Eyelines in talking head interviews

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Michael Gissing] “I like the double camera approach if possible of wider and closer from the same angle. I have a bracket that locks a second BM4k to the bottom one and allows me to frame both. It is entirely different to just shooting wide and punching in as that still looks like a jump when the perspective doesn’t change.”

I know it’s really fashionable to use the punch-in method and obviously it’s a very convenient way of working, but I agree with you that it just looks wrong because of the simple fact of the optics.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com

[Claude Lyneis]

Thanks Simon, that is indeed the article. I learned a lot reading it.

[Don Walker]

I hate to admit this. I did not find the ad distracting. Is there any off axis interview styles that you find appropriate? Can you show me an example? I’ve been editing for 30 years. (not a newbie) but I’ve also never been institutionally trained to edit. (i was trained as a broadcast engineer, but found directing and editing far more fulfilling).

don walker
texarkana, texas

John 3:16

[Mark Smith]

So to make a comparison to language, if a profile shot is the equivalent of 3rd person and straight down the lens is first person, eye line is on this slider control that is movable in coarse or fine degrees between 3rd person and first person . When you have it right for the context of your interview it’s really right and there are lots of degrees of not quite right to completely wrong.

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Claude Lyneis] “Thanks Simon, that is indeed the article. I learned a lot reading it.”

You might enjoy this extended interview with Steve Audette where he goes into a lot of fascinating detail about his methods with particular reference to “Gun Control”:

https://vimeo.com/129479599

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Mark Smith] “So to make a comparison to language, if a profile shot is the equivalent of 3rd person and straight down the lens is first person, eye line is on this slider control that is movable in coarse or fine degrees between 3rd person and first person . When you have it right for the context of your interview it’s really right and there are lots of degrees of not quite right to completely wrong.”

Yes, I think that’s very well put.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com

[Bill Davis]

Mark,

I think you’re articulated it very well. Like most creative efforts, there is seldom a single “best” answer just as there’s never a single best painting or song. Rather there are a range of answers that are informed by the nature of the work you’re trying to create.

Plus, if the information is compelling – the fact that the shot is “not quite right” fades in significance.

The key is ALWAYS tell the story first. I might, or Simon might be bothered by something we see that’s not shot as we prefer. But I wonder how many viewers overall will be bothered at all by those things?

That’s certainly no excuse not to study and try to get as much exactly right as possible.

But “perfect”t CAN be the enemy too – IMO. That old line about how “great engineers ship” supports that. Meaning that you can’t let your striving for the ideal, prevent you from sending out work that’s the best you can do under your present conditions. I believe in that as well.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[Mark Smith]

I mostly shoot and do some editing , and that balance may flip over time. I can say from the shooting side of the story I tend to err on the side of content especially since I do a fair amount of Doc work and seldom do we have the chance to make all the pieces work together because of the situations we find ourselves in . I try to optimize always but 12 hours into a shoot day when a subject suddenly opens a new avenue content wise in what could be the worst situation there are always compromises. Bad sound will break a doc much quicker than a less than perfect shot.

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Bill Davis] “I think you’re articulated it very well. Like most creative efforts, there is seldom a single “best” answer just as there’s never a single best painting or song. Rather there are a range of answers that are informed by the nature of the work you’re trying to create.”

Hi Bill, your answer is very interesting, but although you say you are agreeing with Mark, I’m not sure that you are.

My understanding of his comment was that there is indeed a “Platonic ideal” for the eyeline that is very literally “the best choice”, given the film-maker’s intention for the shot, the scene and the film. (That last part is clearly of great importance, unless of course we want to start in on my favourite subject, viz The Death of the Author.)

What you seem to be saying, and forgive me if I’ve got this wrong, is that the creative process is so nebulous and undefined that there are any number of right answers and frankly anything goes if that’s what you want to do, which seems to be the exact opposite of what Mark was saying.

My original point, which was certainly a whole lot more mundane (and I certainly avoided invoking “art”), was that there are choices that communicate effectively, and there are choices that achieve the exact opposite of the communication intended. I adduced the psychological factors that are seemingly inherent in certain shot choices and, while we’re maybe we’re not talking about something that can be conclusively proved, I’m willing to bet that one could pretty easily run tests to demonstrate the plausibility of these factors.

I think, if I have understood Mark correctly, I would intuitively agree that while in practical terms it’s much more likely that one will deviate from the ideal and never exactly reach it, the ideal is in fact definable, but that is to aim for heights of metaphysical abstraction that I’d hesitate to scale.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com

[Oliver Peters]

What seems interesting and even more fundamental is whether to shoot with the subject looking into the camera or off-axis. The Errol Morris solution is to shoot with the subject directly looking into the lens and has designed a rig accordingly. He also accepts and sometimes revels in the jump cut during the interview. So why do we generally avoid this approach? Obviously the off-axis angle adds a bystander or voyeuristic element to the perception. The in-the-lens approach implies that the subject is talking directly to you. But is there really a right or wrong to doing this?

– Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com