Changes in scene coverage through film history.
The aesthetic traditions and tendencies in regards to camera coverage have been an ever changing realm within the film industry. Since the earliest narrative films there has been constant change in the way filmmakers have approached their craft, both from a practical and a philosophical standpoint – but perhaps the biggest diversion in regards to camera coverage has in my opinion only become commonplace within the last twenty or so years. That change came in the form of what I would describe as a naturalistic approach to cinematography, in which devices such as area lighting, handheld camerawork and a documentary style reactive camera – in which the camera follows the performance, rather than the other way around. There are many potential explanations you could give to why this approach to cinematography and camera coverage has become increasingly common; you could argue that there has been an increased adoption of the philosophy that story and performance takes priority and that if more cumbersome aspects of filmmaking such as camera and lighting can ‘get out of the way’ of performance – then they should. This explanation is likely part of the equation – however I think the most significant factor in this aesthetic shift in many films comes down to the rise of independent film distributors such as Focus Features and A24, and the subsequent increase in prevalence of the mid-to-low budget indie film. The low budget nature of these films has made a documentary inspired approach increasingly appetising for filmmakers as it allows them to capture more footage and to capture it faster. The implications this has for coverage are far-reaching – but essentially what it boils down to is a somewhat less planned and rehearsed coverage plan and in its place one which is more reactive to space and performance. For films in the classical hollywood era from filmmakers such as Hitchcock, it was far more common and accepted to reset and relight for each shot and to take great care in how that shot would be staged, framed and lit. In modern filmmaking ‘area lighting’ has become increasingly common, with most other aspects of coverage being informed by this more naturalistic approach to cinematography. This approach involves filmmakers lighting for the scene and then making small adjustments for each shot as needed. As a result in modern films what we tend to see is a reactive handheld camera (facilitated by 360 degrees of lighting) and often a longer shot duration.
Take for example this scene from North by Northwest (1959):
The elements I want to single out here are the highly considered camera positions and movement, the classical stylised lighting (which prioritises aesthetics over consistency) and the way in which the camera often precedes the action on screen, rather than following it.
Now look at this scene from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004):
The difference could not be more apparent. In this example I would highlight the loose handheld camera, the naturalistic lighting (and the way it stays entirely consistent through the scene) and the way the camera follows the actors performances, rather than hitting marks in an overly staged manner. In one scene the coverage is masterfully planned and executed, where in the other it feels as though the filmmakers are allowing themselves to discover and experiment in response to what they’re seeing on the day. I don’t believe that either approach is any more valid than the other – it’s just interesting to see how wildly different these two examples are from one another.