"walking through the crowd"

[Canuck Photog]

I was wondering what the consensus here is on those "walking through the crowd" reporter stand-ups. I see these used on many broadcasts. 60 minutes does them alot.

For the record, I hate them. First, they are unnatural; who walks through a crowd talking to themselves? And where are you walking? Second, these shots freak out the people around the reporter. At first the people around the reporter think this person is some rambling nut talking to themself...until they spot the camera down the block. This ruins the shot...as the people stop (or even turnaround) to look at the reporter...sometimes they stare blankly at the camera.

They should be banned. Who's with me?!

CP

[Latin Lens]

I don't think we have the power to actually ban them, but I guess its worth a shot.

I usually see this type of standup from some third world market place kinda setting.......the rest of the world thinks we're nuts anyways so what's one more american reporter seeming "talking to himself."

Honestly.....I think they can be cool, but as long as the crowd "works."

[cameradog]

First, they are unnatural; who walks through a crowd talking to themselves?

They're not talking to themselves. They're talking to the viewer at home, from within the crowd. If you wanted it to look like they were talking to themselves, you would have them looking someplace other than the camera.

The walk to nowhere bothers me, because it isn't motivated. But otherwise I don't have much of a problem with this kind of standup. I don't even mind the people on the street turning and looking into the camera when they realize what the reporter is doing, because even that helps to establish the reporter as part of the scene. I think it actually looks a little strange if people don't notice, because it's like the reporter is invisible.

[cameragod]

To me any standup that works is a good one. The problem is stations will see a bad one and put a blanket ban on all standup’s of that sort. Why not train the shooter who did the bad one to do good standup’s and let us get on with illustrating the story.

[Tippster]

Conversely they see one that works in a specific situation - ie a Reporter walking through a crowd of people in Africa talking about the high AIDS infection rate there, and think it's the latest "thing" and try to do it everywhere all the time.

[Freddie Mercury]

I dislike any standup that uses people as props, and the walking through the crowd standup is pretty close to that. I agree that it looks better when the crowd reacts to the reporter because it's more real. I've seen some where the reporter will be walking past someone who is engaged in some activity and appears to have been coached to ignore the reporter. Very unnatural. And then there's the protest story where the reporter wants to do the standup walking along with the protestors. The viewer can assume the reporter supports them.

People as props: Just say no.

[photog3535]

It doesn't bother me if there are people around during a standup, as long as they are acting naturally. Yes, staging anything for a standup is wrong. It's obvious when things are staged, and viewers easily pick it up. But doing a standup with people in the background... As long as it looks natural, it's fine by me. But the reporter walking to nowhere... I'm sorry, but it's more visually interesting to see someone moving and reveal to see where they are at than to have them stand still... I'd prefer movement than them just standing still. But if the background is compelling enough, I'd prefer them to stand still.

To me, there's no hard and fast rule with standups. (Ok, that's an exxageration, but you get what I'm saying) The point is to make it look and flow as naturally as possible, and make sure people get what the reporter is saying. Whether that means they are alone with a simple backdrop, or demonstrating something interesting (preferable), or walking either through a crowd of people or with people in the background, the whole point is to make it interesting.