On being interviewed (for “Objectified”)

As some of you know, I was interviewed for the documentary Objectified, which has shown in a few cities already, and has some (sold out) screenings in New York starting last night. I’ve seen the movie, and it’s pretty interesting and I think worth seeing if you’re interested in material culture in the 21st century (which I assume you are or why in the world are you on this site)?

Anyway, I thought I would pass along an observation or two about being interviewed. Possibly it’s of interest only if you’ve seen the movie, I don’t know. I’ve been interviewed on radio shows and some TV stuff, and even for another documentary (from which I was cut — oh well!), but obviously I’m much more used to doing the interviewing. The curious thing about this instance is that just a day or two after director Gary Hustwit and director of photography Luke Geissbuhler came down to Savannah to talk to me, I happened to read this item, in which Hustwit talks about his interview style.

“You’re trying to capture the person on screen both saying something interesting and actually being interesting,” said Hustwit of the challenges of capturing good talking head footage.

He’s found that his own facial expression makes all the difference; it directly affects the expression of his subject, even one who is speaking through a translator in a language he cannot understand.

This is true — he totally did that! I wasn’t thinking about it at the time, but he was quite expressive as I spoke, and I think it did sort of give me a feeling of encouragement — the implied empathy made me feel like I must be saying something he liked, so I kept going with it, or whatever.

I’m not suggesting I said anything I didn’t believe, obviously. It’s more like Hustwit’s apparent engagement made me feel more engaged. And perhaps that comes across.

Interesting, yes?

In the months after the interview (and reading that item) I was actually extremely nervous about the documentary, because much of what I read as the buzz started to build suggested it would largely be a celebration of how awesome designers are. Meanwhile the questions he asked me — and his facial expressions when I answered! — were much more in the direction of concern about consumer-culture consequences and the like. So I worried my comments would end up making me look like a sort of clueless curmudgeon, someone who just didn’t get good design: Mr. Bummer.

The movie itself turned out to be a lot more thoughtful than the early posts on some blogs suggested; it’s about good design and about consequences. And I think Hustwit, as someone else observed, is generally very kind to his subjects. Everybody gets to make good points, and everybody seems smart and engaged. Maybe that’s a reflection of his interview technique (as well as the editing)?

I need to see the movie again, without the distraction of my personal anxieties. Maybe later when I have — hey Hustwit, where’s that DVD? — I’ll have more to say about the actual movie. But for now I just thought I’d share what I learned about interviewing … and being interviewed.