Using the Camera for Interpretation

Since I don't have any artistic experience with video and film, at first all of the different components needed to make one good shot seemed very overwhelming.  However, I appreciate how much work needs to go into making something look good and how much attention to detail is necessary.  Based on the pictures in the reading, a slight flaw can dramatically change how the entire shot is perceived.  The audience could try to make meaning out of something that wasn't actually intended if the frame is too big or a lens was used for a shot it shouldn't have been.  There really is so much power in the camera and these techniques are the basis for good filming and art.

Does this mean every shot always has to have this much thought and care put into it?  Moreover, does every shot have a deeper meaning as to why it was set that way?  Or can directors ever get away with technical flaws based on the content itself?  I don't want to undervalue the strength of the camera because obviously, its proper use is critical for a perfect shot.  But when there aren't always professional cameramen there to strengthen a piece, could it be just as good?

While doing this reading I thought of low-budget horror films.  These are often shot with cameras that resemble more of a "home-movie" style, and that's usually the desired effect and intention of the director.  Still, a lot of shots are probably not perfect but the meaning still gets across.  Some would consider them even more frightening because they are relatable to the viewer and seem more realistic, opposed to a horror movie shot with a professional studio.  Below is a video describing some of the making of the Blair Witch Project.