You are on page 1of 23

To most people, interviews are all the same, you ask questions and you get answers.

However
there are loads of different types of interviews in type of interview, location, kind of question.
Interview types range from Hard News, which is BBC News, Sky News. There is Combative
which is very popular with political interviews, so Question Time. Other interviews include
Promotional, which is chat shows like Graham Norton, Jonathan Ross. Promotional interviews
are as the name suggests, an interview where the person being interviewed is promoting
something about himself. Most commonly his/her latest movie. Investigative which is shows
like Crimewatch and documentaries, certain sections of news could come under this as well,
whenever they interview someone who has information about about a gang, they silhouette
there face, and sometimes an actor plays their voice. They do this because they have
information usually about dangerous gangs and they need to protect the witnesses identity.
Along with interview types. There is also a few interview purposes. The first interview purpose is
Research. This tends to be in interviews of TV shows like the news. This purpose is employed
to find out information about the topic of the interview. The 2nd is Enhancement Of Audience
Understanding. This purpose is also very popular in news interviews. Especially Hard news.
This is because the news will try to make us be on a certain side of the argument. So for
example, if they interviewing a soldier who has just been a battle. They will ask questions that
will sound disturbing to the viewer. As a result they will probably feel sorry for those stuck in the
conflict. So the news would have enhanced the audience's understanding of that topic. Another
interview purpose is Informational. This purpose couldn’t be more simple, it would be to gain
information about a topic. This would simply be questions like “What happened here?”. It is
really similar to the purpose Research. The next purpose is Interpretive. This purpose is where
the interviewer will use their research of the topic and sought of ask their opinion of it. A good
example of this is from Jeremy Paxman. He asks “It’s specifically about the August increase
actually, the £1.5 bn that you referred to and now you say is £550m”. This is Paxman trying to
interpret. Try to get another angle of what this statement means. The final interview purpose is
to be Emotional. This is used in all kinds of interviews whether it is chat shows, hard news,
investigative etc. When this purpose is enforced, the viewers will feel sorry for that person or
that group of people. For example whenever there is an interview with a celebrity who has come
out of rehab. They will ask questions like “How tough was it to recover from your addiction”. The
audience will feel sorry for that person, understand what they have been through.
Interview types and purposes are important. However there is one aspect that is even more
important. Question types. There are loads of different questions types that when the audience
listen, they possibly don’t even realise but they can really make a difference. The most common
question type are Open Questions. These are questions where the person being asked can
give any answer, basically it is an answer that is more than a yes or a no. Examples of open
questions is “How was your day?” or “How was the football game?”. Whereas if it was a closed
question it would be worded as “Was your day good?”. Closed Questions are literally the
opposite of open questions. Closed questions are simply questions that will be answered with a
yes or a no or a specific bit of information. So for example, “Are you happy?” or “Are you glad to
be here?”. The next question type is Multiple Questions. These questions tend to get big, long
answers because you get asked something like 4 or 5 questions at once. An example of a

multiple questions is from the movie Stuart Little. “Stuart, how are you?, How’s Snowball?,
When are you coming home?”. As I said 3 quick fire questions with no time in between them to
answer. There are a few good things and bad things with this questions time. One good thing is
that it can really set the flow of an interview, for example if an interview is going slowly and
getting boring. If you throw in a multiple question, it can really increase the speed of the
interview along with the people's opinion of it. It is a bit like football where you have a team
passing the ball around very slowly, then they starting passing the ball around very quickly
without taking a touch. Basically it increases the pace. However by increasing the flow, there is
a potential problem that could be fatal for the interview. The questions could be coming far too
quickly for the subject and he will ask wait, let me think. There is nothing worse that an
interview, especially a live one where they have to stop and think. Another question type is Key
Questions. These are questions that will hopefully provide the information that the interview
needs. So if there was an interview about an event. The interviewer will ask questions like
“When did this happen?”. The advantages of a key questions is that you can get the answers
that the interview wants. A fourth question type is Confidence Building. As the name says, this
focuses on how confident the subject is. Majority of interviews have this kind of question.
Especially interviews where this is the subject's first time in front the TV cameras. Confidence
building questions can be as simple as “How are you feeling or?” or “How does it feel to be
here?”. This is continued on, if the subject says something like “feeling a bit nervous”. The
interviewer will reply something there is no need to feel the nerves. So hopefully the subject will
feel more confident. This is a good thing for the interview because the more confident the
subject is, the more likely they are to answers the questions more honestly and thoroughly. The
more answers that the are honest, the more successful the interview is. Another question type is
Single Questions. Single questions are where a short answer is expected. Sometimes a single
questions feels like a very quick change in topic. One thing that is very common in interviews
are Summaries. Summaries are more of statement rather than a question but they are still very
popular in interviews. Usually around the middle of the interview the interview will give a brief
description of what was said earlier, mainly for people who have just tuned into the interview but
it is also there to remind people of what has happened already. An example of a summary is
“This is the news story that the value of the pound has decreased”. A summary can also serve
as the basis of a question. The interviewer can say a statement then ask the subject a question
based on that statement.

The first interview I watched was an interview on the BBC politics show Newsnight. It had
Jeremy Paxman interviewing Chloe Smith about the Tories making a U-turn about their
proposed increase of Fuel tax in 2012. Chloe Smith who is the Economic Secretary to the
Treasury. Ms Smith has “been considered something of a rising Government star” by the
Independent newspaper. This interview is a good example of a Hard news and a combative
interview. Interviews about politics are always combative. The first style of this interview is Hard
News. This is evident when we look at the Mise En Scene of this interview. You can tell this by
looking at the positioning of the interview and the interviewee. The interviewer is sitting at the
end of the table and he has his resources [notes, keyboard]. However Chloe Smith is sitting on

the side of the table with no notes. It
makes Chloe Smith look like the guest,
which in this case she is. This could be
suggesting that we are going to find out

some information from Chloe Smith here.
We can also tell this is a Hard news and a serious interview by looking at the background. On
the background there is a picture of George Osborne. Osborne is the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, the exchequer is the Treasury, the Treasury are responsible for all the money in the
UK, so they control how much tax the taxpayers pay. So we can instantly tell this interview is
going to be about money, something to do with financing or the economy. Another way of telling
this is going to be about money is because in this image, Osborne is holding a red box. This is
the budget box, which reveals what the annual budget for the government will be. After this
interview was aired, George Osborne was labeled as a “coward”, “arrogant” for using such a
promising junior minister as Cannon fodder. Also this wasn’t a young minister. This was the
Tories youngest minister, so the most inexperienced one. The Mail described it at “Chloe Smith,
30, was a lamb to the slaughter, while George Osborne – the one who actually scrapped a 3p
rise in fuel duty – dined safely in his Downing Street flat”. Osborne received loads of criticism
from politicians and public by his display of arrogance. Former politicians like John Prescott
complained. Back with the Mise-en-scene we can see a sign that has an arrow turning around.
This is a car U-turn sign and it is indicating that the government has changed their mind about
something to do with cars. These photos are merged over each other. In this case we have a Uturn sign merged over the door to No.11 Downing Street. This is known as the home of the
Chancellor Of The Exchequer which is George Osborne. This could also be indicating that the
decisions was made in private at No.11 Downing Street. Rather than it being made and debated
in public at the Houses Of Parliament. Also there doesn’t seem to be any order to the images, it
looks a bit chaotic, all over the place. This could be the producers saying the Tories are creating
chaos with this, they are all over the place, not making a proper decision. Also the colour blue,
could be referring to the Conservatives main colour, additionally blue is known as a serious

colour so this use of colour could mean two things, it could either mean in this show we are
going to focusing on the Conservatives views and ideas or they could be saying that this is a
serious news show, and therefore is Hard news.
There are other ways you can tell this is hard news. One way is by looking at their clothes,
Jeremy Paxman is wearing a black suit with a red tie, with what appears to be a white/pink shirt.
Red is the colour the Labour party, so Paxman could be showing his support for the Labour
party. Chloe Smith is wearing a red/pink dress and a blouse. This is very formal clothing from
both people, suits tend to mean hard news.
The last way I can tell this is hard news is by looking at how the two people in the interview
speak to address by both body and sound language. Jeremy Paxman uses words like “effect on
families”, in an economic debate, people usually mention families who can’t afford it, which is
hard for people to take and experience, money issues are considered hard news. I think this
will make the viewer, especially those with families interested in the topic being discusses, they
might ask themselves questions like how will this affect me, will I be better and worse off. I
believe this is an example of Jeremy Paxman trying to enhance the audience understanding
and view of what the effect could be if the Conservative party went through with their tax plans.
This is because Paxman is saying that the new fuel tax plan will make families poorer
considering we are in a recession.
Also with body language, you can see Chloe Smith’s body language wasn’t effective because
this was her first time on tv, she wasn’t completely sure what to expect. Whereas Jeremy
Paxman, who had been on TV since 1989, in 2012, that was 23 years experience and his bond
language was correct for the situation. That is 23 years experience compared to no years
experience. However though, Chloe Smith’s body language never changed, it stayed the same
all the way through the interview even though she looked like she was struggling under the
pressure.
The second style of this is interview is Combative. This interview is about politics, so it is
automatically going to be combative. This is because we have got Chloe Smith who is on Tories
side, whereas Paxman is more unknown, doesn’t really have a side in politics. However he is
there to find the faults in the plan.
Another example of combative is “I’m not asking for a running commentary … when you were
told”. This is showing us that Jeremy Paxman is going straight for the answers, he isn’t here to
discuss each other's social life, he is here to get some answers however Chloe Smith is trying to
change the nature of the interview, probably because Paxman diving straight in with the key
questions are appearing to be a bit of surprise for her. I think this example of combative is mixed
because Jeremy Paxman defiantly sounds the louder of the 2, the more forceful, so you would
obviously think he would get his point across. However I don’t think he does I think that even
though Paxman showed what he wanted to do, he still didn’t put his point across which by the
sound of the argument was that the decision was made at the last moment.

A third example of this is being combative is Paxman introducing the interview by saying “Chloe
Smith the treasury minister is here with us, when was you told about the change of plan?”.
Paxman said this possibly in hope to throw Chloe Smith into the deep end, because this is her
first time on TV, she would automatically struggle. So Paxman might be trying to make her
struggle even more, to make the audience feel on the side of Paxman, make the audience think
that Paxman has won the debate. This is because that is the idea of a combative interview, two
people arguing their points and eventually there will be someone who argued their point/opinion
better. So by throwing Chloe Smith into the deep end and making the audience think Paxman
has the upper hand. The audience will think that Paxman has won the debate.
You can also see that this is combative by looking at Paxman’s and Smith’s body language.
Chloe Smith is always moving her hands especially towards Paxman. For example when
Paxman asks “When was the decision made” twice. Smith appears to be moving her hands
towards Paxman in a way saying, I’m not prepared to answer that question. Smith might want
this to look like she is trying to take control of the interview. However it more looks like Smith is
unprepared for that question. Smith wouldn’t like to look scared and unconfident about going on
TV because people need to look up at her as someone who works with the Treasury, she needs
to look like someone who can help control our money.
I can also see evidence of this being combative because of certain interview purposes. In my
opinion the main purpose this is Enhancement Of Audience Understanding. This is where the
presenter tries to shape the opinions of the audience. There are loads of examples of this
purpose. “chancellor and the primer minister did”, “use this money to do something like paying
that down” and “You ever think you are incompetent?”. This is Paxman trying to make Smith feel
bad, make her feel like she has failed the Tories. Paxman even starts to say what the Tories
should do, he says things like Tories should spend their money on this, not this. Also he
mentions “chancellor and the prime minister did”. This is Paxman trying to make the audience
know that Chloe Smith doesn’t make the decisions, she is effectively the spokeswoman. The
chancellor [George Osborne] and the prime minister [David Cameron] are those who make
these decisions and Chloe Smith is basically the Conservatives puppet. This is further
supported by “and think, my god, what am I going to be told today?”. This is Paxman making
Smith feels like she is being controlled by the Conservatives, this will make the audience be on
the side of Paxman because he is someone voicing his own opinion, whereas Chloe Smith is
voicing the opinion of the Conservative party.
Even if you didn’t follow politics, you would be able to tell that Jeremy Paxman has got a poor
opinion of Chloe Smith and the Conservative party. You can tell this with many of the direct
questions sent towards Chloe Smith. Especially the ones focused on Smith’s position within the
party and her ability. For example Paxman insults Smith’s ability with “You ever think you are
incompetent”. She also insults her position and authority within the party/Treasury with “use this
money to do something like paying that down?”. Paxman is probably trying to catch Smith off
guard with a couple of questions directed at her and her responsibilities. Smith probably didn’t
expect this because this was her first time on TV. So these direct questions would of given
Paxman the upper hand in the interview. I think here Paxman goes off topic. At the start of the

interview, Paxman told us we were here to talk about the change in the Tories plans. Whereas
here, he is talking about Chloe Smith's suitability to being a politician. Maybe Paxman thought
he had all the information he needed, so decided to go onto a personal attack now. However I
don’t think he had all the information he wanted and needed. Mainly because Smith kept on
changing the subject. Paxman does try to bring it back. But I’m not convinced that he was
successful.
The most common interview technique in this interview is Developmental questions. There is a
developmental question right at the start of the interview. Jeremy Paxman opens the interview
with “When were you told of this change of plan?”. Then he follows it up with “When was the
decision taken?” then he follows up with the same question again. This is mainly because Chloe
Smith doesn’t answer the exact same question as she was asked, however it shows the viewer
that Paxman is leading to something. It makes it look like Paxman is on the path to something
straight from the start. He isn’t starting with anything like “how are you” or “are you glad to be
here” etc. He is going straight in. He probably did this to make Chloe Smith feel uncomfortable,
for the errors from her. This would be Paxman using his experience of combative interviews.
Other examples of developmental questions are “This has been under discussion for several
weeks” and “priority of the government is reducing the deficit”. They all change the tone and the
setting of the interview. Usually to indicate a change in subject and sometimes the catch the
interviewee off guard. I don’t think this technique went well because Paxman didn’t seem to
change the topic. However this was probably Chloe Smith being resilient.
A second question type in this interview is key questions. There are a couple of examples of key
questions here. One example is “When was the decision taken?” and “So when were you told,
then?”. Key questions are where the interview will ask a question that is very important for the
success of the interview. The answers to key questions provide the answer that the
interviewer/show needs. So in this interview the key questions would of been about when was
the change in plan and why. The key questions in this was a test of Smith’s ability to keep a
secret because it really sounds like the Tories told her not to disclose why there was a change
of plan. This is because Chloe Smith said “we'll be giving you the full details in the autumn
statement”. This means that Paxman’s key questions weren’t successful because he didn’t get
the key information that the interview wanted and needed.
Another question type that is in this interview is Direct questions. One example of a direct
question is “Do you ever wake up the in the morning and think, my God, what am I going to be
told today?”. This question was directed right at Chloe Smith because it was a rather personal
question because it debated her position within the party and the Treasury. The other way I can
tell this is a direct question is because of the use of the word “you”. Whenever the word ‘you’ is
used in a question. It usually means that this question needs to be answered quickly because it
is is being aimed directly at Smith so it needs to be answered quickly, so Paxman can move on
to the next question. Paxman might of used a direct question to make Smith feel uncomfortable
or to force an error out of her. The amount of direct questions eventually start to overwhelm her.
So Smith started to express her opinion on the situation rather than answer the questions that
Paxman has asked. mainly to make her look like she knows what she is talking about. An

example of this is when she is asked “what am I going to be told today?”. Then Smith reply is off
topic she starts talking about how people will really value the fact that they won’t have to pay
more on fuel tax.
In this interview, there are a few summaries. One clear example of a summary is “We are clear
that what you are looking for now is 500-odd million pounds, you say that various government
departments are under spending, although you are unable to tell us which ones. Presumably
you do know but are choosing not to tell us. Is that correct?”. This Jeremy Paxman basically
Paxman providing his sum up of the situation, which is that it is chaos, he is saying that the
Tories haven’t thought there plan through. There plan could jeopardise the country. Another
example of a summary is “But you said that it wasn't certain "that cutting fuel duty would have a
positive effect on families or businesses". That was on the 23rd of May, now what's happened
between the 23rd of May and today which is, what, the 25th of June?”. Like I said, these are
basically a statement of facts that sum up something that people want to hear about.

This interview features a massive amount of open questions rather than closed questions. This
is because Paxman doesn’t only want an answer, he wants a reason. This is he can ske
questions like “Is it hard to defend a policy you don’t agree with”. Paxman could of simply asked
“Do you agree with this policy” and it would of been a yes or no and moved on. However
Paxman wanted a reason for Smith's answer, not just a yes or no. Other examples of questions
that could’ve been closed are “Why didn’t the transport secretary know about it yesterday?”. I
can only find a few closed questions in this interview. They are all about Chloe Smith herself,
rather than the point at hand. This could be Paxman undermining Chloe Smith, inferring that she
isn’t important.
Open questions are featured in this interview as well. Open questions are similar to closed
questions, the are short and quick. However the interviewer wants more than a yes or a no. He
wants a quick sentence, not a lecture, not a paragraph, a sentence to back up the interviewee’s
answer. I think an example of an open question in this interview is “Is it hard for you to defend a
policy you don’t agree with?”. I think this is an open question because there are loads of
different responses that Smith can give. Also Paxman hasn’t asked do you agree with the policy,
he is clearly trying to imply that he wants a reason for Smith's answer. If Paxman wanted to ask
it as a closed question, he would of simply asked ‘Do you agree with this policy’. I think this
question is definitely suggestive. This is because Paxman said “you don’t agree with”, he is
trying to suggest what the people that follow him want to hear. He wants to hear that Smith
doesn’t agree with the policy, because this would look bad on the Tories and it would definitely
look back on Smith, disagreeing with what her party superior's think is right. I think this question
is also interpretive, because he is trying to interpret Chloe Smith's mind.
There is one question type that makes a rather obscure appearance is suggestive. One
example of a suggestive question is “can you just confirm to us that the number one priority of
the government is reducing the deficit?”. This question could of been a simple “what is the
government's main priority”. However Paxman includes a potential answer in the question.

Suggestive questions are asked when the interviewer is trying to suggest an answer to the
interviewee. It is almost like asking, is this what you’re doing. Paxman probably employs this
question type to make it sound like he is in possession of the facts, make it sound like he has
done his research, he knows what he is saying. This would make the audience go on Paxman’s
side.
The interview contained both good and bad aspects. Jeremy Paxman’s objective of this
interview was to get answers for why the Tories had changed their mind about the increase in
fuel tax. However Paxman didn’t manage to get a proper answer from Smith, probably because
Smith wasn’t allowed the disclose the reasons for the change of plan. You could look at this as a
good point for Smith because when you put the two experiences up against each other, Paxman
with 23 years experience against Chloe Smith's first time on TV, You would think that Paxman’s
experience would make getting the answers simple. However Smith was resilient and clearly
had a gameplan to manipulate the mind of Paxman into asking specific questions. I don’t think
Smith did that aspect but she was defiantly resilient with some of the questions so that is a
positive for Chloe Smith and not a good moment for Paxman. Also Chloe Smith kept to the
same tone all the way through the interview her body language seems to be the same all the
way through this seems a bit odd because she looked like she was struggling under the
pressure however it looks like she didn’t show it. Whereas Jeremy Paxman sometimes changed
his tone and his body language this was probably Paxman changing his plan of attack to
probably catch Smith off guard. Another bad moment for Jeremy Paxman was his mood
throughout the interview. He tended to be rude towards Chloe Smith. Paxman did this because
he doesn’t want the show to appear to be bias. Paxman claimed in one article to be a Tory
supporter, however other times he has said he isn’t on any side. So to make sure the show is
bias, to prove this he is forceful towards her. Paxman could be doing this to make people
believe his side of the argument. However some people might see this is Paxman trying to
make himself sound better than the others. So he might sound a bit arrogant to some and that
would alienate some people. However there is some good aspects from Paxman. Paxman
manages to make Smith struggle, to force the errors from her. This mainly happens around half
way through the interview where Paxman starts to introduce some facts. Chloe Smith ‘coughs’
on one of her lines. She tries to make it look like a cough however it appears to show she is
buckling under the pressure. She might of coughed to give her a few seconds to think of an
answer, think of a lie to tell the audience. So Paxman managed to show us that Chloe Smith
doesn’t have all the facts, she is making up some facts to get away with it. However this could
be Chloe Smith crumbling under the pressure with real facts. This led to the Independent saying
“She had proved a safe pair of hands”.
Jonathan Ross:
The Jonathan Ross show is mainly a chat show however it is known for celebrities promoting
their new movies, shows. This is evident right from the start of the interview. The first section
that is promotional is in the introduction about him. Jonathan Ross mentions the following “Tom
is famous for changing his body to play roles”, “really immerses himself”. This is Ross informing
the audience that in the past. Tom Hardy has really changed his body so he could act out a

specific character. This will hopefully make the audience respect Hardy for his commitment to
the details of his character. So it makes the audience feel emotional towards Hardy, make them
think that he is doing so much to advance his film career. I guess this could also come across as
enhancement of audience understanding, this would be because Ross could be trying to say,
Hardy is putting in so much effort then the audience will start to realise just how much effort he
has committed. Other examples of promotional in this introduction is “he gained two muscle to
play Charles Bronson” and “Warrior”. This is a product placement of the movie which Charles
Bronson and Warrior. Two movies that aren’t popular and Hardy has starred in. So Ross is
spreading the word about these movies basically saying everyone, he’s been in this, he’s been
in that. However Bronson in 2008 was his first popular movie it wasn’t that popular however it
was his first proper recognition in the movie world. In this introduction we also see some
confidence building by Ross. Which we definitely don’t see from the left-wing Paxman talking to
Tory Chloe Smith. Jonathan Ross would applied some confidence building into Hardy because
this was his first time on TV, so Ross will want him to look good and be cool. So when he asks
him onto the stage he says “One of the most really gifted screen actors of our generation, ladies
and gentlemen is the fabulous Tom Hardy”. It’s almost like Ross is saying, I’m glad you're here.
The audience are glad your here. If Hardy feels like he is wanted, he will feel more confident.
And if he feels more confident, he is likely to give away the answers that Jonathan Ross wants.
Another aspect of promotion in this interview is talking about Hardy’s upcoming movie Mad Max.
This all started with Hardy simply mentioning “We’re doing Mad Max in Australia” then Ross said
“He’s going to be Mad Max ladies and gentleman”. Then it is followed by a massive round of
applause and a few cheers and whistles from the audience. However after this everything went
downhill with the interview. This was because after this statement Ross asked questions that
either Hardy didn’t have the answers for or most likely because he wasn’t allowed to answer. He
probably wasn’t allowed to answer because this interview was in 2010 and the filming hadn’t
even begun yet. The film was only released in 2015. The reason why it took so long was money
problems. So maybe some of the investors in the film were unhappy with Hardy mentioning it
that they might of pulled out. I believe the purpose in this was to be informational. This would be
Jonathan Ross spreading a statement he has heard because it is information that the audience
would like to hear. Mad Max is a cult film. So people who like cult films will probably say. He’s
acting in a cult film, I should go and watch that.
Finally with promotional The movie Warriors is also promoted in this interview. This cuts in with
his promoting Hardy because Jonathan Ross mentioned “He went three stones up for his next
movie Warrior”. This would of been Ross once again promoting Hardy’s determination and
commitment to look like his movie character. This would make the audience feel emotional
about him. Mainly by realising how much effort he has committed in his previous movies.
Warrior was also the main reason why Tom Hardy was on the Jonathan Ross show because the
film was to be released next year in 2011. Hardy was there to promote the new sports movie. In
this section of the interview. We see the first wind up of the interview. Here Jonathan Ross says
“Tom before you go, what’s this film the warrior or warriors you’re making?”. I think the way
Ross asked this wind-up could of backfired. It is almost as if Ross had stumbled when talking
about the film. He asked 2 slightly different names. Also maybe Ross had forgot about it. He

might of just remembered that Hardy is here to talk about Warriors, not Mad Max, not his history.
I think that this interview was fairly promotional. I’m only saying ‘fairly’ because I think at some
points Ross was promoting the wrong thing. Ross was supposed to promote Hardy’s next big
film which is Warrior, he doesn’t make a good start by stumbling on the name, however I think
they still promote the jist of the film. One area of promotional that didn’t go well was talking
about Mad Max. Ross clearly felt that acting out Mad Max was a good thing, he got everyone to
give him a round of applause for that, he technically got their hopes up, however Mad Max
wasn’t out the next year as expected, it was released 5 years later. I also felt that in some case
he went into too much detail, especially with the drug history, that way people have gone home
not knowing much about the movie, but a lot about Hardy’s tough past.
Jonathan Ross is also an example of a light hearted interview with an entertaining sought of feel
to it. The first section that is light hearted is Jonathan Ross talking about the World Cup.
Examples of this are “Are you enjoying the world cup? Are you watching the football? Are you a
football fan?” Ross probably did this so the audience could find out about his life. Most
celebrities have their private lives revealed. So the public will know if they like sports, favourite
films etc. Whereas not many people know about Hardy outside of movies. So Jonathan Ross
decides to ask him, do you like football. This also shows Ross asking Hardy about current
affairs this is because Ross asks “What about the Vuvuzelas? Have you heard those been
played?” which Hardy replys “No, no, I heard one of those for the first time tonight”. Back in
2010 during the time of the World Cup, the vuvuzela was very popular for it’s very annoying
sound so this confirms that Tom Hardy doesn’t follow football. As a result of Ross asking these
questions the audience could have related to Hardy, so there might of been people in the
audience who didn’t like football so they would of felt similar to him. This section is also has an
example of a wind up in this interview is. After taking about the football, Ross asks Hardy “OK,
where are you from Tom?”. This question is asked after the football questions. Ross clearly felt
that he should change the topic because the football questions didn’t work out. Hardy clearly
didn’t like football and it was just a waste of time. So he said “Ok” before he asked the next
question. He said it in an awkward manner. Almost as if he felt a bit awkward after asking the
football questions because Hardy didn’t have the answers to the football questions because he
doesn’t follow football. So when answering Hardy might of felt awkward as well this would be
because he was born in a football county [England] he is publishing himself to England and he
has basically said he doesn’t like football. Small details like this can turn people off of following a
specific celebrity.
At first Ross asks “Are you enjoying the world cup?” then he also asks “Are you watching the
football?, Are you a football fan?”. It’s almost as if Ross had decided to ask three questions at
once however I think he asked them in the wrong order. He should of asked “Are you a football
fan?” first because it would be awkward asking someone if they are following a football game
when they don’t like football. It would be like going in asking some ‘do you know what an Autocue is?’ Then asking them are they interested in Media. As a result Hardy might of felt a bit
awkward, this can be told by his answer. They are quick-fire single word answers he answers in
a sought of manner of let’s move on. Ross might of asked these questions to increase the flow
of the interview. He probably would of done this to increase the flow of the interview. This was

Hardy’s first interview on tv. So he was most likely going to be nervous. So Ross might of
wanted the interview to go quicker so it could be finished for Hardy quicker. However at some
times, it feels the pace of the interview is too fast for him. Another way I can tell that Ross
wanted these questions to be quick is because he asked them as closed questions. So he was
expecting a very quick simple yes or no. If he wanted to have a proper chat about football he
would of asked something like who has been your best player of the tournament, which player
could be doing better. However Ross might not of asked this because he said “Well see I’m not
a big fan but I am getting into it”. So maybe he didn’t know many players. So I don’t think these
multiple questions are effective. I actually think that they were a bad thing because the
responses left a sought of awkard moment between the two.
Later on in the interview. Jonathan Ross mentions about his accent. This is Ross picking up on
something that isn’t that important for the interview because all actors put on accents when they
are performing in a movie. However Ross was clearly interested the origins of Hardy’s accent.
This can be told by “because your accent is quite hard to place?” and “It is a strange accent,
how would you describe that?” Hardy was born in Hammersmith in London, but he lives in
Mortlake, which is on the other side of the river from his place of birth Hammersmith. So Ross
would of asked this to try and get the audience involved in the interview. This is known as
building rapport. In interviews when there's an audience. When there is a question about where
they live, where are they born. The crowd usually cheer when they hear a particular location.
Also Jonathan Ross says “Come on up ladies and gentlemen”. This would of been Ross asking
the audience what do you think Hardy’s accent is.
A third bit of light heartedness in this interview is Jonathan Ross talking about how he keeps
himself calm and passes time. So Jonathan Ross asked “So how do you keep yourself calm?
How do you control the turmoil within?. Hardy very simply replied “Knitting”. Then the two
engage in a quick fire conversation about what he knits. The bold is Hardy, normal is Ross. “A
hat, No, it’s too boring, Gloves?, No, A cat, Possibly illegal?” Then there is more rapport. A
member of the audience says “A vuvuzela”. This was said after Hardy said sorry and looked to
the audience. So this is Tom Hardy getting the audience involved. This shows us that the the
interviewer isn’t the only person who can involve the interview, the subject can involve them as
well. Also by mentioning “A cat”. Hardy might of wanted to set an emotional feel. This is because
cats have always been associated with being cute. When people see a picture of a cat. People
tend to say ‘aaah” afterwards so he was expecting a loud sound of people going “aaah”.
However Ross cancelled it out by making people laugh by saying “Possibly illegal?”. After this
section. There is also an example of a wind up in this interview. After a member of the audience
shouts out “a vuvuzela” suggesting that Hardy should knit one. Ross said “OK, so what are you
working on?”. Ross asks this in a way of saying, right we’ve talked about knitting, it’s time to
move on now. This shows us that Ross doesn’t want any awkward silence moments in his
interview. When he feels a particular subject has run it’s course. He will instantly say move on.
This way he will be happy. The audience will be happy and most importantly. Hardy will be
happy.

A fourth moment that is light-hearted is when Jonathan Ross talks about his teeth.An example
of this is Ross saying “You’re a good looking man, but you’ve got wonky teeth but you’re a good
looking man”. Jonathan Ross also said”Is there pressure to fix your teeth, do Hollywood want
you to get.. Cause everyone has, most American stars are like that wall of white”. This could be
Ross trying to enhance the audience understanding of Hollywood. This is because Ross is
saying you need to have your teeth is a certain way. Hollywood is known for wanting perfection
on even the smallest details. And teeth are no exception. If an actor came and was perfect for
the role, but there teeth looked dodgy Hollywood would say ‘whiten your teeth or you’re not
performing in Hollywood’. This will make the audience realise how tough it can actually be to
perform for Hollywood. I think Ross being light-hearted really wasn’t effective, if anything, I think
it ruined the interview. Especially the football question. Ross jumped in too quickly asking Hardy
on his opinion about football before asking him if he actually like football. This led to an awkward
moment where Ross had no choice but to move on to save the interview.
In this interview, there is also a bit of investigation into this interview. The bit of investigation
here is into his past. Specifically with taking drugs. Drugs were definitely a problem in Tom
Hardy’s life at one point. This can be told because he said “It’s no joke” after Ross said “It’s
lucky you’re still here?”. After hearing Hardy’s response. Some of the audience would feel sorry
for him, mainly because he had overcome his drug addiction. Mainly with Cocaine. He told
Yahoo New Zealand “he would have 'sold his mother for crack' at the peak of his debilitating
cocaine habit.” He even went to rehab, which he kept as a secret at first. He was taken there
after waking up in ‘a pool of blood and vomit’. This was as sign that his alcohol and drug
addiction was getting out of control so mentions that his previous drug addiction was “no joke”.
The audience will probably feel sorry for him, and be on his side. He also finds it tough to come
with the facts of his past because when Ross and Hardy are at the height of talking about it.
Hardy says “I’d find myself in all kinds of places. Erm, My missus is in the audience. Yeah.
[clears throat]”. This shows us that Hardy finds it very tough to talk about his previous
experiences, especially when someone who loves him is in the room as well. Apparently there
was one time where he passed out on a bed and woke up with “I woke up in bed with a dude
and a gun. Naked. With a cat. I don’t remember the cat. Or the dude”. This could just be Hardys
humour, trying to the audience laugh, trying to make himself laugh in the light of a bad situation.
However it could also be true. Maybe he did pass out and maybe he had a dream. Maybe he
hallucinated it. The only person who truly knows is Tom Hardy himself.
Another thing that Ross learns from his investigation is that Hardy has also give up drinking.
Ross “When did you stop drinking?” to which hardy replied “Seven years”. After this Ross said
“Seven years, wow, what an achievement”. This does sometimes make the audience feel
emotional but it mainly changes their understanding of Hardy. So enhances their understanding
of him. At first people would of been like, he gave up his drug addiction, that's a good thing.
However when they hear he hasn’t had an alcoholic drink for “seven years”. People will really
start to congratulate him, and truly realise what he has done. For a Hollywood star to be sober
for 7 years, is something you don’t hear about that much. Hardy seems to take this rather
calmly, because he mentions “Er, every body is different aren’t they”, he also says “I don’t miss
it”. On the first response, he sought of stutters. Maybe he doesn’t know what to expect because

he had been through so much giving up the alcohol and drugs. Also by saying “I don’t miss it”,
he is basically saying that was a terrible time and he is never going back to those days. Unlike
the other 2 styles, the investigative style actually went well. The reason why is because Ross
gets the answers that the questions wanted like how long he has suffered from drugs and
alcohol. However it isn’t a great selling point of himself.
Even though Jonathan Ross finds out some good facts from the investigative manner. I think
that he went off topic too much because the the reason why Tom Hardy went on the show was
so he could promote his next movie Warrior and refer to the upcoming Mad Max. However he
starts talking about his past, rather than his present or his future. If he wanted to talk about his
past, his alcoholism, his drug addiction, or his personal life. He would of gone on a show like
Piers Morgan Life Stories. Rather than the Jonathan Ross show, which people go on to
promote.
In this interview there is various question types. The most obvious question type here is multiple
questions. Jonathan Ross really seems to like asking Multiple questions because there are
loads of examples in this interview. Some of them work well however some don’t work. An
example of one that was poorly executed was “So how do you keep yourself calm? How do you
control the turmoil within?”. The reason why I think this because when Ross says the work
‘turmoil’ he says it in a really loud tone. Ross meant to say this in a sarcastic tone. However this
could've been misinterpreted by Hardy. I think Hardy could’ve taken this the wrong way because
Ross might of been suggesting that Hardy has a habit of getting angry, annoyed, stressed.
However Hardy didn’t get annoyed he replied with a sarcastic answer. However his response
could of been very different. Also I think this isn’t a good question because it isn’t relevant to the
interview. The point of this interview is to promote the movie Warrior. However in this question
we are talking about Tom Hardy’s ‘bad-side’. However, I think that Ross might of asked this to
make the audience feel sorry for Hardy, make the audience realise that he hasn’t had the
easiest life to get to where he is. So another purpose of this question is to enhance the
audience understanding. Ross wants the audience to realise Hardy’s true personality.
Even though this question that didn’t go well. I think that there are a few examples of multiple
questions that did go well. I think the best one is “You’re known for doing those kind of roles it
seems at the moment, and although Mad Max is going to more of an action film than Bronson is,
would you like to do something romantic? Something slushy? Do you ever see yourself doing a
rom com?”. The reason why I think this question went well is because I think Hardy answered all
the questions from this multiple question. We also hear about Hardy’s aspiration for the future,
when he is asked if he will ever star in a rom-com. To which he replies “I would love to that”.
Which he does 2 years later. However this movie didn’t go well, however people blamed it on
the poor storyline rather than the acting. I think the main purpose of this question is for research.
Ross clearly wants to find out what Hardy’s aspirations are for after Warrior, after Mad Max.
The next 3 interviews we looked at were in a documentary called Bowling For Columbine. This
is a documentary that was released in 2002 and was directed by Michael Moore. Moore won an
Oscar for Best documentary. It focused on gun crime in the states. The name is taken from the

Columbine school massacre which is one of the events that Moore talks about. I already had a
small understanding of gun crime in America, however this documentary made me realise just
how bad the gun crime actually was in the states. There was events in there that I didn’t know
about, the Oklahoma city. The story about the 6 year old student, shooting another 6 year old
surprised me the most and made me realise how bad gun crime is. Overall it was very
interesting and factual. At some points it did feel a bit bias. However Moore wanted a specific
side of the argument to be best, so he would of made it look bias. Michael Moore won an Oscar
for best documentary in 2002, but despite winning the Oscar it is also earned loads of criticism
from people involved in the interview and people who watched it. There was claims of Moore
mislead the bank that was in the opening segment, Matt Stone who helped make the ‘A Brief
History of the United States of America’ cartoon bullied Moore in his criticism calling him ‘a
gibbering, overweight, hot-dog-eating buffoon’. The most famous bit of criticism came from the
editing it was perceived as bias by certain people, especially James Nichols because he took
Michael Moore to court over the documentary. Claiming “statements could be misinterpreted by
viewers to inaccurately link him to the bombing” and it “invaded his privacy” Nichols went as as
far as saying the questions “umbrage” [offended] him. However the judge threw out the case.
There are definitely scenes that worthy of hard news because we see photographs of dead
bodies, there is even a montage where we see someone put a revolver in his mouth and pull the
trigger, one man putting a shotgun to his head and firing, also we see a clip of a proper murder.
Also we see a shot of one of the planes flying into the World Trade Centre. There are also clips
of people running from Columbine high school in fear, one person diving from a hand grenade
and the two murderers walking around with their guns clearly on show. However even though
there are scenes and photographs that are definitely worthy of it being hard news, the actual
interviews aren’t actually formal. I haven't seen anyone in the documentary wearing a suit, I
have seen people wearing nice shirts and trousers, but no one actually being interviewed in suit.
Moore is always wearing jeans in his interviews.
In the first interview, Michael Moore was him talking to the James Nichol who was released by
the Federals after the bombing. He was the brother of Terry Nichol, who was sentenced to ‘life
without parole’ after the Oklahoma bombing. This interview appears to be a sought of
confession by Nichol this is because he said ‘this is where the Nichol and McVeigh stayed when
the prepared and after they executed the attack’. It is down to people's opinions as to whether
James Nichol was for or against the bombing because after Moore asked him “Do you believe it
was right to blow up the building in Oklahoma city?”. To which James replies “No, no, No, no, no
why was it blown up?” He also agrees that it would be wrong if it was blown up. Maybe he was
on the side of something should be done, but not the way it was done.
An author called Lou Michel wrote a book called American Terrorist he said this “McVeigh
initially intended only to destroy a federal building, but he later decided that his message would
be better received if many people were killed in the bombing”. So McVeigh is the kind of guy
who would kill innocents if it meant he got his message across. However James Nichols might
of preferred to not use violence. This is because he said “I use the pen, because the pen is
mightier than the sword but you must always keep the sword handy if the pen fails”. By “pen’ he

means his views, he words, and by “sword’ he means weapons, guns. So he is saying we
shouldn‘t need to shed the blood of innocent people, we don’t need to shoot our way to the top.
However we should keep out weapons. Just incase out voices fail. Despite this contrast in
approach, Nichols still agreed to describe McVeigh as a “Decent guy”. I believe this is the
documentary trying enhance the audience, mainly towards what James Nichol is like, it is
sought of giving us an answer as to what his views were, his personality. So as a result loads of
people will watch this interview and then have a much better understanding of who James
Nichol is and what kind of a guy he is. This statement from James Nichol makes me think that
he actually isn’t a bad person. He clearly was against the government because he said “Them
people - law enforcement, if you wanna call 'em that”. However he is someone who would rather
not kill innocent people. He basically said he prefers to write his views, rather than put them into
action with guns. The first few words of this statement are a soundbite. I believe this is another
edit that is trying to Nichol seem like someone who is evil and mental. Moore might want Nichol
to look like he bombed the Oklahoma city building. By having a soundbite he is making the
statement sound like it has come from his mind, not his mouth.
This interview is investigative right from the start. At the beginning. Michael Moore asks “What
do you grow here?” Moore questions every single answer he has given. So when Nichol says
they go have “tofu beans, soya beans”. Moore instantly replies “Tofu?”.
He replies in an investigative manner because by questioning someone's answer, you are
sought of doubting them. It’s almost as if he is saying, ‘sure you do’ sarcastically. This would be
Michael Moore instantly trying to expose to the viewer who James Nichol is, the brother of Terry
Nichols who was sentenced to life in prison. Moore is trying to portray him as someone who has
set up a front for his criminal activities. Another line that is investigative is the line “but the feds
didn’t have the goods on James so the charges were dropped”. This is said in a manner of,
‘Why? ‘Why were the charges dropped? Why wasn’t he found guilty?’ Also it is a bit odd how it
is said because “the feds” is referring to the Federals, authority, the police “the goods” is
referring to evidence. However this is a serious documentary so it doesn’t seem right that a
serious narrator is using words that are mainly used in gangs maybe the voiceover is trying to
give an insight into what it is like to be gangster, to be an outlaw. I think Moore would have
wanted it to look like he was investigating because we don’t see or hear anything like ‘Hello,
thank you for letting us speak to you’. The first thing we hear is “What do you grow here?”. Also I
don’t think we see him say it, I think we're still looking at the Michigan Militia on their patrols, it
almost as if Moore is saying, we're done here let's move on. I not sure if investigative was
successful or not but I’m sure it definitely set the tone to the interview, it made Nichol aware that
Moore wouldn’t take no for an answer, he wants the truth. He tries to expose of this is a real
farm, or whether this farm is a front.
In some areas of this interview. It is also light-hearted. Mainly around the middle of the interview
when Moore and Nichols are talking about having a “44. Magnum” underneath his pillow. Moore
responded in a sought of laughing way when he says “Come on, that’s what everyone says?”
Moore replies in a sarcastic manner, his tones of ‘come on, that’s what everyone says’, almost
as if he is laughing. There is almost like an awkward silence afterwards. Almost as if Moore is
saying inside “He is telling the truth here” and he sought of feel bad for laughing about it. This is

an example of enhancing the audience understanding. Moore is trying to make the audience
aware of who Nichol truly is. This does sort of show that maybe Nichol is a guy who doesn’t
joke, when he says something he is serious about it. So Moore asks if they can go up and see it
in which Nichols said Moore can but the cameraman isn’t allowed. We hear a brief soundbite
through Moores mic it is Nichol cocking the gun and then as the caption says ‘puts the gun up to
his temple’. The sound includes a laugh and word of ‘ don’t worry’. This soundbite was probably
added to make Nichol seem like someone who is mad. This would be interpretive towards the
audience. Like earlier it will make the audience think what Nichols is like, is he normal. Or is he
mad. I think this light-hearted could of seriously backfired. This is because Moore is question
whether or not if he had a revolver under his pillow, he could of responded in an angry tone, he
could of gone up stairs got his gun and said, do you believe me now. However luckily for Moore
he didn’t.

Marilyn Manson
The next interview in Bowling For Columbine is Michael Moore talking to rock and roll artist
Marilyn Manson. Moore decided to speak to Manson because after the Columbine shooting,
loads of people pointed the blame at music that was made by Manson. His fast paced and
aggressive feel, especially in his music videos. So Manson was receiving blame for the
shooting. So Moore ‘thought he should find out his Manson’s opinion’. Manson was only blamed
for causing the massacre because the two murders at the school Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
listened to Marilyn Manson music.

This whole interview is investigative however the most obvious moment is at the start, when
Michael Moore is doing his voiceovers for the interview. Moore says in his V/O’s “There were
protests from the religious right. But I thought I’d go and talk with him myself”. This is Michael
Moore deciding to go and find out Manson’s own opinion on the situation, so he could get two
sides of the argument. I think that as regards to interview purposes this is very informative
because it is like Moore is trying to say that despite the fact he is the target Manson does have
an opinion on his own situation as well, this is because when one person blamed Manson for
Columbine, everyone else jumped on board and starting blaming him as well. So Moore felt like
hang on a second, we need to ask his opinion, get his views before we blame him. I reckon this
could be for emotional purposes. I think this because people might feel inclined to agree with
Moore they might sorry for Manson getting all the blame, for something that he didn’t commit. I
think the investigative side went well because he definitely found out Manson views in a good
amount of detail. His views on his responsibility was already clear, however Moore wanted to
find out from his own mouth. This would make us as the viewer feel confident in Michael Moore.
Manson might have agreed to this interview so he could promote himself as well. However not
to promote his music, to promote his personality. This is because there is a news anchor that is
added to this interview where we hear the reporter say “Marilyn Manson has cancelled the last
five days out of his US tour out of respect for those lost in Littleton.” This shows that despite the
fact Manson is depicted as a violent person because of his music he still has a nice side. This
section of interview does technically include all 5 interview purposes in different ways. However
I feel that enhancement of audience understanding is the most obvious interview purpose here.
This is because Moore is trying to enhance our understanding of Manson he doesn’t want
people to see him as an aggressive rockstar. He wants people to see him as someone with a
good personality. This section might also want people to feel emotional towards Manson,
because he has had to cancel his concerts, upsetting thousands of fans for what is what other
people believe. So overall, I feel this interview is slightly promotional, however it wasn’t Moore’s
intentions to definitely promote Manson. Maybe Moore had to promote Manson in a way to let
him be interview, we don’t know what goes on when the cameras are switched off. I think the
promotional side went well. This is because Manson got promoted as someone who has dignity
and respect for other people.
There are a few suggestive questions in this interview. The first one is “Did you know the day
that Columbine happened the United States dropped more bombs on Kosovo than any other
time during that war?” ‘That war’ being the Kosovo war of 1998 and 99. I think the reason why
Moore asked a question about the USA and war, is because Manson mentioned “The president
was shooting bombs overseas, yet I'm a bad guy because I sing some rock'n'roll songs”. So
Moore was basically asking Manson to go a bit further into saying, maybe the military is too
blame for Columbine, definitely not me.
Just before that moment, we see something which is called Juxtapositiong. This is when we
have been displayed to us next each to each other which displays a contrasting effect. This is
done by Manson answering then, having a Religious Right’s Activist giving his opinion on
Manson and the situation. Moore would have done this so we can see both sides of the

argument, which is what a documentary needs to be like, he needs to show it like it is an
argument, this also shows a contrast in tone. The example of the Juxtapositiong is “ask if we
believe that all who hear Manson tomorrow night will go out and commit violent acts. The
answer is "no." But does everybody who watches a Lexus ad go and buy a Lexus? No.
But a few do.” To which is feels like Manson replies to the activist “I definitely can see why
they would pick me, because I think it's easy to throw my face on a TV, because I'm, in
the end, sort of a poster boy for fear”. At first we have Manson talking in a calm and quiet
tone, then we have the Rights Activist talking in a loud and forceful tone. Maybe this is a way of
showing that Manson doesn't really care what other people think of him, doesn’t really care if
people follow what he says. Whereas the Activist, really wants his point to be heard. This is
because he is speaking with a much louder tone.

In this interview, especially at the end. Body language makes a very important appearance.

Throughout this interview, the camera is on Manson, only switching to Moore twice. However we
see both Moore and Manson in a long shot, Moore is sitting on the sofa, very low down,
whereas Manson is leaning back on his chair and has his foot on the sofa. This suggests that
Manson might not be taking this interview as serious as he could be, also by leaning backwards.
Manson is sitting higher up than Moore, this is a way of suggesting that Manson is talking down
to Moore and sought of taking control of this interview. This would be Manson trying to make
himself look in the right, having people look up to him and being inspired by him. I think the body
language defiantly had an effect on the audience, people would of seen the screenshot above
and they would see that Manson is trying to make him feel bigger than Moore and informal. It
might make the audience feel sorry for Moore, because it looks like he is being put downwards.
Charlton Heston
The final interview in Bowling For Columbine in Michael Moore the then president of the
National Rifle Association Charlton Heston, he was president from 1998 to 2003. The whole
documentary has been building up to one big interview with one of the representatives of the
NRA. In this case it was Charlton Heston. I think that the reason why Moore went after Heston is
because firstly he is old, so he is more likely to give up answers than a more energetic young
person. Also Charlton Heston has got the complete opposite view on gun culture compared to
Michael Moore this is what the documentary will need. One year after this interview, Charlton
Heston was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, so you never know. That might of affected his answers

back then. Just because it was diagnosed in August 2002 doesn’t he wouldn’t of had the
symptoms when the interview was done. If Heston had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's before
the interview which was in 2001 Moore probably wouldn’t of interviewed him because he might
not of been able to remember the answers to questions that he wanted to know. As I said
Heston was diagnosed in August 2002, the documentary was released in October the next
month, people were shocked when they found out that Heston’s scene wasn’t cut out of respect
for the fact that his illness could of affected his judgement. At first I was really against Heston, I
felt he said the completely wrong things, but then I found out about his Alzheimer's and now I
have a bit of sympathy for him. He probably did know about the six-year old being shot before
the rally but, short-term memory loss with Alzheimer's might of meant he forgot this moment
when asked about him.
Straight from the start we can tell that Michael Moore is being investigative in this interview.
Even before he has started the interview. He goes up to Heston’s mansion in Beverly Hills in
California. Moore says “Listen, I was wondering if maybe I could talk to you. We're making a
documentary about the whole gun issue. And I'm a member of the NRA.” Moore said he was a
member of the NRA, only for this documentary. Moore was criticized for this interview for
misleading Heston at this point. However Moore had no choice but to mislead him. If he turned
up and said, hello I’m doing an interview about guns being bad, he would of got a simple no. So
by pretending to support guns. I can tell that Michael Moore really wants to get an answer, we
will do anything if it means he gets the answer he wants and needs. Even if he has to at first
agree to something that he is seriously against. I think this scene was included so that people
knew how easy it was to go up and speak to Charlton Heston, even though he was told to come
back “tomorrow morning”.
The next day Michael Moore returns to Heston’s mansion. He walks through the big security
gate and up the driveway. Whilst he does this, we have a sought of calm, relaxing, happy tune.
This music contradicts what is coming up. Hearing this we think Heston and Moore are going to
have a nice quiet happy chat, whereas when we see the interview, that feeling is gone. Moore
probably had this music to be sarcastic. Which he has done a few times in this documentary.
The most known moment of Sarcasm is when he is walking up and down the Boulevards of Los
Angeles. They stumble across a ‘man with a gun’ on a street. When the media starts to turn up,
he asks what is going on and where they are going next. The media saying they are going to a
near-drowning next. Moore asks the reporter “How about the story that you can’t see the
Hollywood hills because of the pollution”. After this he see a police sergeant and asks them if it
is all over, he asks the sergeant “is there anybody you can go up and arrest for polluting up the
air”. Which here would be car drivers. The sergeant just walks away from Moore without answer
the question.
The other interviews in this documentary have a certain degree of this, however this interview is
very combative. It doesn’t seem like it at first however when there talkings about American
history having “blood on its hands” and the rally at Michigan. The best example of it being
combative is “I think American history is… uh... has a lot of blood on its hands. And Germany
history doesn't?. No. And British history?. I don't think as much. Oh, are you… Germans

don't have as much, blood on their hands?. Uh, they do, yes. The Brits, they ruled the
world for years at the barrel of a gun.” The bold font is Michael Moore and the normal font is
Charlton Heston. Moore instantly replied with quick fire responses to the question he had
already asked. Another moment that is combative is just before Heston gets up and leaves.
Moore asks Heston “You think you'd like to just maybe apologize to the people in Flint for
coming and doing that at that time, or...?”, to which Heston replies “You want me to
apologize...me, apologize to the people in Flint?”. Heston reply is of shock, he is practically
saying why should I, what have I done, I haven't killed anyone. This can also be told by his facial
expressions. He is surprised, shocked, confused. I think the purpose of this interview is
interpretive. I think this because Moore might want us as the viewer to take a look at Heston and
think he isn’t being fair, he’s doing
the wrong thing by not apologising
to the people of Flint. As a result
they will be on Moore's side after
the interview and the more people
who think Moore is right, the more
successful the interview is. This is
also an example of a suggestive
question because Moore has
practically given the answer that he
wants to hear. Moore wants to hear
an apology from Heston and the
NRA. Because an apology isn’t mentioned, Heston felt like he had to answer about that
potential apology. However I don’t think he wanted to. I think the interview being combative was
very effective on the audience, even though it wasn’t fast paced, it made some people feel on
the edge of their seat, then when Heston, says “you want me to apologise” people will instantly
go onto Moores side because everyone who has watched this has been build up to Moore
getting his way, now someone is seriously disagreeing with him.
In this interview there a some direct questions. I think there are some direct questions because
Moore wants Heston to feel guilty for organising the rallies, especially the rally in Flint, Michigan.
A good example of this is “You didn't know at the time, that this killing had happened?”. Notice
on how Moore said “You”, he didn’t say you lot or your group, he said You. Moore probably
hoped that this would make Heston guilty for promoting guns in an area that would be in shock
and mourning because a six year-old had just murdered another six year-old, by accident, but
the boy still killed someone. Moore is saying that the rally is his responsibility, which it is
because back then he was the leader of the NRA who organised the rally. He is saying you
didn’t consider the background of what had recently happened and you made an already upset
town even more upset. However Heston doesn’t really care. The final direct question is when
Heston decides to walk out of the interview after refusing to apologize to the people of Flint and
of Columbine for coming to their streets and saying we should have guns. just after people have
come into their respective schools and fired a weapon and killed someone. Moore says to
Heston “You don't think it's okay?”. Moore probably asked this to try to bring him back because
this is at the point where Heston has started to realise maybe this interview isn’t a good idea, he

starts to think that Moore isn’t really part of the NRA despite having his membership details.
Heston started off all the interview all happy, after seeing the NRA I.D card he said “Good for
you. Well done”. When he saw this he probably thought were in for a good conversation here.
By time Moore is asking about coming to the rallies Heston had attempted a few times to stand
up and leave, this was the time when he took his opportunity. The screenshot on the right is
Moore asking that questions, as he is behind Heston, he is probably trying to ask him back. He
could grab him to come back because Charlton Heston is a Hollywood celebrity, he probably
had security around the corner, if Moore grabbed Heston, he and his crew probably would of
been thrown out.
Towards the end of the
interview, there are a few wind
ups. These winds up are mainly
when Heston has realised what
is going on. He realises Moore
isn’t really on it side, so he tries
to wind-up his own interview,
which isn’t what you expect
considering he had agreed to
the interview. The example of
this wind-up is “Well, it's an
interesting point, which can be
explored and you're good to
explore it at great lengths, but I
think that's about all I have to
say on it.” It’s that final line ‘I
think that’s all I have to say on it’ and he sought of tries to get up and leave but Moore instantly
comes back with a counter questions, almost in a sought of please don't go, a bit like later on at
the end.
There are a few notable contrasts between all the interviews. The first difference between the
interviews is the feel of them. Jeremy Paxman is clearly a formal interview, this can be told by
the images on the wall, the formal clothes that Paxman and Smith are wearing. However the
Jonathan Ross and the Bowling For Columbine interviews are informal. The best example of
this is with the Marilyn Manson interview in BFC. Manson is leaning backwards on his chair and
his right foot is on the sofa that Moore is sitting on. Jonathan Ross and Tom Hardy is fairly
formal this is because both Ross and Hardy are wearing suits. However the conversations that
are had and the small bit of banter between the 2 make it a more of an informal interview. Back
with Moore, he never wears formal clothes to any interviews, he always wears baggy jeans,
when speaking to Manson he wears a polo shirt, when talking to Heston he wears a sought of
casual shirt, and it isn’t neatly worn. The only clothes he wears that are fairly formal are his
chinos, which he wears when he gets the gun from the bank. He probably wore this because
apparently he mislead the bank, apparently he said he was filming in the bank to find out about

business and that he stumbled across the gun advert. So he would of needed some fairly formal
clothes to wear.
The second contrast between the interview is in the amount of editing. In the BFC interviews,
there appears to be evidence of what is called Elliptical editing. Elliptical editing is where scenes
are cut from a video to shorten it. They are well known to be applied in documentaries,
especially very combative ones. In the Nichols interview. Moore appears to of cut out a few
scenes in this interview. Most likely to make his view sound better. This was probably done in
the Heston one as well because Heston sounded very combative in the scenes that we did see.
So maybe Moore had to come some scenes out to make it look like he had won the argument. I
think there was only a small amount of elliptical editing in the Manson interview because Moore
was on Manson’s side. In the Jonathan Ross interview there was probably a bit of elliptical
editing. This would of been done to take out the scenes that weren’t funny or weren't needed.
They might of even taken out a topic or two because even though we saw him for around 15
minutes. That one interview probably took around 45 minutes. That would of been redoing shots
because they weren't looking at the camera, forgetting what to say and discussing topics that
might not of been used in the interview. In the Tom Hardy interview we have got another editing
technique sound bridges. These are where we see a shot then cut to another shot, but we hear
the same audio as the previous shot. An example of this is when the applause continues on into
a different shot, in reality they would of waited 5 or 10 seconds for the applause to die down,
however they cut the applause into the next shot by using a soundbridge. So it looks like Ross
and Hardy have jumped straight onto the next topic to keep the flow of the interview. The
Paxman interview is the complete opposite to Ross and Bowling For Columbine. This is
because the Paxman interview was going out live across the world, so it was a live multi-cam
edit. The only editing was the cuts. The fact that this is live is evident by Chloe Smith coughing,
clearly under pressure. If this interview was pre-recorded this would of been cut out and the line
would of been said again. However it isn’t. If the Newsnight interview was pre-recorded Chloe
Smith might of been a lot calmer in the interview. Then her views of the Conservative might of
been projected in a better way. However Jeremy Paxman might prefer live interviews because
then it will feel like a real debate. Also when it is pre-recorded we realise that Newsnight isn’t
bias. This is evident here because Paxman has claimed himself as a ‘One-man Torie’ basically a
supporter of the Conservatives. However here we see him making the Tories look bad.