So here's the problem: More and more, people are telling me the good stuff off-camera. As soon as the camera is rolling, blah blah, they say whatever. Switch off the camera, and then some amazing stuff comes out. Just to be clear, they are purposefully telling me the best stuff off the record. It's an epidemic, and it's got to stop.How is it possible that people are getting worse? I usually think Americans are media savvy—we may have our faults, but at least we watch a lot of TV!—and know what is expected of them in front of a camera. But his experience indicates the opposite.
We know the dynamics between filmmaker and interview subject are vital. Who hasn’t cringed at an interaction between Michael Moore or Werner Herzog and one of their subjects? They’re both famous for interjecting themselves into the frame/process and establishing a familiarity that makes a lot of purists uncomfortable. To address some of these interview dynamics, Errol Morris invented the Interrotron (see diagram HERE). This device allows the interview subject to look into the camera and see a reflection of Errol asking questions. This way Robert McNamara gets to stare directly at us and act all faultless (...sorry, I’m digressing; see Fog of War).
But these dynamics are not exactly what our filmmaker is talking about. His problem seems more tactical than aesthetic or philosophical. So what is going on? Are the subjects not comfortable sharing the information they have? Is it significant that he’s often asking political questions? Are they just dense?
So I’m putting his question out there for general input: how does an interviewer ensure that the subject delivers the best info on-camera and not off-camera? I’ll float the question to a few of our other documentarians, as well. Send us your thoughts (contact@thejsf.org) and I’ll bring this up again next week.
Posts
