Quote:
|
Originally Posted by atsonicpark
absolutely HATE shakey cameras for this same reason. It's like, wow, you're spending millions of dollars to get a film made, can't you at least have the camera be somewhat steady? Unfortunately, Irreversible not only has a shakey camera -- it has a SUPERSHAKEY, SUPER-SPINNING camera. Combine that with lots of cuts (at least in certain parts; other parts are really long takes) and it's just nearly unwatchable. Even those fucking hundred million dollar BOURNE films have super shakey cameras. It's so amateurish and ugly and difficult to watch. I'm not saying every film needs to be composed of static shots like Kitano or Ozu or Abbas Kiarostami or whatever.... I mean, all the early Godard films had constantly moving and shaking cameras, but they actually seemed to serve a point, and seemed to convey and inspire energy... made the film compelling. The shakey camera in Irreversible is just embarassing and makes the film look and feel even more amateurish.
Also, I'm not someone who thinks a film is automatically better when the camera is static -- look at Matthew Barney's awful films. That's the worst "static camera" use I've ever seen...
|
But Dude...the camera movements here reflect mental anguish and all. The crazy demented thirst for revenge, at any cost/risk....it worked for me, especially when contrasted with the "trapped" rape situation, and calm/loving situations. I respectfully disagree...the camera movements here were utilized brilliantly.