The new Revolver magazine has been published. A reading of the two interviews that I had not read the previous drafts, I noticed how different can be the interview style. I always found the documentary by Eberhard Fechner impressive, in which the interviewer apparently withdraws completely and only by the answers, by selecting and arranging, so by the cut in appearance occurs. Such withdrawal in any case has the effect that they point to the special opportunity of the documentary, people, and to give them a voice, although not usually in films produced versa, and limited self-expression of the filmmaker on the technical and dramatic preparation. If one takes this withdrawn form interviews, the results are extraordinary. Heinrich Breloer, where I once worked as second assistant director, has succeeded as an interviewer and over again to capture amazing statements because he has made more stupid than he was. This is superior to the interviewer the feeling to be - a prerequisite for unintentional disclosure. There are also interviewees who are disappointed in such a situation. To me that itself is at last lifting Kohlbriigge happens on a now 90-year-old Dutch Protestant who belonged to the Confessing Church. She had never appeared on a dedicated discussion questions and found my "superficial." Maybe I do have only respect for their courage and the upcoming theological discussion, to which I could contribute much to forget to flatter her enough. But adulation does not necessarily lead to good answers when you ask questions on issues with which one who is not really good. Especially among people who are accustomed to flattery. I am thinking and successful filmmakers. In interviews with them, it may be useful only once by his own statements to make eye level on which to place the call. Who routinely enter the interview is, but may only need an audience ask the questions, but then tells only what he has told a million times.
0 comments:
Post a Comment