The Multicam Obsession
Why do so many productions treat multicam like some holy grail for interviews? Every agency call lately seems to include, “Can you do it as a three-cam shoot?” like it’s the ticket to Netflix quality. I get it, the logic sounds solid—capture everything, always have options, edit with ease. Here’s the cold truth: more angles rarely mean more quality. Most times, it just multiplies your problems.
I’ve lost count of sets where a third camera became the crew’s problem child. There’s always a B-cam on a nice, clean OTS. Then someone pushes a C-cam way too wide, or tries to get clever with a slider shot. Now your lighting is a Frankenstein monster, each camera picking up a different part of the mess. Suddenly, the director is splitting attention three ways, and nobody’s actually watching the interview unfold.
Want to see stress? Watch the last ten minutes before roll. The DP is chasing shadows with the third camera, the AC is crawling under C-stands looking for another SD card, and you’re fighting an army of XLR cables. All for a second or two of extra footage in the final cut—if you use it at all.
Editing: Options or Landmines?
Editing multicam should make things easier, right? That’s the pitch. Sync up, cut between angles, keep it dynamic. Sure… if your cameras all match, your lighting is perfect, and nobody ever says anything off-axis. But that’s never how it goes. I’ve slogged through days where C-cam wobbled on a cheap tripod or drifted out of focus.
Let’s talk about color. Unless everything is controlled to an absurd degree, you’re looking at three shades of “close enough” that can add hours to your grading pass. I’ve even had clients point out “weird jumps” between angles, not realizing it’s because the wide cam was fighting a window you couldn’t flag from every angle.
Here’s what you actually get: more time spent syncing, more drive space, more tricky audio (how many lavs are we hiding this time?), and mostly, more choices to overthink in post. Sometimes, I swear multicam is just a license to procrastinate on actually making the cut work.
Storytelling Suffers (Yes, Really)
This is the part nobody considers. Most interviews need focus—one perspective, one emotional throughline. Jumping from an intimate A-cam to a distant wide or unnecessary OTS isn’t creative, it’s distracting. Unless you’re Deakins shooting something for Apple, nobody’s marveling at your coverage.
Case in point: branded doc I worked on last year. Agency wanted the full three-camera “prestige doc” look. We barely used the wide. Every time we cut to it, the pace slowed, the human moment vanished. Producer finally admitted during edit session two, “It just feels impersonal.” Wish we’d called that one before rolling.
The two-camera setup—subject and a thoughtful OTS or side angle—gives you what you actually need: an insurance cut if the subject fumbles, a way to clean up too many “um’s,” and maybe a touch of visual variety. Adding a third? Nine times out of ten, you’re just making more work for a payoff nobody recognizes.
When (If Ever) It’s Worth It
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-multicam by default. There are edge cases. Sit-downs with two interviewees facing each other, you’ll want both sides and a wide. Celebrity roundtables? Sure, cover the chaos. Live events with zero chance for retakes? Go wild. But for your standard brand interview or doc sit-down? Cut the gear creep and focus on what actually matters: the subject.
Next time a client or producer tosses an extra camera at the problem, ask them point-blank—"What do you need that will change your story?" If there’s no real answer, save everyone the headache. Single cam (or two, max) forces intention. And when you’re under real-world time or budget pressure, intention always beats chaos.