In documentary films why are subjects...
- Thread starter kazze
- Start date
Facing the camera, while disconcerting and rare, can be a useful tool in documentaries. Errol Morris uses it frequently to great effect. The difference in appearance creates two types of docs: looking askance (at the interviewer aside the camera) is best if the effect is to be the impression of an impartial filmmaker. It's clear the answers are the interview subject's opinion and the film is a collection of these opinions. Audiences can then make up their own mind at the end.
Looking directly at the camera, as if the audience were asking the questions, gives the impression of absolute truth (whether or not this is the case). The subjects are all-knowing and there is no matter of opinion. These collected interviews aren't a collection of opinions; they are absolute truth. You don't often see, it's seldom used wisely, it and it should be used sparingly, but the effect is huge.
Looking directly at the camera, as if the audience were asking the questions, gives the impression of absolute truth (whether or not this is the case). The subjects are all-knowing and there is no matter of opinion. These collected interviews aren't a collection of opinions; they are absolute truth. You don't often see, it's seldom used wisely, it and it should be used sparingly, but the effect is huge.
A straight on look into the camera is considered unnatural at best and confrontational at worst. It's an ackward way to have a conversation, do you look unwaveringly at whomever you are talking with or do you look at your hands, then to their face, to your coffee cup then back to their face. The only place this really works is in the film Ferris Beuller's Day Off. And there you realize that he is talking to you. Otherwise what happens is you break that voyeristic barrier that brings you uncomfortably into the film. Its just weird.
When the person looks off screen, you at least know that they are not just talking to hear their head roar. There is a person there that they are having a conversation with. Its a more natural positioning and much more like a real conversation.
I remember a saying: it's not polite to stare. Straight on shots makes your subject look like they are staring, it's creepy. For proof, the next conversation you have, stare at the other person even when they try to look away. See if they don't hit you...or at least tell you to stop.
-- spinner
When the person looks off screen, you at least know that they are not just talking to hear their head roar. There is a person there that they are having a conversation with. Its a more natural positioning and much more like a real conversation.
I remember a saying: it's not polite to stare. Straight on shots makes your subject look like they are staring, it's creepy. For proof, the next conversation you have, stare at the other person even when they try to look away. See if they don't hit you...or at least tell you to stop.
-- spinner
I don't mind the looking into the camera, it works for me. I don't feel the staring effect. You can also alternate shots and show them from the side, etc. It is more natural when they act as if the camera is human, and they look away every once in awhile, and not just sit there staring into the camera.
To answer the poster's question, this technique is used to show or suggest that there is an interviewer.
To answer the poster's question, this technique is used to show or suggest that there is an interviewer.
Documentaries are supposed to be, most of the time, a representation of things as they are. I know, I know, lots of docs these days are set-ups, but a really good documentary supposes that the camera and crew are invisible. The same mind set applies to the interviews; you're "eavesdropping" on a conversation.
Generally dead center is reserved for news casts or announcements where the speaker is speaking directly to you with information. There is a reason it is called dead center as well. It is considered boring and is the situation where the 2/3rds rule of composition isn't followed. As was mentioned, filming from the side gives the viewer the sense that they are a casual observer, as opposed to being given a dissertation from a dead center speaker, as in a newscast. Although, dead center can be very effective in documentary films if someone has a very strong opinion about something. It is a stronger and more forceful appearing presence.
Another reason is that normal (general public) people are not used to looking into a camera lens. On top of this you are really trying to dig inside their head and get thoughts, emotions, etc. In most documentaries you are dealing with people who've never really been in front of a camera professionally. Errol Morris can pull it off because of his method, but I imagine it would be pretty difficult to have someone look into the lens and you to be able to still get the information that you want from them.