However, if you buy this criticism of your interviewing style (your sensibility?), don’t go changing too much… Charlie’s befuddlement and subsequent attempts at correctives were highly illuminating about his artistic processes, in and of themselves. When the interview ended, I craved more.

It just seems to me at this point that after this many replies of this sort that this line of questioning should be de-emphasized, as it is dominating the time alotted for your interviews and turning opportunities for discussion into semi- (and sometimes fully) adversarial confrontations wherein the interview subjects have to repeatedly tell you that what you believe you have observed in the subtexts and semiotics of their work was not intended, and doesn’t seem to them related to what they were intending with the work.

It seems to me that perhaps if you tried some new avenues of questioning that it might open up your interviews to more productive and illuminating themes of discussion, rather than these repetitive confrontations which seem to focus the interviews more on your own interpretations of what the authors have created than on what the authors themselves have to say. I don’t believe this is intentional, but it is getting sort of annoying, particularly in examples such as the recent Mike Leigh clusterfuck and most of this Kaufman interview, which was a frustrating listening experience, as it felt like a real missed opportunity for two intelligent fellas to find common ground, but instead turned into you attempting one failed analysis of the film after another while Kaufman exasperatedly attempted to steer you off of your serial wild goose chases.

I think you’re a skilled interviewer and intelligent guy, just wanted to speak up on this as it feels like it’s getting in the way of what your show is when it’s at its best.