Laursen, Thomas Lind. “The Agitated Camera: A diagnosis of Anthony Dod Mantle’s Camera Work in The Celebration." P.O.V. No. 10. 2000.

“There are no classical p.o.v. shots in The Celebration, only conversational ones (i.e. ‘over-the-shoulder-shots’)[1]. In an illusory way these shots seem the more simple and less constructed of the two since the camera (in theory) can work without the participation of the recorded characters, seeing that it doesn’t have to swap positions with them” (1).

“Likewise, earlier in the film, the camera comes so close to its characters that Mette’s rejection of Michael’s embrace causes Michael’s hand to hit the camera . . . In this way the camera, figuratively speaking, assaults or lets itself be assaulted by its objects” (Agitated Camera 1).

“When recording turbulent motion the camera will itself become unsteady. When recording still or calm situations it too will be still and calm” (Agitated Camera 2).

“Being an easily agitated camera, it still reacts solely on physical cues” (Agitated Camera 2).

“The physicality of the camera movements is so intense as to nearly make the camera a tangible entity: a living individual” (Agitated Camera 3)

“On the contrary, the camera work in The Celebration is so clearly visible that it can almost be said to call attention to itself – and this even more so because Anthony Dod Mantle in his eagerness to create stunning images reveals the hand that held the camera three times during the film. In his endeavor to create the illusion of presence, he succeeds in revealing the presence of the illusion-maker, turning the camera, as already mentioned, into a nearly palpable presence – almost as though it were an additional family member: an extra fictional person” (Agitated Camera 3).

“In my opinion this must mean that neither Christian nor the family as a whole are to be regarded as the cause of (or indeed to be blamed for) the camera work in the film. For in this case, following the film’s own logic, the camera ought to have been relaxed and composed. Rather, I believe, the explanation is to be found within the principles on which the film was made – i.e. the dogma rules” (4).

“Still, due to the hysterically ideological service in which the cinematographic components of the film are used, these components end up disrupting the stylistic integrity of the narrative, thereby revealing the film to be neither more nor less superficial than the type of film it so eagerly sought to oppose” (5).