Eyelines in talking head interviews

[Andrew Kimery]

[Brett Sherman] “And as such, having slightly off-axis interviews or different framing adds visual interest. In fact, I thought there should have been more of that kind of thing. And perhaps you are reacting to the, “One of these things doesn’t belong” element, which is admittedly problematic.”

The thread meandered a bit but below is Simon’s original criticism from his first post.

[Simon Ubsdell] “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!!!!!
“

Basically, off axis is good. Varied framing is good. Straight down the lens might be too engaging. What is so important about that dude’s ear?

In the posted video the ear shot and the long shot of the older gentleman in glasses both feel out of place an ineffective to me. Both shots are of excited people trying to get me to care about what they care about, but their emotions are largely wasted because their faces are obscured by poor framing. On a 40ft theater screen it would be less of an issue but I doubt this video was made with the intention of it primarily being shown on a 40ft theater screen.

It’s obvious someone wanted something different but different for the sake of being different doesn’t always lead to something better.

EDIT: cleaned up some grammar and spelling.

[Simon Ubsdell]

Hi Brett,

Thanks for you post.

I think I need to have one final go at trying to explain this because I’ve obviously not managed to do so yet.

I’m not laying down rules, I’m not talking about what I like and what I don’t like, I’m not talking about style, I’m simply talking about effectiveness of communication.

You will remember that the video that I posted was an appeal by the UK-based Guardian newspaper for people to take out monthly subscriptions, with a view to sustaining a business that without that support might fail alarmingly soon. In other words, the single and only purpose of the entire video was to get the viewer to hand over their money – nothing else. It didn’t matter whether the viewer liked the video – they simply needed to be persuaded to act upon it.

So let’s imagine this scenario.

I come to your house, Brett, and I want you to hand over some money to me – and this is money that I really, really need. We go inside and we sit down. This could play two ways …

A) I sit down opposite you with my chair facing yours and I make appropriate eye contact – not too much mind, cos I don’t want to creep you out – and I say my piece and I try to engage you in the normal way that human beings do.

B) Instead of sitting down facing you, I stand up and rotate my chair so that when I sit down again my entire body is pointing at the window. Instead of making eye contact as I say my piece, I keep looking at what’s outside the window and I completely ignore you.

Which of these two approaches is more likely to get you to part with the cash that I so desperately need?

If you answer B, then I guess I’m just wrong about my intuitions about the way that human beings function, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that it’s going to be approach A that stands the better chance.

Always assuming that you agree that A is the better approach, then this little thought experiment illuminates my contention that the Guardian video was fundamentally flawed in its choice of eyelines. They chose approach B.

The camera is the viewer – it’s almost too obvious to have to state it, but it seems to have been forgotten in the relentless quest for stylistic innovation or simply through lack of understanding of the dynamics of the photographed image.

Obviously this is an absolutely huge subject and we could go on forever analysing the finer points of it, but my example was super simple and to my mind the conclusion is brutally self-evident. The choice of eyelines was not just ineffective, it was fatally counter-productive to the single objective of the video – to persuade me to hand over my money.

Does that make any sense?

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki

[Brett Sherman]

I understand the theory, I’ve been doing this for 25 years. I personally shoot either straight on or typical interview fashion. And I don’t shoot sideways interviews like this for a variety of reasons. But, what I’m suggesting is that your theory of the straighter the more convincing is not necessarily true. Especially in a montage like this.

In this piece there is the “cool” factor there too. You’re not going to subscribe to something just because people are asking you to. I don’t even know why I should care about these people. You’re going to want that content to be engaging, fresh, unique and exciting. Now, I’m not claiming that one particular shot does that. Or that it is framed correctly. Or that this piece was even particularly well-produced. There are problems with each.

My style tends to be rarely showing the interview subject at all, just 3-4 seconds to introduce and allow for IDing. Now your line of reasoning would suggest that this approach is somehow less convincing, because the person is talking off camera. But I find it quite the opposite.

Style is an evolving concept. I’m doing things very different than I did even 5 years ago. And it takes experimentation. While I wouldn’t consider this a stylistic success, I also wouldn’t consider it critically worse than a more straight on approach.