Week 9 pt. II

Earlier this week we discussed the idea of consistency in coverage and how this can really help develop the pace and tone of the film. David Fincher does this really well and his consistent decisions on coverage develop a great tone and pace in his films. After writing about this I started to think about coverage as a potential tool to maintain audience engagement. As the world’s attention span continues to decrease, some would argue its more important than ever to keep your audience engaged throughout your film. In a sense this is obvious, In the big set pieces directors often add a lot of movement, and spectacle into the coverage to get the audiences on the edge of their seat. This makes sense, why wouldn’t you want your film to look good?

Directors like Michael Bay are often referred to as Spectacle over Substance. As he moves the camera for the sake of moving it. This type of coverage has become his style and although, visually, it’s entertaining, for me personally his choice of coverage gives me a bit of sensory overload and completely distracts from the narrative of the film.

So, where do you draw the line between movement and coverage for purpose or for spectacle? In Hollywood today, we see a lot of movement for the sake of movement. And yes it’s probably a little more entertaining but it’s got very little motivation and substance. Most of the acclaimed directors of the current era in Hollywood like David Fincher, Quentin Tarantino move the camera with purpose. And I think these films are the most entertaining. Their camera movement reveals or develops a mood. It always has some underlying motivation. And I think this is how it should be. Movement and Coverage should always have an underlying purpose where possible and be more than just spectacle without substance.