This essay contains spoilers for Captain America: Civil War. This is your warning.
The high point of Captain America: Civil War is an extended action sequence roughly 90 minutes into the 150-minute epic, wherein 12 superheroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe go head-to-head in an evacuated airfield in Leipzig. On one side, there’s Iron Man, War Machine, Black Widow, Vision, Spider-Man, and Black Panther; on the other, there’s Captain America, The Falcon, Hawkeye, Ant-Man, Scarlet Witch, and Bucky Barnes, AKA the Winter Soldier. The fight is over two core issues—whether or not the governments of the world should regulate the Avengers and how they’re utilized in disaster situations, and whether Bucky Barnes should be turned over to the authorities for his past crimes. (That, in essence, is the dual conflict of the film, with Iron Man on the side of the government, and Captain America opposing, mostly for personal reasons.) But all that matters is that a dozen heroes duke it out for about 15 minutes, and do so in spectacular fashion.
On a base, fundamental level, this scene should not work. There’s never a distinct sense that any of these characters are driven by bloodlust—even the newly introduced Black Panther, played by Chadwick Boseman, who ostensibly wants revenge on Bucky for his father’s death without ever seeming terribly bloodthirsty—or that they intend to put anyone in the ground by the end of the tussle. Basically, the fight scene is a large-scale version of that time when you were a kid and you bashed all of your superhero figures together for the hell of it. This is Marvel at its best: bright, fast-paced, energetic, inventive, and above all else, fun. (One day, DC might figure out that last part of the equation.) The newer characters—Spider-Man, Black Panther, and even Ant-Man, played once again by a I’m-just-so-happy-to-be-here Paul Rudd—stand out most of all, with the latter getting a (literally) big chance to shine in the final moments.
The sequence is propulsive and thrilling, far more so than the rest of Captain America: Civil War, for one very notable and obvious reason: it was shot with IMAX 2D cameras, unlike everything else in the film. That no doubt explains why this sequence is presented with a sense of basic clarity and coherency, while the other fights—an early battle in Lagos or even the climactic tête-à-tête in Siberia—are filmed as if the men behind the camera had drunk one too many Red Bulls before heading into work. At best, we can say that directors Anthony and Joe Russo (who directed Captain America: The Winter Soldier and will soon helm the two-part Avengers: Infinity War saga) were inspired by other recent action films in staging their fights. At worst, they have no capability or interest in filming cleanly composed action sequences when not restricted by technology.
The truth, of course, can be found in neither of these polar opposites. Captain America: Civil War is the latest in a long, long, long line of action movies that lean too hard on shaky-cam-heavy battles. All such scenes are intended to make the audience feel as if they’re right there, next to whoever’s in the middle of the brawl, getting punched and kicked around. The camera shakes to replicate a character darting an ducking through a crowded marketplace, or being punched in the stomach, or dodging a kick to the face, and so on and so on. These films all owe an unpayable debt to none other than The Bourne Supremacy, the 2004 sequel to The Bourne Identity, directed by Paul Greengrass. Greengrass brought his jittery documentary-style filmmaking straight from socially conscious films like Bloody Sunday to two of the Bourne films, as well as Captain Phillips, United 93, and Green Zone. In the decade-plus since The Bourne Supremacy, so many filmmakers have adopted Greengrass’ style, less because it fits a story and more because it sufficiently caught audiences’ attention and studio heads felt it should be replicated ad hominem.
Captain America: Civil War may be inspired by the shaky-cam style in its action sequences, but all it does is suggest that staging a clear version of the various fights would show all the CG seams. It’s not just thrilling to see Iron Man and Captain America go head-to-head in Leipzig because we like the characters and enjoy seeing them fractured and against each other; it’s thrilling to see them go head-to-head because we can actually see them fighting each other. Marvel movies have specific issues that hold them back from being great, and Civil War’s not much different: the films feel less like their own things and more like previews for the next things (which will, of course, function as previews for the next next things), and the villains are always less impressive and charismatic than the good guys striving to stop them. (Daniel Brühl is fine as the vengeful Zemo, but his storyline feels weirdly grafted onto the battle amongst heroes.) But the shaky-cam problem is one that doesn’t have to occur in these movies. We can say that Marvel movies leaning into anticipation culture is a problem imposed by higher desires for branding and franchising. Shaky-camera action sequences are a self-imposed problem.
It’s not as if it’s impossible to make a modern action movie with a clear mise-en-scene and camerawork that isn’t obnoxiously, laughably jittery and hand-held. (Watching B-roll footage of Civil War emphasizes that the Russos, or maybe Marvel in general, might want to buy a Steadicam or three for the future Avengers movies. Please.) Think of the deservedly well-loved John Wick, with Keanu Reeves as an impossibly badass hitman lured out of retirement to avenge the death of his dog. That film, with a sequel coming next year, was celebrated as much for its intense violence as for its direct, unfussy staging. A great irony of that film’s slick, clean, and smoothly shot action sequences is that its two directors, David Leitch and Chad Stahelski, worked as second unit directors on—yes, really—Captain America: Civil War. One can only wonder if they were hampered by a desire by the directors or Marvel honcho Kevin Feige to shaky-cam up the place, or if maybe they were only in charge of the Leipzig battle.
Joe and Anthony Russo do a workmanlike job behind the camera for Captain America: Civil War, which is a perfectly fine brand deposit in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, even as the MCU threatens to balloon to the point where it’s like Mr. Creosote in Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life, with just a wafer-thin mint causing it to explode from within. That the Russos rely on unnecessarily hand-held camerawork is enervating, but it’s not groundbreaking. They are not the first, nor the last, filmmakers to think that Paul Greengrass’ choices in the Bourne movies were not just aesthetically unique to that set of stories, but could be employed anywhere, in any way. And of course, Marvel movies make a ton of money every year; why break what doesn’t appear to need fixing? (Leave aside the reality that we’ll never know how many people regret too late the decision to see this film in 3D or IMAX 3D, the latter of which is the best way to experience the Leipzig battle, and suffer the shaky-cam consequences.) We need to think only of last year’s behemoth success Star Wars: The Force Awakens, which may not lean too hard on hand-to-hand combat, but also didn’t lean too hard on hand-held camerawork. Marvel movies have already separated themselves from DC by not wallowing in the grim and dark; their filmmakers should move even further, and stop wallowing in the visually incomprehensible.
14 thoughts on “Why Shaky-Cam Is Ruining Modern Action Movies”
Although I haven’t seen Civil War, I found this to be a very good article. You hit on a few of the key points that have led, I think, a number of movie-goers to experience superhero fatigue. Visual incoherence is off-putting, and is often used to cover up CGI limitations or shortcomings, as you point out. Directors shouldn’t compromise the coherence of their films for the sake of style. The perfect, recent antithesis of this is Mad Max:Fury Road. I don’t even need to elaborate on the complexity of the action sequences, it has been ton plenty of times. But for all that is going on, and the quick cutting and changes of perspective, the action remains remarkably easy to follow. That’s how an action movie should look and feel. Viewers shouldn’t feel nauseous.
You haven’t seen the film, but you agree. So informed.
“… it should be replicated ad hominem”? Replicated until it is a logical fallacy, an attack on the person rather than the argument? Perhaps you mean ad infinitum. Or ad nauseum.
Have you ever watched a movie from before the turn of the century?
The author is so far out of his area of expertise.
It seems odd to blame Paul Greengrass on a style that’s been around since the ’60s and became the de facto choice for action cinema in the ’90s. I entered film school in ’95 and by that stage shaky-cam was so pervasive it was a point that split the class in two over whether or not it was a valid aesthetic. (I was, and am, a shaky-cam nay-sayer).
Don’t recall shaky-cam being around in the 60’s or noticing it in action cinema in the 90′?!
just watched rogue one and the whole movie is shaking about and is annoying as hell. more importantly, there’s no need for it in 99% of the scenes. if you were ‘there’ in the scene, what makes a cinematographer think that you would be shaking your head around while watching what’s happening around you? still and sitting scenes, the camera is shaking around … makes no sense at all. unless of course these directors have some notion that we all have some terrible shaking disease.
sure, if you’re running about in the scene we could expect some movement [Minimal], but nearly the whole movie is absent of a still camera and it truly takes away from what’s being provided in the movie including focus on the characters, dialogue, expressions and most importantly focus on the fantastic landscapes and set design in such a movie.
spend a bazzilion dollars on set design and CG and then give the camera to some child that doesn’t know how to hold a camera. what a waste.
STOP IT ALREADY!!!!
TOTALLY AGREE with your last two sentences. My EXACT thoughts!!! The incompetency of the director & cameraman is totally evident with Shaky cam. Shaky Cam is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It should be enforced that if a film has that method of filming, the public should be told, so that you can avoid the film if you want to. If Shaky cam is the way movies are going, I will certainly no longer be watching movies. Sad, as it’s always been a favourite pastime of mine. I’ve noticed they have started that RUBBISH in TV films as well. 🙁
cheers marilyn. i understand that this is simply a post production tactic likely which would make it even more unnecessary. at any rate, for a ‘real life’ example, i have a camera on my helmet when i go downhill mountain biking at considerable speed and trail variation, and my clips have none of this erratic behavior. i’d just like to hear some good argument as to why it’s a good style, for any scene or storyline.
Hi coupstar, I love that type of camera work that you are describing! It’s great to see what a person on a bicycle, motorbike etc see as they travel down steep slopes etc.
However, for movies & tv series etc it is VERY ANNOYING to say the least!!!!. I’ve seen some movies where the camera swaps from one actor to another, as each person speaks their lines instead of having both actors in the camera view!!. AAAAAAAAAAARGGH! It’s as if the cameraman etc know NOTHING about filming & that they have a child filming the scenes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pingback: Why I don’t like superhero movies – MovieCeptional
Totally agree with the premise of the article, and the drawbacks of shaky cam need to be drummed into the head of every director. Can’t help saying that “ad hominem” is a terrible lapse for a writer. Edit that.
I don’t want to burst your bubble but next to some camera trickery the Russo brothers did take their time to choreograph the action scenes. Like weeks instead of days. That is why it looks good. It has very little to do with shaky cam. I know that at the time this article was written Jason Bourne wasn’t released yet but that film compared to The Bourne Identity is a much better example where shaky cam was used the wrong way. In The Bourne Identity you could actually see what was happening. In Jason Bourne it was very hard to make out what was going on.
In general shaky cam is ruining action but fortunately some directors have gone back to old school choreography and stunt work where they want to show everything. Like in John WIck and The Villainess.