Film POV

POV stands for point-of-view. For an article in which the author utterly misunderstands how POV applies to film, check out this page (in his defense, film is not his thing). POV in film is a little complex. Originally, POV was developed for a story told or read. To extend this idea directly to a movie would make the POV the camera lens. Thus we would be turning a concept used to describe the persepctive of a story into one used to describe a purely technical aspect of the story telling. Thus film POV tells us what book POV tells us, but it does it differently. If we follow a cop as he tries to solve a crime, he is always there; the film is from his POV; it is not necessary for the camera lens to literally be his eyes. However, I do want to point out that there are many more options regarding POV in film than there are in books. And in general, this is a bad thing. Most of the time, the only reasons POV changes or some odd kind of POV is used is that the filmmaker can’t make it work otherwise.

This entry was posted in Politics by Frank Moraes. Bookmark the permalink.
Avatar

About Frank Moraes

Frank Moraes is a freelance writer and editor online and in print. He is educated as a scientist with a PhD in Atmospheric Physics. He has worked in climate science, remote sensing, throughout the computer industry, and as a college physics instructor. Find out more at About Frank Moraes.

1 thought on “Film POV

  1. Frank, only today did I see your response to my comments on your post on Miller’s Crossing. Thanks for those. You are right, I misunderstood your use of the word POV. My apologies. That said, and not wanting to disrupt the spirit of collegiality, since I would like to continue some conversation, I still must say that I have to disagree about even the way that you talk about POV above. POV is a technical term guiding film production, whereas in novels you are referring to the personage of the narrator–is it first person, third person (or wildly, but almost never, second person). I think there is an important difference between those that extends beyond its formal dimension. Back to the collegial (and not pedantic), I really like how you describe Miller’s Crossing as a tragic story. That makes a lot of sense and I think it’s right. Sometimes I wonder if the film is not about an ethical query, as voiced by Caspar in the opening scene, and this would dovetail nicely with your reading of it as a tragic narrative. I just posted a blurb on my blog about whether the Coen brothers’ films are misanthropic, which David Denby claims and which I will write about (but not today), if you have thoughts or other unrelated comments, I would be much appreciative.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *