There absolutely have been such interviews, sometimes in rather lofty academic formats and sometimes as informal as American daytime television. There's a good description of one in a book called "Denying History", co-written by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, (recommended to me on this subreddit and a good read) which is my main source here.

Deniers tend to pick out individual details and discrepancies between the accounts of survivors, point put that these details contradict each other and conclude that the survivors are lying and the Holocaust is thereby disapproved. This is silly; different people had different experiences during the Holocaust and so of course their stories don't match exactly, to say nothing of the fact that eyewitness accounts almost never line up exactly. You wouldn't expect survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto to have had precisely the same experience as French Jews or Hungarian Jews or non-Jewish Poles or Soviet POWs or German communists, even if they were all in the same camp at the same time, which they probably weren't since the Holocaust lasted for many years. But deniers clutch at any tiny difference and assume from there that the entire testimony of survivors is discredited.

hi! don't recall whether these posts get into this specific aspect, but you may find something of interest (e.g. source material) in the FAQ

Holocaust Denial