Color me old fashioned, but I’ve got a beef with this. You have 11 shots in a row in which primarily the camera, rather than the subjects, is in motion. I watch entire films — 90 – 120 minutes in length — in which there aren’t 11 dolly or Stedicam shots in all. There’s no fire hosing in your piece, which is good, but to my eye the constant camera movement is a) repetitive, b) without reason vis a vis the event, and c) slightly nausea inducing.
When I cop to being “old fashioned” I’m suggesting that the film/video media has always struck me as being about capturing motion, not about creating motion: moving stuff happens — people run, walk, dance, etc., — and the motion camera records what they’re doing. Cuts occur as a means of moving our eye from one point to another (See Walter Murch In The Blink of an Eye) specifically without moving the camera back and forth; the cut is the antithesis of the pan.
Moving the camera can be highly dramatic. In fact, the first time a film was made in which the camera moved audiences were astonished and delighted. Following Rocky up the Art Museum steps in Philadelphia decades later with a freely moving camera was heralded as a triumph of film making in its day. But to me to continually move the camera around essentially static figures as you do really negates the value of this technique.
Jack
http://www.videoccasions-nw.com
.
