Seems today, that filmmakers are obessed with flashy steadicam shots or drone shots. But sometimes, a still shot can hit harder than a moving one, with the emotion it creates.
Take the film 'Paris, Texas'. Beautifually shot, with lots of still shots to show the leasd characters emotional stillneess.
Who here finds still shots more emotionally impactful than moving ones?
5 people like this
I do, Stephen Folker. And I find scenes that have a few cuts more emotionally impactful than scenes with a lot of cuts.
6 people like this
Camera movement should be motivated, otherwise it calls attention to itself.
4 people like this
Stephen Folker's Paris Texas is a lesson in photography, like others from the same era. But if we're going to devote ourselves to it, it's obvious that there will be pros and cons. With static photography, the movie is deeper. Another example is LINCON, from 2012, when President LINCON talks to his troops, scenes from a masterpiece. And today, most filmmakers work with a lot of cuts because of the new audience. A theme that emerges BETWEEN THE NIGHTS.
4 people like this
Great points from everyone! I'm a fan of static shots for sure... as they evoke emotions on their own.
Here is a screen grab from a film I just wrapped shooting. It's a period short / set in the 1940s. Decided to go black and white on it!
4 people like this
Stephen Folker beautiful photograph, I can imagine how she must have looked, judging by her expression
6 people like this
Those still frames hold so much weight because they allow the viewer to sit in the character’s internal world. Movement can be powerful when it reflects emotion, but stillness often asks the audience to do more emotional work and that’s where the impact can really land.
A film that comes to mind for me is There Will Be Blood. The stillness in so many of its wide desert shots, paired with the silence, builds a tension that’s almost unbearable.
4 people like this
Ashley Renee Smith Exactly, that's the game, in the depths of PERSONAGE.
4 people like this
Love your thoughts on this Ashley Renee Smith !
5 people like this
Hi Stephen Folker - this is a great point! Stillness lets the audience into the actor's mind, as Ashley pointed out. And stillness in acting can convey so much. As a director, I move the camera in exposition scenes to keep the pace moving, but for important moments, a solid medium short or close up on sticks is best.
4 people like this
I agree Stephen Folker, people tend to move the camera for the sake of moving it way too much nowadays. It has to do with short attention span and also fear of stillness. Of course there is a place for both. But I do think we shy away from locked off shots too much now. It's a shame because the power of a still portrait can be far more effective than moving the camera. Again, it all depends on the tone and what matters most is that the story is put at the forefront rather than showing off tech moves.
5 people like this
Really love the comments and insights!