That's just your opinion, Bob, no more, no less. And you're entitled to it.

If you need two people on one camera, have them sit next to each other.

I watched it through a second time and my impression was the same. An idiotic way to shoot an interview. Not an idiotic way to shoot a conversation where one person is visible in a mirror, mind you.

Of course, if I was being paid to light it I wouldn't put it so strongly, but I'd definitely ask if you were SURE you wanted to do it this way.

So, let's use a less loaded word for it. Rather than idiotic, let's call it "contrived".

Rob

Yes, Rob, you can used contrived, it's certainly better than idiotic, I think.

As I mention above, some here seem to be reacting to this in a very hostile way. Why? I have no idea. I never said it was "great." I never even used the word "good." I did use the words "unique" and "creative," and I stand by those words. Let's see if they fit...

Unique - "being the only one; being without a like or equal; distinctively characteristic." Yeah, I'd say those fit this experiement nicely.

Creative - "having the quality of something created rather than imitated." That certainly fits. It definitely is not an "imitation" of any interview set-up we've ever seen before. So I'd say that word fits, too.

Your earlier post was thoughful, by that I mean it evidenced some thought or reflection on your part having gone into it, as opposed to being a knee-jerk reaction. I truly appreciated that!

The good Friar's post also indicated the recognition that there may be--albeit limited--a place for some such set-up in some unyet foreseen circumstance.

It's far too easy (and evident) to drift quietly into the vast abyss of mediocrity when it comes to our approach to shooting video, especially interviews. I know, because I've shot more than my fair share of them. "Three-point lighting" is another prefect example.

The reason this struck me is because we're working on a new documentary, and it has the dreaded talking head interviews. For the past couple of weeks I've been trying to come up with a different approach. The above clip gave me food for thought; it got me thinking in ways I hadn't considered before. Admittedly, it was presumptuous of me to think that others here might be seeking new, creative, challenging, thought-provoking ideas to overcome the mediocrity so common to many videos.

(It's not like this is the first time this has happened. You'd think I'd learn.)

It's an interesting technique, which I'll keep in mind. If I did ever use it, it wouldn't be for an interview, but maybe in drama or as I said earlier, a music clip.

I've done plenty of shoots with just me and two cameras - it's easy in a sit-down interview situation where no-one's leaping around. And they can face each other.

Regarding one-camera, two person interviews...

I can tell you from experience that many of The Daily Show's on-location interviews are shot with just one camera.

Simply shoot the guest portion first, and then shoot the correspondent asking a whole different list of questions :)

A lot of interviews are done this way, with one camera and reaction shots later. Assuming you even want the interviewer in the shot.

I've lit a lot of interviews over the last 20 years yet I could count on my hands the number that've needed to use two cameras. You're right that most of them are a bit boringly composed and lit. The first goal is to get the interview recorded and let the interviewee be interesting, but beyond that you can try to say something about the subject matter or about the person. Maybe they're an author or some sort of subject matter expert, maybe an artist, maybe you want them doing their job or living in their element.

They could be driving, riding a horse, sitting on a toadstool smoking a hookah, standing on a streetcorner. They could be a carny or magician or psychic standing in a house of mirrors (hint).

And sometimes you need to pay attention to and remember really stupid ideas. They make you think about why they're stupid and when they'd work.This leads you to better ideas and even good applications for "bad" ideas.

Rob

Many said NO to Zippers and Velcro and now that’s the way we all go.


I’m thinking what if I did a one cam shot with a three panel discussion using this method? could be very interesting

One reason I'm hostile to putting this idea in the toolbox is if it breaks I'm in for (another) seven years bad luck. That I don't need.

Jokes aside this feels too much like another one of those creative ideas purely for the sake of being creative. Somtimes the best creative decision is to do nothing, it is what it is, two people talking. It can be absolutely boring or rivetting regardless of what we do. Not to say they we shouldn't do our best to help the story but we always have to be mindfull of why we're doing it, is it because we have to do something or is it because it will aid the storyteller. A glass of water might be more creative than a fancy lighting setup.

Bob.

Seven years ..? I’ve been married for 17 years

Good point Bob. Most often the simplest things are the most powerful

Rory

I've read and re-read this thread of Jay's and I think/opine 2 options from it:

EITHER

A] Is this idea a repost to a real need to have another camera?

OR

B] Is this a creative option to employ at some point in my narrative?

Jay has further developed his ideas as to what this option is about, by quietly, and diplomatically suggesting that his ideas, he posts often accrue a mild form of opprobrium to them. Well, no change there dear boy! Such is the bane of free-thinkers and eccentrics throughout the centuries. All the way back to when Ugna picked up a red rock and scratched on a cave wall and attempted to convince others that what they were looking at was a pictorial reference to a Mammoth, when everybody, to a beer-skin, that witnessed this, ALL knew it was a socio-religious attempt to encapsulate the wishes of the ruling classes to dominate the working classes by capitalist tyranny by forcing them to stare at said scratchings. However, being nice, gentle folk they all nodded their heads sagaciously and patronised Ugan into believing that they were in fact viewing a Mamoth - and just winked at each other in a pitying, collective "we-know-better" demeanour. And here Jay, Ugan-like, is using this example as to how we may be defensive about embracing the "new". And once again, no change there!

But moving on . . . here are my hamfisted attempts to see where I could use this . . . I'm trying . . .

OK ..

1] If I wanted the questioner to become more Spanish Inquisition-ist about things then I'd bring her closer from the rear. And work here back and forth in a menacing way.

2] Maybe be having her sit sideways on - with her ear to camera and her speaking AT the interviewee . .

3] If I wanted to emphasise some form of psycho non-intensive interview where we were considering being "ignored" have her speaker away from the interviewee.

4] Good option for the Good and Bad angel scenario . . .

. . ok . . that's like 4 options that would make use of this creative suggestion. The other thing that none of us have touched on is that being IN a mirror then whatever the other distractions are ALL her reactions are reversed - and that needs to be seen as such and can also have an unnerving emotion for the viewer.

Now, where DID I put my Red Rock . . must get down to some serious scratchings myself . . . .

As always Jay, best wishes, and thanks for making me think outside my cave - again!

Grazie

ALL her reactions are reversed "

BINGO.

"have an unnerving emotion for the viewer"

Which is why the classic shot that starts with us seeing the woman making up her face in the mirror and then pulls back to show us why we were being unnerved works so well.

The flip can be fixed in post, the focus could probably be fixed with a split diopter. Then you'd have an interesting visual FX shot. Making the talent look into a mirror, could evoke some new responses...

When I first watched the video on Youtube the thing that popped into my head was "Interview With A Vampire"

Bob.

It'd work nicely on a theatrical stage with an audience, but then you all get to see what's going on. Once you've processed all that the composition is easy to grok.

Also might work if it was a victim interviewing a victimizer.

Where it doesn't work is as a solution to not having two cameras and operators.

It's not lack of creativity, it's experience. I've done plenty of lighting, plenty of theater, plenty of performance art, plenty of fantasy role playing games. Really, I'm not lacking for imagination. This is just not a good way to do a two camera interview with half the cameras.

Rob

This is what an interview is going to look like when we start living on Mars:)

"are you talking to ME?"

Thanks leslie.
All we need now is a rear view mirror for the guy :-)

Mike

;P)

what you doing up?

do me an email and tell me how you're travelling....

leslie, it's only 11 p.m. here and nowhere near my bedtime :-)

Mike

ah, really!?

it's hard to know what way's up when your up side down at the best of times.....

curious as to your experiences with win7?