By Rom Watson
circa February 24, 2013
I blame Woody Allen. The problem started with his film Husbands and Wives. As I watched it I was horrified to discover it had been filmed (by Carlo Di Palma) using handheld cinematography, including swish-pans and excessive, erratic jerkiness.
I started to feel dizzy. Then I started to feel nauseous. I had to leave the theater. I stood in the lobby to give my eyes a rest, and when I returned to my seat I had to close my eyes for long stretches at a time, laughing out loud at the dialogue, but unable to watch the screen.
The cinematography of Husbands and Wives renders it unwatchable. Unfortunately, it started a trend. An insidious trend, which has forced me to dampen on my enthusiasm for going to the movies.
I have few regrets in life, but my biggest regret is sitting through the entire length of Saving Private Ryan. With Husbands and Wives, I felt dizzy and nauseous for the rest of the evening. With Saving Private Ryan, I felt dizzy and nauseous the next day, even after a night of sleep.
Apparently, filmmakers think that handheld cinematography makes a film more realistic. It doesn’t. It makes a film more artless.
A film is a story told in a succession of images. If the camera isn’t stationary, the viewer doesn’t see the images. The movement of the camera erases the frame, and the frame is what directs the viewer’s gaze; the frame focuses the viewer’s attention on what the filmmaker wants them to see.
I suffered in relative silence until I had an opportunity to speak up. The February 25, 2010 issue of the Los Angeles Times carried the following:
CRITIC’S PICK: Betsy Sharkey: ‘The Hurt Locker’, February 25, 2010.
I’m sorry, what is up with you people? Despite heaps of praise, too many of you are taking a pass. Are you worried that it’s just another desert war movie, depressing story, faces hidden by burkas or beards? Well, let’s defuse that notion. What we have here is a psychological thriller, man against machine, the clock ticking as Jeremy Renner, a stealth bomb of an actor, sets about disarming the homemade kind. It’s chess reconceived as an extreme sport, every action carrying the possibility of reaction. Boom. Possibly 2009’s best picture winner, people. Aren’t you a little curious?
I wrote a response on 3/1/2010 and sent it to the editor, who published it. My response:
Yes, despite heaps of praise, I AM taking a pass. I will not watch The Hurt Locker. Not even if it wins an Oscar for Best Picture. The reason has nothing to do with the content of the film. Or the quality. I’m sure it’s very good. The reason I will not watch it is the same reason I will not watch Precious, or Breaking the Waves, or The Blair Witch Project or Cleveland. It’s the same reason I had to walk out of The Bourne Supremacy after 15 minutes and walk out of Traffic after 5. It’s the same reason why State of Play was a disappointment at the box office, and why Friday Night Lights and 30 Rock don’t have higher ratings. It may even be the reason Shakespeare in Love won the Best Picture Oscar over Saving Private Ryan. Handheld cinematography. It makes me feel dizzy and nauseous, and I believe it has the same effect on a lot of other people. I love watching movies, but if a trailer or a film clip features hand held cinematography, I won’t go see the movie. If filmmakers don’t have enough respect for their audiences to lock the camera down or use a Steadicam, why should audiences watch their films? — Rom Watson
The use of handheld cinematography continues. I refused to see Argo in a theater because I could tell from the trailer it contained handheld cinematography. We rented it via Apple TV and watched it at home. It was a very good movie, and I’m glad I saw it. However, I’m glad I didn’t see it in a theater. In a theater, it would have made me dizzy and nauseous. On a small screen, with our living room wall in the background to give my eyes a reference point, the cinematography was a bit annoying but never made me feel dizzy or nauseous.
I’ve come to realize that filmmakers have trained me to watch movies at home. If they continue to utilize handheld cinematography, they will eventually train other film-goers to stay home. Surely this can’t be their intent, I thought to myself; don’t they realize they’re ruining the experience of going to a movie theater? Then it occurred to me perhaps that is their intent. Maybe they want people to stay home. They want people to watch their movies, but maybe they also want to cut out the middleman and deliver the movie directly to the audience via cable or the Internet or DVD.
However, I am happy to report I found a solution. When I want to watch a story, I go where there is no handheld cinematography. I go where I am my own cinematographer, choosing for myself what to look at and for how long. I go to the theater and watch a play.
