Pat Heigham

Oh dear! Just 15 mins into the first episode of this new BBC drama (“SS GB”), and already I am irritated.

Another wobblycam production.

Granted that whatever camera is used, by the time timecode boxes and monitors are hung on, it becomes very unwieldy – and if viewed on a decent large screen, it’s most annoying.

Steadicam? Anyone know if that was considered?

The only reason for not plonking the camera on legs or dolly, is for speed of shooting, therefore cost!

Sometime back, I recall a director (small ‘d’) insisting on handheld, as he wanted the viewer to ‘be as an eavesdropper in the scene, and therefore would move about a bit’!

I pity the poor cameraman who is forced into working this way.

Geoffrey Hawkes

For me the worst example of that was “Wolf Hall” of which it was said that director, Peter Kosminsky wanted it to appear like it was being covered as a News story and that the wobbly shots would help to create a sense of realism.

The problem with that idea is:

1. People don’t dress like the characters in that today nor do they behave like it either and
2. They didn’t have cameras to cover the story.

In life, when you follow people as they are walking, you don’t have the sensation of wobbly vision because the brain filters it out, so wobbly cam shots are unnatural and serve to draw attention away from the action and the story, not enhance it.

Another thing I didn’t like about “Wolf Hall” was the ultra-gloomy interior night scenes, where the room appeared to be lit only by candlelight. All well and good, you may say, as that would’ve been the case. The problem with that is that TV cameras, however sensitive, are no match for the human eye which adapts much better too low light situations and picks up more detail than could be seen on the screen, so that again counteracted the sense of realty rather than enhancing it.

The show got accolades, however, as did the director, perhaps because of who he was, but for me it was a case of the Emperor’s new clothes syndrome – and call me a cynic if you like, but I lost count of how many times I encountered that in my time.

Having said that, I didn’t feel that the camerawork on “SS-GB” tonight was quite as intrusive, though there were a couple of shots where objects suddenly appeared in foreground as the shot developed, one a hanging lamp and another where it seemed we were peering through a couple of other things – and I’m a bit put off by that.

I think it may have been cameraman turned director, Garth Tucker, who told me once that every director likes to be known for a particular style, especially if he/she had invented it – and maybe that same thinking extended to us all as "creative" people in one way or another, hopefully for better rather than for worse,

Dave Plowman

“…he wanted the viewer to ‘be as an eavesdropper in the scene, and therefore would move about a bit…”

In my opinion, there is some truth in that. But the other truth is if any camera movement – including a developing shot – detracts from telling the story, it is badly done.

Barry Bonner

You’re right, my eyes don’t wobble about when I look at people so I don’t see why a camera should. ( I blame "Hill Street Blues").   My pet hate… foreground foliage (e.g.) pin sharp in foreground whilst we cut to an interview with prospective house buyers etc. in the background. Why? Also…Ah! Yes, there’s more, deliberately blurring edges of pictures for no apparent reason.

Dave Plowman

I’ve read your head doesn’t actually stay rock steady when looking at things. Indeed if you clamped it so it did, you’d feel very uncomfortable.

Wobblycam is one of those things that you either love or hate. Me – I like it if it is well done – which it often isn’t.

To me, a shot which is obviously done on Steadicam can be very distracting too.

Roger Bunce

But hand-held camerawork doesn’t need to be wobbly. It’s perfectly possible to hold a camera reasonably still. And a hand-held camera, walking with a person, will look smooth enough, provided the wobbling of the camera doesn’t exceed the motion of the person. It’s only when the camera movement goes gratuitously beyond anything that’s happening in the frame that it becomes annoying.

Which recalls various conversations with Directors, following the pattern:

"But I want it hand held!"

"It is hand held – Look, here’s me on the other camera, hand holding it."

"Then why isn’t it wobbling?"

"Because you haven’t asked for it to wobble. I can make it look wobbly on a ped, if you want me to!

The original excuse for deliberately wobbling the camera was, "To make it look like News footage." This made sense in the 1960s, for a film like. "The War Game." In those days News Cameramen were motorcycle dispatch riders, whose primary skill was in getting the exposed film back to a broadcast centre quickly: in time for it to be developed and edited before broadcasting. But then News went electronic, and centres like Lime Grove’s ‘Topical Production Centre’ started employing TV Cameramen, whose primary skill was in taking pictures. News footage was no longer wobbly, and the excuse for wobbly dramas went away. (N.B. News footage in the 1940s wasn’t very wobbly either. A documentary about the SAS in WW2 is currently showing on tele  (Feb 2017). The period footage is impressively steady, even under fire. Maybe cameras weren’t light enough to wobble in those days!)

But then Fly On The Wall documentaries started, with concealed cameras in handbags etc., and worse, the News starting transmitting mobile phone shots. So, the excuse was back. Unfortunately, tele screens are now much larger, and definition much higher, which has made excessive movement much more nauseous.

The other thing that irritates me is the number of Directors who think that wobblyvision is ‘new’ and original, and they have only just invented it! Don’t they teach film and television history at these meedja colleges? Don’t they know how antiquated and boring they are being?

I’ve been watching some old studio dramas from the 1970s recently, by way of research. (They weren’t all “Doctor Who”s!) It was of the age of the gliding ped – cameras in constant motion – deep, tightly composed shots developing with artists’ movement to other deep, tightly composed shots – a 180 degree crab to hold the eyeline on a head turn – And, despite continuous camera movement, everything was smooth(-ish) and co-ordinated with the motivation within the frame (apart from the as-live cock-ups). Now that’s a style of camerawork that could do with a revival.

These days they seem to think that the only options are rock steady or pointlessly wobbly.

Tony Grant

That’s the best evaluation of hand-held wobblycam I’ve seen. I used to have similar conversations, especially in my final days working with inexperienced people. At the risk of blowing my own trumpet (you’ll recall how shy and retiring I am) I used to be asked for by directors because my hand-held work was so smooth and steady.

But now, as soon as local friends/neighbours remember what I used to do, I get frequent complaints about wobblyvision and mumbleygate. Especially from one friend who bought a brand new BIG telly, and found most of the programmes he used to watch on a 24" screen were completely nauseating on his new telly (“…and the sound’s rubbish…”).

Ah, progress, but there’s a ray of hope on the horizon, vinyl’s back, Kodak are making Ektachrome again, we may see a return of the good old CRT, and wobble-free programmes to go with it!

Alasdair Lawrance

I recall reading somewhere that the late and great Victoria Wood wanted “Dinnerladies” shot like “Hill Street Blues”, all handheld WobbleScope with a lot of cutting, and you can sense that in some of the writing.  Geoff Posner won, though.

Doug Puddifoot

Do you remember the days when the PA counted bars during a music item, and you finished a move before they cut away? These days it seems to be a crime if you are not still moving at the end of a shot.

Graeme Wall

Got caught in classic impasse with that, I was waiting for the cut to move and the director was waiting for the move to cut!

Nick Way

…and John "fingers" Barclay said to me over talkback, "Please lift the Boom, I’m waiting to cut!"

Roger Bunce

Long-arm cranes, Mate! They’re great. They can swoop much higher and faster than the poor old Mole ever could. But there are two things they can’t do very well – Start and Stop. Too much whip in the arm. So, they have to start moving before the cut, and carry on after the cut – except it probably won’t be a cut. It’ll be a quick mix, because a cut from one moving shot to another, unless they’ve perfectly matching speeds, would cause the viewers to lurch in their chairs. Thus, even if it’s a really staccato piece of music, which is crying out for sharp, precise cuts, it’ll probably be all soggy, inappropriate mixes.

Of course, if they ever did stop moving, they’d have to frame a well-composed shot. But, as long as they keep moving, framing and composition don’t matter! In the old Mole days, you could start on a well-composed shot, perform an elegant, well-pivoted move, in time with the music, and end on a well composed shot, just in time for the cut. But there’s no call for that sort of thing these days, Squire. Just keep it waving about – It’s only wallpaper.

And, in the old Mole days, when the camera swooped, the Cameraman swooped with it. He felt the wind in his hair; the G-forces in his belly, and the satisfying thwack of skull against TV Theatre balcony. These modern Cameramen just sit at a desk and twiddle knobs. Where’s the fun in that? It’s about as exciting as being an Accountant!

Graeme Wall

Not when I was swinging it he didn’t!

Geoff Fletcher

Dickie was telling me all about your mole swinging, Graeme.

Sounds like I would have been happy to be your tracker back in the day. I hated mole-swinging but I loved driving the thing. Each to his own eh?

Graeme Wall

Spent many hours on the arm but only ever sat up front a couple of times.

We used to do a lot of classical music shows with the Bournemouth Symphony orchestra, Dickie on camera, me swinging and Johnnie Evans, ex ATV Brum, driving.  All that and Dave Heather shouting down your ears!

Pat Heigham

Does anyone remember a Director from the sixties – Mervyn Pinfield?  Given a 5 cam studio, he used to plan his plays to use one camera per set, with complicated but well worked out camera tracks, moves, composition etc. If he cajoled, he very often obtained the use of the spare camera, thus being able to use 6 cameras!

It did mean that with a constant run, he avoided any edit time, as the recording was on cuts to the next set, without a stop for re-position. In those days, 2" Ampex tape was physically cut and spliced, the programme was charged £90 per spool of tape, which was not a cheap deal at that time.

To continue the discussion on hand-held: 35mm motion picture cameras were as bulky and non-holdable as the earlier studio TV cams, which were why they were mounted on steady tripods or dollies. Plus the fact that with cinema projection, a 35mm frame blown up to a 30′ screen, any slight variation in the film frame will be hugely magnified. Thus the comment from Tony Grant’s friend with a big-screen TV – that’s my point exactly.

I wonder if besides the faster way of shooting handheld, as time is saved in not laying tracks etc. is if the players do not exactly hit their marks, an experienced hand operator can drift to maintain the composition. The problem becomes noticeable as during the subsequent playing of the scene, the cam is unsteady, and the shot is not held firm, which is the disturbing factor. That, and the fact that some intercut shots are firmly set up on the legs – one notices the difference.

Roger Bunce

I don’t think I ever actually worked with Mervyn Pinfield, but the man is an absolute Hero of Television History. He also pioneered TV prompting systems – called Piniprompt – the ancestor of Autocue etc. Good to see that he was featured as a character in "An Adventure in Space and Time". At least the Doctor Who geeks commemorate him as he deserves!

The ability to quickly adjust camera position, to compensate when actors fail to hit their marks, was always a feature of studio dramas. During a live, or as-live, drama there was very little chance of every actor hitting every position exactly. It just wasn’t possible to line-up each shot individually, during a continuous performance. Yet deep, intimately composed shots were still possible because studio cameras could adjust, subtly and quickly, despite their bulk, thanks to peds on wheels and flat studio floors. This is the type of developing camerawork, co-ordinated with performance, that Melvyn Pinfield, amongst others, helped to develop. On location this level of flexibility only became possible with hand-held cameras. The advantage of the ped is that, when it stops moving, the shot is rock steady, whereas the hand-held cameraman still has to breathe!

Hugh Sheppard

How I so agree about the camera and ped combination at its best, as when TC first opened, with Marconi & EMI  4.5 in. Image-orthicons and turrets.

Buddy Bregman producing Ethel Merman saying, “OK Hughie, you don’t need a zoom” still rings in the ears. That after he had insisted I fit it – and I conveniently forgot.

Halcyon days!

Bernie Newnham

“Hill Street Blues” is online at http://www.channel4.com/programmes/hill-street-blues .  I watched the pilot again the other day for the first time since 1981. Brilliant! 

Roger Bunce

When we shot the first series of “Casualty”, at TV Centre (still under the working title of “City Hospital”), the idea was to make it look like “Hill Street Blues”. I suspect a lot of dramas of that period received the same instruction. Unfortunately, I don’t think any of the production teams had ever sat down to analysed how “Hill Street Blues” was actually shot. They all seemed to think that a few bits of hand-held wobbivision was all it needed.

To my mind, the distinctive look of “Hill Street Blues” was down to shots like – (I’m making this up) – Two cops striding along a corridor, talking urgently, the camera tracking back in front of them -until – they pass a door just as two other cops come out, talking urgently, camera abandons first two and follows the second two, back down the corridor – until – another cop meets them, coming from the opposite direction, who takes one of them off down a side corridor, talking urgently, camera going with them – until – one of them turns into an office, camera following him, to see him talking urgently to the man at the desk, who jumps up and strides urgently . . . etc.

It’s all one continuously developing shot. It injects pace and excitement into a scene where nothing has actually happened apart from people talking to each other. The same dialogue could have be delivered by the same characters, while sitting in armchairs, sipping cups of tea. But it wouldn’t have the same atmosphere. It certainly wouldn’t look like “Hill Street Blues”!

Continuously developing shots like that are easily achieved in a TV Studio on a ped – and frequently are. But shooting on film and on location (or in a sound stage – either way without a flat studio floor) such a shot has to be done hand-held (or with an amazingly complex layout of rails!). But it is not the hand-held-ness of the shot that creates the dynamic effect. It’s the precise choreography of characters and action. Totally unrealistic, of course. Real human beings never co-ordinate themselves so slickly. It’s just a dramatic convention. A bit like the scene in a Whitehall farce where people are frenetically chasing one another in and out of doors: narrowing missing the person they’re trying to catch, while colliding with the ones they’re trying to avoid. That sense of shambolic disorder can only be achieved by very accurately plotted positions and timing. Chaos need a lot of planning.

Just once, I worked on a show which accurately recreated a true “Hill Street Blues” shot – Cops striding in and out of offices, talking urgently, camera following cops striding from one urgent conversation to another. All very dynamic and purposeful. It was covered by one continuously developing shot, which finally settled on a close shot of the Desk Sergeant . . . who was sound asleep! This was the opening sequence (I think) of the pilot episode of the sit-com “Mornin’ Sarge”, expertly shot by our own Ken Major – on a ped. I don’t think he even had a cable basher.