tedbedlam

you should write a book.
i'd read it.

Not at all. I totally agree. Lars Van Trier also likes the "layering" method, as in the signature Dogville shot, and feels there needs to be a greater exploration of depth in cinema especially since the advent of CGI. Of course, I'll have to hate myself for this, but the use of shallow depth of field/unconventional layering techniques was popularized by some of Truffauts more elegant shots in which he uses a lack of depth to create vivid motion via the separation between subject and background. Jules et Jim tugboat-cigarette scene is a great example where it's almost as if the girl travels through dense, watery space.

On counter point, however, I am a huge fan of a large depth of field as it allows for a more... complicated image. Truffaut is my favorite for this with Rules of the Game. Because of the type of film (black and white, probably silver nitrate) the film is able to catch light much more easily allowing multiple stories to be told in various layers of the background. With new HD video, this same technique becomes more readily available in DVs incredible aptitude towards deep focus. Thus, I think at least partially, Public Enemy's being filmed on digital video over film. Dillinger modeled himself after the old-style black and white movies that had the same deep range which, along with an in-your-face documentary style, Mann tried to imitate on DV.

Also, without restricting either case, one can easily combine the two with the analogue and digital FX (smoke in the room, or windows between characters WITH depth ala Douglas Sirk/Fritz Lang, using pools of plain and colored light ala Lansky or Revenge of a Kabuki Actor, etc.) Point being, with the possibilities available now to combine both depth of field and layering/filtering it is a very exciting time to be a part of cinema.

Also, for cool "filtery" movies, check out Blindness. Almost everything in there is filmed through a surface of some sort or another.

I think I just might be in love with you