FWIW:
I only watched the first clip of this thread and the last one. Thread seemed to explode while I was away, so coming into this discussion late. What follows is strictly my opinion, nothing personal Cracker, but I respectfully disagree with your current shooting philosophy.
The last clip with the lighter in the f/g is a vast improvement over the first clip in the thread. Well done on that. It *is* a naturalistic look and a decent master shot. I am sure you have something to cut into it. Having said that, it *is* too flat overall, and the blown out light when the door opens is too expressionistic and breaks the naturalistic feel.
What I mean by that is that if the interior was that bright to begin with, the exterior wouldn't blow out. Were you shooting a darker interior, the blown out light from the front door would appear more natural. This is an instance, even though you are using a camera that can get decent images in low light, you needed to boost the light level in the room to prevent the blow out and still achieve that aesthetic.
That's not to say to avoid mixing naturalistic and expressionistic light, but that sort of thing is done with purpose. And far too large of a topic for this post.
Regarding flatness, which is the largest problem I see in the last clip.
Being able to shoot at low light levels does not mean just tossing up a light and calling it done, it means flexibility, smaller fixtures, less power requirements, more lightweight rigging, less heat on set. But it should still (IMHO) be done with a cinematic lighting technique that renders 3 dimensional space on a 2 dimensional image plane. That means creating separation between objects at different depths by manipulating light and shadow as in a painting.
Even conceptual works like that film that was shot all from surveillance camera angles benefit from manipulating light to create the illusion of 3d space where there is none.
Having said that, you've managed to improve upon the use of the single bulb in a short time. Good work.
RE: The need for solid lighting.
I'll never understand the concept that lighting and story are some sort of adversaries in the indie film making world. It is not a "one vs. the other" relationship. Lighting serves the story. It enhances it. It helps you to tell the story without having to resort to expository dialogue every 30 seconds. "Don't say it, show it." And, frankly, good lighting is essential in that ethos. I personally feel that to say that "My story is all that my film needs, so I can skimp on production quality." is a false economy. I don't mean the kind of production quality that relies on tons of gear, but the kind that emphasizes technique while maintaining practical efficiency for the scope of the project.
The indie film audience is a little more savvy in the language than the General Public. Also, a large portion of that audience are film makers, professional crew, enthusiasts, other guerrilla indie types, etc. These folks are less forgiving on production quality than one would think, regardless of the story, acting, direction, etc.
Finally, I mention all of this just as something to consider as you go along. I understand *why* you have chosen this method, but I think you are working from the wrong direction. Consider taking a few of your remaining scenes and flipping your perspective. Decide on a look you would like to achieve, and discover the fastest/cheapest way to get there.
Edit:
Also, I am one of those "not many people" who watch films and pay more attention to the craft than anything else. I am more likely to remember a camera move, or a time when flipping the 180 line mid-scene worked at a key point in the story, or a scene with great light and production design that work together to express an emotional state, or ... you know what I mean.
I also challenge the notion that the "General Audience" is more interested in a good story than eye candy. Perhaps in the indie world (see above on that), but I would argue the multiplex crowd is just the opposite. Put <insert random attractive actor/ress of the minute> in anything and folks will shell out cash. Add explosions, bullet time, and super heavy handed color grading to make the background teal so the actors skin tones pop out better and even more people will shell out even more cash.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I didn't go watch the Transformer's movies because they had a compelling story with solid acting. (lol). I went to watch cool robots on a giant screen and re-live some semblance of my childhood.
