it is, almost like it is shaking).
Is this accomplished through literally a slight moving of the camera or is there some secret here?
Posted 27 September 2006 - 03:06 PM
Posted 01 October 2006 - 03:26 PM
Posted 04 October 2006 - 12:27 PM
I found it distracting and many times unnecessary.
The film was shot on S16mm with an Arri SRIII and blown up to 35mm.
They used 7218 and 7246.
Posted 05 October 2006 - 12:02 PM
Perekh shot "almost entirely handheld" on 7229 with a Canon 11.5-165 zoom.
He mentioned that he likes the "light the room, not the faces" approach. Not my favorite style (isn't it about the faces?), but I thought it worked for this film, though I agree-- a little toned down would be nice. The deliberate shakey-cam thing is a little much for 100 minutes straight.
Posted 05 October 2006 - 01:17 PM
Posted 05 October 2006 - 02:45 PM
I haven't seen Half Nelson yet, but I too found the handheld camera work in The Squid and the Whale to be a bit much. I think it worked well for the story, however, at times the movement seemed very deliberate and in-organic to the point it became distracting. I wonder if the movent was ever actually intentional? Does anyone know did Robert Yeoman operate on this film as well?
I liked the hand held camera in 'The Whale and the Squid' & thought rather highly of it.
The AC article is not in the internet archives.
Since 'Faces' was one of the models for the film, there's an enjoyable French TV interview with Cassevettes
about the camerawork and living on credit among the extras on the Criterion DVD.
My big disappoinment with 'The Squid and the Whale' was finding out that the title didn't refer to a Japanese pizza topping.
Have not seen 'Half Nelson'. But it sounds that there's too much long lens work in it.
Wide angle hand held brings the viewer into the situation. The camera should be dancing with the characters
as though it's another character.
But long lens work is too much like a distant observer and isolates the characters from their enviornment.
Posted 07 October 2006 - 09:25 AM
He mentioned that he likes the "light the room, not the faces" approach. Not my favorite style (isn't it about the faces?),
I am intrigued by this. Some projects I have done I have just lit the scene, with the vague indication of what is to happen from the block. I think some directors I have worked for feel this is the way to go as it does not limit actors to specific marks, and allows for quicker movement between shots and maybe not look as contrived. I probably characterize a project as either visual or performance based. The latter being less emphasis on photography.
How do you lot work?
Posted 13 February 2007 - 11:41 PM
Posted 14 February 2007 - 01:19 AM
Posted 28 November 2007 - 05:36 PM
Posted 29 November 2007 - 05:29 PM
In half Nelson, I felt that I was being imposed upon by the unmotivated shakey handheld work that was at times, completely unneccesary. There are times when this works and I think Ellen Kuras happens to be a master at making this type of shooting totally unnoticeable to the viewer. In Half Nelson, I was distracted. I mean, Ryan Gosling hardly moves at all. Literally. I think an approach more like Tami Reiker's in High Art would have better served the story.
Posted 01 December 2007 - 06:22 PM
I guess everyone has their tolerance for an unsteady camera, and it can certainly be a fine line for the operator to know (or feel) when to follow the action and when to create the action through subtle movement.
As for lighting sets vs. faces, I think either approach can work well depending on the design of the photography. I shoot a lot of ENG/reality material where I often don't have a chance to do any lighting, so I concentrate on finding the right camera angle and compositions to make the most of the lighting that's there. Keeping depth through layers of light and dark becomes important. For example, overlapping someone's face just partially against a bright window can make all the difference in the world. And it's not as though lighting a set means that faces won't be lit in an interesting way -- if you light the set right for the actors' marks they can go in and out of "zones" and always have some separation and modeling going on.
Check out the TV show "Friday Night Lights" for more handheld super16, shot in a visually strong cinema verite style. Mostly on the long end of zooms, often with contrasty lighting.
Posted 02 December 2007 - 01:26 AM
Posted 03 December 2007 - 03:46 PM