Part of me thinks you could still tape the interview and get more footage to play with (always thinking about the edit ). But a pen and paper is a lot less daunting than a camera and you would no doubt get more out of a straight conversation.

You’d listen more as well.

I have learned to love narration.

I had heard so many bad narrations, I was against the whole idea. Then I finally started to hear some good ones, well written AND well voiced. That won me over.

I would second that idea of listening and would add that it’s also about the interviewer being curious. Often a simple “how did that make you feel” before the “tell me what happened next” can make all the difference.

I think another issue that may be contributing to some of this is the ‘ethical’ debate around scripted packages and packages ‘narrated’ by the protagonists.

When you have to really solely on the interviewee to tell the story I think you are bound to get the equivalent of the ‘procedural’ interview where the reporter feels the pressure to get the linear narrative straight so that the story progresses. In the heat of it the emotion can be lost.

I find that one way round that is to do more than one interview. Get them to go through their story. Listen to what they say. Think about the story they have just told you and how you might film that not how that interview fits in the story you want to tell.

Then interview them again about the story they just told you not the story you want to tell.

Don’t be afraid to question, challenge and even express an emotional response to the story.

It would be interesting to find out what types of questions the OnBeing producer asks during interviews.