Does an interview add credibility to a documentary? If there were no interviews in a documentary that you were watching, would it have the same value to it?
The author talks about prepping for the interview through pre-interviews, writing questions, getting a list of questions from the interviewee, etc.. But some interview that we see are completely unscripted. Does the prep work make them scripted and therefore more easily manipulated to fit the needs of the interviewer?
Which do you think are more realistic or more credible, the live interviews that are completely unprepared, such as ones outside courthouses, on the red carpet, on the streets, etc., or the ones where the person is being interviewed while sitting at a table with a set of prepared questions, after lots of prep work has been done?
Do you think the chances of getting the interviewee to reveal some important information that is unknown more likely if they haven't had a chance to "practice" what they are going to say in a pre-interview?
When you are watching an interview, does the setting usually play a role in how you view it? What is more appealing, an interview that takes place while the two walk in the park, or where they are both sitting comfortably in a room?
When watching an interview, do you even notice how the questions are being asked i.e can you hear the actual questions, can you see the interviewer, etc.?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment