Jess’s questions have inspired and triggered questions of my own.
What are the reasons behind decisions of coverage? aesthetics? style? reality?
I am also intrigued by the question of window or frame:
“In the closed film the frame of the screen totally defines the world inside as a picture frame does; in the open film the frame is more like a window, opening a privileged view on a world of which other views are possible. The closed film definition of its inner space is therefore geometric and architectural … In the open film, character plays a more important role than architecture, unless that architecture is the momentary frame inside the film frame: a doorway, a proscenium, a window.” – Leo Braudy 1977, The World in a Frame, p.48
- How often do we relate to the scene we cover with our experience of it? Maybe this is what I am bothered by: I am too busy experiencing rather than making?
- How can we use coverage for different purposes?
- How often is coverage philosophically driven? or merely to describe the events in creative ways? How do we create meaning with coverage? Do we dance with the camera like Chris Doyle?
- The relationships between the 3 dimensional aspects of spatial dynamics in scene coverage and the compositional and photographic aspects of framing the shot.