What Makes a Good Interview Look Natural on Camera?
The secret to a good filmed interview is often making the person forget that they are being filmed.
Watch a really good documentary interview and it can seem effortless.
The person appears relaxed. They speak naturally. Their answers sound thoughtful rather than rehearsed. The lighting looks attractive without appearing artificial. Their voice is clear. The background is interesting without being distracting.
It can feel as though somebody simply sat them down, switched on a camera and started talking.
Usually, almost the opposite is true.
A natural-looking interview is often the result of a surprising amount of preparation.
Camera position has been considered.
The eye line has been chosen.
The lighting has been adjusted.
A microphone has been positioned carefully.
The background has been selected.
The interviewer knows what questions to ask — and, just as importantly, how to ask them.
All of this technical work has one main purpose:
to allow the person in front of the camera to stop thinking about the camera.
That is when an interview starts to become a conversation.
And that is often when the best material appears.
A Good Interview Is Not Just a Recording
It is easy to think of an interview as someone answering questions while a camera records them.
But a filmed interview has several jobs to do at once.
It needs to:
communicate information;
reveal personality;
establish trust;
sound clear;
look professional;
fit into the story of the finished film;
and provide material that can actually be edited.
That last point is particularly important.
A perfectly sensible answer in an ordinary conversation may be almost unusable in a film.
Imagine asking:
"Did you enjoy working with the company?"
The answer might simply be:
"Yes."
That is a perfectly correct answer.
It is also almost useless in an edited promotional film.
Now ask:
"What did you particularly enjoy about working with the company?"
The answer might become:
"What I particularly enjoyed was how quickly they understood what we were trying to achieve."
Suddenly we have a complete statement that can stand on its own.
The difference did not come from the camera.
It came from the question.
Start by Making the Person Comfortable
Before worrying about focal lengths, microphones or colour temperature, there is a more important consideration:
Is the person comfortable?
Most people are not professional television presenters.
Put a camera in front of them and their behaviour changes immediately.
Their shoulders stiffen.
Their speech becomes more formal.
They begin thinking about every word.
Some start looking directly into the lens when they should be talking to the interviewer.
Others suddenly become extremely aware of what they are doing with their hands.
One of the most useful things a filmmaker can therefore do is make the beginning of the session feel deliberately unimportant.
I would much rather spend a few minutes talking before asking the important questions than start immediately with:
"Right. Camera running. Tell me about the company."
The cameras may already be recording while we talk about something relatively easy.
Where did you travel from?
How long have you been involved with the organisation?
How did you first become interested in the subject?
These questions get someone talking without making them feel that every sentence has to be perfect.
Quite often, the interview has already become good before the contributor realises that the "real interview" has started.
Camera Position Changes the Feeling of the Interview
Where the camera is placed makes an enormous difference.
For most conventional interviews, the camera should be roughly around the subject's eye level.
Put it substantially below them and they may appear dominant or imposing.
Put it too high and the opposite can happen.
Neither is necessarily wrong — film directors deliberately use camera height to influence how audiences perceive characters — but for a corporate interview, testimonial or historical documentary, a neutral and comfortable position is generally preferable.
The camera should normally feel as though it belongs naturally within the conversation.
Where Should the Person Look?
This is one of the small details that can make an interview immediately look either professional or awkward.
There are two common approaches.
Looking directly into the camera
This works well when the subject is deliberately addressing the viewer.
For example:
a managing director delivering a company message;
a presenter explaining something;
a training video;
a direct appeal;
a social media piece.
The lens effectively becomes the audience.
Looking towards an interviewer
This is extremely common in documentaries, testimonials and corporate films.
The contributor looks slightly away from the camera towards the person asking the questions.
The audience feels that it is observing a conversation.
This can often feel considerably more natural for somebody who is not accustomed to appearing on camera.
But there is an important detail.
The interviewer should normally sit quite close to the camera.
If the interviewer is too far to one side, the subject appears to be staring almost completely out of the picture.
The difference may only be a few degrees, but visually it matters enormously.
Leave Space in the Direction They Are Looking
Composition also helps create a natural image.
If somebody is looking slightly towards the right of the frame, it usually looks better to leave some space in that direction.
This is sometimes called looking room or nose room.
Place them too close to the edge they are looking towards and the picture can feel cramped.
Again, the viewer may not consciously know why something looks uncomfortable.
They simply know that it does.
Good camerawork frequently involves details that nobody notices when they are correct.
One Camera or Several?
A single camera can produce an excellent interview.
But multiple cameras provide additional possibilities.
For example, I might use:
one medium shot;
one closer shot;
perhaps another angle;
and occasionally a wider environmental shot.
That gives much greater flexibility during editing.
Suppose the contributor pauses, repeats a sentence or needs two separate answers joining together.
Changing camera angle can disguise the edit.
A second angle can also make a long interview visually more interesting.
However, more cameras do not automatically make an interview better.
Every additional camera introduces another consideration:
framing;
focus;
exposure;
colour matching;
storage;
synchronisation;
and somewhere physically to put it.
The objective is not to use the maximum number of cameras available.
The objective is to have the angles needed to tell the story.
My own multi-camera production equipment gives me considerable flexibility, but I still start by asking:
What does this particular interview actually need?
The Background Is Part of the Story
A blank wall is easy.
It is not always interesting.
A good interview background can tell the viewer something about the person before they even speak.
Interview an engineer in an appropriate workshop.
Interview a musician with an instrument visible.
Interview someone about a sailing club with boats, trophies, photographs or the river subtly present behind them.
Interview a business owner in an environment connected with the business.
The background then becomes part of the storytelling.
But there is an important word in that sentence:
subtly.
The background should support the subject, not compete with them.
A brightly coloured sign directly behind somebody's head, a doorway with people continually walking through it or a television screen changing images every few seconds can become enormously distracting.
I normally want the viewer's eyes to keep returning to the person speaking.
Look Behind the Person Before You Look at the Person
There is a useful practical habit when setting up an interview.
Before concentrating on the subject, examine the background carefully.
Are there:
objects apparently growing out of their head?
untidy cables?
distracting signs?
rubbish bins?
reflections?
excessively bright windows?
computer screens displaying confidential information?
people likely to walk through the shot?
Moving the chair 30 centimetres can sometimes improve the shot more than buying another piece of equipment.
Depth Makes an Interview Look Better
Whenever space allows, I generally prefer not to place someone immediately against a wall.
Separating the subject from the background can create a much more attractive picture.
The background becomes softer.
The person becomes visually separated from it.
Lighting becomes easier to control.
And the image gains depth.
Instead of looking like somebody standing against a passport-photo backdrop, they appear to exist within an environment.
This is one reason why choosing the interview location matters.
A large room often gives far more possibilities than a cramped office.
Good Lighting Should Look Almost Unremarkable
People sometimes imagine professional video lighting as something dramatic.
For many interviews, good lighting does precisely the opposite.
It makes the subject look good without attracting attention to itself.
At its simplest, we might think in terms of:
a main light;
some control of the shadows;
separation from the background.
The main light — often called the key light — gives shape to the face.
A second light, reflected light or careful positioning may soften excessive shadow.
Another light may help separate the subject from the background.
But these are not rigid rules.
Sometimes a nearby window provides beautiful light.
Sometimes the existing environment is already attractive.
Sometimes the challenge is not adding more light but reducing or reshaping the light already present.
Windows Can Be Wonderful — or Difficult
Natural window light can look superb.
But it changes.
Cloud passes over the sun.
The sun moves.
Outdoor brightness varies.
If someone is sitting with a bright window immediately behind them, the camera may struggle to balance the very bright exterior with the much darker face.
The result can be:
an correctly exposed face and a completely white window;
or a beautiful view through the window and a person sitting in darkness.
This is another reason why a small change in position can make a large difference.
Turn the chair.
Change the camera angle.
Use the window as a side light instead of a background.
Lighting is often more about problem solving than simply switching lamps on.
Sound Is More Important Than Many People Realise
Viewers will tolerate a slightly imperfect picture surprisingly well.
Bad sound is much harder to forgive.
A beautifully lit interview becomes frustrating if:
the voice echoes;
traffic dominates the recording;
a ventilation system drones continuously;
the microphone is too far away;
clothing rubs against a hidden microphone;
or the recording level clips every time the person laughs.
This is why microphone placement matters so much.
Put the Microphone Close to the Voice
There are several approaches.
A discreet lavalier microphone attached to clothing can work extremely well.
A directional microphone placed just outside the camera frame can also provide excellent results.
The important principle is remarkably simple:
Get the microphone reasonably close to the person speaking.
A microphone mounted several metres away on top of the camera is also recording the entire room.
The further the microphone is from the voice, the greater the proportion of:
echo;
air-conditioning;
traffic;
footsteps;
and general background noise.
Good audio often comes from proximity rather than expense.
Microphone Placement Needs Care
A lavalier microphone should not simply be clipped anywhere convenient.
You have to think about:
necklaces;
jackets;
scarves;
long hair;
loose clothing;
and whether the person is likely to turn their head frequently.
A microphone rubbing against fabric can ruin a recording.
It is therefore worth recording some ordinary conversation and listening before starting the important questions.
Ten seconds spent checking the audio can save an entire interview.
Listen to the Room Before You Record
This is something worth doing deliberately.
Stop talking.
Listen.
You may suddenly notice sounds that your brain had been ignoring:
an extractor fan;
a refrigerator;
a computer fan;
a ticking clock;
traffic;
a photocopier;
a nearby conversation;
music from another room.
Once you notice them, you can decide whether to:
switch something off;
close a door;
move position;
change microphone placement;
or simply wait for the interruption to finish.
Microphones are often less forgiving than human ears.
The Interviewer Matters More Than the Camera
This is perhaps the most underestimated part of filmed interviews.
A good interviewer creates good material.
Not by asking complicated questions.
Usually by asking simple ones well.
Compare:
"Do you like being a member of the club?"
with:
"What do you enjoy most about being a member of the club?"
The first invites:
"Yes."
The second invites a story.
Ask Open Questions
Useful interview questions often begin with:
What...?
Why...?
How...?
Tell me about...
Describe...
What happened when...?
What surprised you about...?
What do you remember most about...?
These encourage complete answers.
For a customer testimonial, instead of asking:
"Were you happy with the result?"
I might ask:
"What difference did the finished project make for you?"
Instead of:
"Was the process easy?"
try:
"What was the process like from your point of view?"
You are no longer collecting yes-or-no answers.
You are collecting material for a story.
Ask One Question at a Time
This sounds obvious.
It is surprisingly easy not to do.
Consider:
"How did you hear about us, what did you think when you first contacted us, and were you pleased with the finished result?"
Which part should the interviewee answer?
They may remember one question and forget the other two.
It is much better to break the conversation down.
"How did you first hear about us?"
Then:
"What were you hoping to achieve?"
Then:
"What happened next?"
Then:
"How did you feel about the final result?"
Now each answer has a clear purpose.
The Best Question May Be: "Tell Me More About That"
Good interviewers listen.
That sounds simple, but it matters.
If I am concentrating entirely on the list of questions in front of me, I may miss the most interesting sentence in the whole interview.
Suppose someone says:
"We nearly abandoned the project completely at that point."
The next question on my prepared list might be:
"How many people were involved?"
But the obvious real question is:
"Why did you nearly abandon it?"
That is where the story is.
An interview should have structure.
It should not become a questionnaire.
Silence Can Produce Better Answers
There is a natural temptation to fill silence.
Try not to.
Someone finishes an answer.
Pause.
They may continue.
And the second thing they say is sometimes far more revealing than the first.
They have given the prepared answer.
Then, during the silence, they actually think about the question.
A few seconds later:
"Actually, the thing I remember most was..."
That may become the line used in the finished film.
Avoid Interrupting a Good Answer
In an ordinary conversation we continually reassure each other.
"Yes."
"Absolutely."
"I see."
"Really?"
That feels natural face to face.
It can be troublesome during an interview.
If the interviewer continually speaks over the contributor, clean editing becomes much more difficult.
You can still respond.
Use eye contact.
Smile.
Nod.
Encourage them non-verbally while they finish the sentence.
Then ask the next question.
Get Answers That Can Stand Alone
There is another useful technique, particularly for corporate films and documentaries.
Encourage the contributor to include enough context in their answer for it to make sense after the interviewer's question has been removed.
Question:
"How long have you been involved with the club?"
Weak standalone answer:
"About twenty years."
Much more useful:
"I've been involved with the club for about twenty years."
Now the editor can remove the question completely.
This can make the final programme flow much more naturally.
Testimonials Need Stories, Not Superlatives
A weak testimonial often sounds like this:
"They were brilliant. Everything was fantastic. Highly recommended."
Positive, certainly.
But not especially persuasive.
A more powerful testimonial contains a small story.
For example:
"We needed to film a technical demonstration but were worried that the equipment wouldn't be visible clearly. Using several camera angles meant viewers could see both the presenter and the close-up detail at the same time."
That tells a prospective customer:
what the problem was;
what was done;
and why it mattered.
Specific experiences are usually more credible than enthusiastic adjectives.
Corporate Interviews Should Still Sound Human
Businesses sometimes become nervous about allowing people to speak naturally.
Every sentence gets written.
Reviewed.
Rewritten.
Approved.
Revised again.
Eventually the contributor is expected to memorise something that sounds as though it was written by a committee.
The result may be factually perfect but emotionally empty.
There are occasions when exact wording is essential.
But for many interviews, it is better to give someone the important ideas and allow them to explain those ideas in their own words.
People rarely speak in perfectly structured paragraphs.
That is precisely why natural speech feels human.
Historical Interviews Need a Different Approach
Club histories, community documentaries and oral-history projects create another fascinating challenge.
You may be interviewing somebody because they remember events that happened forty, fifty or even seventy years ago.
Questions such as:
"When was the clubhouse altered?"
may produce a factual answer.
But questions such as:
"What did the clubhouse feel like when you first came here?"
can produce something much richer.
You might hear about:
the people;
the clothes;
old boats;
traditions;
personalities;
social events;
things that no longer exist;
or stories that have never previously been recorded.
These interviews are not simply promotional content.
They may become part of an organisation's historical record.
That makes recording them properly even more important.
Record More Than You Think You Need
When filming interviews I would generally rather record too much useful material than discover later that one important question was never asked.
It can also be valuable to capture:
the person listening;
their hands;
their workplace;
relevant photographs;
equipment;
trophies;
buildings;
demonstrations;
or other details connected with their story.
This material becomes extremely useful during editing.
Editors call much of this B-roll.
If someone is describing an old sailing trophy, show the trophy.
If an engineer is explaining a machine, show the machine.
If somebody is discussing historical photographs, film the photographs.
The audience no longer has to imagine everything being discussed.
They can see it.
Sometimes the Interview Should Not Look Like an Interview
There are occasions when sitting someone formally in a chair is not the best approach at all.
A craftsperson might speak more naturally while working.
A musician may explain something while sitting at the instrument.
A sailing instructor might talk beside a boat.
A business owner might walk through the workplace.
A scientist might demonstrate an experiment.
These situations give the contributor something familiar to concentrate on.
The camera becomes secondary.
That can sometimes produce the most relaxed material of all.
A Practical Interview Setup
Imagine we are filming a customer testimonial for a small business.
We might:
Choose a quiet part of the premises that visually relates to the business.
Move the contributor away from the wall to create depth.
Position the main camera around eye height.
Place the interviewer just beside the camera.
Add a second camera for a tighter angle.
Use soft lighting from slightly to one side of the face.
Check that the background is neither too bright nor distracting.
Fit or position the microphone.
Record a short conversation and listen carefully to the audio.
Begin with easy questions.
Move gradually towards the most important subjects.
Ask follow-up questions whenever something interesting appears.
Record some additional shots around the workplace afterwards.
The final video may look simple.
That simplicity has been carefully constructed.
Questions That Often Produce Useful Answers
For a business testimonial:
"What problem were you originally trying to solve?"
"Why did you choose this particular approach?"
"What was the experience of working together like?"
"Was there anything that particularly surprised you?"
"What difference did the final result make?"
For a club history:
"What do you remember about your first visit?"
"Who were the characters everyone knew?"
"What has changed most?"
"What traditions have survived?"
"Is there a particular event you still remember vividly?"
For a documentary:
"When did you first realise something important was happening?"
"What happened next?"
"How did people react?"
"What were you thinking at the time?"
"Looking back now, do you see it differently?"
Notice how few of these can be answered simply with "yes" or "no".
The Technology Should Eventually Disappear
I enjoy the technical side of video production.
Cameras.
Lenses.
Microphones.
Lighting.
Multi-camera switching.
Monitoring.
Recording.
Editing.
All of these tools matter.
But the ultimate objective is rather paradoxical.
The better the equipment and preparation work, the less the audience should be thinking about them.
The viewer should be listening to the story.
The interviewee should be thinking about the conversation.
The technology should quietly do its job.
That is particularly true when filming somebody who does not spend their life in front of cameras.
They should not need to become a television presenter.
It is our job to create the conditions in which they can simply be themselves.
The Best Interview May Be the Moment After the "Interview"
There is one final phenomenon that anyone who records interviews eventually encounters.
You finish.
Someone relaxes.
Then they say:
"Actually, there was one other thing..."
And suddenly they tell you the best story of the day.
Why?
Because psychologically the interview is over.
The pressure has disappeared.
They are talking to a person again rather than performing for a camera.
Which brings us back to the central idea.
A successful filmed interview is not created simply by pointing expensive equipment at someone.
It comes from creating an environment in which that person feels able to talk.
Get the camera position right.
Create a comfortable eye line.
Use flattering but unobtrusive lighting.
Put the microphone close enough to record clear sound.
Choose a background that contributes to the story.
Ask open questions.
Listen carefully.
Follow interesting answers.
And above all, allow the person in front of the camera to stop worrying about being filmed.
Because the moment they forget about the camera is often the moment the real interview begins.
At Philip M Russell Ltd, filmed interviews can form part of corporate films, customer testimonials, documentaries, club and organisation histories, promotional videos, training material and multi-camera productions. The technology matters — but ultimately it exists to help people tell their stories well.
