-
Eyelines in talking head interviews
This is pretty much completely off topic but I wanted somewhere to vent and here’s as good a place as anywhere.
So many people shooting talking heads which are supposed to be convincing the viewer of a particular point of view or are trying to convey that the interviewee is sincere and trustworthy, manage to break one of the cardinal rules … OK, one of my cardinal rules.
The degree of engagement between the viewer and the person on screen is fundamentally and ineradicably dictated by the angle of that person’s eyeline to camera. The closer the eyeline is to the camera the greater the degree of engagement. It’s such an obvious point that it’s almost embarrassing to have to spell it out.
So why in the name of heaven do so many “directors” think it’s effective to shoot their interviewee from an angle that favours their ear?????????
I’m not saying that we should be shooting the interviewee talking straight down the camera lens (which feels awkward because it’s just a bit too intimate), but for heaven’s sake!!!!!
If the eyeline is way off to the side of the frame, then the trustworthiness of the interviewee is fatally compromised. He or she is talking to someone else and actively excluding me from the conversation and that is perfectly designed to piss me off. Am I really that unimportant? Is the mysterious person off the edge of the frame so much more interesting to talk to than I am? Do you really care that little about engaging me in what you are trying to say?
I know I’m attempting to criticise a convention that’s been in place for a pretty long time now, but it still really doesn’t work for me and irritates me more and more every time I see it. Which is pretty much all the time and everywhere. (I think it probably developed out of second-camera-itis and became a kind of norm from there, but that doesn’t excuse it for one second.)
OK, so you’re just shooting a talking head with the sweaty, overweight, purple-faced, uncharismatic CEO of the local paper company and it might seem like it doesn’t matter. But it does – it actually matters a lot. We’re going to dislike sweaty guy a whole lot less and be engaged with what he has to say a whole lot more, if we actually feel he is talking to us, rather than somebody offscreen.
If someone wants to convince me of something, I demand to see into their eyes – if I don’t see their eyes, I sense that I can’t trust them. Pretty simple, huh?
Am I really alone in getting so worked up about this? Or am I just being a grumpy bastard as usual and nobody else feels this way?
Here’s the example that triggered my diatribe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBnvGHEyATc
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.comSome contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
43 Replies
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “Am I really alone in getting so worked up about this? Or am I just being a grumpy bastard as usual and nobody else feels this way?
“
You’re not alone! The other thing that gets me is the current vogue for facing people out of the wrong side of frame
-
[Steve Connor] “The other thing that gets me is the current vogue for facing people out of the wrong side of frame”
Aaaaarrggggghhhhhhh! Don’t mention that. My blood pressure has just doubled.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
I can understand the need to try and vary the shooting style for creative effect … goodness knows I’ve shot enough of these things over the years. But the basic misunderstanding of the visual language really bugs me.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Steve Connor] “[Simon Ubsdell] “Am I really alone in getting so worked up about this? Or am I just being a grumpy bastard as usual and nobody else feels this way?”
You’re not alone! The other thing that gets me is the current vogue for facing people out of the wrong side of frame”
Yes, that, and framing so that the head is at the bottom corner of the frame… so that you can see branding in the background. 🙁
-
[Shawn Miller] “Yes, that, and framing so that the head is at the bottom corner of the frame… so that you can see branding in the background. :-(“
That’s a really nasty one!!!
I think there’s this assumption that “it’s just a talking head” so it doesn’t really matter how you mess around with the framing.
The reality is that in almost every case a talking head is being required to convey a message that needs to resonate with the viewer and create engagement. Which means that randomly mucking about with the shooting style is the very last thing you should be doing.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “I can understand the need to try and vary the shooting style for creative effect … goodness knows I’ve shot enough of these things over the years. But the basic misunderstanding of the visual language really bugs me.”
This I think hits the nail on the head. It’s wanting to be different for the sake of being different without understanding (or understanding but just not caring) how camera position can subconsciously impact the audience.
I know there are some people that say the only rule is that there are no rules, but you still have to understand how shot composition, lighting, etc., impacts the audience if you want to effectively communicate with them.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “I know there are some people that say the only rule is that there are no rules, but you still have to understand how shot composition, lighting, etc., impacts the audience if you want to effectively communicate with them.”
Exactly – couldn’t agree more.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] ”
I think there’s this assumption that “it’s just a talking head” so it doesn’t really matter how you mess around with the framing.The reality is that in almost every case a talking head is being required to convey a message that needs to resonate with the viewer and create engagement. Which means that randomly mucking about with the shooting style is the very last thing you should be doing.”
Totally agree. A former co-worker of mine used to joke that there isn’t an “interview” that can’t be fixed with a cutaway to a time-lapse of a skyline or a call center.
Shawn
-
Ah – the seeds of another brilliant Hawaiki FCPX plug in….
-
[Mark Smith] “Ah – the seeds of another brilliant Hawaiki FCPX plug in….”
Hawaiki AutoEyelineCorrection, huh?
Hmmmm, yes, it might just work 😉
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up