Tuesday, 26 March 2013

Interview evaluation no.2

What went well? 

Throughout the second run of this interview we made ourselves absolutely sure that we didn't repeat the same mistake as the first time we did our interview. This was the issue of the Mise-en-scene being in a poor state. We had a plug socket, many wires and a computer monitor in the background of our interview, we felt this didn't suit our subject matter whatsoever and so our group wished to repeat the interview and make it seem much more formal to the subject. This time round, we placed our subject (Tim) in a large red leather chair, with the neck of his guitar sitting next to him. We felt that this idea was very basic however it was effective to show that the main purpose of the interview was just about him and his guitar (the music)

The questions that were asked were done as effective and successful as the first time around. The interviewer (Rob) made Tim feel very comfortable with asking the questions we had generated. We wanted to stick to similar attributes that were found in previous interviews with Tim (and the Van Susans) whereby the person being interviewed felt comfortable enough they could elaborate on open ended questions without being provoked and felt able to laugh at some answers given, we felt this made the interview much less serious or dull.

Throughout the interview there didn't seem to be any stalling from either Rob (the interviewer) and Tim (the interviewee) We feel that this shows a great success in how the questions were presented to Tim, and that he felt comfortable to answer each one with confidence and depth. Our group also feel that the filming throughout the interview was smoothly done. For some of the responses given the camera would zoom into Tim's face more to possibly capture any emotion shown. This was shown when the question about how he felt leaving the Van Susans, we were possibly hoping to see him show some sort of emotion like stuttering.

Even better if? 

In our groups eyes we feel that with this interview there was only one major fault that should have been noted way before the interview had even begun to be shot. This was the false idea to shoot the interview in front of a window, this seemed to have a strange lighting effect with the camera as it struggled to focus. What this meant was the camera was mainly trying to focus on the light outside and not our subject matter (Tim) THis could have easily been fixed by simply running a few test shots as the warm ups of the interview to plan out other options of where we could have placed Tim, if we had noticed this we most likely would have moved the chair he was planning to sit in, into another spot in the room that had much better lighting where the camera wouldn't be confused on what to focus on.

1 comment:

  1. A very confident second evaluation Oz. You focus well on what you did better second time round. From this evaluation it looks like this interview will fit smoothly into the documentary you are making for Mr Jackson's unit.

    Your reflection on what still could be improved also demonstrates your professional approach to this task.