Use in Modern Films
Starting in the 80s, American cinema has developed a trend that film scholar David Bordwell calls intensified continuity. Bordwell claims that 1) The average length of each shot in a film has become shorter over the years. 2) Scenes are built up by closer framing. 3) More extreme focal lengths are used. 4) The scenes include an increased number of camera moves.
This trend has led to deep focus becoming less common in Hollywood movies. As mentioned in Bordwells' second point, master shots where two or more characters hold a conversation have gone out of fashion, lessening the need for deep focus. In a contemporary Hollywood movie a dialogue scene may consist only of tight close-ups, with the master shot abandoned. If more than one plane in the image contains narrative information, filmmakers switch focus ("rack focusing") instead of keeping both focal planes sharp. In addition, modern sets tend to have less lighting for more comfortable working conditions, and use of deep focus tends to require more light.
The development of intensified continuity may be due to directors' desire to capture the action or dialogue from many different angles and views. Getting these shots is called coverage. The U.S. film critic Dave Kehr explains it this way:
If there is a single word that sums up the difference between filmmaking at the middle of the 20th century and the filmmaking of today, it is "coverage". Derived from television, it refers to the increasingly common practice of using multiple cameras for a scene (just as television would cover a football game).
To stage a whole scene in one shot is no longer common. Director Steven Soderbergh claims:
That kind of staging is a lost art, which is too bad. The reason they no longer work that way is because it means making choices, real choices, and sticking to them. (...) That's not what people do now. They want all the options they can get in the editing room.
Read more about this topic: Deep Focus
Famous quotes containing the words modern and/or films:
“... it must be obvious that in the agitation preceding the enactment of [protective] laws the zeal of the reformers would be second to the zeal of the highly paid night-workers who are anxious to hold their trade against an invasion of skilled women. To this sort of interference with her working life the modern woman can have but one attitude: I am not a child.”
—Crystal Eastman (18811928)
“Television does not dominate or insist, as movies do. It is not sensational, but taken for granted. Insistence would destroy it, for its message is so dire that it relies on being the background drone that counters silence. For most of us, it is something turned on and off as we would the light. It is a service, not a luxury or a thing of choice.”
—David Thomson, U.S. film historian. America in the Dark: The Impact of Hollywood Films on American Culture, ch. 8, William Morrow (1977)