6. A Movie Must Hold The Camera Still
This seems like it should be self-explanatory, but lets explain it anyway. Movies are a predominantly visual medium, right? Even before films had the ability to utilize SOUND they were still able to portray complete/complex stories, not to mention the various relationships and actions of characters. Even with that huge asset taken away, films could still communicate everything important. Such is the power of the well-used visual frame. Modern action scenes take that power, wrap it in a garbage bag, hit it with a cudgel a few times and then toss it off a cliff like the crate in that section of CREEPSHOW. The camera will shake and spin around constantly, vibrating ceaselessly while the people on screen shout and flail, trying desperately to return the audiences attention to them, the main characters of the film. This visual style is not helped at all by the rapid-fire editing that so many directors use, and thats not even bringing up the washed-out grey-on-black-on-brown that every action movie insists on using to convey grit and seriousness. Like so many stupid things done by stupid people, the shakycam style to action has a decent idea at its core. The style can be used to great effect to communicate the kinetic energy of an action sequence and to immerse the viewer in the mindset of the character as they are beset by bullets and explosion. Shaking the camera can be used to recall the footage taking from the nightly news, creating another layer of immersion. When used properly by someone like Steven Spielberg or Paul Greengrass, the shakycam style can result in never-before-realized intensity in action sequences. But getting that intensity requires an extreme amount of care and intent. The filmmaker needs to know EXACTLY what response he/she wants to illicit from the audience, and to design the sequence in question in such a way as to wring the maximum amount of tension out of the audience. It can be done, but it requires an extraordinary amount of effort and care. You begin to see the problem. Most action filmmakers try to trade the shaking camera and rapid editing as a replacement for actual, you know, action. Its not just bad on the micro-level of a particular sequence or film, its actually kind of offensive to the medium as a whole. Film draws its power from the images it creates, and by reducing on-screen imagery to blurry blobs of washed out light going BOOM, the filmmakers are spitting in the face of the foundational craft of the artform. This is why it always drives me nuts when people defend Michael Bays movies as Its not about the plot, just enjoy the action! Sure, thatd be great. Plenty of great action movies are narratively weak but make up for it with stand-up-and-cheer great action sequences. The problem with Bays films are that they are aggressively stooped AND when you get to the action scenes, he whips the camera around here, there and everywhere, so you cant tell who is where or what they are doing or where they are spatially compared to the huge fireball. Basically, Michael Bay makes action movies that deny the viewer the ability to think that Shia Labeoufs character died in a huge fireball. Thats just unfair.