Interviewees - Looking Into Or Off Camera?

Quick question. I am making a short sport documentary and will be showing players answering questions. Should I have them address the camera or look at the interviewer, who is to the side of the camera?
 
Well I don't think its quite as black and white as sfoster suggests - Though he's right, documentary interviews tend to be very formulaic. EDIT: I think they would look at the interviewer, actually.

However, I'm a big fan of the documentary interview that shows the interviewer as well, Between Two Ferns style, in which case they'd be answering towards the interviewer on the right, who is either next to them, or juxtaposed near the camera. That style, though, really only works if you're going for a more barebones, almost conversation-esque interview. For a documentary, odds are that might not be what you are looking for, you'll want them facing the camera - interviewer next to or behind the camera, so they don't have to awkwardly tell themselves in their head where to look.


EDIT 2:

A documentary I watched yesterday - It seems to be about half and half. Some of the interviewees look into the camera, but that seems to be more hesitant than anything. Most of them seem to look a bit past it towards whoever is asking them questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psPbzqZE-DE
 
Last edited:
They generally look at the interviewer. Be sure to give them room on the correct side when filming. e.g. if on screen they are looking at the interviewer to the right they should be placed on the left 1/3rd so there will be room to the right of them. (The term for that space escapes me)
 
Morris build a camera/monitor system for The Thin Blue Line (if I recall correctly, or was it used in A brief history of Time?) to look straight at each other through the camera. It hasn't become common practise...
 
Morris build a camera/monitor system for The Thin Blue Line (if I recall correctly, or was it used in A brief history of Time?) to look straight at each other through the camera. It hasn't become common practise...

I'd love to see what that looks like - But it feels like a huge waste of money, honestly. Cool, though.
 
Thanks so much cheeseandachallenge!

That is incredibly fascinating indeed - And seriously cool. I suppose as the article states, anyone could potentially construct one of these - and in the examples, it does seem to work quite well.

I think the only practical purpose, though, would be for a nervous subject - Someone who can't focus on someone asking them questions from one direction, and answering towards a camera. (I think most people probably could, but someone who's nervous or whatnot probably would flutter around a bit when asked a question, thinking about where to answer it towards)
 
It also depends on the tone you're trying to create. Just like in narrative film, there are tonal and thematic reasons for breaking the the fourth wall - the most obvious of which is, as the first article suggests, to create an unnerving feeling. It could also be used to directly address the viewer (so they feel like they are being talked to, forcing them to consider how they are involved in the discussed issue). etc.

Errol Morris is an interesting character. I haven't studied him much, but he's very passionate about his work - so I would guess (and I am genuinely only guessing, I don't know his views on documentary theory) that he things someone answering looking at the camera, instead of the interviewer is disingenuous. I'm not sure if I'm articulating myself that well - but basically, if the interviewee is talking to a camera rather than a person, then they are not properly or truthfully engaging in the conversation - it may feel false, and their constant awareness of the camera may alter their responses.

As I said, I'm only spitballing here (and if that is the argument, then it is a flawed one for obvious reasons) - but I think there is a fair argument for creating something like this, besides making the interviewer feel more comfortable. Kind of similar to the theory behind observational mode of documentary (see Frederick Wiseman's work, such as Highschool or Titicut Follies for examples of this).
 
Last edited:
I've shot both, and from a technical standpoint it's very difficult to do talking to the camera well.

The first issue is that it's difficult for most people to have a conversation with someone they're not looking at. It's often hard enough just to get a person to have a natural, conversational tone when you're interviewing them face to face - making them turn and talk to the camera interrupts the flow of the conversation, forces them to focus on the fact that they're on camera, and tends to result in more 'performance' on their part. They'll also tend to glance over at you during the interview to check your reaction, and they'll generally turn away from the camera as soon as they finish a thought to see if you have a follow up question or response. This limits your editing choices - for instance, someone says something significant, you want to hold on their expression for a moment after they finish what they just said, but you can't because they immediately turn away from the camera.

The interrotron is an attempt to solve that issue - it allows the interviewer to have a conversation with the subject eye-to-eye, so they don't have to turn away, and helps them forget that they're talking to a camera and not a person.

The second issue is that it's very difficult to have multiple camera angles - which camera do they look into? It looks strange to cut between one view where they look at the camera, and one where they don't. If you only have a single camera angle though the edit becomes very difficult - if you want to remove sections to make things more concise (and you will) your only option is to have a jump cut (which looks bad in most situations) or cover the edit with b-roll.

For this video we used two cameras for the wide and close-up shots:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPgjHq4sjlU

We had to move the cameras as far back as the room allowed in order to minimize the angle between them. We got the lenses aligned as close as possible, with the wider angle slightly below the close-up camera (this looked better than having them side-by-side). We had them look into the close-up camera, because that's where their eyeline would be most apparent. It almost works - although the slightly lower pov of the wide angle is a little odd, and you can kind of see that they're talking just above the camera in the wide shots.

Now that 4k cameras are becoming accessible this is one of the use cases for them - shooting 4k, but delivering in 1080, means you can use a single camera to shoot a mid- to wide-shot, then crop in in post for a close-up. Combine that with a interrotron-style setup and you'd have the best setup for doing a talking to the camera interview - but if you don't need that from a creative standpoint it's going to be much easier to go with talking off-camera.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top