I don't use POV shots, and there are only a few circumstances I can think of where they would be appropriate:

a) the character is somehow privy to another character's POV, like in THE EYES OF LAURA MARS

b)their vision has been impacted/enhanced somehow, like in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS with Buffalo Bill's infrared glasses, or DEJA VU with Denzel Washington's time-travel goggles, and it's an integral part of the scene

c) you show a POV shot of a character who's identity you don't want to reveal just yet - a la HALLOWEEN.

I've been using secondary shot headings to call-out where I think a POV shot should be used for some time. I wrote this post currious to see how a pro like you would weigh in on the subject. Personally, I LOVE using POV shots in my stories for the screen. It's the movies way of acting like a novel, where you can skip arround from character to character and feel their emotions. I think really add something -- IF used properly.

In your fine example the POV is gleaned by the reader in "... Clarice moving, spots a FIGURE..."
Thus in the POV breakdown Clarice moving is the camera. The figure is the subject of the shot.

I guess old habits die hard. I like a POV shot call-out better. TO ME its just clearer. To date I haven't recieved a coverage where I was repramanded from using POV secondary slug-lines, BUT if the readers of spec. matterial perfer this embedded way of calling out a POV shot, I promise you I will adapt.

Thanks for the GREAT post response, Scott. I just printed your advice out. Will DEFIANTELY consider it.

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

I've long since excised all POV-type references from my writing, and even in your final example Scott where the victim sees something Clarice doesn't you could write that rather than resort to a POV reference.

But, and there's always a but, I have one scene where I've struggled how to phrase it, and if you have any ideas, please lob them this way.

There is a cameraman within a crowd who films an assassination. The footage will be used often later in the story - it is the only record - so I want the assassination to be seen from the in-camera POV in the first place. We start with the cameraman hefting the camera onto his shoulder, and then I've tried fairly dry descriptions such as "The following is from an in-camera POV" etc., but settled on the dreaded "we", as in "WE ZOOM IN AND PLUNGE INTO THE VIEWFINDER, the image rocking a little as he finds his balance" etc.. It seems to flow better, but is hardly standard practice.

Any thoughts?

I don't use POV shots either.

I think my job is to convey an image and a mood.

To POV it or TILT it, then I'm in director's area as already pointed out.

Personally I think I risk loosing dimensions of the story if I from the beginning limits how it's to be filmed.

@terraling: The case you cite is a special one where it is literally a camera shot, so therefore, I think your approach works.

Hi, and what do you think about situation like this: I have a character that is "mad", and because of it he cannot speak normally. But he doesn't know that, and viewer also doesn't know that. In the movie I wanted to show his POV (from his eyes), and while doing it we would be able to hear his voice normally (VO). I wanted to switch to third person view couple times, but still keep the appearances that he is fine to deceive the viewer (when in third person there will be many distractions that will hide his madness, the room will be dark, and viewer will not be able to hear what he is saying exactly etc.). But than in the final moment we would switch to third person view once again and we would be able to see that he is mad, and actually he is not talking but babbling something without sense (he was only making sense in his head, in POV). So, is it ok to put something like "PETER'S POV" to distinguish the fragments where I want the camera to show the world from his eyes, and people to hear his normal voice? Or is it wrong to do so? Basically if I don't do this than it doesn't make sense to show what he is saying, because those things makes sense only in his head...