That’s a mighty big camera you got there Mr. TV Reporter!
Television is an industry wracked by anxiety.
(This could possibly explain WEtv’s decision to commission a season of Cupcake Sisters, but more on that another time)
Today, we’re going to talk about interviewing people.
As the path to disaster in video and filmmaking is ‘shoot everything to make sure you didn’t miss anything’, so too is the idea of interviewing endlessly in hopes of finding that ‘great sound bite’.
This is a really dumb idea, and it is astonishing how many people in the TV business still practice this.
It’s a bit like excavating your entire front yard to a depth of 40 feet because there might be gold there. Might be.. One never knows.
Most really terrible film and TV producers start with the interview. The very first thing they will do is sit the subject down and cross-examine them for an hour, recording the whole thing. I have experienced this innumerable times when I was starting in the business. One truly memorable PBS interview went on for three hours. The ‘talent’ (and I use the word loosely) had drifted into a discourse on Marxian economics with the subject – and this with a minor local New Jersey state official. The ‘talent’ then turned to me and said: “now we’re getting somewhere”.
Years later, when I was teaching at NYU, I used to have my students record a story that aired on local news. Then, I would have them go out to Queens, (or wherever the story had taken place) and find the family that had been the subject of the story and play the aired piece back for them and ask them their opinion. It was always the same:
“I don’t understand. They talked to us for hours and they only used like 30 seconds”.
Exactly.
Only shoot what you need and what you are going to use.
Anything else is a waste of time, and frankly a disservice to the people you are interviewing.
As when we shoot b-roll, we strive for perfection. Think before you shoot. Think before you interview.
Do the interview at the end of the shooting day, not the beginning. At the beginning you really have no idea as to what the story will be. By the end, you should know what you want and need to make it work.
When you interview, be direct. Everyone is pretty media savvy these days, so be blunt. “You’re only going to get 20 seconds here to tell me about X, so why don’t you think about this before you answer”. That’s a lot more honest than blathering on for an hour and then chopping up their responses to make them say stuff they never really said (happens all the time).
When I ask a hard question and get an answer, I like to ask the subject if they were happy with that answer. Anything you want to change? This is their story, not yours.
If I have more time, I like to do a rough cut of a scene (or a soundbite from an opponent), lay it into FCP and then show it to the subject of the interview on camera and record their answer after they watch it. “Here’s what your opponent said about you this morning. Care to respond?” Far more honest than cutting together two interviews and trying to create a back and forth. “Here is the mother of a child dying of a brain tumor she says was caused by chemicals from your factory. How do you respond to this”.
If you are shooting a reality show, or something similar, instead of ‘interviewing’ the subject to elicit soundbites, just show them the rought cut. Take that single mother and sit her down in front of your laptop. Put a mic on her and start your camera recording. Then, run the timeline:
“You remember a few days ago when you were rushing the baby to the hospital. Here’s the scene we shot. As you watch it I want you to tel me exactly what you were thinking at that moment…”
“I was so scared my baby might die”…
Get the concept.
Real.
And a lot more honest.
Also, a lot easier.
There is no reason in the world anyone should have to plow through endless hours of transcripts or listen to endless hours of tapes or drives to find the ‘great sound bite’.
It would be less trouble just to dig up the front yard.
1 Comment
John D May 14, 2011
You wrote “Only shoot what you need and what you are going to use.”
It reminds me of the old story of the sports director telling a young cameraman to go shoot the local high school football game but “save film and only shoot the touchdowns”.
Let me be clear…I completely agree with your views about not over shooting or over interviewing. But there are hazards if one goes into a story production with a preconceived idea of “only what you need”.
It’s a tricky balance. Why? Because maybe your preconceived idea of what people should think or say may not match up to the reality of the situation or their views. Is one producing a true overview of reality or is it your views that you are trying to shoehorn into a story that really doesn’t match up with the way things are?
Respecting those who are being interviewed is one of the most important things any journalist should do. That includes not wasting their time or twisting what they say to fit your dream.
Anyone with even a limited amount of experience has worked on projects where someone did endless interviews for no reason and that is wrong as well. However, what’s important is to allow the person being interviewed to speak their minds in the best way possible to express their position or feelings.
Normal people are never relaxed when being interviewed. It doesn’t matter how many lights or production set up is involved. The moment they know they are being recorded, it puts people on edge. Often an interview will run longer because people are not always able to express themselves clearly and concisely, which can hurt their credibility when the interview is seen by others.
It’s the journalists job to be fair. That includes presenting a person and their views in as fair a manner as possible. Which may take more time than expected.
I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve gone to shoot an interview with an experienced government or business official, with perfect lighting and perfect sound-bites coming out of their mouths, then rushing off to get the other side, only to have that person, with less media experience yet having an equally valid view, get short changed in the final product.
To balance it out, giving them equal visual credibility in the final product, we’ll put up a light or two and interview them a little longer to they can be more comfortable in front of the camera and express themselves in their own words in as concise and credible manner as possible. It’s about fairness and not rushing the job so that a balanced, more complete, final product can be offered to the viewer.
It’s not a binary situation of over production or no production. It’s a gray situation with all the variations being addressed depending on the variables which exist on that day at that time.
Let me be clear, your thoughts above are on target. I too despise super long interviews only to have a few seconds ending up in the final product. But one has to be careful not to be to quick and short change all sides involved in a story to not get their fair amount of time to voice their positions.
Experience and simple human respect are keys to balancing it all.
Thanks for another great read.