Analysis - Interview between Jeremy Paxman & Chloe Smith

Jeremy Paxman displayed a harsh reaction to the challenges facing the changes to the
Chancellors policy on fuel duty during his memorable interview on Newsnight and encounter
with Treasury minister Chloe Smith. The combination of hard news and somewhat incompetent
behaviour was reflected during the interview there is a clear understanding of both characters
views and status within the interview. Jeremy was definitely the dominant role due to his
belittling questioning towards Chloe.
The environment of the interview is based in a office layout which would indicate the type of
interview being conducted however, there are many aspects of the setting that could also
support that idea. Within the background of the setting is a large image of George Osborne, the
Chancellor of Exchequer, carrying a Red briefcase - from past interventions, we know that the
red briefcase indicates that there will be change within budget. Symbolism for money and is an
example of iconography. Further indication of subject matter being discussed would be the U
turn sign situated on the left-side to the display wall. The clear image could perhaps indicate a
change in policy which we understand later, the tax on fuel was postponed which was
scheduled to be set on that date. The purpose of the background images contribute to the idea
that the matter is about change and money.
The consistent use of formal language is prominent throughout the interview which also
indicates the style of news presented - hard news. Jeremy immediately begins to create an
impression of Chloe Smith by introducing her as Chloe Smith the Treasury Minister is with us
today this gives an impression upon the audience that she is professional, because of her role
in Government and has many responsibilities, in particular, on taxes on fuel. Specifically, he
introduces Chloe Smith with direct eye-contact towards the camera whilst turning his body then
proceeding to turn back to her to begin with the interview.
The body language used is stiff in nature and indicates that this could possible be the only time
he directs the audience before giving all his attention to Chloe Smith. The interview begins with
a direct question asked by Jeremy Paxman When were you told of this change of plan? One of
many examples of repetitive behaviour from Paxman however, this portrays Jeremys behaviour
of being assertive and combative. More so, it allows the audience to understand the subject of
discussion and gives an impression that Paxman is speaking on behalf of the entire nation due
to the directness of the question straight-away.
Jonathan Ross & Tom Hardy Interview
http://tallismedia13.tumblr.com/
In 2010, Jonathan Ross invited Tom Hardy to be interviewed on his talk show. The host,
Jonathan Ross, is well known for his light hearted entertainment within his celebrity interviews
and more importantly, his television personality appeals to a wide audience because of his
humorous interactions. The topics evolved ranged from Tom Hardys past drug history to his

new role in an upcoming movie Warriors, the interview was interesting in viewing the
interaction between the two characters and I will continue to address the two characters within
this interview setting.
The focus set for the interview conducted was to promote an upcoming film that Hardy was
featuring however, also to support the enhancement of audience understanding of the actor
wholly in character. Ross starts to promoting Hardy as a character before we see an
appearance of the actor by referring to the aspects of Hardys acting achievements; he has
been known to be committed to changing his physique suited for roles he has taken on famous for changing his body to play roles. Hes one of those guys, as an actor who really into
the role, really immerses himself, this starts to gain the audiences respect of the actor and is
informative to the audiences growing curiosity of Hardy. The statement was to enhance the
audiences understanding of Hardys work ethics because, at this point in time, he is unknown
and this appearance on the show is his first time on British television, this is an opportunity for
Ross to sell the personality of the actor to a nation wide audience.
In order to build rapport between the Ross and Hardy, Ross proceeds to joke around with Hardy
and begins with asking Hardy about the world cup, Are you enjoying the world cup? Are you
watching the football? Are you a football fan? at 1.38 secs, the multiple and closed type
question is applicable to the light-hearted nature of the show and the purpose was to open up
Hardys character and make him seem more appealing to the audience by using football as a
reference.

Moore and Nichols

Bowling for Columbine was a oscar-winning, documentary-styled film made in 2002; the director
Michael Moore used the film to depict the mass gun-crime and controlment within the US. His
constant priority was to question the 2nd Amendment which allows civilians the rights to arms in
the USA.
One of many interviews that I focused on was between himself, Michael Moore, and a farmer
James Nichols. In 1995, the city of Oklahoma was bombed and James was one of three who
were accused of assisting the terrorist act however, Nichols was not convicted due to the lack of
evidence. Nichols escaped the fate of imprisonment however, his younger brother was
sentenced to life without parole and long-term friend Timothy McVeigh was executed. The
Oklahoma City bombing killed under 200 people and injured 450 others, the aim was to attack
the Murrah Federal Building.
The investigation began about the case of the Oklahoma City bombing by asking Nichols about
his relations to the executed criminal, Timothy McVeigh. This was to gather information on
Timothy McVeighs character and his significance within Nichols life, Moore proceeds to ask
straight-forward, some-what closed questions, he initially asked Did Timothy McVeigh ever stay
here?. This portrays Moore as calm and obtains a non-accusing tone however, Moore is also
being interpretative as he was also insinuating that Nichols could be involved with the crime. He

reveals subliminally his suspicions towards Nichols and his status of being held without criminal
charge.
As the interview progresses, James continues to reminisce about Timothy whilst Moore is an
active listener. The pair start to build a light-hearted rapport as they make jokes to build
confidence and comfort, they then talk about Nichols court proceedings. The film then cuts back
to the court case which gives us an insight to the back story of the interview. We see Nichols in
court in hysterics, this influences the perception of how we view James. It builds a facade for
Nichols as innocent in the case and had no involvement in the terror attack. Moore remarks the
feds didnt have the goods, so the charges were dropped. The snippet of the court proceedings
suggest that Moore is on James side however, this is a way of rapport building so that Moore
could ask more explicit and invasive questions as the interview progresses.
The introduction of more explicit questions progresses subliminally as the rapport has been built
for Moore to ask more insensitive questions. Moore takes advantage of the established
relationship and as the interview continues, Moore is showing his biased point of view by using
questions that subtly imply that Nichols is guilty. An example would be Moore questioning the
remanence of explosives within Nichols household, So they didnt find anything on this farm?
Any kind of explosive?, implicating Nichols as guilty on purpose as Moore knew the answer
would be yes. This enhances the audiences understanding of Nichols background and how he
has access to bomb making materials and equipment on his own property. Moore would ask
questions that he himself would know the answer to, he uses that as an advantage to capture
within his film the reactions that NIchols has, as asking him directly about explosives caused the
audience to think he would be guilty of committing the crime despite the fact we are not sure if
he is in fact guilty. This is further information gathered to support Moores suspicions and biased
opinion on Nichols. He had made Nichols comfortable to the extent that he could easily depict
Nichols as a lying maniac.
Moore has successfully managed to build a rapport with Nichols however, despite Moores
attempt, Nichols body language suggest that he was beginning to feel uncomfortable about the
questions being asked. In regards to asking about the materials used to make bombs found on
Nichols property, Nichols replies Yeah! I make which he writes it off as nothing besides the
ordinary however, he acknowledged that the subject matter is serious and could get him into
trouble.
The use of editing helped support the biased opinion that Moore held. Moore edits numerous
sound-bites together in the next sequence of videos of them sitting inside, which shapes and
moulds what Nichols is talking about to fit Moores ideals which are to affirm that Nichols is
guilty. More so, the use of sound-bites makes depicts a flow of conversation and natural, it
makes the interview seem more interpretative. An example would be when the interview cuts
from the two individuals speaking about bomb making to a sound-bite of Nichols saying,Those
people were scared to death! ...Of another wako, suggesting that people were scared of him
due to the Oklahoma City bombings and his involvement within the court proceedings, this
raises more suspicion towards Nichols character.
Further attempt to emit fear into his audience of Nichols, Moore edits Nichols most controversial
points, implying his biased point of view. He cuts again to a close up to another question, Why
not use Gandhis way? as Gandhi is associated with peaceful solutions. This is a instant
contradiction to gun use. He does this to get a reaction from Nichols because he knows he will
disagree with it, but because the way he has cut the clips together, it appears to the audience
that he replies 'I dont know. This edit is hard to notice, and even more so by the untrained eye
and so this means that Moore has subliminally made the audience agree with him because it
shuts down his point about gun use.

Another example of the use of sound-bites occurred as Moore asked the following, How many
gun trying to find out more information about Nichols gun history and perhaps about his
personal life, hoping he would slip. Do you think it was right to bomb? Then proceeds to say I
am not suggesting. Moore has already established a rapport with Nichols however, at this point
is playing around with him in order for him to open up about more relevant information. Ya think
its okay to bomb? This is suggestive and is becoming more combative as Moore questions him
further. Nichols uses the quote, I use the pen because the pen is mightier than the sword, but
you must always keep a sword handy for when the pen fails indicating that communication or
running power, as I have interpreted, is more useful/effective than direct violence however,
Nichols continues to add must always keep the sword handy for when the pen fails, clearly
suggesting that a violent response for when one plan fails. This makes Nichols character more
suspicious, especially towards his relations to the Oklahoma City bombings.
Moore keeps the interview somewhat light-hearted so that Nichols continues to feel comfortable,
especially about guns as Moore has a NRA membership whilst talking. This changes the
emotional response of the interview however, when Nichols mentions about his own personal
gun, I sleep with a 44 magnum underneath my pillow, instantly that made Moore feel curious
and somewhat fearful due to his body language. Moore replies C'mon, thats what everybody
says. Is that true? in a very relaxed and teasing manner. This ignites a sense of excitement
within Nichols. More so, this encourages Nichols to prove to Moore which proceeds to Moore
asking Can you take us and show us. A voiceover explains that Nichols had told the
cameraman to stay put whilst he shows Moore the gun. We hear Moore ask is it loaded? And
as the audience are permitted from viewing, there is an edit of on-screen text publishing the
following Nichols has cocked the gun and put it to his temple within capital letters, this
immediately creates a sense of tension and whilst we hear the dialogue in the room, we also
hear Moore who acts upon with a somewhat fake laugh. Through his fake laughter, Moore says
Dont do that! (Haha) Dont put the gun my head! Jheeze. Whilst Moore is seemly trying to
keep a light-hearted mood, you can tell that the words he emitted were infact him being
completely serious. In response, Nichols replied Im not going to hurt you, suggesting that he is
experienced with guns and enhances the audiences perspective on Nichols. Moore misleads
Nichols into believing that this information would be conversational, when really from we can tell
from the text in capitals, and the things that Moore says to Nichols in the bedroom such as that
he thinks that Nichols is irresponsible and careless with the gun and really tries to get this
message across to the audience. Throughout the conversation, Moore continues to keep a lighthearted atmosphere between the pair so he can keep the consistency of open replies.

After the light-hearted gun ordeal, we hear Moore say Put the hammer back., there is a sound
bridge where Moore immediately edits in Nichols speech from the table interview, No one has
the right to tell me I cant have it. This particular sound bridge appears to the viewers that
Nichols has responded to Moore in a combative way about his rights to own a gun, it questions
the viewers opinion on Nichols characteristics and his relations to the bombings because it
seems more likely that Nichols would respond in the same manner about having materials for
bomb making in his property for no relevant reason. At this point, Nichols seems too defensive
and suspicious as he couldve raised this opinion at any other point of the interview. Moores
suggestive questions are raising more suspicion within the viewers and at the end of the
interview, it would depict Nichols characteristics are psychotic. The last suggestive Moore
raises to Nichols was So you believe in some restrictions? In which Nichols replies, Well
Theres wackos out there. Then followed by the most effective cut in the whole interview, the
ending cut of the sequence. The way he has placed this specific sound-bite just before he cuts
to the next sequence of different clips with another voice over (changing the subject from the

Nichols case) cuts him off as if to prove the point that he is the wacko that he spoke about, as if
to say that there is no more evidence needed to prove that he is crazy and the point is proven
from the editing that Moore uses, Nichols is contradicting himself. Nichols is the wako due to the
information that we hear from bombing equipment to guns at his disposal within the property.
Due to the editing, we have depicted Nichols as crazy because Moore seemed to only use the
footage and audio that seem suspicious, he is promoted in a bad light and supports the idea of
the interview being biased as we do not know the truth, we are somewhat brainwashed by the
editing.
Overall, the objective of the interview was to depict Nichols as the villain. The interview was
successful since the strength was through Moores use of editing. Through editing, he had make
the interview seem more interesting as he only included parts that would be more suggestive
towards his involvement of the Oklahoma City bombings. Through the editing of the interview,
he had made the interview outcome cater to his own opinion which makes it very bias to his
viewers. A prime example would be that Moore made Nichols character seem mentally
unstable, he would ask personal questions and various questions about his ideals, the
questions used were strategically planned in advance to the interview to get an answer which
would enable Moore to convey James as what he had already interpreted. Overall, the interview
was successful and had many strengths however, a limitation to Moores documentary-film was
that it was very biased in his portrayal of Nichols. He portrayed him as someone that you have
to be cautious around and his personality (Nichols) comes across as humorous, he is being
depicted worse than he actually is. An example would be laughing with a gun pointed at his
(Moores) head, to many of us this isnt normal so we feel that something is very wrong here.
Marilyn Manson and Michael Moore Interview Essay
In 2002, Bowling for Columbine by Michael Moore was released that concluded the constant
killings that have occurred within the past years because of the law and gun control within the
US, especially within the community of Columbine. More specifically, the focus is towards the
response that Marilyn Manson received following the killings of Columbine students despite of
his non-existent, physical involvement of the Columbine killings.
The documentary has effectively portrayed Manson as a respectful artist because, before the
interview took place, Moore had edited a shot from a news anchor that promotes Manson as the
good guy, Marilyn Manson had cancelled the last five days of his US tour out of respect for
those lost in Littleton. The impact of introducing the interview with this style is interpretative and
promotional. We understand that Moore wants to portray Manson as innocent towards the
Columbine killings and there are many other examples of this. The beginning voiceover
addresses the involvement of Marilyn Manson and the killings, it seemed that the entire focus
on why the shootings occurred was because the killers listened to Marilyn Manson, the
statement outlines how some people may portray him then proceeds, There were protest from
the religious right. But I thought Id go and talk to him myself, the tone is sarcastic and
suggestive, there is evidence of research techniques from Moores participation and there is a
clear understanding that Moore does not agree with the religious opinion. The impact of Moores
sarcasm emphasises the ridiculous behaviour of the religious opinion about Manson and relates
to purpose of the interview; building a good-guy persona for Manson.

Mansons answers suggests the power of the media and how it is able to manipulate opinions
and makes individuals pumped full of fear which juxtaposes his character as he says its the
same as buying a lexus. The message he is suggesting in the interview is that there are
people that do listen to his music however, a majority would not be placed in a violent position
because of it. The point Manson is stating is relevant about the massacre shootings because as
Manson may have connotations similar to the devil, he had made a good point in addressing
the audiences understanding and attempt to properly listen to him. The influence that the
interview has the audience was substantial as Manson managed to make it seem as if he has
the right to judge those who has judged him as he was being portrayed as hate, violence,
suicide, death, drug use and Columbine-like behaviour. More so, the Manson interview also
begins to make the audience wary about their pre-judged thoughts and seem to have less
meaningful answers that address the shootings. Furthermore, the image that Manson has built
is controversial as a music artist puts emphasis towards the reasons why the questions that
were asked were violence related. Moore addresses this as a strength and many more reasons
addressing to his whole ideology of guns and gun crime; he has allowed the interview to be
sculpted into portraying Manson as human, unlike RRA suggest, and the audience constantly
become surprised at how real and truthful his answers are. His use of common sense seems to
beat that of the politicians on gun crime hence why Moore uses juxtaposition to portray this.

Moore edits a sequence of clips taken from a previous protesters speech to sound-bites of
Manson that counterague the points made about the shootings. The impact of using montage of
clips is significant as the subtle action portrays Manson as a better being, or better being than
the media portray him to be. The editing is important between when Manson begins to speak,
When I was a kid growing up and switches between the Religious Right Activist (RRA).
Moore specifically chooses to use juxtaposition editing from Manson speaking to the RRA. By
using juxtaposition editing, cutting certain shots together builds a new meaning to the shots that
would not exist in either shots alone. This is applicable as if we were to see only Manson
speaking during his interview separately with Moore, we would not feel a sense of need for
justice for Manson because we are not introduced to an antagonist of the edited interview.
More so, there is evidence of use of sound bites between the visual editing of Manson and the
RRA member. The impact of using sound bites is to deliberately be interpretative, specifically of
the RRAs opinion on the impact Masons music is producing.
Throughout, Michael employs the techniques of juxtapositioning to build a positive attitude
involving Manson, to relieve the unjustified blame put on him to a certain extent. An example of
juxtapositioning was after the politician said is everyone that goes to Marilyn Mansons show
going to commit a crime afterwards? The answer is no. But not everyone that sees a lexus
advert on television is going to buy a lexus, but some do, Manson replied, I definitely see why
they picked me, because its easy to throw my face on a TV, because Im, in the end, a poster
boy for fear.
Whilst Manson justifies his counter argument, he too is sitting with in a small room with Moore,
which looks like a backstage room, away from the satanic decor that the media portray and the
setting/mise-en-scenes the interview is being conducted in suggest a subliminal message that
Manson is no different from us, he thinks no better of himself, and does not promote anything
related to any harm. More so, Manson is perched on a higher chair than Moore, he seems
higher in power, almost a sense of godliness and this alone portrays him as an active listener
which translates into a sense of innocence. Perhaps this was coincidental or deliberate - Moore

chose to be sat lower than Manson which indicates an attitude of respect towards Manson and
the level allows the interviewee to not feel a sense of interrogation and intimidation. The
placement of levelling Manson higher than Moore also takes into effect as the interview
progresses, we understand Moores opinions however, there is more understanding of the type
of character Manson is despite the prejudice-media representation, the audience start to
understand that Manson is an ordinary, decent individual.
Besides the developed interpretation that Moore is building up for Manson, Manson too portrays
himself as an ordinary, decent being. Manson explains that he is not surprised of the prejudice
he is facing from the media and how they have targeted him, saying Im a poster boy for fear. I
represent what everybody is afraid of. Because I do and say what I want, indicating his freedom
of expressing himself in spite of the religious communities protesting. America has built the
representation of the land of freedom and this alone raises an issue as Manson has insinuated
that he is afraid of the consequences of that freedom he exonerates.

The impact of this revelation would affect the Americans perspective, some perhaps maybe
shocks or have come to a realisation of their behaviour as the juxtaposition with the next clip
showing a protester say If Marylin Manson can walk into our town promoting Columbine-like
behaviour... I can say Not without a fight you cant!. This creates and develops a sense of
sympathy in the audience for Manson, he is trying to encourage freedom of expression
however, his opinion is constantly being disposed of however, due to the use of juxtapositioning,
the clip sequence instantly portrays the protesters as hostile and an overall bad name. It seems,
within the clip, that the protesters want to promote violence and intolerance deliberately towards
Manson because of his right to freedom of expression, which is something that Americans take
prick in and would not normally tolerate as it seems like bullying an individual in a mass scale.
The positioning of clips characterizes the protesters as hypocritical. Supposedly, they are trying
to get rid of Mansons level of fame and somewhat empowerment because he promotes hate,
violence, suicide, death, drug use and Columbine-like behaviour although, the protesters are
promoting a hatred and violence approach themselves when addressing Mansons satanic
tributes. The audience has full advantage of perspective and may perhaps become shocked
because of the violation that Manson is feeling from the protesters, or how it is seen through
editing. To the viewers, the protesters shed light to the restrictions that they are posing for
freedom of speech, or how if it is really freedom and if the people that are advertising this
ideology are the ones that are brainwashing the masses themselves.
The interview gets to a point of understanding and sympathy for Manson as the first very shot of
him being interviewed which is a piece of clever editing on Moores behalf. This ultimately
creates a sense of sympathy for Manson by showing the a clip that has Manson explain how
music is his escape, music does not dictate his life and also, it doesnt yell at him or tell him
what to do. The clips increased the audiences understanding and sympathy for Manson as well
as decreases the respect that majority of the audience felt for the protesters and their aims.

From analysis, Michael seemed to come into the interview with an opinion formed. He used the
interview between himself and Manson to convey the message which would be interpreted as
unbiased; this is a limitation of the interview. In order to eradicate this limitation, Moore would
need to interview Manson as well as someone that agrees with the relations of Manson and the
Columbine bombings. As well as another individual that disagrees with Moores opinion. The
whole interpretation of the interview was cleverly conducted. An example of this would be the
positioning of the two individuals in the interview. Michael is sitting lower than Manson which

suggest a facade of admiration and a sense of godliness that Moore relates to Manson.
Furthermore, Moore plays the role of an active listening as we always see him nodding his head
and silently agreeing with Manson throughout the interview, almost with a visual emotion of utter
intrigue as Manson talks. From an audiences perspective, I would expect that the interview was
pre-rehearsed through deep analysis.
More so, there are more numerous strengths of the interview which are indicated through the
technique of editing that Moore used and also how he manages to inflict his point constantly
throughout the interview. Another main strength of the interview would be the contradictions that
Manson introduced to counter argue the opposing individuals opinions in a perspective where
we see Manson as a being that has more understanding, valuable and morally-correct opinion
compared to those that have described him as satanic and are seen visually as normal.
The whole documentary was to portray only Moores opinion and to exclude the opposing
opinion besides being morally-incorrect. He used segments of interview to support his opinion
however, the interview conducted between Moore and Manson specifically was to enhance the
audiences understanding and eliminate the built-up characterisation of Manson that many had
of him because of his exuberant appearance. It is a strength on behalf of Moore because he has
leverage that support his formed opinion however, we could interpret this as a limitation of the
interview as there would be many people that would not want to listen to Manson because of
their pre-formed prejudice opinions and would ignore his part immediately. Nevertheless, the
strong idealized belief formed is that although he is portrayed as being a terror-filled being
because of his appearance, he managed to portray himself were he was being sensible and
spoke sense; Mansons fans had the opportunity to see this side of Manson besides listening to
his music and could perhaps influence them to change their ways if the thought of doing another
similar occurs to them too.
Overall, the impact of the interview was to provide truth for the audience as Manson was being
stereotypically portrayed due to his appearance, he was used as an excuse for crime and
violence however, the interview provided a misconception lead to everyone being informed that
Manson is quite the opposite of what he is being seen as. The fact that the interview conducted
was successful also promotes Moore as an influential figure to acknowledge.This being related
to Nichols interview we can see that Moore didnt have to be as lighthearted with Manson
maybe because with Nichols was physically speaking about guns and having one present, the
final assessment the there