I consider this the basics (exactly where I began with journalism and documentary film students): Capturing sequences is the beginning of visual storytelling.
A sequence is a series of photos or video (or both) that tells a particular story, or examines a particular moment, within a larger story. You begin learning to capture sequences by following the “rules” of coverage: Making sure you have the three basic scene types. These are 1) wide establishing shots that set a scene, 2) medium shots, usually focused on people doing things, to capture the relevant action, and 3) detail shots that take us closer than would be possible by our just standing there.
For example, here’s a short short that’s really just a single sequence packaged into a mini-doc, I guess. But it’s easy to see how this is constructed from shots described above.
What happens when you run this well-worn framework through the decisive moment and Malick’s dogma?
So I don’t have a slick answer to that question. Maybe what I mean is to state it like a command: Hey, you, run the classic form of the video sequence through the decisive moment and Malick dogma and see what happens.
I think that is how we might begin to move from coverage to creating a visual style.
Posts in this series:
Where I Differ With the Dogma | Frame by Frame (rhetorica.net)
Visual Style Conveyed in Words — Maybe | Frame by Frame (rhetorica.net)
The reason: I was carrying a big camera with a big 
Earlier when I walked the street in the daylight — I had lunch at a local restaurant — no one paid any attention to me. I didn’t film, but I did make a few pictures with my phone. On the way back through, I think emotions were running a bit high from the protest.