Reading those interviews was certainly an interesting ride. They werent exactly what you'd call an easy read. Reading something thats more dialogue than prose or a creative questioning format makes for droll reading. The fact that it was on military and technology was the only thing that kept it form being a complete snooze.
However by the time I made it to the second interview, it finally began to read like an interview, with questions and the like. Ritzer's view on "Mcdonalised society"? Genius topic; not 100% genius answers. However, the questions seemed to have been prepared in advance, which made it feel scripted, because even Ritzer seemed a little too quick and concise on the response. Being scripted takes away the feeling of authenticity, so it left me with only a slight gain in knowledge.
Like Ellen's, my computer, too, would not allow me to watch the next interview. It may just be a Mac thing, because neither of us could make the plugin work, and we're both intelligent enough when it comes to that sort of thing.
If anyone knows my personality, they know that when I interview someone, its like competing on American Gladiators, Fear Factor, and the Olympics all in one action-packed Steven Segal, Jason Statham, Sylvester Stallone thriller. Ok, maybe a little less glitzy than that, but I try to make things interesting and keep things lively. To me, interviewing someone isnt so much about the questions that are asked, so much as it is about the answers and how much they bring to light about the topic. I try o make the atmosphere enjoyable and keep the interviewee as entertained as I am. If its in some format other than spoken word, I try and keep it as humorous and lighthearted as possible.
So even though I may not have a blockbuster documentary on my hands, I try to make my interviews as productive and entertaining as possible, while maintaining a sense of direction and hoping to keep a level of reputability at the same time. Interviews can be great things, if only done properly.
No comments:
Post a Comment