My very first thought about two seconds in was: "why 2.35:1?". It's a documentary, and we automatically associate documentaries with television, so a 16:9 aspect ratio. In my opinion with 2.35:1 there's immediately something off. There are no rules, I agree, but 99% of times I expect that aspect ratio in theatrical releases with heavy drama, sci-fi or "bombastic" ambitions. The somewhat landscape-ish nature of your documentary doesn't justify this choice, IMO. It looks off to me.
Usually some of these essay guys overthink stuff to death and try at all costs to find meanings that actually aren't there, but in this particular occasion I believe his interpretation is pretty close to the real intentions of the director. Nice video.
Everything you say makes perfectly sense, I just fail to see how this short movie lacks *so badly* the visual information you're talking about. To me it was ok, that's all.
Even though the "gears doesn't matter" philosophy is too often pushed beyond the limits of common sense by some indie filmmakers, I disagree with the most part of that "constructive feedback" right above. For example, it was no problem reconstructing in my mind the geography of the store. Like, at all. It is a nice short movie and in your post you perfectly conveyed the concept you wanted to express about expensive gear. And I firmly believe a lot of people commenting on this site would be very very happy if they shot a short movie like yours. I'm one of them.
It is true. And maybe the early Blu-ray/HD-DVD war didn't help, though I doubt it was a huge factor...
Is this "cinema"? I have huge doubts.