--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan / The Faux Press"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :) Just found this, MM. Thanks for the kudos.
>
> Use the proper medium for the job.
>
> Then break that rule.
>
> I don't understand why folks insist on doing long interviews on camera.
> Television is one thing, where eyeballs-to-ads count.
>
> Sure, we want to see a bit of the subject, but that doesn't mean we
want to
> look at them for a half hour or an hour. That said, we *do like to
process
> body language...so, there's that.
>
> Is there a middle ground for internet delivery of interviews?
>
> Enough body language to get the flavor, but...
>
> Oh, nevermind.
>
Jan, I also wonder what the middle ground for interviews would be. I
have been doing interviews with political activists on my website
http://www.ferdeggan.net
in a section called "Revolution is an eternal dream."
I post 10 minutes of interview each week. I use a completely static
camera and struggle to get a decent sound quality, which does not
always work. I always tell myself that I am doing an anti-TV or
anti-Ken Burns piece, and that camera motion and b-roll etc would be
a capitulation to slickness. Sometimes I say leftists talking about
theory are engaged in an activity that requires stillness and careful
thought, unlike agitprop type work.
All that may be rationalization. What do you think might be a more
successful way?
Ferd
