Handheld camera movement has it’s roots in cinema verité, social realism and the Dogme 95 movement. After The Blairwitch Project, the handheld aesthetic morphed into it’s own horror genre, the found footage film. Action films like The Bourne Identity, essentially all post- Saving Private Ryan still influence the action films of today. So why should we be more sparing in our use of the handheld aesthetic in contemporary cinema?

Firstly, every visual aesthetic comes full circle. Being over-saturated by handheld cameras in the majority of films one sees, a formal and more traditional cinematic visual language is needed to clean the palette. Secondly, ever since DSLR’s got cheaper and better, everyone and their grandma can shoot a film emulating the handheld aesthetic that they see in their favourite indie films/Hollywood action movies.

The third and most interesting point is that the handheld camera is misinterpreted as realism. The camera can be subjective or objective, but it is never real. The handheld camera is simply a type of shot. It does not mimic reality, it mimics the reality of holding a camera that is recording. The handheld camera is frequently used for POV shots, but if one wants to be truly realistic in their portrayal of looking through someone else’s eyes, the camera should be stabilised: whilst walking anywhere, notice that your vision is not constantly wobbling, and head shaking. Due to the fact that one of the most important organs in the body is located in the head, the human body has evolved to keep it stabilised rather than rattle the brain around the skull. As mentioned in my review of Faults, independent directors in America are ditching the ‘indie look’ of the 00’s in favour of an evolved formalist approach to cinematography.

However, this is not to say that the handheld aesthetic is ‘bad' and should be buried - far from it. It has it’s place in the cinematic visual language for a reason, and it’s the same reason any camera movement exists: to add to the story, to create character, to create tone. If a film is constantly handheld like Cloverfield, then there is no contrast with other shots - completely ignoring the basis of montage, AKA putting different types of shots together to create emotional contrast.

Stanley Kubrick understood this need for variety when shooting The Shining. The first half of the film, the camera eerily drifts and explores the Overlook Hotel, mirroring the emotional state of the characters. As Jack’s mental state deteriorates into the climactic final act of the film, the Steadicam has been put aside and a frantic handheld aesthetic is used to up the tension and allow the audience to relate to the characters mental state. In this clip, notice how the Steadicam is employed to create a sense of doom as Jack is approaching, whilst as Wendy is looking for a weapon, the camera is far more mobile and jittery.

Another great example is in About Elly, a film by one of the 21st century’s greatest cinematic masters, Asghar Farhadi. The beginning of the film is calm, relaxed - and so is the camera, steady, occasionally on a tripod, moving fluidly. From the point after the key dramatic moment in the film, emotions are heightened and the tensions are immense - and the camera reflects and intensifies that with a shakier motion. Consider the first shot examined in this video essay, and contrast it with the shot at 3:44. (Spoilers if you speak Persian.)

It speaks for itself.

In short, the handheld aesthetic has been overused in recent years and will need a hiatus from current cinematic visual language for people to appreciate it’s absence, and that way, appreciate its purpose.

Image Credit: The Kennedy/Marshall Company;Amblin Entertainment, Dreamworks Pictures;Radius-TWC