Interview technique suggestions and tips?
 

Hey all,

Im new to all this and currently working on some video that will be used as a recruiting tool for my organization. We are conducting a number of interviews of people and Im looking for tips on how to make everything flow better with the questions. Ive shot about 5 interviews so far and my first ones were kind of 'bad' in that the subjects were kind of searching for their answers (very easy questions so I dont believe it was the question that caused the brain-lock) and I believe that Ive found a few of the problems I was having and have minimized them (discussing the questions with the subject, doing a dry run etc. and filming *everything* including the dry run). So, can you all share some of your tips to improve how interviews are approached? Thanks

Steve

This is just my own little set of rules:

Rule #1) Listen. For real. It's not about you, it's about them.

Rule #2) Don't ask yes or no questions.

Rule #3) You're not the talent. Keep it short, ask it and let them talk.

Rule #4) Don't cut them off - let them go until they are done, then re-phrase the question, ask a follow-up question, or move on. I remember in film school we discussed a famous documentary film-maker (can't remember his name) who would just sit in silence for hours until his subjects would start talking. I think he did some prison films or something. It's a foggy memory but it makes me think twice before moving on. Sometimes the best byte is after your subject has said the first thing, and has sat there for a bit, and then thinks of the next thing.

If you are looking for specific sound bytes, you can help coach them a little. I shot some interviews for a VH1 reality show and I was surprised by the amount of coaching the story people gave the talent. I can see instances where you might use some coaching if they are saying something profound but are not phrasing it in a usable sound byte. I'd use this sparingly though - I like to keep it real and honest. Maybe it'd be better just to ask them to say it in a different way.

You'll find that each person has their own style of responding which will present their own unique challenges during editing, but that's half the fun of it.

Phillip, thanks for your reply. Those are some good suggestions. I actually caught myself coaching today, but thankfully stopped short of putting too much of my own input into it. Part of the bigger problem my subjects are having is that most of them are afraid to be natural on camera. I know thats not something I can control (or can I?) and Ive thought about just letting the camera roll and discussing things without them realizing its on and only in the end letting them know that it was done and they werent even aware of it. Pie in the sky probably for that one though. LOL.

I can tell you that I'm the worst person in the world to be interviewed - I hate it. So I try to put myself in their shoes.

I like to use a shotgun mic on a pole or mic stand rather than a lav. I know it may not be the best for sound, but I feel like that's a lot less intrusive on the subject's personal space. I also usually go for very sparse lighting - usually use ambient light as much as possible with maybe a softbox or two. That's partly to keep it low key and partly because I haven't spent a lot on lighting (-:

But I usually don't have a lot of trouble. Keep your style in mind - don't be too aggressive, just try to have a conversation and listen more than talk. I don't know - usually works out ok for me. I'm not an expert at this by any means - still learning it myself.

Regarding lighting: if I'm using 3 - 5 instruments for moody studio style interviews, I make sure all the lights are lit when the subject enters the room. That way, that is their perception of the room. If they walk into a "normal" room, which is then changed by someone running around turning on instruments and fiddling, the possibility for anxiousness to increase magnifies itself.

Regarding posing questions: I have a CONVERSATION with people that does require that I talk more than most interviewers but I've been very fortunate to get casual delivery out of people that PROBABLY wouldn't have otherwise. And yes, LISTEN. Your next "question" should be a follow up to what they've just said, NOT just the next question on your list. And once they start speaking, STOP, period. Allow them to speak, unless they are going in such a tangential direction that it is of NO use to you whatsoever. You never know where people ar going with a response that MAY lead you to new ground.

Don't ask "closed ended questions". Where do you live? "Winnipeg". Tell me about where you live. "I'm currently in a 3 bedroom townhouse in West Winnipeg that I share with..." And make sure to ask people to include the premise of the question in their answer. "Tell me about where you work" should yield "I work as a videographer and production coordinator, running my own business..." instead of "Gearhead Visual".

Pre-Interviews: I believe in talking AROUND the points you plan to raise in interview but not posing the exact questions as you are more likely to get the classic "well, like I told you earlier..." response which isn't bad if it's at the beginning of a statement, but if it comes in the middle it's harder to edit. It is my practice NOT to provide a list of questions in advance. I provide talking points that my subject should be prepared for, though.

Philip and Shaun, thank you for your advice! Ive got so much to learn. Im actually doing all this to prep for a documentary that I want to create and I will be interviewing a number of people (if all goes well) and a couple of the interviews are going to be very hard to get, and even harder or impossible to repeat should I make a grave mistake. I plan on forwarding them a general outline of the flow of questioning. They will be trying to recall events from about 50 or so years ago. I spoke to one of my subjects by phone for the first time last week and I told him what my plans were and he said "oh man, that was so many years ago, I dont know how Ill be of any help", but despite this, he eagerly agreed to be interviewed.

Philip and Shaun gave excellent advice.
All I can think to add is:

- try to relax and enjoy it. If they can sense that you are enjoying it, they will too. If you are tense and uptight, they will pick up on that. It wants to be as spontaneous as possible.

- it can be very tempting to ask people to retell something for the camera or even to tell people what you want them to say. If the interviewee is a good actor it _might_ work. Usually it's a disaster.

- some of the best material often happens at the end of the interview when everyone thinks it's over and they relax. Make sure that the camera is rolling and the sound on so that you can get this if it happens.

Oh yeah, good points about keeping things rolling. I fully intended to do that, not only at the end, but in the beginning. Part of some of the things Im concerned about involve simply what to ask. My project involves the history of a particular area and the events that happened there. Im very familiar with the history of the overall project I will be ultimately doing, but I know the least about this particular portion of my project subject. Im also not likely to learn much between now and then, but I have 3-4 people that were there when everything happened, willing to be interviewed, I would even say they are excited about it. I guess Im simply afraid of not asking the appropriate questions. Im thinking that Ill ask questions and follow ups and just let it flow. Is it reasonable to expect to complete an interview in one sitting or should I plan on more than one interview with each subject? I guess I dont know what to expect and I want to ensure Im not going to be a nuisance/bother to these folks.

Generally, I feel it's bad form to ask folks to come back for a second interview UNLESS you are following them around as part of the story or content reveals itself organically over a period of time.

One of the last questions I ask before terminating an interview is a variation of: "Have I missed anything?/Is there anything you'd like to add?/Is there anything else you'd like me or the viewer to know?"

That usually gets all your bases covered. In fact, in the past I've been ready to pack up after 15 minutes, hit the subject with that question and the interview has gone on for another hour!

Great advice, Shaun. Thanks again. Ive got a lot of learning to do. :-)

Almost all the top sound recordists that I've worked with use a mic on a stand rather then the lav. The latter tends to pick up rustling when people move and positioned just out of shot a shotgun gives a natural vocal sound with only a little of the room's acoustics coming through.

It helps if the interviewer can relax the interviewee before you start filming. The best interviewers give loads of eye contact, encouraging nods and smiles - positive body language. They also listen to what's being said, to allow follow up question if the unexpected comes up in an answer.

Stationary mikes, especially directional ones, on a stand have their problems, too , though. If the subject turns away from the "sweet spot," the audio quality drops off considerably. If your subject is animated (and who doesn't want an animated subject?) this can happen even if they're sitting down in front of the camera.

Best bet is to do BOTH lav and a hypercardioid (assuming you're indoors) on a stationary boom. Feed each mike into a separate channel and use whichever sounds best in post.

Make sure whoever is doing the interview sits as close to the lens of the camera as possible, so the subject's eye line looks like they're speaking directly to the audience. Frame them so there's some space in the direction they are looking.

Here's a short clip I shot last week using a mic stand and a AT-897 shotgun. I put the mic just barely above the frame, and I felt like it worked out pretty well. Just used available room light.

I had someone else doing the questions since I didn't know all the kids.

http://www.centerstreetproductions.c...s_heavenv2.wmv

I know it's really small and compressed, but I was running out of server space and it was just a quick review for the higher ups (-:

Steve,

I've read here a lot of excellent bits of advise, and
I wouldn't be able (also because of linguistic limits) to express them any better.
But don't get scared, because it all boils down to one thing:
human-to-human relation.
You run the show! - but just keep in
mind that IT IS NOT a show!, it's a human, open, sincere talk:
that's what you're going after.
As a native European (with a penchant for coffee or wine, but beer works as well),
I'll explain it with the "bar" (as in: watering hole) example.
You have to try to recreate (as difficult or even impossible as it may sound)
that same kind of atmosphere: you're sitting there in your favorite dump,
with a bunch of old friends, and you're having an open, sincere, free, frank, deeply human discussion.
The trick is to be able to come as close as possible to that very peculiar atmosphere,
but a) you're not in your favorite bar; b) you're not talking or listening to your best friends: these people are probably strangers, and you've never met them before;
c) there's a camera involved, and mikes, and lights (all fairly intimidating "weapons")
You have to make up for all these shortcomings. How?
With your personality, your human touch, your feelings, your sincerity, your eyes
(my mentor used to tell me: "In this job, you see your good luck in the peculiar light that you're able to turn on in other people's eyes", or something along those lines... - you see what I mean).
It's as simple as that - as difficult as that.
Good luck

Vasco

Wow, thanks everyone for the great advice. I like the idea of a stationary mic. Im planning on buying some lav mics as soon as I can afford it. Im also looking at the Rode VideoMic as that seems to be used quite a bit and its very affordable. Can you detach that and use it on a stand? Maybe I can cover both bases with it.

Vasco, thank you for your relational example. My subject matter has the potential to be extremely emotional..its sad, and its going to probably elicit some anger in a number of people if I present it correctly and the way I want to. I truly believe my project has the potential to be very moving and important. Im hoping I can succeed at this, in telling the story and evoking the emotion that this issue deserves. Again, thanks.

Steve

Often they'll just use a tighter cardioid pattern mic rather than a full shotgun, which seems work as well. Especially if they've also have a mic on the off camera interviewer - there tends to be only one shotgun mic in most doc sound kits, so they use the two cardioids.

If you're using a lav for a sit-down interview, no need to spend extra money on a wireless setup. A simple, wired lavalliere microphone will give you more reliable performance, simpler setup and better sound quality for much less than a wireless system. The Countryman B3, for example, is a fine microphone for these kind of applications, and costs less than $200 US.

If you have PAs, pro talent etc. then wired lavs are fine. But shooting solo no way. Tethering amateur talent to your camera with a cable in a room littered with lighting fixtures is a recipe for disaster.

Why not?
It's stressful, crazy, insane, I know;
it shouldn't be done, I know -
but that's all I can afford,
so I do it all the time,
and Swiss Public TV keeps on airing my stuff.
In two words: it works.
Avoid it if you can; if not, go for it,
keep your cool, double-check everything,
jot down a memo with all the essential steps.
but first and foremost: don't panic.

Vasco

good point

if you do use a wired lav, the talent gets up to go to the bathroom and drags a couple of light stands over with the mic cable - don't panic. It won't help at all

Whatever...

Funny thing. I've been using a wireless mic and was thinking of going wired on the next job.
I suppose that talent can do all sorts of crazy things if you let them.

So the key is... DON'T LET THEM do crazy things!

I have both a wireless and a wired lavalliere. I use whichever is best suited to the situation.

I can tell you, though, (risk of sending camera tumbling to the ground aside) that the ease of setup and reliability of a wired, phantom-powered lav -- not to mention the superior audio quality -- makes it a very attractive option for a one-man-band interview.

No worries about dead batteries, no radio interference, no mysterious interactions with SteadyShot. I've had all these problems with wireless mikes from time to time. At a minimum, it's worth having a wired lav in your kit as a backup in case your wireless system goes on the fritz. It's also much easier and faster to rig a wired lav than it is to set up a boom.

Just keep a firm grip on the camera tripod while you're shooting, and be ready to yell STOP! if your talent gets up to take a whizz. ;-)

Richard,

I always use wired lavs: they make me feel safer.
I try to pay attention to what the talent is doing
when he tries to move around...

All sorts of things can wrong: when you're shooting solo,
you have a higher likelihood of something going wrong.
That's it, period.
You have to evaluate (guess) the probability of having
interference in your wireless vs. the likelihood of your talent
stumbling into something with his wired mic.
Just my 2 cents, of course...

Vasco

OK. I'm going to live dangerously. Wish me luck :-)

Have to agree; I shot two docs last year and shooting solo interviews is fairly stressful anyways - if there's no choice then so be it, but be careful (ensure the cables is long enough to be wrapped around something fixed so that someone walking off doesn't pull the cam down).

Chris Barcellos just posted a link to our entry in the documentary contest in this forum. The interview was shot using a hardwired lav (SONY ECM-44 - old film school standby available on E-bay for under $100 frequently, sometimes less) and a hyper on a fixed boom (Oktava MK-012, another E-bay acquisition and later modified by Bill Sitler).

I never once worried about my talent walking off wired... but then I also had him tied to a field mixer and some slack cable between that and the camera. By the time he got jerked by the tether to the mixer had he been trying to escape wired, he'd have realized his mistake.

I was in close quarters and could have gone wireless, but why? When able, use cable is my mantra. I guess I just don't understand the fear of wired talent that I am seeing in this thread.

I interview people as part of my "real" job and recently started incorporating this into my shooting. Here's some things that I find work well:

1. Talk to the subject in a regular conversation as you are setting up, checking levels etc. This way they'll be a little more relaxed when you switch into interview mode.

2) I find that people are a little distracted by me wearing headphones during the interview. So after I've checked levels and asked an introductory question or two to make sure everything is working, I slip the 'phones off. Yes this is risky!

3) Open ended questions are great but some people need a little help to focus; otherwise, they may revert back to yes/no answers. Try this: "Help me understand..." or "Could you explain..." This forces them to construct a complete idea in their head.

4) Eliminate distracting backgrounds, including noise. I ask everyone to turn off their phones, I pods etc.

5) Start with questions that they can answer easily, usually personal stuff like tell me your name for the camera. A few easy ones will loosen them up. Be ethical about it though....I would never do : "What's your name?" followed by "Tell me why you decided to stop beating your wife?" unless I was doing this for 60 Minutes or on trial!!! You don't (usually) want them to feel sandbagged.

6) Be inquisitive. People can tell whether you genuinely care about the answer versus you're just asking because it's on a list of questions someone prepared for the shoot.

Cheers,
Bob

I use Sony in-the-ear earbuds and slip one off to dangle while the other remains in my ear. Subject doesn't seem to notice and I still have the assurance that the audio hasn't crapped out. I've found the Sony's to be the loudest and most accurate of the in-the-ear design (realizing that they are FAR from reference...)

Great thread. The rules of mr Philip Gioja and Bob Kerner are very good. I do a lot of interviews. Ask, mention or say only what is needed to steer your talent into a direction you think is interesting for the goal you want to reach.

I always like to show the true personality of my talent and want situations or problems unfold in front of the camera with saying as less as possible.

But it's a lot more than that. I do all my interviews solo. Me, the camera, the mic and the talent. It's hard to control all of them in my head. I always cut my questions/etc from the interview, so the interview really becomes the story of the talent.

There is a dutch filmmaker called Frans Bromet who is famous for this. It's interesting to watch some of his work... i believe it exists with English subtitles. At least, it did screen with subs on the last IDFA.

There are lots of ways to approach interviews and every solution depends on context; but from my experience in documentaries and newsmagazine TV, these things really help:
- Do your homework: Learn about know your subject and their milieu; I often interview "experts" on specific fields or industries and they are always more engaging if you take the time to familiarize yourself with their work.
- Bring professionals: having a good camera & sound op will not only guarantee solid footage but will allow you to focus on the subject & content.
- Think strategically: know what kind of contribution you want or need from a given subject so that your questions and your time with them will be purposeful.

The are many more things you can do and hopefully you never stop improving your process but so far these items make a big difference for me.

Before the interview starts make *sure* you tell the interviewee to REPHRASE THE QUESTION before giving their answer or it won't make any sense.

The other big thing is asking questions that won't just elicit a 1-word response.

For example, you're asking someone if they enjoyed their wedding.

Wrong way:

Q: Did you enjoy your wedding?
A: Yes, I enjoyed my wedding.

Correct way:

Q: How did you feel when you said "I do?"
A: When I said "I do" it was a really exhilarating experience. I had been waiting for several years for this day and it is just so perfect that I can now call her my wife. I have never felt this way before and today really was the icing on the cake in our relationship.


Which would you rather have on tape? The first answer or second answer? Use open-ended questions that require more than one or two words. Ask "How did you feel about..." "What was the best about...." "What about it interested you..." etc.

Start off with a few easy questions to get them comfortable then ask them open-answered questions and make sure you listen more than you talk.

Those are the secrets of getting a great interview - many people will say 'prepare questions beforehand', and that's true, but you don't want to be reading from a list. Make it a conversation and it will make the other person less nervous and better on camera. Make sure you give them something to work with and get the question rephrased. You'll see a huge improvement.

Absolutely. Walk in with a list and then be prepared to completely ignore them once the conversation becomes organic. Look at the list before wrapping up and make sure your subject talked to or around all of the points your questions were supposed to address.

Steve --

If you haven't done so yet, check out the book "The Art of the Interview: Lessons from a Master of the Craft" by Lawrence Grobel. It made my interview technique infinitely better.

Just curious if anyone else coaches the talent a bit with the "repeat the question" technique? I haven't seen anyone mention that yet? On the one hand, it promotes getting more/better stand alone soundbites, but on the other hand it can be disctracting/intimidating for a newbie interviewee (they start thinking about how they're supposed to answer rather than just being natural about it). Anyone have any experience (pros/cons) to offer on this technique?

Example (and no, I wouldn't ask such a closed-end question, just using as an example):

Question: What's you're favorite color?

Answer (non-coached): Green.

Answer (after coaching): My favorite color is green.

My two cents:
I never do - but I have to clarify that I never do "scripted" documentaries...

It all depends on what you're looking for.
I think it's always a question of "what you gain vs. what you loose",
and you make your choices depending on "what you need".

If you're after true and sincere thoughts & emotions, it's a good idea (IMHO)
to minimize any sort of potential interference in the free flow of words & expressions.
The shooting situation itself is already fairly intimidating
(a camera, a tripod, microphones, lights, cables all over the place):
you don't want to add extra burdens, constraints or limitations.
In a nutshell: you don't want your talent to clam up and/or to become stiff(er).
Personally, I even tend to call them "discussions" or "conversations" (rather
than "interviews") so as to help the talent feel more at ease, more relaxed.
If I sense that the answer I just got will be unusable,
I usually rephrase the question with a different wording, I try to work around it...,
but always trying to preserve some sort of "informal & relaxed" atmosphere
(as much as possible, of course).

You'll end up spending more time in the editing room, but you've probably gained
a substantial degree of freshness and spontaneity.

On the other hand, if you're working an a more "scripted" documentary,
where you already know what the talent is supposed to tell you, well:
that's a whole different ball game...

Just my 2 cents, of course - and sorry for my poor English...

Vasco

Good advice above.

The shooting situation is too intimidating to interfere with answers or give guidelines. I did this once after an interviewee gave too many "Yes" and "No" answers, but the poor guy was so intimidated when I asked for a break and explained to him that my questions will not be in the movie, so when he answers with incomplete sentences, the movie audience will not understand what he means ... After this short break, he was so afraid of saying something wrong that he answered questions by simply nodding his head, which made the interview completely useless.

Instead, I now briefly coach the interviewees before the interview but never interrupt when shooting has started, and try to create a very relaxed atmosphere by talking to them for a long period before I start shooting, under the light to make them comfortable with the situation but pointing the camcorder away. During the interview, I also throw in a few questions where he/she has to laugh to loosen them up a bit.

If you didn't get a useful answer, try to re-phrase and ask the question again later during the interview when they are more relaxed.

I also learned to let the mic run for a few minutes after the interview (when I shut down the light and camcorder) which sometimes gives great sound bites. Most people forget that they are still miced up and all of a sudden start to talk when the light is off. Not sure how ethical that is, though ;-)

This is what I meant. Also, I bring this topic up because I've read about it in several good interviewing and documentary-making books/text books.

Great feedback on this, so thanks!

This is a really useful thread. I'm glad I stumbled on it. The pointers and suggestions are really valuable. Unfortunately, I've learned most of them the hard way.

I'm currently working on a history of a small radio station. I didn't start out to do a documentary. I was only collecting the history. First on audio tape, then later a friend loaned me an older RCA DV camera. I had collected a few interviews before the lightbulb turned on and I decided to make it a video history. I'm not sure documentary is the proper word for this effort. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with the so-so audio from early interviews. I don't want to change now and have glaring difference in the quality. Live and learn. I can't reshoot. Two of my subjects have died since I started the project.

I do want to add a couple of techniques I've found useful. Although most of my interview subjects are used to the radio environment, only one has any TV experience. He was on camera at CNN. I find it useful to begin the interview by giving the date, interview subject's name and the place of the interview. I then ask the subject to take as much time as they like to give me a biographical sketch. This is easy for them to do, relaxes them and directs their attention to me and away from the camera. I can usually easily flow from their response into the first question and the session is going before they know it.

I will often revisit/rephrase a question if I think I might get a better answer.

Don't be too fast with the next question. Many times nothing from me will keep the person talking. I usually tell the subject that I won't make any audible response to what they say while they are talking.

And finally, the advice to keep it rolling at the end has produced some of the best comments I've gotten.

I also try to hold eye contact at all times while he/she is talking, and try to react with facial expressions to what he/she says, to give them some signals that I understand, or that it is interesting/fascinating, etc. It's nice for them to have some feedback and by looking at them all the time, they forget about the camera and don't look right into the lens.