Documentary: Interview workshop

In a documentary, the tone and style of the interviews depends on the subject matter; the more serious the subject being covered, the more serious the tone and style of the interview used.
There are many different types of interview, such as:
-Hard exposure= these are investigative and aim to uncover information.
-Informational= these aim to include the audience by informing them.
-Emotional= these aim to reveal the subject's emotions and therefore cause the audience to engage with them.
-Vox pops= 'voice of the people', these aim to collect a quick survey of people. However, they are too broad for documentary as depend on reactions, and only give the appearance of representation, so work better in news/current affairs programmes rather than documentaries.

These can be conducted in one of two ways:
Actuality interviews= take place while action is going on around the interviewer and interviewee, with the questions as reactions to these events. This makes them time specific, but also help the audience to understand the subject better because they can see more context, therefore they can be more relevant.
Sit-down interviews= these should always be conducted with the major characters in any documentary even if an actuality interview is also shot, as they are set in a controlled environment so clean sound and continuity are guaranteed. They are also good for lengthy and tricky subjects, because they put extra focus on the interviewee.

All interviews add personal experience, expertise, colour, context, emotional engagement, and evidence/ testimony. These help to build a case to argue the subject matter.

Who to interview:
-Experts (scientists, doctors, lawyers), as they help build trust because they are known to be qualified.
-'Ordinary people' who are interested and relevant to the subject, as they offer a point of identification for the audience.
-Officials (appointed representatives, politicians).

Overall, a balance between these different types of people is essential to building a strong case, and achieving both the trust and understanding of the audience watching.

This audience want answers. Therefore, the questions asked by the interviewer should:

-Allow the subject to be explored

-Enable the viewer to get to know and engage with the interviewee 

-Create tension/drama.

However, the order of the questions should aim to start simple first and then build in complexity, as not only might viewers not know anything about the subject matter, but also this helps to build trust with the interviewee as they settle in to the interview. These questions should be open questions, which allow for the natural progression of a conversation . 

The interviewer must remember that the interview is a conversation, therefore the questions may not always be stuck to, they are only there as a prompt to remind them of important points to ask about. Prior to the shoot, the questions should be structured logically, so it is important to know the subject inside out to be well prepared.

Good interviewees are:

-relevant

-charismatic 

-engaging

-important

-have 'headline appeal' (exclusivity)

-have expertise

-are whistle-blowers.

Questions should be sent to the interviewee before the interview, and they should be asked to spell out their names and job descriptions so that they are correctly credited in the film.

Every interview needs a set-up sequence as this allow the interviewee to be introduced (visually). This is worked out in the shooting script, and could be actuality. During research and whilst meeting the subject, it is also important to work out the following elements for the interview:

-Location (background should be interesting and tell the audience something about the person)

-Props

-Camera positioning/framing

-Lighting and sound.

GVs (general views) are inanimate cut-ins which reveal details about the conversation and/or the place the conversation is taking place at. These are important because they can help minimise continuity errors in the edit, making the piece smoother. 

It should be decided in the shooting script if the interviewer will or will not be part of the documentary. If they are in the documentary they then become a character in the film so must be active, but if they are out they could act as the narrator. 

If there is no interviewer in the film at all, then the interviewees need to give self-contained answers so that they make sense, therefore the subject of the question needs to be referred to in their answer. Answers should be listened to carefully as one answer could change the whole interview. So there is space to edit, time between each answer and the next question should be allowed.

Plans should always be discussed between the whole cast and crew before shooting begins, with the producer/director briefing the camera operator on the vision for the documentary. From research it should be known where can be filmed and where can't be filmed.

Whilst filming the producer/director should:

-Turn off all external sources of sound where possible

-Make sure the camera operative moves in small, slow moves, with medium close-up framing on interviewees and slow zooms if an important point is being made

-Listen for answers which indicate shots and sequences which can be shot

-Listen for self-contained answers

-Ensure the shots are interesting, have a relevant setting, and are of a good composition

-Make sure sound is checked prior to starting the interview

-Vary the shot sizes, and obtain enough coverage by using breaks in the conversation/re-takes to allow options in the edit (cutaways, sequences, and actuality)

-Make the shots aesthetically pleasing (rule of thirds, not too much headroom).

"Noddies" are the interviewer responses and "reverses" are when the interviewer asks the important questions again after the interview is initially finished. These should also be filmed if necessary. 

Eye-lines are best framed at one of the intersections of the rule of thirds with the top of the head cut off slightly, as this helps achieve an intimate feel, and also gives the interviewee looking room in the frame. Their eye-line should appear as if they are looking towards an interviewer just off camera, with both eyes visible but just slightly angled away from the lens. 

Opposing views can be shot with opposing eye-lines, but the screen direction should be changed between contributors. The 30 degree rule should also be followed so that there is enough distinction between shots that they can be cut together without confusion.

Sound coverage can be obtained by using both a clip mic for each key interviewee, and a boom pole to obtain ambience.

For coverage when interviewing more than one person, the following shots could be obtained:

-Reaction shots

-Non-sync wides

-Pan over all the subjects 

-Two shot if the interviewer is in the film (used for opening/key questions).

All interviews should later be transcribed with time codes, so that wanted quotes can be highlighted. This can then be used along with the shooting script to create an edit script.

Interview workshop:

Using what we had learnt, we then practiced creating a documentary style video asking open questions about an interviewee's typical day:

At first, we had problems with the colour of the shot, as it would not colour evenly but was tinted slightly green. However, this was eventually solved by white balancing only under the studio lights, not both the studio lights and the LED key light at the same time, as this probably confused the camera too much.

I thought the framing was right on the interviewee as it offers an intimate and close feel. I think that the framing on the interviewer could be better if it was a bit more centred, but I thought the distance was good because it seems objective. I also like the over the shoulder framing, because this shows the interviewer is clearly a part of the documentary, and allows them to seem more involved but still objective. 

In regards to the questions, I feel that maybe we could have stuck to them less, and instead picked up on the answers more and allowed them to drive the conversation.

The lower third gives it more of a documentary feel, but I think it would be better if it faded to black at the end. 

The hardest thing to edit was the sound, because it came from two sources, the clip mic on the interviewee and interviewer, and the boom pole which covered the ambience. However, I found these could be merged which helped, but it would have been better if we had also got a buzz track as this might have made the sound cleaner in places.
I also would have liked to change the cuts so that there were more J and L cuts, therefore the cuts would not have been just motivated by who was talking, but instead led by the reactions of the interviewee and interviewer, which would have made the piece more interesting.