The Pet Peeve

[SpaceCadet]

(09-03-2011 08:06 PM)Rey Wrote:  I have a pet peeve about modern camera techniques in television. Now I admit, I do not watch much television anymore, other than the news, as I don’t care for many of the shows on today. But I have noticed these camera techniques now even creeping into the news reports. It seems that camera operators no longer want to use a tripod, and instead shake and wobble the camera around like a drunk man. What ever happened to a nice, steady, professional looking shot? Not exciting enough? But it doesn’t end there, they are also playing with the zoom control. During the shot, it will very abruptly and awkwardly zoom in, sometimes in several short bursts. Then zoom back out again, as if a child has just discovered the zoom control, and it is a fun thing to play with.

Now, I understand some camera wobble can be used to good effect, say during a high action sequence in a movie, to accentuate the action. But these camera tricks are being used all the time now, even during an interview. A person will just be sitting on a chair talking and the camera will be swaying side to side, and quickly zooming in and out on their face. Does this make the interview more exciting? It drives me nuts. What makes it even more annoying to me is that it is not a case where the camera operator or director is trying to be creative or different. Quite the opposite, he is only trying to join the latest trend, the latest fad, even if inappropriate, in a world where creativity is more often monkey see monkey do.

I remember that was a big fad back in the late '60s to early '70s - I think lots of exaggerated camera movement was deemed "groovy," in much the same way as the Monkees or the Banana Splits cavorting in public for no apparent reason were considered "zany" - and both "groovy" and "zany" were considered unquestionably as Good Things To Be. Same thing, different decade.

There's also the resurgence in the popularity of narcotic hallucinogens among television industry types to think about. Note the sudden proliferation of low-budget, lowbrow "reality" shows - nobody in Hollyweird can remember how to write engaging stories any more, or maybe how to remember what they were thinking at the beginning of the script by the time they've written their way to the middle of it. Whatever. Hallucinogens also produce a deep fascination with things that sober people consider merely annoying - like lots of extraneous camera movement.

There's a whole different factor in the news context, and that is the deliberate use of camera movement - also audio distortion - to detract from a statement you're televising from a politician you don't like. The theory is that if a viewer sees one politician delivering a statement with crystal-clear audio and rock-solid camera, maybe shot at an upward, Godlike angle, the viewer will subconsciously lend that politician more credence than if he sees a politician delivering a statement with audio that's muffled or overcome by background noise, and with visuals that are constantly jiggling, cutting away, zooming in and out, etc. 'Next time you see it, take note of the party affiliation of the person they've got on camera, and compare it with video of someone of the opposing party. It'll generally tell you which party the news people belong to.

.