Interview Techniques: Louis Theroux's Interviewing Style.
Louis Theroux has a unique style of documentary filmmaking. He investigates the individual characters behind some of the worlds most bizarre and depraved movements.
In this particular episode, Louis investigates America's 'most hated family', and despite clearly holding his own views on the family, he does still attempt to reach a more pleasant side of them and tries to get to know each member as an individual, as well as getting to know more about their message. I find this a rather interesting approach, to attempt to put aside all personal beliefs and to try and get into the mind-set of the person he is interviewing. It is a particularly good method of interviewing, as his subtle mockery usually goes by unnoticed, and usually has the person he is interviewing feeling safe in the midst of the awkward geek, which leads to them discussing their particular speciality in more detail, and has them opening up. By using such a friendly approach to interviewing, even with such heinous groups such as the neo Nazis, it assists the documentary, by being able to have a more in depth look at the day to day life of these groups, which would otherwise would not be viewable. I believe his approach of offering an empathetic view towards his interviewees allows him to ascertain more information than other interviewers, as they usually stay within their own realms, creating a barrier between themselves and the subject they are investigating/those they are interviewing.
-
The way in which an interview is recorded also plays a part in how effective an interview can be. For each of Louis' documentaries, he is always out on location, filming on the interviewee's turf, never at a film studio or set, it is always up to those he is interviewing as to where they film. This approach not only gives off a more casual look to the documentary, but will also add to the interviewee feeling as though they are in a comfortable space to talk/that they are in control, and as such can feel free to say what they really feel. It is this that a number of interviewers tend to miss out on, how much more a person will reveal if they feel more comfortable/at ease in their own surroundings. Allowing a subject to naturally lead an interview is a great way to get them to open up, as opposed to running right for them with a microphone. This can be seen in Louis' documentary on the most hated family in America. When he is trying to get an interview with the Fred Phelps, as soon as an opportunity arises, he goes straight for difficult questions, and though I understand he may have been trying to get a reaction out of Fred, or that Louis understood the opportunity may never arise again. Had Louis opened up with slightly friendlier remarks, and allowed Fred to talk about what he felt like talking about, it could have allowed Louis to ask the challenging questions, and though they likely would have ended the same way as it did in the documentary, he would have found out a bit more about how Fred thinks/his motivations for the church. Understanding the effect that having the interviewee lead an interview, Mark Isaacs got the residence of a London tower block to reveal a lot about their life stories, and though I believe an element of unease had them wishing to break the silence with friendly conversation, his documentary would not have worked had he started to follow people around on the street, because anything can happen on the street. But in the lift of their own apartment block, I would imagine that a number of them felt like they were safe enough to try and talk to Mark.
-
Camera angles and editing play a fair part in how a conversation is constructed for a documentary. Editing can turn a friendly conversation into an aggravated or awkward one. So it is vitally important to ensure that the original meaning behind a conversation remains through the edit. Camera angles also work to create a sense of the interview and highlight relationship between the interviewer and interviewee. It allows the audience to understand the atmosphere of the interview. Close ups can be used when important details are being explained, wide shots can show either distance between the pairing, or their closeness. Whichever way the camera is used, it is an important factor to consider when planning out an interview.
-
Louis' documentary on the most hated family in America opens with a taster or what the family stands for, not only does this serve as a brief summary of the family's activities, but it also serves as a hook to keep viewers tuned in. After the initial hook, Louis then sets out to find out more about the individual members of the group. After interviewing a few of the members, Louis discovers that a few of the younger members of the group have had a few doubts over the years, and this is what he pursues throughout the remainder of the documentary, the indoctrination of the family and in his follow up documentary, he looks further into the cult aspect of the family. Though I do often have an issue with a lot of Louis' documentaries, on account of his documenting for entertainment, rather than always fully investigating whatever it is he is looking into at the time. I feel that because of the lack of coverage that I have seen on this family, I was very intrigued and shocked at the documentary, because of this, I found the documentary to be very interesting, and a good watch - as was the follow up documentary.
In this particular episode, Louis investigates America's 'most hated family', and despite clearly holding his own views on the family, he does still attempt to reach a more pleasant side of them and tries to get to know each member as an individual, as well as getting to know more about their message. I find this a rather interesting approach, to attempt to put aside all personal beliefs and to try and get into the mind-set of the person he is interviewing. It is a particularly good method of interviewing, as his subtle mockery usually goes by unnoticed, and usually has the person he is interviewing feeling safe in the midst of the awkward geek, which leads to them discussing their particular speciality in more detail, and has them opening up. By using such a friendly approach to interviewing, even with such heinous groups such as the neo Nazis, it assists the documentary, by being able to have a more in depth look at the day to day life of these groups, which would otherwise would not be viewable. I believe his approach of offering an empathetic view towards his interviewees allows him to ascertain more information than other interviewers, as they usually stay within their own realms, creating a barrier between themselves and the subject they are investigating/those they are interviewing.
-
The way in which an interview is recorded also plays a part in how effective an interview can be. For each of Louis' documentaries, he is always out on location, filming on the interviewee's turf, never at a film studio or set, it is always up to those he is interviewing as to where they film. This approach not only gives off a more casual look to the documentary, but will also add to the interviewee feeling as though they are in a comfortable space to talk/that they are in control, and as such can feel free to say what they really feel. It is this that a number of interviewers tend to miss out on, how much more a person will reveal if they feel more comfortable/at ease in their own surroundings. Allowing a subject to naturally lead an interview is a great way to get them to open up, as opposed to running right for them with a microphone. This can be seen in Louis' documentary on the most hated family in America. When he is trying to get an interview with the Fred Phelps, as soon as an opportunity arises, he goes straight for difficult questions, and though I understand he may have been trying to get a reaction out of Fred, or that Louis understood the opportunity may never arise again. Had Louis opened up with slightly friendlier remarks, and allowed Fred to talk about what he felt like talking about, it could have allowed Louis to ask the challenging questions, and though they likely would have ended the same way as it did in the documentary, he would have found out a bit more about how Fred thinks/his motivations for the church. Understanding the effect that having the interviewee lead an interview, Mark Isaacs got the residence of a London tower block to reveal a lot about their life stories, and though I believe an element of unease had them wishing to break the silence with friendly conversation, his documentary would not have worked had he started to follow people around on the street, because anything can happen on the street. But in the lift of their own apartment block, I would imagine that a number of them felt like they were safe enough to try and talk to Mark.
-
Camera angles and editing play a fair part in how a conversation is constructed for a documentary. Editing can turn a friendly conversation into an aggravated or awkward one. So it is vitally important to ensure that the original meaning behind a conversation remains through the edit. Camera angles also work to create a sense of the interview and highlight relationship between the interviewer and interviewee. It allows the audience to understand the atmosphere of the interview. Close ups can be used when important details are being explained, wide shots can show either distance between the pairing, or their closeness. Whichever way the camera is used, it is an important factor to consider when planning out an interview.
-
Louis' documentary on the most hated family in America opens with a taster or what the family stands for, not only does this serve as a brief summary of the family's activities, but it also serves as a hook to keep viewers tuned in. After the initial hook, Louis then sets out to find out more about the individual members of the group. After interviewing a few of the members, Louis discovers that a few of the younger members of the group have had a few doubts over the years, and this is what he pursues throughout the remainder of the documentary, the indoctrination of the family and in his follow up documentary, he looks further into the cult aspect of the family. Though I do often have an issue with a lot of Louis' documentaries, on account of his documenting for entertainment, rather than always fully investigating whatever it is he is looking into at the time. I feel that because of the lack of coverage that I have seen on this family, I was very intrigued and shocked at the documentary, because of this, I found the documentary to be very interesting, and a good watch - as was the follow up documentary.
Comments
Post a Comment