Movie With Static Shots Only?
 

Hello,

I'm thinking of shooting a short film with only static shots, because static shots require only a tripod and are very compressible on the web or DVD.

Do you think that's even possible? Is zero camera motion a feasible style?

Thanks.

Out of the five films I've made, number 1 is 100% static.

Its completely do-able.

Good luck!

A movie with 100% static shots = A) a slideshow or B) stop-motion

(it's your movie... do whatever you want!!)

:-)

Compression and bandwidth have really improved since the early days of web video. Static shots aren't as necessary as they once were.

That said, you can still use a fixed tripod for your film. Avoid compensating for the fixed positions with zoom. Zoom can look very amateur, unless it's used for a specific reason.

The best recommendation I have is to use multiple positions, short takes and faster edits, where that makes sense. It's harder to get the continuity right, but it makes for a more active result. A very long shot from a static position can become boring. Though, as always, boring might be exactly the mood that you want for a given scene.

A friend of mine recently completed a short film that showed a guy drinking some booze and falling asleep. He used three static shots: a) drinking, b) slouching to the side, and c) asleep. Each was taken from a slightly different position. He used a slow fade between shots. The result was dynamic and effective. It gave us the feeling of time passing, and told that portion of the story effectively, without dialog.

Fixed shots can work really well - and you can still be creative with them.

Wallace and Grommit, all made on still shots, also the corpes' bride.. it not that difficult but it long....long...

Static and Still shots are two different things. I think you have been lost in translation.

Everything is possible! Shooting static shots is not something new at all. As a matter of fact, it is the oldest form of shooting!

Exactly!

Seun I would say that as a style it is very doable but it seems to me that you may be doing this for the wrong reasons. I mean, the scene (or the film/video concept) calls for the way it should be shot. Not the delivery medium!

Finally, I don't know about the web but DVDs are used to distribute all sorts of movies without any serious compressions issues.

You need to check out the movies of Yasujiro Ozu. from the fifites onwards he hardly moved the camera in any of his films.

For DVD it's irrelevant, but for web distribution you're right, it will make the movies far easier to compress.

Clerks by Kevin Smith is an example of a purely locked off movie.

he he...

I LOVE this movie!

Thanks, guys. I guess it can be done.

My reason for considering this is that I don't want to have to mess around with dollies, wheelchairs, steadycams, etc during the production of my first movie - my Velbon tripod isn't very fluid. I'd like to be able to concentrate on the basics. I'd also like to narrow my choices a bit to save time.

I guess I can also use occasional tripod pans when absolutely necessary. About avoiding zooms - I completely agree.

Clerks is the best low-budget movie so far, right? Guess it's all in the script.
Also checking out Yasujiro Ozu.

Only speculating here, but if you think Clerks is the best low budget movie ever, Ozu might not be your thing - though there is a running gag about diarrhoea in Good Morning. Or was it a gag about running diarrhoea?

So Seun,

What is the subject or genre of your film? I think that this will make a big difference on how effective the static camera approach will work.

For instance, a really dry comedy like Napolean Dynamite doesn't need much camera movement. Nor does a tense, cold drama. An epic style really needs a sweeping feel though. (Not that indies typically do epics.)

I would envision a director working with static shots to ask the actors to play their roles and deliver their lines in a more detached way to compliment the static shooting style. When I picture people acting emotionally and swinging their arms around, but the camera just sitting there, it feels like a mismatch.

Limited pans that follow the actors could be effective - especially if your shots are tight. (And I do recommend tighter shots. Wide static shots of actors tend to look "stagy" like a high school play. When we participated in the 48-hour film project, we rented a nice tripod for $20 or so. It was worth it for being able to follow the movement without drawing attention to the camera.

It's almost like, if you're doing a piece with a static camera, be prepared to ditch your previous plans. Write a script with a style that excels with a static camera.

Napoleon Dynamite is an excellent example, but I was thinking about early Kubrick. That man knew how to frame static shots.

I believe it's more what the movie calls for. I did a short with ALL tripod shots, no pans; but then I also have done a short with all hand-held camera.

heath

"Sånger från andra våningen" is a featurefilm with only static shots.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120263/

A good mix on longer films is always good, too. I have a friend that does one thing for everything...handheld. It gets REALLY old after a while.

heath

A few suggestions
 

For sound issues it makes sense to stay in one place with the camera...unless your actors have wireless mics, then you can do whatever you want and have the same volume...if you are using your cam's on board mic for sound then you SHOULD stay in one place.

If you are filming a scene where you won't be using any sound...I would say move around. You could film out of a slow moving car or in a wheelbarrow...there are so many ways to move without too much camera shake...While filming Evil Dead, Sam Raimi used to grease up a 2x4 with Vasoline and slide the camera along it.

I would suggest...unless you are using a Wireless or a Boom Mic...stay in one place for Dialogue Scenes...and move around for most others

I don't think anyone said it's the best low budget movie ever made but it is a good example of what the OP was asking about.

The problem with static shots is that the video risks having that "flat" look to it. Dimensionality comes from changing the position of the subject or the camera, or both. You could add a lot of visual interest with just something simple like this www.glidetrack.com

Static shots can work. Just make sure you put the effort into editing. Try experimenting with shot length ... think of it like the beat of a song. You can mess with the viewers perception of time fairly easily.

If you want a moment to seem drawn out, it's been said that all you need to do is keep the shots at a steady pace ... like 3 or 4 seconds per shot, no variation. If you want to speed things up a little, try varying the shot lengths more.

There's really NO panning in those? I think there was in the Wallace and Gromit movie.
I would say don't be afraid to pan and tilt unless you find this an interesting challenge to work in.
I think "In the Mood For Love" was all static, although I really thought every movie had pans or tilts. If you are familiar with that cinematographer, he's always kinetic (ashes of time redux, fallen angels, chungking express) but the director thought it would be an interesting challenge to use only stagnant shots.

Seun, in general, be a slave to your story. If that means it must all be done with static shots, so be it. But don't force it into a box it doesn't fit in.

Francis Coppola's recent film Tetro was all locked off

Yes, I just watched 'Tokyo Twilight' last night. At the time of starting the DVD I had forgotten this thread (or more accurately, the mention of Yasujiro Ozu), and then about halfway through, realized that there hadn't been any camera movements.
Very interesting. Much thought had to go into the shots, and the actions that would take place within those shots (not many, in this case).

Nice work!
Lee

I just shot my feature film with nothing but static shots and really long takes. I guess you could consider it a somewhat experimental style, but it worked fairly well and principle photography was a breeze.

You'd think the style would be boring, but we kept the turning points going and we have a lot of room for error since it's a somewhat voyeuristic feeling... it keeps you interested.

Is it the film you note in your signature? I have already sent the link to my personal email so that I may watch your film later, at home.
=]

Lee

Yes, we just finished principle photography last Thursday.

We've got a rough cut together, it came in at about an hour and thirty three minutes. We put together a trailer based off that rough cut and the sound is VERY... rough. The audio was probably the worst part of the entire production, but I've got someone who can clean it up and all that good stuff. We've shown it to a few select individuals and reactions were positive. I'm happy.

Not too sure where we're going to go with it yet, debating whether we should go for local festivals or higher end fests. I guess anything is worth a shot.