During my first week of classes for ‘the scene in cinema’ studio, I have come to understand the aims of the studio are to teach how camera coverage can be used to complement the movement of actors and vision of the director through framing and camera movement. To myself, such a syllabus is exciting because, as mentioned in Tuesdays class, it is a relatively under explored yet highly expressive means of constructing film from a visionary perspective. This is why I chose this studio in the first place, as my experiences of short film production have taught me to appreciate the cinematic capability of a motion picture camera beyond its specifications on paper. Early days of my experimentation with film evolved heavily around camera movement, particularly surrounding the long take and how such can capture full scenes, or in some cases, entire films with such intriguing effect. By the end of the semester, I hope to fine tune my knowledge of how this technique can be used in drama productions, and learn how to make such techniques look as effortless as possible from a viewing standpoint. Moreover, I would like to develop a stronger appreciation for the role camera coverage plays in film. In this weeks reading, Tom Reilly’s 2009 “What is a shot, anyway?” (pg. 16-18), Reilly defines the term ‘shot’ at its most basic level as what is ‘photographed between action and cut’. Moreover however, Reilly discusses the artistic process of constructing a shot. I found this part of the reading particularly interesting, as there is a vast number of elements external to the shot in question that ultimately determine the directors creative decisions within it. Reilly links these decisions to the influence of other scenes and how they compliment each other, particularly the pacing and mood of connecting scenes and shots, and how this will ultimately effect camera coverage. It’s fine to use camera to perfectly convey the motives within the shot, but it ultimately must make sense according to its position in a scene.