Hello,

What do people recommend for interview angles regarding the person being interviewed for the following scenarios?

Scenario 1:
You don't see the interviewer, you just hear the questions.

Scenario 2:
You don't see the interviewer nor hear the questions; You just hear the answers.

The interviews are generally for corporate types of interviews.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks!,

Simon

I normally do the second option and get the interviewee to answer in full for corporate videos.

In terms of angles for both scenarios I would set up the camera so the person was framed on the left or right (use thirds rule) then I would interview on the opposite side, so there eye line goes across the frame. If Im doing the interview I normally place them more to the right of the frame so I interview on the left hand side of the camera. I do this because it allows me to see the camera LCD during the interview. If someone else is interviewing it doesnt really matter.

If the interviewer is an important part of the video, e.g. the presenter, then you could have them on camera with the interviewee or record some reaction shots from the interviewer after the interview which you can add during the edit.

Sitting screen right and looking to the left if they're the good guys, sitting screen left looking right if they ain't (bankers, vivisectionists, oilmen, divorce lawyers).

LOL!

Thanks for the advice guys.

I will try it out.

So it is not good to have them look at the camera if you never see interviewer?

thanks again,

Simon

The closer their eyeline is to the camera, the more "intimate" their conversation with the audience. Looking straight at the camera is a no-no usually. Though it is sometimes done for videos where the audience is the only focus. Things like dissemination of factual information, etc.

I'll admit right up front that I haven't done many of these but all have them have been cut using option 2. I'm a one man band so I sit with the camera to my right and ask the questions of the subject while looking at me... all until this last one which kind of threw me a bit.

Last month I had interviewed Ken Squier about a long closed race track in northern Vermont where he announced and raced(!). For those not familiar with Ken, he's the preeminent veteran journalist for American motorsports who called the first full live national broadcast of a NASCAR race back in 1979. For those in Europe, he's our James Allen... but I digress.

I set up my kit in the standard way and started asking questions. Ken answered the first few questions by looking straight into the lens. That's not surprising given his years in front of a camera, but I didn't expect it. As the 20 minute interview progressed, he started responding more to me and less to the lens which let me use the locked B camera's shots a bit more. Overall I got some good stuff but if I'd asked him to look either at me or the camera at the start, I would have gotten more consistent visual results.

Or you could just say that I was too chicken to try and direct someone of his stature, and you'd be right.

So it seems like the norm is to have the interviewee sit near the right or left side and have the interviewer ask questions next to the camera. The interviewee should be looking at the interviewer the whole time across the frame as someone mentioned here.

Thanks for all the good advice.

Simon

Hi Simon,

I don't do corporate stuff, only short & long docs
(one-man-band mode) but here are my two cents:
I explicitly ask the interviewee NOT to "talk to the camera",
but to me (I'm sitting close to the camera, left or right,
depending on the interviewee's position). I strongly feel
that talking to a human being is a much more natural thing
to do than talking to a dark piece of glass: you'll end up
having a deeper connection with your interviewee, a stronger
bond, a more intense interaction, and thus much better answers.
Whether or not your questions will be heard is, IMHO, irrelevant.
Here's a short and humble example (it's a very "light" story,
not necessarily representative of the kind of stories I usually do,
but it's the only thing I have available in English...):
Helvetia, WV News • (Hel-VEE-shah) Helvetia, West Virginia - A Short Story by Vasco Dones (http://helvetiawv.com/video/hel-vee-shah.html)
Hope this helps...

Best

Vasco

Hello,

Great advice from everyone.

It makes sense. I will try out the new methods mentioned in this thread.

Thanks again everyone,

Simon

Scenario 2 would be what I would aim for. It's a little harder to do right but I think it looks (and sounds) a lot better. You can always use Scenario 1 as a backup if you don't get what you need.

And make sure you get the subject to answer in full sentences. Consider the following situation:

Q: What's your favorite number?
A: 763

That doesn't give much to work with in the editroom.

A: My favorite number is 763 because... [insert reason]

Gives you a lot more to choose from and lets you use either some or all of the dialogue instead of none. Sometimes it's as simple as asking "and why?" to a question.

The closer their eyeline is to the camera, the more "intimate" their conversation with the audience. Looking straight at the camera is a no-no usually.

This is a very good point. If you have a particularly deep subject, having an eyeline close to the camera can be rather confronting, and that's what some people go for.

Vasco loved your video.
Question: we gotta interview an huge group of old veterans of the II worldwidewar, then well' put all this footage on archive historical museum. I was planning to go for the second option as i always do for my interviews, but somebody (anthropogues told me that is not a good idea, they have to look straight to the camera), what's your point of view about my footage?

thx

Hola Marcus,

well, who am I to argue with anthropologists?

And yet: don't have the interviewees talk to
that dark piece of glass!: it's not going to work.
Have the interviewer sit next to the camera,
as close to the camera as possible: that will do.

Unless you want to contact Erroll Morris
(Errol Morris (http://www.errolmorris.com)) :-)
and ask him for permission to use his "Interrotron"

(quote: "The Interrotron is a device similar to a teleprompter: Errol and his subject each sit facing a camera. The image of each person's face is then projected onto the lens of the other's camera. Instead of looking at a blank lens, then, both Morris and his subject are looking directly at a human face. Morris believes that the machine encourages monologue in the interview process, while also encouraging the interviewees to "express themselves to camera".
The name "Interrotron" was coined by Morris's wife, who, according to Morris, "liked the name because it combined two important concepts — terror and interview."
source: Wikipedia)

Here's how the Interrotron works:
Interrotron (http://www.whiterabbitdesigncompany.com/Miscellaneous/images/Interrotron.html)

Good luck with your interviews, Marcus
All the best

Vasco

Not that anyone asked (really outside the scope of the OP's Q), I really hate it when someone is talking off camera. I wave at the TV and say "Hello! I'm over here! Who are you talking to over there?"

I guess I'm largely alone in this... (Well, me and Errol)

I agree Andy.

It would seem to me that talking to the camera makes it more personable.

But I had one client who hated that we did it this way. I won't make that mistake again.

Some people just like sticking to normal standards I guess.

Simon

I have to disagree with Simon and Andy - this IS my predominant line of work and I can't STAND watching people bore down the barrel of the lens, as a photographer OR as a viewer. Psychologically, it's intimidating and it's hard to maintain a consistent eyeline (without the interrotron any way...)

The key is to keep the interviewer AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE to the lens axis. If I'm JUST the shooter and someone else is asking the questions/carrying on the conversation, I'll shoot from BEHIND and literally ALMOST include their ear - THAT is how tight I am to them so the subject is looking JUST (and I mean JUST!) off the lens axis. Otherwise, I'm as close to the lens as I can get.

Keep in mind that MY opinion is that the viewer is a casual observer of a conversation (that may be completely one sided) and NOT the direct participant in the conversation, hence the off axis eye line. A PRESENTER giving factual information TO THE VIEWER should be reading a teleprompter and looking right down the barrel of the lens. Think "Uncle Sam wants YOU!" - not the guy sitting beside you, he wants YOU!

I agree with Shaun, the viewer is simply an observer listening in on a conversation. An interview subject looking straight into the camera is too obtrusive.

This is not an opinion, this is basic fundamentals of Documentary content.

I am a fan of the interviewee looking off-axis if they are asking questions.

For training videos or hosts...that is when subjects should be looking at the lens. In a way, when the audience is talked to/looked at, you are breaking the fourth wall. You are acknowledging them watching and this has to be understood when choosing angles.

That and when you cut between interviewees it looks odd to go from one person looking at the camera to another looking at the camera. It just feels less jarring/more natural for someone to be on an angle and looking with a proper eyeline off-axis to a camera lens.

On top of this, when you interviewees are discussing controversial subjects, you can put opposing viewpoint holders on opposite sides. Again, a psychological reason for composition...and yes it does matter!

Sitting screen right and looking to the left if they're the good guys, sitting screen left looking right if they ain't (bankers, vivisectionists, oilmen, divorce lawyers).

Good point, never thought of it like this.
Will try to explore this style in the near future.

I agree with Shaun, the viewer is simply an observer listening in on a conversation. An interview subject looking straight into the camera is too obtrusive.
This is not an opinion, this is basic fundamentals of Documentary content.

Take it away: Tony Kofi on Vimeo

I agree with Shaun, the viewer is simply an observer listening in on a conversation. An interview subject looking straight into the camera is too obtrusive.

This is not an opinion, this is basic fundamentals of Documentary content.

Oh well... No disrespect intended,
but your statement sounds a bit too... fundamentalist to me
(a word of caution: my degree is in economics, not in doc. filmmaking...).
Been around a while, watched a number of docs.
with all possible interviewing angles,
and IMHO the bottom line is: it depends.
It depends on what you're looking for,
on what degree of "intimacy" or "detachment"
you (as the filmmaker) want to achieve
with your talent.
It depends on how you set your priorities.
It depends on the subject of your story
(how about interviewing a guy walking
or sitting on a rope at 300' altitude
between two Manhattan high-rises,
and looking straight down at your camera?)
Don't get me wrong: as in many other fields, there are rules
in documentary filmmaking
(but please keep their number as low as possible!),
and there are always possible exceptions.
Why would we want to limit our fun
and our freedom to explore?
After all, we're just trying to tell a story
in the most compelling way, and we should be free
to resort to whatever works best.
Having said that, MY preference is usually to
have the interviewee talk to ME and not to the camera,
because my priority is to "squeeze" out as much of her/his "soul" as possible.
As noted before, with Errol Morris' Interrotron
you can have the best of both worlds...
Then again, I can imagine topics and/or situations where the Interrotron
would NOT be the ideal setup.
It depends...

(just my last two cents, obviously)

Best

Vasco

I've seen plans for the Interrotron somewhere but if you've got $1400. to burn, check out EyeDirect 16x9 | VFGadgets.com (http://www.vfgadgets.com/grip-camera/eyedirect-16x9). But I still don't think you'd get anything like the same connection with the subject as looking them straight in the eye.

Remember that Errol Morris was interviewing people who were already very comfortable talking to cameras. All that said, he got great results and if I could get people to talk directly into the lens and still maintain a strong connection with them I'd definately do it for certain documentary contexts.

Sitting screen right and looking to the left if they're the good guys, sitting screen left looking right if they ain't (bankers, vivisectionists, oilmen, divorce lawyers).

I understand that there is an aesthetic difference between left-to-right and right-to-left. Please explain the aesthetic which this mise en scène concept is based on. Thanks.

A more general comment/suggestion: with 16x9 aspect ratio we have more room on the open side of most framing setups, so I try to make the background relevant, balancing, and interesting (but not distracting).

I had a situation that was challenging for the interviewee. I was backed up against a wall in a corner and had to stand out of frame just to one side of the interviewee. I gave her a mark on the wall to look at to keep her from looking at the lens. She did a great job conversing visually with the mark. At one point she made a humorous remark and looked to her side at me, and it gave a marvelous energy to her interview.

When filming non-professional presenters of information I try to get then to speak direct to camera. Some do a brilliant job, some find it almost impossible. Any advice on how to get the best out of the amateur presenter ?

Vasco loved your video.
Question: we gotta interview an huge group of old veterans of the II worldwidewar, then well' put all this footage on archive historical museum. I was planning to go for the second option as i always do for my interviews, but somebody (anthropogues told me that is not a good idea, they have to look straight to the camera), what's your point of view about my footage?

thx

Marcus, I volunteer to do interviews for these two organizations...
EAA - Timeless Voices of Aviation (http://www.eaa.org/timelessvoices/)
and
Veterans History Project (Library of Congress) (http://www.loc.gov/vets/)

There are some good resources you may be able to use on these websites and many interviews you can watch for examples.

Mike, I'm not a fan of having the talent speaking directly into the camera unless it is an educational or instructional video. But one of the tricks I've used to get "nervous" interview subjects to do this is to put tape up a small cardboard cutout directly on top of the lens and start the interview with a few minutes of small talk with me standing so that my head is directly above the cardboard cutout directly behind the camera. Instruct your interviewee to talk to the cutout and slowly transition into the actual interview questions. At some point you will generally be able to move from directly behind the camera to your normal shooting position.

-Garrett

Wouldn't like to market your cut-out would you, Garrett ?
The filming I am thinking of is, for example, when the owner of an hotel is describing its attractions and facilities to the world at large rather than to an interviewer.
Standing dircctly above and as close to the camera as possible seems to work OK in mid-shot but not so well in close-up.

I'm interested in this thread, though my interest is slightly different than the original question. Hope I'm not hijacking thread.

I am almost ready to start filming a video teaching series that I have spent the last five years learning video/audio etc for. This is an instructional video on philosophical matters so is not an interview,

I am planning on using four cameras - which I have already set up in my studio - so as to create visual variety throughout the presentations. There will be around 15x 15-20 minute sections.

Talents eyes are 1160 off floor. I have set the cameras up as follows:

1. Through a teleprompter so I'm looking straight down the camera. 950mm off floor. 2600mm from talent. (0 degrees)
2. 3600 from talent - to give a longer shot, about 25 degrees to right. 1200mm off floor.
3. 1750mm from talent, about 45 degrees to right, set at slight dutch angle, 900 off floor - looking slightly up.
4. 1900 from talent, about 60 degrees to left, 1460 off floor - looking slightly down.

Off course zoom levels also vary, and can also be changed somewhat in post.

It is all in front of green screens.

I haven't as yet worked out how I will mix these angles together, having never been this way before. Will determine that at editing.

Any thoughts?

Thanks
Renton

I'll second (or third) the comment about Errol Morris. His interview subjects look straight into the camera, and I think the results are fantastic. (Watch any of his great documentaries—one of my favorites is "Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control.")

In my mind, the big question is...do you have to have Morris's "Interrotron" to make this work? (In other words, can someone be relied on to always talk to the camera lens?)

All the other suggestions are good too...but I disagree that a subject looking straight into the camera looks bad. I tend to think the proverbial "looking a few degrees to the side of the camera" gets really old after a while.

What I'm interested in also is discussion about techniques for 2nd camera angles (such as having a 2nd camera shoot a 90-degree side profile...or having a really wide shot of the person and the room, etc.)

Scott

PS - Here's a NY Times review of "Fast Cheap and Out of Control" on YouTube with lots of excerpts—if you go to 1:08 you'll see some examples of interview subjects looking right into the lens...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFukiQOvDYs

I don't know many non-professional speakers who can talk off the top of their head for minutes on end and look into a camera lens while doing it.

The historical oral history interviews I conduct require prompting the individual with leading questions. Depending upon the response the question elicits, the subject can sometimes become very animated, focusing intently on the interviewer as they describe the details of their story.

I haven't read the whole thread, but watch a few Errol Morris docs. if i remember correctly his interviews always seem to be visually interesting.

When filming non-professional presenters of information I try to get then to speak direct to camera. Some do a brilliant job, some find it almost impossible. Any advice on how to get the best out of the amateur presenter ?

If I am doing "One Man Band" work with the camera, acting as cameraperson AND interviewer, I often set my shot, do VERY little adjustment during the interview, (will vary someone, depending on questions. Use tighter shots for more probing "Human Response" questions,) and will just talk to them for a few minutes until they're calm.

That big hunk of glass is REALLY intimidating and I've seen it turn incredibly educated people who are world class individuals in the topic they're discussing into inarticulate buffoons. Don't draw attention to the camera, (which ain't easy,) treat it like a piece of furniture.

If I've got a separate interviewer asking the questions, and I'm just on camera, I only look at the interviewee THROUGH the camera VF, I don't look up at them, and I avoid eye contact whenever possible. If the subject's eyes wander about, then they seem distracted on camera, and they can lose a lot of credibility in the eyes of an audience. So, I try to be as much an invisible part of the scenery as I possibly can be.

There's been a couple occasions where I was asking the questions, but I had to be behind camera, and so I got a person to just sit in the "Interviewer Chair" (as close to one side or the other of the lens as possible, depending on if I had them frame left or right in the shot,) and told the interviewee to answer the person in the chair, not me. (Those are the LEAST ideal conditions, depending on the interviewee, because SOMETIMES they want to shift their attention back and forth between the person in the chair and me, the guy who asked the question. They typically remember pretty quickly though that they're supposed to address the person in the chair, because I don't look at them. If someone is looking at you while they're talking to you, and you don't make eye contact, they tend to look away. This is a good thing in this situation.)

In at least TWO instances I can remember, I broke a cardinal rule of interviewing: I videotaped an interview without the person interviewed knowing that I was rolling tape. Now, I don't recommend this AT ALL. It crosses a line of ethics that I don't like to come anywhere near, but there WAS a reason, and there WAS a purpose, and I handle the situation as elegantly and as professionally as the situation allowed. If you ever have to do the same, I would try it, but ONLY as a last reasort. Here's the scenario and how I handled it the first time.

The person I was interviewing is an absolutely BRILLIANT surgeon, and they were INCREDIBLY confident, articulate, and obviously knowledgable. Easy interview, I thought. But with the camera in front of them, they just choked up. They couldn't keep what they wanted to say straight, and while they were doing fine, the slightest pause or "flub," and they'd apologise and want to do it again. They were thinking about the INTERVIEW too much, and not about what they wanted to say. I was running out of time, and desperate, so I asked if he'd like to take a break and get something to drink.

While he was gone, I turned off the tally light on the camera, and set it recording. When he got back, I said, "OK, let's go over what you want to discuss without the camera rolling, so let's just go through the questions, one at a time."

So we did, and he did GREAT.

After it was over, and I asked if he was ready to do the interview, he froze up again.

That's when I told him he didn't have to unless he wanted to, and I told him what I'd done.

I told him that I'd show him what we'd just recorded and if he didn't like it, I promised I would erase that tape, and we'd do it again. He watched part of the interview, and was very happy with how it came out, and most of all was thankful that he didn't have to sit through that again with that camera in his face.

"You should have gone into psychology..." he told me.

"I produce video," I told him, "In a way, I did."

Good luck!

Thanks Daniel.

Your tip about not looking at the presenter/interviewee while filming but staring fixedly at the camera v/f and asking he or she to address their comments to some one alongside the camera is a very good one.

I had a situation when there was an interviewer but the talent at the start also looked at me behind the camera...so I ducked down behind the camera and sort of out of sight and he never did it again. Made me think that in similar situations it mightn't be a bad idea to shoot through a screen of some sort that hides the camera and operator...

I think that "fencing yourself off" can backfire too. SAYING "Ignore the man behind the curtain" is like saying "Don't think of elephants." It's self-defeating. I sort of feel the same way about the Interrotron, and other products like it.

It's gadgetry, and gadgetry gets distracting. I tend to do a lot of documentary and documentary-like corporate and small business video. Therefore, I'm typically working with people who are not accustomed to being on camera. So I try to keep things as absolutely minimal and low-key as I possibly can, especially if I'm shooting in their office or home.

My shoots of this type generally consist of interviewer, (which is sometimes me pulling double duty there,) interviewee, camera and tripod, wireless microphone, Softbox and maybe a backlight, depending on what natural light is like, and that's about it.

Yeah, I could get through stuff faster with a camera assist/grip, but I've had interviewees that end up looking from the interviewer to the grip, (invariably because the lighting guy, with nothing to do while the camera is rolling, is looking at them. So they make eye contact, which causes that "wandering eye" syndrome which can subconsciously affect the audience's belief in the interviewee's sincerity.) Plus, invariably working with a crew, if they're GOOD, they move in and immediately go to work.

The bustle before the shoot sets the pace and the mood, and can cause the interviewee to get flustered, or try to rush through their answers.

When I'm setting up, I do so in a leisurely way, talk to the interviewee/interviewer, and maybe joke a bit, just to keep the mood light and relaxing.

It makes a difference.

Now, I'm not advocating this method with people who are accustomed to appearing on video, nor with people who are just "Natural" interviews, (those naturally relaxed and jovial folks that may have no experience at being on camera, but come across exactly the same, no matter how much gear or how many people you invade their space with.) With them, take the time, use the gear to make your picture and sound the best they can be. Just be aware that there's such a thing as "overproducing."

Dear Simon,

I would search "60 Minutes" on YouTube and look at how the do interviews. That's the industry standard.

Always put your subject 1/3 from left looking right, or 1/3 from right looking left. This is regardless of whether interviewee shoulder is showing or not.

I always split up interviewees 50/50 left and right, which looks better in editing.

There are many techniques to shooting promotional-style interviews. Here's an in-depth article covering precisely that http://wattsmp.com/blog/shooting-great-looking-interviews/

Hello,

What do people recommend for interview angles regarding the person being interviewed for the following scenarios?

Scenario 1:
You don't see the interviewer, you just hear the questions.

Scenario 2:
You don't see the interviewer nor hear the questions; You just hear the answers.

The interviews are generally for corporate types of interviews.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks!,

Simon

Simon,
Film and video is entertainment, unless yourinterview is straight news. Even promotional/corporate videos should have drama, as well as information.

Being prepared is a crucial part, just as a good screenplay is for a fiction film. What questions will likely provoke which answers, emotional level, movements.

My documentaries often have a confrontational style, which has won them awards and exposure on TV & festivals. I like to build an interview like a story, meaning that I vary camera angles and shot values as the interview progresses. I often use wide shots at the beginning, then tell the cameraperson to use close-ups or extreme close-ups when I get to the sensitive points. If strong emotions are involved and you want to unmask them, do not hesitate to get your subject to look straight into the camera.You can shove the lens into people's noses if that's the effect you need (and if they'll still talk to you after).

Of course, if you vary positions, angles etc, you need footage to cut away with, so you need to plan this ahead carefully. If you include the questions, you may want to tape the interviewer separately, giving you material to cut away. You can then take the final decision in the editing room.

One of the trickiest things is background. Too much distracts, too little deprives.
My rule: background has to add valuable information to the interview, otherwise keep it neutral or out of focus.
Never use B-roll !! but I occasionally use voice-over if I have material which is directly relevant to the subject matter.

A big enemy of interviews is stiffness. Oddly, the interviewer may be as stiff as the interviewee, especially if the latter is distressed or very powerful.
That's why I like to conduct interviews walking, driving... whatever activity, especially if it is meaningful. A killer interviewed as he's cleaning his gun: he might look at you, at the gun , at the camera as he's answering - or just fidget, saying nothing.

Which kinda is my answer to your initial question.

Claude, great answer. I mostly do corporate shoots so the setup calls for a totally different approach. I think for documentaries, your technique is brilliant and can convey so much more of the person's character to an audience.