Having got two brilliant and interesting people like Dawkins and Pinker into one room at the same time, it's a pity they couldn't rustle up anything other than a single, handheld camera. I don't think I'm likely to watch the full 68 minutes, it's making me seasick. Oddly the fact that they're both standing up for the entire video also makes me a bit uncomfortable... why don't you take a seat, guys?
The other problem is that I really get the idea that Dawkins aren't really having a discussion as such, they're just talking back and forth about things they both know perfectly well.
I'm starting to appreciate the traditional style of interview, where the interviewer is ignorant, and thus a better stand-in for the audience.
Urgh no. Few things frustrate me more than reading interesting literature by people like Dawkins and Chomsky, then going online and finding that 90% of the interviews with them are conducted by ignorant mass-media shrills. Who obviously haven't read any of their works, and echo the same stupid questions that have been asked in every other interview with them.
I'd rather watch two experts in a field conversing. That's thought provocative, and it gives me good pointers on subjects that I should follow up on.
"What you see here is the full extended interview, which includes a lot of rough camera transitions that were edited out of the final program (along with a lot of content)."
This still doesn't explain why the camera transitions mid-sentence.
Yes these are the raw interviews filmed for the making of "The Genius of Charles Darwin" by the BBC. Not really just a hand-held camera, more the style of the production. I find it very interesting, giving a behind the scenes view of the documentary. Exposes a lot of the personal exchanges that normally get left on the cutting room floor. Check out the Dannett interview for some good bits around 37:00
The other problem is that I really get the idea that Dawkins aren't really having a discussion as such, they're just talking back and forth about things they both know perfectly well.
I'm starting to appreciate the traditional style of interview, where the interviewer is ignorant, and thus a better stand-in for the audience.