"Interviewing" two people in the same shot. . . where should they look?

[Stephen Pruitt]

Hi all. . .

Okay. . . here's a quandry I'm in. I'm shooting a couple of testimonies for our church and the folks in charge want to do a couple of these testimonies as a two-shot with both people on camera at the same time.

Now, they want to make this very inviting and person and do not want to show a third person in the room. My question is this: IF you had to do this, and couldn't convince them to shoot the ladies one at a time, where would you have the people look? To the left or right of the camera? Or looking directly into the camera. Without a reference point of that third person (the interviewer, as it were), I'm just not certain where to point it. They don't want two women speaking to each other, as that's too filmic and not communicating with the audience directly. But looking straight into the camera just creeps me out.

I'm not even sure if this sort of interview should even be done in this manner.

Anyway, I'd appreciate any thoughts, as this is totally new territory for me.

Stephen

 

[jimhare]

Despite the creep out factor, I would suggest straight down the lens is your best option.

If it's for your church it needs to be very personable and direct, not a detached third person approach.

If done well, with rich lighting and colour it will look fantastic.

Don't be creeped, down the barrel doesn't need to equal bad.

 

[Ramesh Jai]

Despite the creep out factor, I would suggest straight down the lens is your best option.

If it's for your church it needs to be very personable and direct, not a detached third person approach.

If done well, with rich lighting and colour it will look fantastic.

Don't be creeped, down the barrel doesn't need to equal bad.

Yup. Let them look into camera. They do it on CNN all the time.

 

[Paul Hazlett]

Yup. Let them look into camera. They do it on CNN all the time.

CNN does this when they are talking back to a host on the studio.

I have done a bazzillion interviews with 2 or more people looking off camera slightly, left or right, which ever looks best. Make sure the person asking the questions sits right next to the lens so you dont get to much profile. I have had
the producer say " this is a question for both of you" so I know to stay wide so both can answer or "this question is for you______" so I can do a quick push to a single so the other person is not sitting there looking around since they are not involved in the question, it has happened.

 

[Howard Shaw]

Eyeline should be slightly off camera to right or left. Very difficult to have someone speak credibly into a lens. ON CNN most interviewees are experienced moderators or experienced at being interviewed. Down the barrel is not really an interview in the classic sense.

 

[Mike Yonts]

If you really want them to look right at the lens and be natural at the same time, you can use the technique Desmond Morris originated, with two teleprompters. The subjects see the face of the interviewer right in front of the lens.

But it sounds like you don't really want that look. So in addition to the point about having the interviewer as close to camera as possible, I'd add that you should have the subjects as close to each other as possible. Then your 2-shot can be a little tighter and the viewer's eye doesn't go to the empty space between them.

 

[Stefan Christou]

:iagree: What he said. It usually helps to give them the whole "well because it's for TV we need you to do x, x and y. And make them plant their feet nice and wide apart. People's swaying can be more noticeable if there's two of em.

 

[martinnoweck]

if you can avoid it i would NOT make them look directly into the lens. especially if it for church, because it will get the "instant propaganda feeling" ... just my two cents.

long ago i did interviews where i was operating the camera and doing the interviews at the same time and it was optically disappointing because most people - unless they are actors but even then ... - need a person to have eye contact as conversation partner behind the camera. it makes it easier for them and it is difficult for most of us to look straight at the lens.

just have some one sitting as close as possible to the axis of the lens, squeezed to the mattebox and tell your interviewpartners to look at him. he or she can nod from time to time silently - makes them feel confident.

if you have to shoot two person in one frame i would choose an aspect ratio as wide as possible, so you still have some space next to the person which eye line is not crossing the entire frame.

i once was working on a shoot where they did an interview with three sisters at the same time, one camera. we set up the camera on a dolly with tracks parallel to the three sisters. so the dop could change the framing without having an odd eyeline.

good luck and best regards,
martin

 

[Ben Holmes]

Simple answer, already given. The interviewer stands just to the left/right of the camera - whatever works best for your background or setup or subjects. The interviewees look at them, so it looks like a natural conversation.

Interviews have been done like this for many years. Having 2 interviewees makes little difference, although having one of them sit in shot not speaking for any period of time would be awkward, and any ENG cameraman worth his salt would zoom gently into the one answering the question. This also gives you a cut point to come back to the wide on the next answer (as usually the questions are shot in cutaway later if they are to be used).

As for anyone on here talking about CNN guests looking down the lens - please. That's a completely different scenario, where the interviewer is looking at them on an on-set studio monitor.

 

[Ken Willinger]

If you really want them to look right at the lens and be natural at the same time, you can use the technique Desmond Morris originated, with two teleprompters. The subjects see the face of the interviewer right in front of the lens.

But it sounds like you don't really want that look. So in addition to the point about having the interviewer as close to camera as possible, I'd add that you should have the subjects as close to each other as possible. Then your 2-shot can be a little tighter and the viewer's eye doesn't go to the empty space between them.

Errol Morris - he called the method he used with 2 teleprompters Interatron.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

Thanks very much for all of your suggestions. We're going to do a few test shots this morning.

Stephen

 

[Joel J. Feigenbaum]

Stephen:

Lots of good advice. Definitely don't want them looking into the lens. Since I believe you have two REDs I'd do the following.
Depending on your set, pick the most interesting side of camera for your interviewees to look.
If they look camera left, make sure you key them from the left. If they look right, key them from the right.
Stagger your two cameras. As close together as possible. Pick a lens that gives you a nice two shot and let that camera be the further off axis angle.
Pick a lens for your tighter shot that gives you a nice single size. This camera will be positioned as close to your interviewer. the interviewer needs to postion themselves as close to the matt box as possible to pull your interviewers look as close to lens as possible.
As your interviewees respond, the operator of your tighter/single shot will slowly pan and hold whoever is speaking.
This way you will always have something tigther to cut into. It's not critical for your operator of the single angle to catch the first word of whoever is speaking, because you always have your two shot. You now have editorial freedom to cut into a single at a logical moment. You have perfect matching. And you take the curse of looking at a two shot for lenghty periods of time with the non speaking interviewee becoming a possible distraction.
Give me a call if you have any other questions.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

I'm in the "do not look into the lens" group.

Put the off-camera interviewer just to camera right so the subjects are looking screen right; this is psychologically positive.

The subject not speaking should very naturally look either at the interviewer, as in the last of the interviewer's question, and then at the subject speaking; neither subject should ever hit the lens.

That's my advice, but having two non-professionals on camera at once is not the best idea.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

 

[Chris Bell]

I shoot lots of interviews. I recently bought an Eye Direct, which is a low-tech device that allows the subject to look into lens (ala Errol Morris Interatron). It's a more intimate method of interviewing which works for certain subjects. I find it puts people more at ease when they can make eye contact with the interviewer. The results feel less "contrived" than the typical off axis look of most interviews.

http://www.vfgadgets.com/grip-camera/eyedirect-16x9

 

[JosephArthur]

Hi all. . .

Okay. . . here's a quandry I'm in. I'm shooting a couple of testimonies for our church and the folks in charge want to do a couple of these testimonies as a two-shot with both people on camera at the same time.

Now, they want to make this very inviting and person and do not want to show a third person in the room. My question is this: IF you had to do this, and couldn't convince them to shoot the ladies one at a time, where would you have the people look? To the left or right of the camera? Or looking directly into the camera. Without a reference point of that third person (the interviewer, as it were), I'm just not certain where to point it. They don't want two women speaking to each other, as that's too filmic and not communicating with the audience directly. But looking straight into the camera just creeps me out.

I'm not even sure if this sort of interview should even be done in this manner.

Anyway, I'd appreciate any thoughts, as this is totally new territory for me.

Stephen

Two words... pull focus

(long lens, shallow depth of field shot, with good lighting)

 

[Chris Newman]

Two words... pull focus

(long lens, shallow depth of field shot, with good lighting)

I think explaining that will take more than two words. Are you saying have one person behind the other and pull focus between them? That doesn't sound very natural, but it would look interesting.

 

[dok]

EyeDirect 16x9 set up positions

EyeDirect 16x9 set up positions

The EyeDirect 16x9 can be set to work on either side of the camera. The most common side is the right side as the focus puller is usually in the left side.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

Just to follow up here. We decided to have the ladies look directly into the camera as if they were looking at a friend, and it worked wonders. Now, naturally, they aren't dead staring into the camera, but when asked the ladies just to pretend that they were talking to their best friend, they did an amazing job. It was incredibly impressive stuff.

Stephen

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

Look into the lens.. And make sure it's 3D to give them that "in the room with you" feel...

If course, then viewer then may decide to LEAVE the room....

Kidding...

I'm afraid I would take a slightly different approach.

I would do it all.

Two ladies looking off camera one take, into camera the other take, and then using that wondeful 4K abilty, I would single them out in post since you and I both know it's still a bad idea to do them together and they will discover this after it's shot.

Of course if time allowed, I'd do a third take of them in a single.

I'm paid to know more than my clients, but sometimes they forget this (Like my wife) but I don't allow that responsiblily of screwing it up to lie on their shoulders whenever I can. So it simply means I arrive earlier, set up lights for the three different staging I need, and do my damnest to give them all of the above instead of one choice...

Then in post, I can show them what they should have done in the first place, and I'm a hero!

Seriously, try to do them all.. If you cannot, then at least get them staged on one take where you will have enough breathing room to single them out later.

If you have to drop something, drop looking down the lens... Very fake unless they are pros

Jay

I see you already did it (did not read all the posts until now) Oh well... I'll leave this up for the hell of it