Hancock Camera Style

[nolan]

I just got back from Hancock and I noticed a somewhat unique and slightly different camera style at some points,and liked it.I know this has been done elsewhere but this is where it is most recently in my mind.

One thing that stood out to me was that the camera would often be on someone talking,and the person being talked to with their back to the camera would slowly go more and more out of focus.I liked this a lot,and the other thing was how the camera was often not still,but very slightly shaking or moving somewhat around.Also at many times rather than making a straight cut to whatever the new subject was,the shot would continue as one and the camera would simply quickly move from one suject to the next.

I was wondering how to do all of this,and the last two,how to achieve that without the camera going out of focus or overdoing it so that it become hard to watch and too shaky or fast.

[yupfrank]

well i just saw it to and i seemed to notice that they seemed not to use any stedicam of anykind
i mean you could tell the camera man was talking steps
and the other thing i notced about this director was that he loved! close ups
he would get up close with the camera man kinda slithly shaking and then he would just make the camera man change focus (there is a switch on most cameras or a dail) and it would focus on soemone else that would also seem to be close becuase of how close the camera was to the last person
it seemed like a very simple style to me

[thtoneguy94]

the directors peter berg. he did the same kind of style with The Kingdom. it worked great in the kingdom but IMO i didnt think it worked with hancock. it just didn't let you see much of the action that was going on.

[Ladri.]

I actually noticed that during the movie and I really liked that style. I may try that in my next short but a 35mm adapter would certainly help with that.

[Black Dawn Productions]

well a lot of the movie was just poorly shot. I don't think it was meant to be AS shakey as it came out to be, but yeah, was a fairly decent film.

[Ladri.]

well a lot of the movie was just poorly shot. I don't think it was meant to be AS shakey as it came out to be, but yeah, was a fairly decent film.

I would have to watch it again but I do agree some scenes with it going in and out of focus were poorly shot. I still liked how it turned out though.

[Black Dawn Productions]

much agreed.

[b-smitty323]

I would have to watch it again but I do agree some scenes with it going in and out of focus were poorly shot. I still liked how it turned out though.

I think that was deliberate. Perhaps to mirror Hancock's drunkenness or uneasiness. There's no way the director or director of photography would have allowed unfocused footage to make it into the movie, if not on purpose and for a reason.

[Black Dawn Productions]

I think that was deliberate. Perhaps to mirror Hancock's drunkenness or uneasiness. There's no way the director or director of photography would have allowed unfocused footage to make it into the movie, if not on purpose and for a reason.

Well the thing is, it was in focus but gradual. The focus puller was slower than the action so when the camera turned to a new level of focus there was that slight delay before you could see in detail what you were looking at. But still, either way, the movie was immensly shakey through the entire film.

[b-smitty323]

Well the thing is, it was in focus but gradual. The focus puller was slower than the action so when the camera turned to a new level of focus there was that slight delay before you could see in detail what you were looking at. But still, either way, the movie was immensly shakey through the entire film.

I agree. Like the scene where he's sitting in his trailer holding that mint tin and the business card. The camera was so SLOW to focus during that scene. But again, I believe it was deliberate, because at that time, Hancock had a hangover, and the camera was mimicking how his eyes would have been reacting.