As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I believe that the use of slow motion is one of the easiest ways to make a shot look cooler/better. So I believe it has in some instances been used as a substitution where something is lacking. Subject matter/lighting etc.
See AlsoAustralia v India: Hosts take series lead with win in MelbourneAugust Musger: The Priest and Physicist Who Invented Slow MotionGreatest Slow Motion Moments In Cinematic History - LooperThe Fundamentals of Slow Motion: How It Works and How to Use It | Filmmaker ToolsHowever, I'd like to comment about the other half of your (OP) statement; that shallow depth of field is inescapable. I have been lecturing people for many years now that shallow depth of field is an epidemic. This of course is caused by many factors, but I feel there are a few major violators worth mentioning. Budgets seem to be getting smaller and shoot schedules seem to be getting shorter, which in turn causes DOPs to have less access to lighting equipment and thus, the need to shoot at wider apertures causing shallower depths of field. And secondly, I feel that not as much money is being put into the production design as it used to, and the easiest way to hide that is to hide the background. Fill the frame with a face. Do another close up. We don't have time to dress the set behind them! Just shoot it and blur it out back there! (focus puller rolls eyes) It gives me such a headache to watch an entirely blurry scene where I have no idea where the characters are in relationship to their environment. I thought that was cinematography 101! Sensors are getting larger causing shallower depth of field at equal apertures, making things worse.
Newer filmmakers are constantly chasing after the "cinematic look" and when they watch their favorite blockbusters, they see shallow DOF and think to themselves, hey I can do that! And end up choosing shallow DOF for most of their movie because it will make it look more like a movie movie. It turns out that what really makes a cinematic look is the opposite.
If you watch older movies, the close ups and the shallow depth of field were used sparingly to emphasize key moments. Deep focus allowed the audience to soak in the movie and get a lot of detail and information out of the frame. Now a days people just want to shove the camera into an A-list celebrities face. Look!! we have Morgan Freeman in our movie!
And of course there's a part of me that is ranting about this whole thing, but I always feel the need to stress the importance of not getting sucked into that filmmaking style, because it does a disservice to the audience. As creators our job is to take the audience to another world, another place or time so they can enjoy that 2 hours without distractions. If all they see is close ups and shallow depth of field, it's going to feel like running around while looking through a paper towel tube the whole time.
Filmmaker IQ did a good video about deep focus and hyperfocal lengths which explains a lot too:
I am totally with you on the overuse of the CU. Look at the masters of cinema, and you'll see it used quite sparingly. Not only that, it's used only when necessary - to emphasize drama or a turning in the story. Not like now, where a whole show can cut from one CU to the next without ever showing the geography and the blocking. It's lazy filmmaking and lacks craft.
However, I can't agree with shallow DoF. This world is so ugly in most public spaces it's an assault on your senses; architecture, ugly signs, ugly colors, dayglo high viz vests, traffic cones, road works, cracked asphalt, bushy brushes etc. Very very rarely do you find a location, exterior or interior, where everything looks good or it has a restrained palette. And with budgets these days, you can't change poop. You might be able to stick a desk lamp into the ugly interior location, a chair, some plants, but thats about it. It's still the same ugly interior. 99 times out of a 100, the wall on location will be white. How on earth do you create magic when the subject you're about to shoot is 4ft away from a white wall? I've asked "can we repaint the walls darker?" on every job since 2008, still hasn't happened. "We can't afford to, because then we need to rent location for 2 extra days and pay scenics or PA's". So that's the reality of todays shooting, even on supposedly big commercials. Building on set - yes, it happens sometimes for very special things or riggy stuff, but never for just a basic interior. Too expensive. In those scenarios, stuck in reality, shallow DoF is your only friend. It's a way of pushing all the detritus and crap out of sight.
This is why Frisch's Law of Photography will always be in effect: "Any cinematographer/photographer will inherently seek out the format with the least apparent depth of field as his preferred choice."
Watch and see now with Monstro VV sensor and new Alexa LF cameras - they will rule everything in less than a year. Nobody will be shooting standard 35mm format video in a years time professionally. Nobody.
