A Quote by Errol Morris

I think an interview, properly considered, should be an investigation. You shouldn't know what the interview will yield. Otherwise, why do it at all? — © Errol Morris
I think an interview, properly considered, should be an investigation. You shouldn't know what the interview will yield. Otherwise, why do it at all?
If you're coming to do an interview with me, you should know about me. It's not that it's 'cos I'm Wizkid; I'd even hate it if you were coming to interview my friend and asked him the same question. You're here for an interview, so you should know who you're doing the interview with.
If the interview was done in the studio, Frank McGee would automatically do it. But if I went out and got it, then the interview was mine. So I was considered a pushy cookie, because I would get the interview.
It is harder to lie in an interview. A good interview - and it can be polite - is not a one way street like a candidate controlled ad. An interview is not programmed by the candidate and so the candidate can't be exactly sure what will be asked.
The number one problem companies have during the Y Combinator interview is that a minute into the interview, we don't know what they do. It's the same problem with the application. You might think we're experts, but you still have to explain it to us.
My rule is that if I interview someone, they should never read what I have to say about them and regret having given me the interview.
I was pretty good at studies and when I had come to NSD for my interview, I'd lied that I have got a scholarship to study abroad. I told my family that I had a visa interview, but I was actually here for the interview at NSD.
If someone is brought in for an interview, for example, and is asked about their views on things, but has posted things that are completely contrary to the interview, frankly I have much more faith in what they posted than what they say during the course of an interview.
I was spurred by the fact that having worked for women's magazines myself as a journalist, if you go off and interview a female celebrity, I'd just go in and interview them like I'd interview any human being and talk about the things that interested me. And you'd come back, and you'd file your copy. And then my editor would read through my copy and go, why haven't you asked them if they want kids? And I'd be like, well, I don't know, I interviewed Aerosmith last week. And I didn't ask them that.
When I first started doing press interviews, the big question was, 'Do you think women are funny?' People would ask you that in an interview. In an interview! It's like, of course they are.
People like myself, who have good credibility in the game and played at the very top level, you'd think would get a job or at least be given an interview, but you're not even getting an interview.
One interview would lead us to another interview, which led us to another interview. We had the questions and the idea of chonicling this moment in time. But we didn't have a movie, per se. As we started interviewing people, it started to kind of define itself.
An interview is only as good as both parties are willing to give to the interview and that includes the interviewer.
Every interview I've done since I've turned 40, the journalist will say, 'So, isn't it amazing? Your career should be over, but you're still working. Why do you think you have found a career at a time when a lot of women are slowing down?'
I did a radio interview for a station in Connecticut or something, and it was the worst interview ever. It was all yes and no answers.
It's probably odd for someone to read an interview where the interviewee is worried about exposure while they're talking in an interview.
Why should I give you an interview? All you journalists are plagiarists.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!