I wonder did Dana Stevens watch the Bourne movie on the small screen (screener DVD) or on a big screen at an actual movie theater? Which one makes a huge difference in the appropriateness of of the shaky camera.

On the small screen, shaky films like the Bourne Supremancy are quite watchable. Seeing the smaller-than-life Matt Damon jostled on your living room TV is pretty exciting.

On the big screen, though, the shaky camera is nauseating, distracting, and annoying as hell. You're sitting towards the front of the theater, your entire field of view is a movie screen full of stuff bouncing around. You constantly have to move your head to focus on anything. You're frustrated that the director won't just hold the camera still instead of trying to impress us with his artsy camera shaking.

I have a feeling Paul Greengrass directed and edited most of his movie on a largish TV, fooling himself into thinking the shaky camera is a good thing, never realizing that the millions of people who'll watch it on the big screen won't see what he does.

It took me about 5 viewings before I finally grasped all the action in the Supremacy's end car chase and agent to agent fight. Hold the camera still for Christ's sake!

...the shaky camera is nauseating, distracting, and annoying as hell...

I agree but also think that to the extent that the 'medium is the message' as Marshall McLuhan informed us awhile ago the technique is appropriate to the context of thinking on your feet action. I also appreciate the expansive long time exposure black and white landscape photographs of Ansel Adams for their infinite depth, detail and sublime serenity. Life encompasses both of those experiences and many more in between and so should art try to portray them all in the most effective manner available to the producer.

I agree. Starting about half way through the film I had to close my eyes through the action scenes to stave off nausea. Even the non action scenes upset my stomach. I don't think the film contained a single cut that lasted more than five seconds, or a span of half a second with the camera held steady.

The "shaky-cam" would seem to be over as a cinematic device by now (like zoom shots from the seventies), but it still seems popular to directors like Greengrass and Michael Bay -- yes, they both seem to use it equally.

Movie theaters that I attend often put a sign in the ticket window warning that a movie like "The Bourne Ultimatum" has shaky hand-held work and can make viewers sick. The warning is designed to prevent refund demands.

Personally, I think the technique is worn out. There's a difference between fast-edit montage and berserk camera work. Great fight scenes in "The Manchurian Candidate" (the original) and "From Russia With Love" benefitted from our being able to see the action clearly.

And TV shows like "NYPD Blue" and "Boston Legal" have reduced shaky-cam to assembly-line banality.

But I still see movies made in shaky-cam. If that's how I've got to take it, that's how I'll take it.

Luca, a little belated response, but I agree with you whole-heartedly. I like the excitement of the Bourne series, but Supremacy and Ultimatum were diminished greatly by Greengrass's tripodophobia. His directing style with regards to the camera is pathetically tired kitsch. It's the same reason The Shield makes me want to puke--and not from motion sickness. I just can't stand the faux-artistry. And how does tight, telephoto, handheld camera work make a shot more realistic anyways? A camera on a tripod is much more representative of the way my eyes see the world--fluid and balanced. Even when I run or play sports, my eyes do a fairly good job of smoothing out the bumps. I'm like my own Steadicam. I like the directing of the actors in Ultimatum, but the camera work is the best in the original as directed by Doug Liman. It makes Bourne's hand-to-hand combat that much more thrilling because I can actually get a better idea of what's going on.

A little handheld work that is not quite so aggessive (on shorter lenses and letting the excellent Hollywood camera operators actually hold the camera like they are capable) can be a nice effect when used more sparingly. But I feel that too often, telephoto handheld shots are a poor excuse for not knowing how to block and direct a good scene.

How lame was that sequence in the cafe with the reporter and his source. The tight shots, strange frames, and shakiness only said, "Look at me everybody, I used to direct documentaries and does this look good now that I've hit the bigtime?"

Tripodehpobia? Very nice.

Belatedly returning to agree with your agreement.

I suppose the weird thing is that neither critics nor audience members seem to be expressing much excitement about "shaky-cam" anymore, so you have to wonder why a guy like Greengrass insists on still using it.

A little bit of handheld has its place in semi-documentary style films -- I think Spielberg used it in "Saving Private Ryan" and "Munich." And shaky-cam made sense, from a "reality" standpoint, in Paul Greengrass' "United 93" as the hijackers kept crazily steering the jet.

But when you're essentially watching the screen heave to and fro, up and down, back and forth at the expense of concentration on a simple ground-based dialogue scene...something's wrong.

And hardly creative. Again, "Boston Legal" does this every week. A TV show, and not even a great one.

To which someone would answer: then why did "Bourne Ultimatum" make a billion dollars?

Answer: because nobody much cared about the shaky-cam. They cared about the action.