Interview techniques and purposes

Question types
Open- In interviews open questions allow for an interviewee to elaborate on a question and
therefore giving them a chance to express their opinion. However, it is a great way of making an
interviewee talk about a subject that theyd rather not discuss about.
Closed- These are question which dont let the interviewee express their opinion inasmuch as
detail as they would prefer. They usually require a straight yes or no answer, which means that
these type of questions are good to use for hiding someones opinion and stopping them for
portraying the truth.
Suggestive- This type of question is highly manipulative and implies the answer before giving
the interviewee a chance to answer for themselves. This type of questioning is often used to
discredit the interviewee and does not allow them to to portray their opinions and ideas in the
most truthful or objective way.
Direct- These questions attack the subject head on, they dont give much room for the
interviewee to escape the question being asked of them and they much to the point. This
particular type of questioning is usually very aggressive and can lead to heated interviews.
Multiple- they can tied together in one question, for instance, asking questions about something
specific and then asking why?. They are often more complex and require more than one
answer.
Single- single questions always require a single answer.
Key questions- These are the questions that will hopefully provide information that the
interviewers needs, for instance, if there is an interview about an event, the interviewer will ask
questions like When did this happen?, meaning that the advantages for this is that the
interviewer can get the specific answers, in other words, the answers that are wanted..
Confidence building- This focuses on how confident the subject is, and the majority of
interviews have this kind of question. Especially interviews where this is the subjects first time
in front of the TV cameras. Confidence building questions can be as simple as How are you
feeling? or How does it feel to be here?. These type of questions are often positive and very
encouraging which will enhance the interviewer and the interviewee in a better communication.
Also, the answers are most likely to be responded in a honest and thoroughly way. The more
honest answers, the more successful the interview is going to be.
Interviews might seem all equal because there are questions to make and answers to respond,
however, each interview has a different style and its made with techniques and purposes which
difference them from other interviews and are key for the interview development. There are four
interview techniques:
Hard news: is a serious approach often taken towards serious topics and events
that usually take place in a formal environment, an example of hard news is Newsnight
or BBC news, in which they are trying to reveal information that will shock and surprise
the audience rather than entertaining.
Light- hearted: this is a completely opposite interview technique, light-hearted
interviews are usually for entertainment purposes, easy going and often informal. A good

example is a chat show with celebrities; usually with the purpose of promoting and
enhancing audience understanding. For instance, Allan Carrs shows and Loose
Women. These interviews are rarely aggressive nor do the questions touch sensitive
areas.
Promotional- when an actor or director releases a new film, or an artist a new
CD. We will often see a new promotional interview to promote it. The questions are very
innocent and do not impose on the personal aspects on the interviewees lifestyle.
Investigative- interviewing is usually very objective and proposes to find the truth
about the topic of conversation or the subject whilst looking at all the facts. The
questions are usually very straight forward and do not intent to manipulate the
interviewee.
Combative- this type of interview is often quite aggressive and almost like an
attack. It portrays that the interviewer is out of for answers and will use manipulative and
vicious questioning to get the correct answers in which they seek.
Interview purposes
Along with interview types, there also several interview purposes that support and determinate
whether the interview can be successful or a failure. It depends on how and when the
interviewer uses the different techniques and question types which can then lead to the
intended purpose, there are five important ones which need to be considered by every
interviewer:
Research- this is with the purpose of finding out more information about a
specific product, topic or person in which, leads the use of multiple/single questions that
are usually open. As an example we can have interviews of TV shows like the news.
Enhancement of audience understanding- This purpose is very popular in
interviews where there is something to inform the audience about, for instance in news
interviews. Especially in hard news, in where the audience can be put on a certain side
of the argument, leading them to enhance their understanding of the topic.
Informational- presenting and gaining information with the purpose to inform the
audience about a specific topic, person or product. This tends of interviews tend to be
included in factual shows like for example a documentary; Bowling for Columbine.
Interpretive- an interviewer can be interpretative when the interviewers make use
of their research of the topic in order to seek for an opinion which can be explained and
expressed within the interview. A good example is when the interviewer tries to interpret
a response and make it look from a different angle of what the statement means.
Emotional- This allows the audience insight to a situation in a way that creates an
emotional reaction such as laughter, sadness, empathy. This purpose is used in the
majority of the interviews, in fact, it can always be used, whether is chat shows, hard
news, debatable shows, etc. If the purpose is enforced successfully, the viewer will feel
the emotion is intended to feel. For instance, a good example will be when there is a
celebrity being interviewed and that person has been an alcoholic in the past. Questions
like when did you overcome your addiction? will create an emotional response towards
it; the audience will feel sorry and respect because of the fact its not easy to recover
from an addiction. Especially if the viewer has been through something similar, then it
means that the purpose was successfully complete.

There are several interview techniques which evokes the seriousness and importance of the
topic that is about to be discussed within the show; Hard News interviews are typically the
shows that focus on touchy or sensitive subjects, a serious approach often taken towards a
serious topic or big issues which are relevant at that time and Newsnight is a good example for
this.
Jeremy Paxman interviews Chloe Smith in the the summer of 2012, on Newsnight show. Chloe
Smith works for the Treasury as a minister (budget) and she is in the show to discuss tax rise,
dealing with fuel matters on cars which has been postponed. Interviews about politics are
always combative. However, the first main style of this interview is Hard News; this becomes
evident when we look at the mise-en-scene and the position of the the interviewer and the
interviewee.
The mise-en-scene introduces us an open and wide setting, in where there is an office desk
table at the centre and two people formally sitting whom are about to discuss a topic; a
businesslike position and layout, Paxman is positioned at the end of the table with some papers
with him, papers that can surely support his point of view and give him the previous knowledge
needed. On the other hand, Smith is seated by his side, a position which is not as important as
Paxmans, this suggests various reasons; firstly, the fact that Chloe Smith is the one who is
going to be interviewed, she is the guest and therefore she is the one answering questions
about treasury and budget issues. Secondly, that puts Paxman in a superior/dominant position,
it is his show and therefore he is the one who is going to find out more information about the
topic and uses several interview strategies in order to get the answers he wants. That is one of
the first impression the audience notice about the programme, unconsciously their attention is
focused on the the position and layout of the two people in the show, because through this, it
can help the viewer assume that what they are watching a hard news type programme. Their
sharp suits shows that they mean business and that creates a formal environment, suits also
also indicate that they have authority and identification that they are higher up with a corporate
culture, power dressing, their costume also put forward that they are off a class that is higher
as suits are of a certain price. They are sat on the corner of the desk showing a break in the
relationship also a one to one interview would be stereotypically face to face, however they
have involved the audience as a third. The position in which they are also tells us the purpose
of the interview, in hard news, there topics usually discussed are serious and quite sensitive
sometimes, in way, that people often get quite involved into it. We know that they are there to
debate something important.
Another way that we can tell the Hard News style is seen in this interview is by the setting, but
especially the background. The setting in general is quite spacious, and looks very formal. The
lighting is quite clear and bright, the colour blueish suggests that the programme is serious and
what they are going to discuss about has importance and its relevant to us, as the audience. In
the background there is a medium shot picture of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; George
Osborne. He is an important figure to have as part of the background because it gives the
audience the certainty and assurance that politics and budget are going to be involved within

the programme; Osborne is the one who is in charge of the budgeting and money issues of the
country, so therefore having him as taking part of the background is like having a photograph
which stays there to remind you of something that is relevant and familiar to you. This instantly
helps us to make a connection and link the image with the discussion; Chloe Smith is a treasury
minister but there may be some other that are not aware of this or dont know about it. George
Osborne is then also shown in the background, for us to to guide us throughout the interview, is
there to help and and give the audience common sense about serious issues that normally
concerns the politics and the foreign affairs. By using a well-known politician as the background
reinforces the idea that the interview is going to be related to politics, money and taxes, it is an
indicator. The use of the image also indicates that the purpose of the interview is to enhance
audience understanding of the topic and of course to enlighten the viewer about changes that
have been made to the budget and the new tax rulings. We also see that there is a U turn, sign
to the right hand of the screen, indicating that it is the symbol for taxes and money relations, so
it shows that there may be a fault or a turnaround in events. This can be another indicator which
supports the purpose of the interview, Hard News. The briefcase, as George Osborne is holding
it, is a representation of the budget box, suggesting that they are going to be talking about
money.
As the audience, we will be focused on the background, on how the images are laid out, the
colours and the shapes of these; they are crucial in our understanding of the topic, and so
therefore it makes us take it seriously. The colour is a traditional blue, suggesting the
conservative colour at the same time as we watch it. It looks pretty serious and unisex.
Making emphasis on the the costume of the interviewee, Chloe Smith genuinely gives a
feminine sense wearing a bright pink blazer, combined with a necklace of the same colour. The
glasses make her look more intellectually sophisticated, as well as looking younger with the
hairstyle of the short hair. Stereotypically speaking, the colour pink is a representation of a girly
feminine woman, and it is usually looked as ladylike. However, all these compliments, apart
from making her look younger and probably inexperienced, reinforce the idea of sincerity and
innocence. Smiths persona stands out on screen, as she is dressed in a colour that makes a
contrast towards blue, pink is what is noticed and therefore she is too. The colour Pink in terms
of psychology is perceived as a warm colour, while blue is cool. Our colour preferences are
coloured by our gender and blue is a colour which is generally favored by most people,
independent of which culture, country, age or gender they are from. Blue is often associated
with depth and stability. It symbolises trust, loyalty, confidence and intelligent. Blue in general, is
considered beneficial to the body and mind, whereas pink, universally tends to be favored by
females, because is feminine and romantic, affectionate and intimate, thoughtful and caring. In
colour psychology, pink is sign of hope. It is seen as a positive colour inspiring warm and
comforting feelings, a sense that everything will be ok, this suggests our reliability on Chloe
Smiths point of view.
As the audience, we expect her to tell us the truth and facts that are based on reality since we
know that a Hard News programme relies on answering honestly and its based on true facts to
state what the discussion subject is. Having a blue screen as the background, means that there
is a contrast between both colours so, the audience puts their attention on her rather than

anything else. She is clearly not overlooked, and the close ups help with the audience
engagement to the TV. Colours wields enormous sway over our attitudes and emotions. As the
audience, when our eyes take in a colour, they communicate with a region of our brains, which
in turn sends signals to to the pituitary gland and then to the thyroid glands. The thyroid glands
signal the release of hormones, which cause fluctuation in mood, emotions and resulting
behaviour.
However, pink in a negative colour meaning, can represent a lack of will power, a lack of selfreliance and lack of self-worth. Throughout the interview, we realise Chloe Smith loses her self
confidence and her inner strength whilst Paxman is clearly showing to us that he is in a stronger
position, or in other words, in a bravery security attitude. In the other hand, we have him
wearing a formal suit, but a humoristic yet classic style is added to it; red tie with white spots. He
wears a dark blue suit indicating that the approach he shows towards his audience is more
powerful and firm than Chloes attitude and position. Nonetheless, their costume gives formality
and courtesy to the audience, implying that Paxman and Smith are part of an higher social
class, another level. The purpose intended is to place them in a serious and reliable position for
the audience to believe it and put their trust on them, as they are discussing tax increase and
money matters that involve us as citizens.
Both body language and tone portray what two
different people want to aim as a point or direct at
goal. Paxman uses words like effect on
familiesThe camera shots show a clear focus of
Chloe Smith as she speaks and answers the
questions, or more likely, avoiding them. They are
all close ups of her and her expressions as well as
her gestures, these shots are there helping to bring
the audience closer to the scenery. It was hard for
Smith to get that answer out because she was so
repeatedly interrupted. Despite being her first time
interviewed on TV, Smith still tries to show a strong position towards Paxman, but her body
language wasnt very effective because she didnt know what to expect. Whereas Paxman has
been on TV for longer and therefore being more experienced helps him to be the confident
person he is on screen, especially for Hard News show.
Throughout the interview Paxman is searching for answers and very enthusiastic on knowing
why, and the reasons for it: he sounds repetitive most of the time, as an example, we have the
beginning of the interview when he starts by asking a multiple question When were you told?,
When was the decision taken? he repeats the same question three times, intimidating Chloe
who has never been interviewed on TV before, suggesting that she might be seen as a young
novice because of the way he speaks to her and because of the direct approach he has towards
her. Therefore this can be seen as an advantage for Paxman, meaning that he could possibly
get the answers he wants by being belittling and harsh. Also, since the interview starts straight
away with a developmental question it is a prove that enhances the interview style, which is

combative. Combative interviews usually consist of politics or any serious topic that matter and
will have an impact on the audience and whether the discussion/debate ends up being
productive or not. We, the audience know this because we see Chloe Smith on screen and she
is a member of the treasury which is on the conservative side, therefore this is evidence of a
combative style interview in where politics is going to be discussed. A great example of this is at
the beginning, when Paxman introduces the interview by saying Chloe Smith the treasury
minister is here with us, when were you told about the change of plan?. He automatically
introduces her as the member of the treasury, and also instantly making Chloe to be befuddled
because he knows is her first time on TV, and therefore she will struggle if she gets questioned
such direct question like that. This is evident because of her body language and Paxmans voice
tone, he sounds as if he was making feel the audience on his side and making the audience
think that Paxman has a stronger position in this debate, so by throwing Chloe into the deep
end, the audience will think Paxman will win the debate. Smiths body language shows that she
is constantly moving her hands, especially when she gets asked When was the decision
made? twice, she moves her hands towards Paxman in a way of saying that she is not
prepared to answer this question so it might also look like she will be trying to take control over
the interview because she has nothing else to do. However, it looks more like she is not ready
for questions and that she is unprepared and despite she makes the effort to not to look nervous
or weak , the audience gets that. And this is because as someone who works for the treasury
she definitely would want the audience to look at her in a good position, as someone with
sufficient courage who can debate on TV and as someone who can help control our money.
Another example is Paxman says Im not asking for a running commentary. Im asking for a
statement of facts about when you were told, in which he responds in an ironic and
argumentative way against Chloe because he is intention is to get what he wants, which is a
clear answer that Chloe isnt giving. This also is a proof of how and the manner Paxman deals
with the interview and his show: he makes use of very straight and direct statements which
again, are evidence in order to understand the style. He sounds louder than Smith, more
forceful and it is obvious that he is trying to get his point across. However, the whole point is to
enhance audience understanding even more because Paxman would want to shape audiences
opinion through Chloe Smith who seems to be the person that would probably answer his
questions. This is also seen as a evidence for a combative interview, indicating that there will be

an argument or a possible verbal fight in order for him to get what he wants: we can tell this by
many of the direct questions sent towards Smith, especially the ones focused on Smiths
position within the party and her ability to overcome with the situation. One clear example is
when Paxman sends an insult to Smiths capacity on her work with the Tories You ever think
youre incompetent which is as attacking with words, or even when he says things like Is this
some kind of joke? how can you have a number priority cutting the deficit when you choose...a
tax rise that was scheduled? or use this money to do something like paying down? There are
a lot of uncertainties here, you.. which confirms that Paxman is trying to make Smith feel bad
by saying things that will make her look like she is incompetent with the Tories, and because he
mentions chancellor and the prime minister did which shows that firstly, he has done his
research beforehand, so he knows about the topic by being investigative and secondly, he is
trying to make the audience doubt about Chloe Smiths position in the treasury. It looks likes she
isnt the one who makes decisions or at least, one who isnt in a strong position to make them.
And that she is also there to speak on their behalf, which reinforces the idea that George
Osborne -the chancellor- and prime minister David Cameron are the ones who make the
important decisions and she isnt. However, this is more further supported when he asks Do
you ever wake up in the morning and think, my God, what am I going to be told today?,
suggesting and making Smith look like as if she was being controlled by the Conservatives but
on the contrary, this a negative aspect on Chloes side. Mainly because this may make the
audience be on Paxmans side due to the reason that he is making himself look like as
someone who voices his opinion, whereas Chloe Smith is voicing the opinion of the
Conservative party and that doesnt look like the best.
Developmental questions are necessary for the interviewer to firstly get the information they are
aiming for and secondly, to develop further the situation in the interview. They are the most
common interview technique in this interview. They often ask more than one question, so it
becomes easier for them to find out more, or get more details. This happens when Jeremy says
When were you told of this change of plan?. Thats for Jeremy to find out more and get the
information he is willing to get, we see that, because he is specifically asking when, suggesting
that he is being quite informative and definitely trying to find out through these developmental
questions. This goes straight to the point, instead of winding up like some other interviewers do,
or even building rapport with the interviewee. Paxman, does not do that, he goes straight to the
topic, establishing what the interview is going to be about and so in this example Paxmans aim
was to develop his understanding on why the treasury made the decision to cancel the tax rise
on vehicles. Developmental questions are key and very important for this interview, especially
because it is based on how the interviewer uses them that would determine whether the
interview itself is effective or not. Effective in the sense that the audience can understand the
situation better because as it is been said, this interview is also informative, meaning that one of
the purpose is to inform people, so developmental questions are essential. However, that
doesnt mean the questions can always be answered. Chloe Smith doesnt seem to answer
them properly, or at least, not in the way Paxman expects her to: she avoids answering in full
detail We had a, uh, collective discussion of that, er, er in due course and although I cant, you
know, give you the sort of full gory so this means that the impact of the question is not
effective because he hasnt retrieved the information that he was intending to research.

However when he states Right, at some point during those several weeks they communicated
to you that there had been a decision to change the policy he then asks, Is it hard for you to to
defend a policy you dont agree with? which is where Paxman has proved that over a short
period of time, Smith had changed her mind, or has been told to and at this point of the
interview, the audience begin to question whether Smith is lying due to her unfairness and
because he is unable to answer by avoiding and giving excuses. However, by her body
language and generally stuttering, we the audience suspect she is hiding something and
therefore the question has made the intended impact that Paxman was looking for, so despite
not receiving the information that he wanted, we can see that the question has enhanced the
audience understanding of the subject. Therefore, this lack of response leads Paxman into
asking a key question Can you tell us from which departments that gap is going to be made
up? He is recapping the topic and finding out a key information. Again as a result of Smith
covering up information, Paxman is unable to retrieve the information, however because we
suspect Smith at this point, we again realise that unless its a question Smith is happy to
answer, he is not going to receive the information he desires.
Another technique as part of the style of the interview is the use of key questions. Key questions
are also important because they are specific questions asked that help in a persuasive way to
get the information wanted. As the name says, they are key. In this interview there are a few
examples, after Smith explaining what family or businesses could have done in order to save
more money, he directly asks Why didnt the transport secretary know about it yesterday?
especially knowing that is clear that Paxman has done some research so in this way, he takes
advantage of this by asking a key question because he knows this will have an effect on her, an
impact that perhaps will prove that he is right and she isnt. And as a consequence, she
struggles answering it, because of her body language, she coughs and she goes uh showing
that she is unsure. And again, he cleverly uses them so they can be interpretive and suggestive.
OK, its going to cost you say now about 550m...which was about 1.5bn. What, you just got
the sums wrong, did you?, can you tell us from where departments that gap is going to be
made up? this suggests that Chloe Smith is on the wrong and what is Paxman -again- is trying
to catch Smith off guard with a couple of questions directed at her and her responsibilities and
so she probably didnt expect that because this interview is live broadcasting, meaning there
wasnt any time for her to prepare herself on knowing how to deal with Paxmans attack.
However, the key questions in this interview were also used as a test to see whether Smiths
ability to keep a secret was sufficient or not. She made it sound like the Tories told her not to
disclose the reasons or say anything else that wasnt within the limit. This is because Chloe
Smith said well be giving you the full details in the autumn statement, which means that
Paxmans key questions were not successful because he didn't get the key information that the
interview wanted and needed.
Direct questions have also allowed to make this interview combative. Paxman makes use of
them in a sarcastic and harsh way. For instance, when he is asking for a statement of facts
about when she was told about the changes, he says You were told some time today, clearly.
Was it before lunch or after lunch?, or Is it hard for you to defend a policy you dont agree
with?, these interpretative type of questions which make her look a bit like a hypocrite, and

Paxman makes use of them so it is clear that he has a got a poor opinion of Chloe Smith and
the Conservative Party. This is evident because they are notably focused and directed towards
Smiths position within the party and her power to act. Are you waiting to be told that as well?
or Do you ever wake up in the morning and think? these questions were directed to her, but
in a more personal direction so whatever she answers can sound debatable and not very sure
about her political condition with the Treasury. Another point is that whenever there is a use of
you in the question, it is aimed directly to the interviewer and that is what a direct question.
This suggests that the question might to be answered quickly so Paxman can move on to the
next question. In a way, he might have used direct questions to make Smith feel uncomfortable
or just in other words, as a weapon for her to make an error/mistake. Eventually, this has
caused a slightly negative effect on Smith because now she starts expressing her opinion based
on the situation rather than answer the questions Paxman had asked.
In this interview, there are a few summaries that Paxman uses in order to support his point. He
makes use of real facts and statements, which demonstrates that he had been ready for this
interview and he has had previous preparation before interviewing Smith. One clear example of
a summary is when he says directly to Chloe But you said it wasnt certain that cutting fuel
duty would have a positive effect on families or business. That was on the 23rd of May which
then follows with a developmental question now, whats happened between the 23rd of May
and today which is, what, the 25th of June?. This is Paxman providing a sum up of the
situation, giving an statement of facts that summarises what people want to hear about in order
for them to believe and be on his side. This is true, people would want to hear real facts and
statistics, something that can be proven to support the argument so they can believe it. Another
example 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...Presumably you do know but are
choosing not to tell us. Is that correct?
Open and closed questions are also featured in this interview, because depending on either
type of question, they help the interviewer to get and interpret each answer, they can also help
to the interview development. However, Paxman wants a reason and an explanation behind
each answer, and it is clear that he wants more than a yes or no: a definite example is an
example of an open question in this interview is Is it hard for you to defend a policy you dont
agree with?. This is an open question because there are loads of different responses that
Smith can give. Furthermore, Paxman did not ask do you agree with the policy?, because if
Paxman wanted to ask it as a closed question, in which he would get a Yes/No as an answer, he
would of simply asked Do you agree with this policy, confirming the fact that he wanted an
expanded answer. Another point is the suggestiveness of the question: ...A policy you dont
agree with, indicating how he is trying to suggest something that people who dont support the
Tories would want to hear. They would want to hear that Smith does not agree with the policy
which is maybe what Paxman wants; it would look bad on the Tories and definitely look bad on
their representative Smith, therefore leading to the matter that Paxman wants to be as
interpretive as he can, because he tries to define Chloes mind.

In conclusion, this interview involved good and bad aspects for both interviewer and
interviewee: The main objective of Jeremy Paxman was to get an specific answer, a reply that
could be the answer for why the Tories had changed their mind about the increase in fuel tax.
However, Smiths resistance on giving clear answers were an opposition for Paxman. He did not
manage to get a proper answer, the answer he was waiting for. And that is due to Smith not
being allowed to disclose the reasons, which is a positive point for Smith because she was able
to manage and remain still in her position of not revealing more than she should do. Despite at
some points you could see she was nervous and struggling under Paxmans pressure- minute 3
when she coughs-, she kept to the same tone throughout the whole interview as well as her
body language. Which demonstrate that one does not really need a 23 year TV experience like
Paxman to maintain strong in position, which perhaps was a disadvantage for Paxman because
his interview did not go as he expected it to be. He also kept changing his tone and body
language at times, suggesting that it was probably a change of attack to catch Smith off guard.
On the other hand, Paxman was successful at times on giving pressure to Smith, examples are
when she suddenly coughs with the intention of gaining more time and also when she she goes
urm or uh, showing that she has not got a clear point to give and therefore needs time to think
about her answers.
Jonathan Ross, is an English television and radio presenter in the uk, best known for
interviewing actors and actresses and presenting the BBC One chat show Friday Night With
Jonathan Ross since 2000s. In 2010, he interviewed Tom Hardy in his show, an english actor,
producer, director and screenwriter who was not well known at that time. In fact, one of the main
purposes for this Jonathan Ross show is to promote and popularise actors who are in the
process of becoming popular within the cinema industry and the world entertainment. However,
Tom Hardy had been in several low budget films, examples are biographical psychological
drama Bronson (2008), in which he played the main character. His notable films include the
science fiction film Star Trek Nemesis (2002), the crime film RocknRolla (2004) of which he
played important roles that pushed him into the fame.
The interview is mainly considered as a promotional type of interview, meaning that the style of
the interview will be used to promote something, in other words, they key question will be
whatever they are trying to promote. This technique is done in order to advertise the new film
they are in or selling and to get the audience know about it. These sort of interviews are very
relaxed and light-hearted. This means that Ross welcomes an artist/celebrity and interviews
them as a way of promoting them into a better audience enhancement, as an example of this, it
could be an upcoming release of a movie or an album they have participated in. Furthermore,
Jonathan also likes to talk about the interviewees personal background, simply because it
allows a linear set of open and multiple questions that would be asked to the star of the film in
an open and confident manner. This not only promotes the film, but allows bits of information to
be found out through some of the questions asked. These questions are normally related to the
opinions of the celebrities starring in the film for example they will ask them how they personally
relate to the character they played.

As the interview begins, Jonathan enhances the audience by talking about Tom Hardy and his
ability to change his weight when playing different roles in films, specifically in Bronson, as he
says; Tom is famous for changing his body to play roles, suggesting that he admires him as an
actor, and has a respect for his change of body weight to get into characters in films. The
sentence is strengthened even more when he adds as an actor who really gets into the role,
really immerses himself, emphasizing that Tom is an outstanding actor and that he is good at
what he does. He is introducing the type of actor he is as well as what he is famous for. Since
Hardy is relatively new to the world of film and especially for the mainstream audience, it
consequently really important that Ross introduces him as the actor he is, giving the chance to
build rapport with Hardy as he makes jokes. Tom has not been interviewed enough on TV
before, so therefore this first introduction about the film can be quite informative for the audience
as well as emotional because he is new into the film world, as they are getting to know about
the actor more by this. As a result, making the audience more intrigued by Hardy, especially by
gaining and losing weight since is really important for some people, particularly for those who
also want to lose weight, Hardy may be taken as an inspiration or role model. However, Ross
engages more the introduction by saying Shall we get my next guest put ladies and
gentlemen? One of the most really gifted screen actors of our generations, ladies and
gentlemen is the fabulous Tom Hardy, enabling rapport building and confidence building
because by saying that, we are most likely to believe Ross, knowing that he has been around
for a long time, there is a certain amount of respect towards him, and therefore that lead onto
having that respect towards Hardy as well, and also exemplifying the entertainment style. He
also makes hardy look as fabulous which is a positive adjective, making Hardy feel respected
so that he will open up in interview and feel more confident answering questions.
Another promotional aspect is when Joss talks about how tremendous Tom was in the film
Bronson, encouraging the audience to watch the movie if they have not yet seen it. Jonathan
relates to his great performance and that the role he played quite amazed him, suggesting he
was also interested on Toms way of speaking and voice in the role because he wants to know
more about his accent when he played Charles in Bronson. Jonathan says you tried to do to his
voice the way he speaks or is this your version of him?, that is also seen as an
informative/research type of question, since it is not only beneficial for his own personal
knowledge, but for the audience too. He is also referring to the film as an incredible piece of
work when he says he looks brilliant in it, despite being a slow budget movie, Jonathan yet tries
to inform the audience that it is worth watching, promoting the actors career as well as his talent
as a young actor. Coming back to the point that the plays Charles Bronson, Jonathan Ross
makes a connection between Tom Hardy and the character he plays in the film; it is called
relations character building or characterisation. In the film, Charles Bronson most known for
his criminal activities; he is been referred as the most violent prisoner in Britain and Britains
most notorious prisoner, being born in Luton, Jonathan refers to him as a Luton twag.
Throughout the interview, we have different examples of key promotional questions that show
us and approach Jonathan Ross style, since he made emphasis on the character Tom Hardy
played as a way of telling the audience and fans that in real life, he is not violent and that it is
just a role he played. Tom Hardy answers by saying: I know what frightens me, you know, and
also I have compassion for certain and understanding of certain erratic or unpredictable

behaviour that doesnt always manifest itself in violence. This is reinforcing the audience on
getting to him better, not only as an actor- in terms of a professional approach-, but as a person.
This is quite informative, as we then find out that in order to keep himself calm he does knitting
as a hobby, as a way of controlling the turmoil within, but at the same time it also off talk and
random, enabling and creating rapport building between Ross and Hardy. This is is also
considered as emotional, both people are bonding, laughing and having fun.
Another promotional aspect that has been discussed in the interview is when they talk about the
upcoming release of the film Mad Max. Jonathan intentionally brings up the topic by asking him
What is he training you for at the moment? and Whats the next thing that youre doing?,
perhaps showing that he has done some research beforehand, and therefore wants to find out
more about his new awaiting movie, but moreover for the admirers and audience. In contrast,
Mad Max is an Australian post-apocalyptic action which is franchise created by George Miles
and Byron Kennedy. The film began in 1979 with just Mad Max, and was then followed by three
films: Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981), Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) and Mad
Max: Fury Road (2015). Mel Gibson starred in the first three films, and now Tom Hardy is going
to take over the titular role in the fourth film; this could be Hardys introduction to an audience
that is already fan of the film, or that has already become a follower of this popular franchise,
suggesting that this is a great opportunity for him to be in the show.
We all know that Mad Max is an action film, and that Tom Hardy is known for doing those kind of
roles because of his background with Bronson, and although Mad Max is is going to be more of
action film that Bronson is, Tom gets asked if he would ever see himself doing something
romantic- a rom com movie. Jonathan, has asked here a promotional question in where is also
informing us about a possible role in a different genre that he might play, possible because his
answer was positive and quite affirmatory by saying I would love to do that. However, the
reason why Hardy is there is to talk about his latest film, Warrior, in where two estranged
brothers whose entrance into a mixed martial arts tournament makes them come terms with
their lives and each other, consequently martial arts boxing and risky movements are involved.
As a result Hardy explains that he could be very lazy unless he is getting paid in which case it
would be different for him, because then he would do what he is asked to do. Making the film
was a very physical job, he says, And I broke two ribs and my toe and tore the ligament in my
right hand, does this mean that most of the films he has done require to have a good physical
condition? later on, we have Jonathan asking him about the guy who broke his neck, the
cagefighter; hes a cagefighter thats what they do, they are all fighters, suggesting that it might
have been a bit more challenging for him to make the film, seeing as he has work with real
fighters whose work is to fight, even outside the film-making and acting. At the same time, this
could be seen as informative, since the audience is finding out more than what just we see on
screening. It is going beyond that, we are not also acquiring knowledge about just the film itself
and Tom Hardy, but about characters who also played a role in which shows that they have a
story behind the screen; the cagefighter and his broken neck. It might not be relevant enough
to the audience in terms of the narrative or the story plot but it gives certain familiarity and
awareness in the characterisation behind the film making as well as relevance to the audience
enhancement. It pretty much points out one of the weaknesses of making/filming Warrior, since

when making a film requires effort, dedication and constancy, however, not everything can go
right or turn out the way we expect them to be; as Jonathan says even though its all pretty
horrible. I bet its a great film. And its an exciting movie. He is right, despite all the obstacles
and difficulties, the final outcome is what counts and therefore taken into consideration; that is
exactly what Jonathan is doing. Promotional and somewhat informative. Yet it makes it more
light-hearted when he mentions even though its all pretty horrible, referring to the fact
someone from the cast got injured without them even knowing and that he is a real fighter.
Hardys response towards what has been said is quite positive and assure, in a way that he is
convinced and confident about it all, which shows sympathy towards the audience at a certain
level. Jonathans promotional attitude couldnt have gone better if he had not finalised with that
long and efficient sentence at the end I think youre a tremendously talented, gifted and you
obviously really apply yourself. Youre intelligent actor and deserve the success and its great to
have had you here.
There are several points that could be discussed here; the first is, he is being extremely
promotional, it has such strong connotation that he makes, again, for the purpose of the
interview; since it is the end of the interview, by then the audience gets a better understanding
of the character and the films spoken. Promotional interviews often use open questions so the
interviewer can get as much information as possible about Tom Hardy, for instance, Ross asks
how do you train for a part like that? and when you want to lose weight, whats your secret?,
here Ross makes use of these type of open questions in order to enhance the light/hearted type
of interview, in fact, he uses them on purpose, with the intention to firstly, to build confidence
between Hardy and him and secondly, to entertain an audience. This shows that Hardy puts
effort into his job, he trains hard in order to be able to play the roles he is been asked,
suggesting that he is being attentive in a way. Also the fact that he loses/gains weight for his
films, enables the audience to emotionally respect him for the effort. Another example is when
he says would you start knitting or crocheting? What do you think youd start with?, Ross tries
to be keep the interview as entertaining as possible, then allowing Hardy to openly respond to
those questions, suggesting that the interview isnt formal.
This interview is also made of multiple questions in which Ross uses with the intention of
opening the interview in an welcome manner; trying to support giving guidance on the type of
answer Ross wants; Are you enjoying the world cup? Are you watching the football? Are you a
football fan? all these multiple questions are closed, which means Hardy isnt going to give a
big response only an specific answer, so the overuse of questions is a bit bombarding and
perhaps unnecessary as it seems that the over enthusiasm Ross has asked too much for Hardy
seeing as he doesnt like football, however, he does go along with Ross discussion on the
subject. Another multiple question is in minute 7:55, when Ross makes a good implementation
trying to achieve research So hes training you at the moment? What is he training you for at
the moment? Whats the next thing that youre doing?, showing that Ross is interested and
therefore making Hardy easily able to answer it due to his body language we see that it is a
topic that he feels comfortable with. The camera is mostly on Hardy, in this way, suggesting a
big reveal that will probably excite the audience as they are expecting his answer, this is

followed by the two shot where Ross put arm out to confidence build and get the audience
respect with the purpose of research and audience enhancement.
Furthermore, some of these multiple questions can result more different than they are and not
quite represent the style of the interview. In the minute 9 and 16 seconds there is a bit of a play
of shot reverse shots, in where Ross asks a 12 seconds long question How would this have
manifested itself? On a night out with you back when you were less controlled how would it
have begun? how would have it progressed? How might it have ended? And indeed how long
might it have carried on for?. Five questions in one go seems a bit excessive for Hardy, in fact,
his wow reaction says it all. This is not an effective questions because it shows that he is
overwhelmed and baffled after such intense questions and therefore trying to take in all the
questions asked. There are two shot types in where he looks down and it could possibly mean
embarrassment, in the other hand, there are two close ups of Ross while he is talking, he is
serious and tries to look rigid, suggesting that they have moved on to the emotional part of the
interview, rather than keep it light hearted all the time. Ross is quite investigative with this, with
the purpose of cause an emotional impact to his audience, perhaps especially for those who
had suffered drugs addiction or any of the kind, it is quite revealing, meaning that now we
acknowledge the fact that Hardy had been through a lot of tough things to be where he is now.
This is a representation of what may the audience feel about the actor, perhaps respect towards
Hardy, enhancing audience understanding and therefore making the interview more emotional
than it should be. The steady cuts ins this part, are used to try and make it seem less lengthy
than the questions are. It is a lot of questions to consider all at once, especially being private
and part of Hardys life. However, Ross is trying to support an answer that that audience may
sympathize with, leading to the understanding of Hardys issue with drugs and to highlight the
seriousness of the situation.
Another aspect of this whole interview brings light hearted/entertainment type, these interviews
are often more laid-back than others, because the interviewer will ask questions in a more
relaxed style than hard news or combative interviews- like the one with Jeremy Paxman- this
type of interview gives the interviewee Tom Hardy a more comfortable time as the questions will
be still open but they are left as free- opinion responses in which he responds as he thinks is
convenient. Light hearted interviews are usually seen as entertainment for the audience,
because they humourous and positive, this will insure that the audience will be entertained but
still be educated in what Jonathan will be saying; the interviewer will mainly ask multiple and
open questions. The first example is when Hardy gets asked whether he is enjoying the world
cup, watching the football matches, implying there is confidence building by asking casual
questions in order to avoid any awkwardness and uptightness. Are you a football fan Jonathan
asks. Seeing that the world cup is currently an event that is happening at that moment, the fact
that Jonathan is asking whether he is a football fan could be seen as a relevant fact, not
necessarily relevant to what they are talking about or what the topic is, its simply to apply
general knowledge about perhaps sports that he might be interested in and therefore is
convenient for the audience to know this fact. For the viewer or his audience is important to
know what his opinion is about current events, and in this is case is the football world cup 2010.
Yet if the answer is negative -he is not a football fan-, is also taken into consideration, because

the audience will be interested in him in anyway. At the same time, is a way of entertaining an
audience from and people who are directly watching it live.
Another great example is when the conversation leads to talk about where he comes from and
what his accent is like; this is a very casual manner of asking why does he have the accent he
has got, because youve got a London accent but it doesnt sound south east. The purpose
intended is to somewhat connect with the audience, emotionally but spontaneously, suggesting
audience enhancement. However, this isnt a serious matter because they are not taking it in a
manner that recognises importance. Jonathan just wants to know more about his film roles, and
find out more about his characterization and the way picking up accents quickly helps in his
career as an actor. In contrast, despite not being a serious matter, it evokes a sense of
entertainment, because it isnt very dull and serious and the audience love finding out more
about him; the aim for this style of interviewing is to put the interviewee at ease. Furthermore,
the same concept/plan is repeated, it is off task and little bit silly, random but fun at the same
time, suggesting report building from Jonathans side; how do you keep yourself calm? How do
you control the humor within?, that is an open question in response to his attitude towards
having to play a violent character, he talks about being a creative artist. Normally, knitting is
seen as something adults and the elderly do, so is he trying to say that he becomes that adult
he needs to be? or that adult who gives security to himself?. However, the purpose intended
here is to emphasize the emotional aspect that this has, despite it gives us a bit of information
about himself, it is also seen as a way of bonding with the interviewee. This confidence building,
enables them to take the interview much easier and relaxed.
What would you like to knit first? A hat? No, its too boring. Gloves?, this shows that Ross
is able to reject Hardys suggestion, prompting Hardy to try and be more adventurous, because
if they werent comfortable with each other at this point, he wouldnt risk rejecting Hardys point,
suggesting that he clearly wants to keep him on his side. [...] No. A cat? possibly illegal?[..a
vuvuzela.. A cat shows that Hardy plays into Ross randomness and need to be entertaining for
the audience. He then goes on to show he has built great rapport with Ross by going back to
the beginning of the interview and suggesting a vuvuzela, which good because it shows that
despite he doesnt like football, he was invested in the conversation at the beginning of the
interview.
Towards the end of the interview Jonathan has to start to wind up the interview for the next
guess on the show. Ross establishes this by saying just before you go hinting that he has
one more thing to ask. He asks Tom whats this film, the Warrior? Like he has never heard of it,
but he would have from the research they would have done before the shows. This is to
promote and give information out for the final part interview. So this is meant to have an
emotional impact from the audience as this will be fresh in their mind about the film as it is
nearing the end of the interview Tom can begin to relax as he know it is nearly over. You can tell
he begins to relax through his body language at the end. There are many reason to Tom Hardy's
defensiveness as this was his first British Interview so it can be very hard to feel comfortable
and act normal, due to the show nearly ending he becomes very relaxed. The wind up was
successful due to not leaving the show in such a sour mood. It allowed him to get the
confidence back from Tom as he is talking about what he knows. In addition to talking about the

wind up and saying Before you go this indicates to the production crew that he will be coming
off soon, get everyone prepared. This allows them to get the VT ready and the next guest ready.
In conclusion, one of the strengths to be considered in this interview is the settings. The setting
is an important factor for this type of interview- light hearted-, unlike the interview where
Paxman interviews Chloe Smith, the setting is much more less formal; there is a long comfy
sofa, placed next to Jonathans desk which implies relaxation from both sides and entertainment
to the audience. In fact, it makes it more light hearted and it really support the interview style.
The colours who are part of the settings are quite vibrant and the scenery is more or less
spacious, meaning that the interviewee shall feel more familiar with the environment.
Another strength is that Ross is good at promoting Hardy, and he does this bringing promotional
values in a conversational type way so that the audience dont notice they are being
manipulated into thinking that Hardys work is worth going to see. He plays some clips on the instudio screen so that the audience to watch, this is with the purpose for the audience to
understand the topic of conversation between Hardy and Ross. This is a clever way of
enhancing audiences understanding, keeping them engaged and promoting Hardys work all at
the same time.
Overall, the lighthearted part of this interview dominates as it is a talk show with a live audience.
Also, the different questions asked were varied starting with direct questions to more
developmental and open questions and despite the fact that is mostly meant to be promotional
interview, having lighthearted aspects is positive and effective as the interviewee is able to open
up more about what is being promoted.
Hardy is positioned in front of his interviewer, in a friendly and comfortable position, but it
doesnt necessarily mean he feels comfortable all the time. A negative aspect to this interview
was that Ross began to talk about the uncomfortable past of Hardy's drug addictions/problems.
In line with promoting this isnt
something that should be brought
up, which was a major error for
Ross, a question he shouldnt of
asked as this went away from the
humorous theme and mood of the
show to something quite sad and
depressing. Furthermore, some of
the multiple questions were
effective but others werent, as
Ross is trying to get as much
information as possible out of
Hardy. Due to Tom Hardy not
having any relevance or
knowledge of football, it makes him
look bad with the vuvuzela moment as he cannot relate to the audience.

Bowling For Columbine is a 2002 American documentary film, written, produced, directed and
narrated by Michael Moore; he explores the thorny issues such as Americas guns laws, as well
as its culturally and cinematic narrative. At the time, the political documentary Bowling For
Columbine got several oscar nominations and went on to win an Academy Award. This film
approaches the idea that gun crime in America may be result of its history of violence and
mixed ethnicity which have been present throughout the beggining. Moore is positioned
himself as persuasive and engaging protagonist as he explores the nature of violence in
America. The film is seen as informative, but it frequently challenges our perception of the
American mindset, more than an entertainment, a documentary style. He does this by
interviewing several people in order to explore gun violence in a personal point of view.
In this part, James Nichols a farmer and an ex-prisoner, is being interviewed which is an
investigative style using lots of suggestive questions. James had previously been accused of
assisting the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. This horrific event killed just under 200 people
and attacked another 450 with serious injuries. Despite James's younger brother was sentenced
for life without parole, James himself was not convicted in the case. So as consequence, Moore
decides to investigate more about the case, and show us what James thinks about gun crime
and the right to have arms in country.
Michael Moore begins the interview by being investigative firstly asking him what he grows in
there, in his garden- seeing that the first bit of the interview takes places outside Jamess
house-, in front of his house as it gets darker, making the interview quite informal and very lighthearted, very casual. This can also be seen as quite informative as it tells us what he does in
his everyday life, something that is out of topic because the main reason is to find out more
about Oklahoma City Bombing. However, us, as the audience, try to understand him and the
things he does outside the supposed crime world, suggesting audience enhancement because
we get to know more about Nicols. Being a farmer is seen as something common and usually
normally seen as someone who is innocent and incapable of doing anything bad. In fact, he is a
tofu farmer, which gives an emotional tone to the situation. However, this was just a setup
question to lead Moore into talking about bombs and explosives in the farm later on the
interview because in this way, James wouldnt feel as being interrogated about crime-linked
behaviour but chatting about his farming instead. Nonetheless, the purpose here is building
rapport between Michael and James, in order to make the communication process easier and
more comfortable for both, usually more effective, enabling them to communicate better.
There is cut back to when there were proceedings, giving us an insight of the back of the story
and more or less the reason of the interview. This starts from when we see James in the court,
he is mad and a bit hysterical, why? This cut is part of the editing as after watching this,
changes the way we see James- he is crying- so that makes us begin thinking that perhaps he
has done nothing wrong. After this, Moores intention is to build rapport with James, because in
that way, he can get the big answer out of him, which then would allow more to take advantage
of it, with cutting the answers in a biased way to exemplify his point however at the start it does
not seem this way as Moore get james to reminisce about Timothy it creates the technique of

light heartedness as they use to be friends, and he is taking James back to when Timothy was
still alive.
In the middle of the interview, Moore keeps being informative by asking suggestive questions.
Suggestive questions with a double meaning that perhaps are intended to be biased; Timothy
McVeigh was executed but the feds didnt have the goods on James so the charges were
dropped the voice over says, and Moores delivery edited him in a negative way, making
Nichols look mad and crazy.This phrase suggests that is luck that saved James from
execution, something that neither Timothy or Terry had, they both had to affront with what they
did. Therefore very subjectively indicating that there wasnt really any relevant evidence that
liberated Nichols from being sentenced for life.
As the interview continues Moores opinion is more explicit as he is showing his biased point of
view by the use of questions which subtly imply that Nichols is guilty, for instance, by asking
Nichols of his interaction with Timothy McVeigh. He asked Did Timothy ever stay here?, firstly,
to do more of his initial research on the case and see what kind of relationship Nichols had with
him. This also suggests that despite his calm and non-accusing voice tone, More is also being
interpretive by insinuating that Nichols was somehow involved with the crime, revealing his
underlying suspicion towards Nichols who is held without criminal charge. Another great
example of this, is So they didnt find anything on this farm? Any kind of explosives?, knowing
the answer that could possibly be yes, enhancing the audiences understanding of James
Nichols and his possible involvement on bomb-making materials and equipment he has access
in his house. Moore cleverly asks this question knowing the answer himself with the purpose of
seeing Nichols reaction towards it, and how he is going to embrace such answer, suggesting
that Moore clearly wants to make us believe he is guilty. How has Nicholls got access to all
those materials whilst maintaining an innocent profile to the world? we dont know but this type
of questions serve to reveal information about Nichols farm and where he lives, manipulating
the audience understanding of the situation; asking him directly about explosives gets the
audience thinking that he is guilty of committing the crime, although there are no true facts of
the contrary.
The interview continues being lighthearted when Nichols affirms that he sleeps with a 44
magnum under his pillow. And Moore replies Cmon thats what everyone says. Is that true?,
so for those who believe that James has got something to do with crime, this commentary is of
great impact and perhaps of affirmation that leads the audience into thinking he is in fact, guilty
due to his abnormal reaction. For others who, for instance, think he is innocent, it is seen in a
jokey way because it sounded funny, as if it was something casual to do because he also
sounded very ironic. This encourages Nichols into proving that it is true and so Moore asks Can
you take and show us?. Moores voiceover then explains that Nichols said the cameraman
should remain out of the room whilst he shows the arm. We hear Moore saying Is it loaded?
and because the audience is not able to see what is happening inside the room, Moore has
edited on-screen text saying in capitals Nichols has cocked the gun and put it to his temple and
so whilst they are still inside, we hear Dont do that, dont put a gun to you head, geez. This
thing is loaded with a fake laughter. However, despite Moore tries to make James comfortable

in answering questions, he is still doing research and trying to find more information, keeping
the mood light-hearted. By keeping this light-hearted manner, Moore has misled Nichols to
believe that this information about how he keeps his guns is conversational, when really from
we can tell from the text in capitals, and the things that Moore says to Nichols in the bedroom,
the message he tries to get across the audience, is that Nichols is irresponsible and careless
with the gun.
Do you believe it was right to blow up the building in Oklahoma city? and then there is a little
pause Im not saying you did it, Im just saying. Moores intention of being even more
investigative is very clear at this point of the interview, because again, it is very suggestive and
interpretative for the audience because it has a double meaning that leads us into thinking
Moore is right because of the manipulation of the editing. Furthermore, Moore challenges
Nichols into declaring whether it would morally wrong if someone did it. Of course it would, but
he thinks James wouldnt give that same answer because he is mad, and that is the way he is
trying to show him to the audience. However, James vague reply is Yeah, Yeah, not showing
any kind of emotion towards it.
With many sound-bites this interview becomes very informational and interpretative to us. This
is technique use to portray Nichols in the bad side, as being the guilty one; we see Nichols
answering the questions from Moore we dont actually hear him asking him questions which
makes it seem like he is just giving away information, that Moore later on uses against him. Also
looking at his past, he has had a list of the people who are afraid of him, especially pointing out
his ex-wife, which again is not a good thing and due to the sound-bite edit this makes us think
he is mentally unstable. For instance, the interview cuts from them speaking about bomb
making to a soundbite of Nichols, saying 'Those people were scared to death!of.another
wako showing that people were scared of him after the attack had happened, raising more
suspicion towards Nichols persona. And with the replies of the sound bites he is just seen as
crazy and isolated from the world, reinforcing that he is not really a reliable person, while adding
more emotion to the audience as they start to realise how badly and mentally low James is.
Through these we come to believe that he may be a terrorist due to all the connections of bomb
making materials, also the two people he was living with at the time were accused. When a
government turns to radical, it is your duty to overthrow it, this is giving guilty vibes and for the
same reason, it is very investigative and interpretative. He cuts again to close up to another
question, why not use Gandhis way? (Gandhi eradicated us by peaceful means) - suggesting
a contrary 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, which means that Moore has
subliminally made the audience agree with him because it supports his point about gun use.
Ya think its ok to bomb? This is suggestive and as this starts to build up it becomes more
combative and suggestive. We feel that he may have been involved with this incident with what
he had mentioned before 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 and from this saying it is indicating that
communication, or in some interpretations, running power, is a more effective tool than direct

violence but he says must always keep the sword handy for when the pen fails clearly
meaning a violent solution to problems of his, and this makes it seem very suspicious with the
violent connotation to the bombings
To conclude, the interview was a success due to the implication of his biased point of views
through editing and soundbites. Moore attempts to influence the audience into fearing by editing
Nichols most controversial points. And we can see that, through editing, More has made the
interview more absorbing and informational to us, it allowed him to get almost any outcome that
he wants to convey to the audience, however at the same time, making it very biased to the way
he wants the world to see it. An example of this is that Moore made Nichols seem mental by
asking him personal questions and some questions about his ideals on guns, which shows that
he had strategically planned in advance to get an answer which would enable Moore to convey
James as nut. A limitation to the interview is that the final outcome overall was very biased, he
portrayed James as someone you have to be very cautious around. The way Nichols
personality comes across with his sense of humour he is trying to portray which has been put
together to make him look worse than he is.
Throughout the documentary, Michael Moore shows us different points of views and
perspectives about gun violence in America and the law that allows their citizens to easily
acquire that tool of death. We understand that Moore is against this law, the way the
documentary is made and the interviews he has made evokes the idea of having the possession
of guns at home is wrong and that is the cause for the horrific assaults and mass shootings,
Columbine High School in 1999, the killing of innocent children and the horrendous acts of
violence happening in a everyday life, are the reasons to explore more about this matter, in fact,
to do something about it.
In contrast, many American citizens had an opposite point of view in regard of this controversy;
they think and believe that the cause of all these horrendous violence and guns violence is due
to what their population watch on TV, this includes the violence in movies (horror films), TV
entertainment and cartoons such as South Park, drugs, etc and music: heavy metal and Marilyn
Manson. M. Moore demonstrates this fact by showing a quick montage of different people giving
their opinion about who is to blame in this situation. The people fear for the children and the
younger generation. What do they watch? What makes them become violent? They blame
Marilyn Manson and his heavy music.
After the mass shooting occurred in the school, it seemed that all the focus on why the
shootings occurred was due to the killers listening to Marilyn Manson. The interview opening
begins with a montage of different people/news reporters, which emphasises audience
enhancement towards visual imagery, making the opening more effective because the audience
then can understand that there are two direction: people who blame drugs/video games/movies
and people who blame Marilyn Manson. Examples of the news and reporters are shown in order
to make us aware and conscious of the debate in the situation as the montage consists of them
responding to what they think the blame is on. This also made with the intention to show how
the media is involved and how this can influence on peoples opinions because that is how the

audience will get things: the majority of the shots are people blaming on Manson. We have two
sides: the religious and protests who disapproves and protest against Marilyn Mansons music
and in the other side we have Michael Moore who is to support the idea that is not Mansons
fault. However, the intention even before the interview takes place is to investigate more about it
and Moore himself decides to do it, also in order to support his view of the story and despite the
religious protests, he still will do his research to inform the audience whether he is influential or
not.
But it didnt just stay there, the rock star tells us more about his own opinion on the current
American situation and their necessity of keeping a weapon in order for them to be safe, or in
order words feel safe. He informs us of the way he thinks the media itself is behind of all this:
the way the media wants to take it and spin it and turn it into fear he affirms, trying to defend
himself. In the case, there is a juxtaposition of opinions, a clear point made about how the
media consumes us in a subliminal way, whereas the religious activist says its the same as
buying a lexus, meaning that people may listen to his music but only those who decide commit
an act of violence will do it. In fact, it is true that the media takes an important role on this, they
are the responsibles to make us feel that fear, but then as humans it is our decision to take it
further and actually allow that fear to penetrate in our lives as something substantial and
influential. Moore and the soundbites editing technique which are used initially, puts Marilyn in a
positive position towards the people who are against him and his music. Both sayings are
contrast to each other, each argument is cleverly edited in a way that the rock star always has
the last say, making him look more solid and what he argues about would be more reliable and
convenient for the audience.
That is the power of editing and the how that part is meant to be subjective but the editing
makes it interpretive and subliminally makes us support what Marilyn's opinion; the tone of voice
and body language are something that hold up the interview structure. As he defends himself
and says Im, in the end, sort of a poster boy to fear. Because I represent what everyones
afraid of, because I do and say what I want, he has got his arms crossed and his tone voice is
quite passive and clear. He seems to be confident and quite conscious about what he's saying,
the flowing manner in which he says it shows that he has got a strong judgement and point of
view. Manson also gives to focus to what the music represents to him music was the escape
Thats the only thing that had no judgments. You can put on a record and its not gonna yell at
you for dressing the way you do. Its gonna make you feel better about it and soon as he ends
saying that, the soundbite cuts to the religious activist, making a controversy about what marilyn
said Some will be so brash to ask if we believe that all who hear Manson tomorrow night will go
out and commit violence acts. The audience knows Manson is seen as someone who has a
negative musical influence towards his listeners, because of the way and style he expresses
himself but no one knows the meaning behind it. This serves to audience enhancement towards
Manson, because he starts off the interview by saying what he thinks and sharing his testimony
about what is the truth for him, and also having an emotional response from the audience.
The impact this have on the audience is that the rock artist will be seen entirely different by the
end of the interview, positively. Hence the soundbites are used in order to have both opposite

arguments, as an audience, the way we received it is that we support Marilyns side because he
seems to have a counter argument. His side is juxtaposed with politicians and protests declaring
that Manson is the one to blame, but the way it has been deliberated edited makes Mansons
argument stronger. That editing is done on purpose, making us subconsciously believe that
Manson is right, and therefore also supporting Moores view. Moore uses juxtaposition to portray
this and make it more relevant to us, reinforcing that this serves as a strength for the interview.
In order for Moore to support Manons side, he asks very him very suggestively whether he
knew that on the same day that Columbine happened the US dropped more bombs on Kosovo
than any other time during that current war. In fact, this question is also seen as informational
and research, because is something that the audience who are watching may not know,
therefore in that way, we realise that is not always how the media wants to represent things; and
knowing that the government has an involvement on the whole guns violence, makes look
Manson in a better position. In conclusion, Moore uses this question in order to show us that the
media puts the blame on someone just for their own benefit and hide the fact that the
government can do worse, perhaps with the intention of keeping everyone afraid because
according to Marilyn the president has got a bigger influence on all this violent behaviour, again
bring promotional, making emphasis on the unfairness of the situation.
Furthermore, this interview is also seen as promotional itself due to some points made out; at
the start we have the news anchor informing us that the artist had to cancelled his concert out of
respect for those lost in Littleton, suggesting and showing that Manson is not as bad as the
people think he is. At the end: when Michael Moore asks the only open question what would
you say to the children of Columbine? This serves as a suggestion, since Moore is giving
Manson the opportunity to speak his mind and change peoples perception of him, suggesting
that the audience could perceive it in an interpretative way, especially when he replies I
wouldnt say a single word to them. I would listen to what they have to say. And thats what no
one did, this is a very strong answer to give as it plays on the audiences emotions, meaning
that is very emotional and interpretative as well as promotional. Moore supports what Manson
had previously said by asking that suggestive question, defending him after he had carefully
listened positively to answers Manson gave. This means that Moore really takes into account
Mansons words and this is very important because it shows that Moore was actively listening,
his response to everything Manson said was very positive and agreeable, in fact, something that
he was waiting to hear from the artist.
In an interview, listening to what each other need to listen is very key because it shows the topic
is serious and that there is a good connection between interviewer and interviewee, reinforcing
even more audience enhancement due to the understanding coming from the interviewer. By
the end of the interview, Moore is seen as a good interviewer, especially every time he nodded
to what Mansons sayings,- Moore is always agreeing- due to his body language in response to
Manson says we see that there is understanding and agreement from both sides. Active
listening may also lead to asking developmental questions to further enhance the audience
understanding of the situation, as well as informing them. Through the active listening the
audience is able to see respect and good atmosphere between Moore and Manson and as a

result influencing us into listening and being respectful towards Manson, because the
interviewer is.
In conclusion, one of the strengths of this interview was the contradiction Manson presented in
having a better moral message to give out, it was meaningful and considered to be more
valuable because of the use of his words. The purpose intended with the editing of this interview
was to eliminate any negative views that people had on Marilyn Manson beforehand. However,
the limitation here is not everyone may wanted to have listened to what Marilyn had to say, in
fact, since the whole interview was very interpretive in general, Moore let the audience to
interpret it the way they want; the audiences own interpretation in other words, but still he made
quite clear what he wanted to show and that was Marilyn being innocent. Also, the techniques
used and how Michael manages to convey his point using them are another strength, the use of
juxtaposition and the combination of two opposite sides certainly conveys the message he had
previously in mind. Nonetheless the stronger belief is that even though Manson is portrayed as
a conflictive icon, he spoke with touch and for his fans to be able to see this side of him and not
just his musical influence.
In this interview, Michael Moore continues with his research on the topic matter, America and its
gun shootings. This is the final interview of Bowling For Columbine Moore decides to interview
Charlton Heston, the president of the National Rifle Association (from 1998 to 2003), where one
of the main reasons Moore decides to include him in his last interview is because he would
clearly have a strong point of view on gun culture compared to Michael Moores, which makes it
seem even more interesting to have both opposite opinions in one interview, just to show the
contrast and investigate someone who's actually got power and is part of one of biggest gun
association in the world.
One of the facts to be considered in this specific interview is that Heston was diagnosed with
Alzheimer's in August 2002, which means and a few months after, the documentary was
released in October 2002 and the interview took place in 2001, meaning that perhaps there
would have been symptoms of the illness back in the time when the interview was done. In the
contrary, Moore received several accusations due to the audience shock on why he did not cut
out the scene of Hestons showing respect towards his illness for the fact that it could have
affected his judgment and common sense of the situation. Alzheimer consists of short-time
memory loss, meaning that he probably might have forgotten about certain events that
happened, such as, the six-year old kid who was shot by another kid of the same age.
For this interview, Moores investigative character is shown since the beginning, even before the
interview starts, he puts himself on the position of going to Hestons mansion in Beverly Hills,
California. Once there, Moore says Listen, I was wondering if maybe I could talk to you. Were
making a documentary about the whole gun issue., stating why he is there but it only refers it to
the whole gun issue, without saying anything else to prove that he is against it. However, he
makes it more naturally credible by adding And Im a member of the NRA. I thought maybe we
could talk a little bit about.... This proves that he only said he was a member because of the
documentary and because by saying that he would get more advantages on Heston letting him

to be interviewed, in fact, he is the president of the NRA, so what a better way to say that youre
also a member? He used it for his own benefit. Later on, there is evidence that Moore was
criticised in this interview for misleading Heston at this point. However, Moore had no other
choice but mislead him; it was the only way he could make possible the interview, without
getting a negative answer. Also, he might have just included this scene to show the ease of the
situation, even though Heston replied I can give you a little time tomorrow morning.
Michael appears to be in his mansion the next morning as he said. And while walks through the
big security gate and the driveway, we have a get a sense of calm, relaxing and very lighthearted tune which clearly contradicts what is going to happen. Hearing this makes the
audience think that the interview is going to be done in a friendly and nicely manner, without any
negative aspect, whereas after seeing the whole interview that feeling changes and its gone.
This music emphasises sarcasm and the ironic way in which Moore sees it.
Moores investigation starts as soon as the interview with Heston begins; I assume you have
guns in the house here? So you have them for protection? Have you ever been a victim of
crime?. All these questions are very direct and closed, which suggests that him being the
president of the NRA is obvious that he holds guns in his house, it also emphasises the point
hes got possession of loaded guns, not only one but many. This serves to enhance the
audience understanding of why does he have guns if he has never been a victim of crime or
even assaulted. It also a bit light-hearted because Heston smiles and feels comfortable
answering those questions. The audience could interpret this as having loaded guns in your
house is pointless and unnecessary because youll never need them and that is what Moore
wants us to think. This is also made with the purpose of finding out if Heston knows about guns
in America, however he is not quite sure of this information because he doesnt seem to have a
strong opinion about it. On the other hand, we see that Moore had previously done research
about the topic before the interview, which shows he was prepared and ready for any type of
answer. He does this by stating real facts about America and Britain, making also comparisons
between both countries making conclusions on how the different gun laws in each country
makes America more dangerous than the rest of the world. In response, Heston gives short
answers and states that American history itself has a lot of blood on his hands, which seems
like a response someone from a very old generation, someone who has probably lived during
war time. But in the other hand, he doesnt seem to be very informed about it either, or perhaps
even ignoring the fact that Moore is right.
In order to make Moores argument more valid and stronger, he makes use of direct questions
to be more combative and opinionated about the topic, as he asks: And Germany history
doesnt?. And British History? in response to what his interviewee said. Moore looks for more
information via direct questions, in which there are about five within the interview. At this point of
the interview, when this happens, it means that the interview is not being as effective as he was
expecting it to be. Firstly, because he is asking for more information than is already given which
means he has not found the information he is investigating and secondly because Heston
doesnt seem to be very helpful with answering the questions. He also uses them for his
backup, reinforcing the idea that Heston is not as right as he thinks he is. We could also argue

that he uses them against him, or in other words, against his argument because at this point,
Moore has realised that Heston is being stubborn and very persistence and doesnt seem to
understand the gun issue.
This interview also portrays a combative style manner, and the evidence to prove this is when
Michael asserts that Heston doesnt have an opinion about why American being the only
country allowing the gun law, is the one that kills each other with guns in such extreme level and
that is due to the responses Heston makes; vague and without a clear position because he
seems uncomfortable at this point of the interview, not wanting to continue talking on the topic.
The interview becomes even more combative when Heston says we have probably more mixed
ethnicity than other countries, and again the image the audience gets from that answer is of
someone who is close-minded and a bit inflexible. What do you mean, you think its a mixed
ethnicity?, Hestons saying hand an emotional effect and it was most likely that it offended
people and some of the audience who were watching so Moores response was to reinforce that
he is against because it sounded a bit racist and rude.
The final direct question is nearly at the end of the interview and probably one of the reasons
that cause Heston wanting to leave the interview after refusing to apologise to the people of
Flint and Columbine for coming to their streets and saying that guns should be allowed. Moore
says to Heston You don't think it's okay? probably trying to bring him back because this is at
the point where Heston has started to realise maybe this interview wasnt a good idea, he starts
to think that Moore isnt 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, suggesting that there should be a good conversation out of it. Even before Heston
walked off, there are a number of medium shots that proves Heston had attempted to stand up
a few times and leave, but however, this was the time when he took the opportunity.
Furthermore, there are a few wind ups towards the end of the interview, and so these wind ups
are mainly when Heston realises Moore isnt really on his side despite being member of the
NRA, so as a result Moore tries to wind-up his own interview, because at this point he has
realised the interview isnt going as he expected it to be. There is the first example of this when
Heston says, 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 thats all I
have to say on it which indicates that he was about to get up and leave but Moore instantly
comes up with a counter question, making him stay because he had realised the interview had
reached its combative side and he wants Heston to stay. The reason why Moore uses this
strategy of winding up the interview is because perhaps something isnt going well. An interview
is winded up only when it is not being as effective as the interviewer expects. Another example
is at the very end, when Moore tries to do as much as possible for him to give an answer and
finish the interview Mr. Heston...This is her...Please dont leave Mr. Heston, please, take a look
at her. This is the girl, showing a picture of the girl who had been killed and therefore to
emotionally touch Heston but the attempt failed because he didnt even looked back to see the
picture.

In conclusion, the interview was not successful as the others were. Knowing that Heston was
diagnosed with Alzheimer's the following year does not help, because he probably was not fully
able to answer all the questions as Moore expected it. Also, the fact that he is a much older
person than Moore would mean that he is definitely going to have a different point of view, just
because he is from a past generation. Times change and so do people. On the other hand,
there were certain techniques that were effective in the interview. For example, the ability of
Moore to be persistent and that is evident in the beginning, when he goes personally to his
house in order to interview him. The fact that he made himself look like he was part of the NRA
was also effective at the beginning but eventually did not turn out as Moore expect it.
There are various differences that make all the interviews distinct from one another, and this is
because each of them have different purposes to achieve, meaning that different techniques are
used. The first difference is the approach each of them has and how they use the interview in
order to find what they are looking for. For instance, the formality in which these interviews are
made: Jeremy Paxman and Chloe Smith show seriousness and importance because it is clear
that the interview is formal. And this is due to the formal clothes they both are wearing (suit, tie
and blazer), the neon colours of the settings, the images on the wall and the business-like desk
that is where the interview is taking place. However, Jonathan Ross and Michael Moore do all
this in a different way, they take their interviews more informal but yet that doesnt mean the
topic isnt serious, especially Moore, in Bowling For Columbine, he does his research and
investigation by keeping his interviews casual and relaxed. However, in the Ross promotional
interview with Tom Hardy, they both are sitting in a comfortable position: Hardy is on a big sofa
and Ross is just sitting on a desk chair, which gives the interview a heart-lighted mood and very
different from Paxman, also the colours are more vibrant and despite both of them are wearing
blazers with formal trousers, Hardy is wearing nike trainers. In the other hand, Moores
investigative and combative interviews are also informal. They are not taken in a specific place
or specific setting that has been chosen, they are directly filmed in casual and spontaneous
locations: with Nichols, is in house where he lives, first we have the outside of his house and
then his dining room however, and the lighting for the interview isnt even very clear in
comparison to Rosss. Its just house lighting. Also, the fact that throughout the interview they
change locations is also informal and very light-hearted. Whereas Ross and Hardy stay in the
same place the whole interview. This is also seen with Heston, the interview takes place in his
house, just inside a room full of random stuff and pieces of artworks and again, very
spontaneous and casual. With Moore, its slightly different: in fact, it is the most informal one
due to evidence that Moore is on Manson's side, and therefore there is no need to take a formal
and serious interview because their relationship is friendly and their conversation is quite fluid.
They both seem to be confident around each other and that is strength for Moore which
supports the interview, leading it positively. Moreover, Moores clothing are never formal in any
of his interviews; he always wears baggy jeans and long t shirts, sometimes with a hat,
suggesting that he might not be taken seriously at times.
Another point of differences between the interviews analysed is the amount of editing used: In
the BFC interviews, there is evidence of Elliptical editing which consists of a technique that is
used with the purpose to shorten a video, in other words, to condense time. This means that

scenes are cut from a video to shorten it. This technique is well known to be applied in
documentaries, especially when the interview is combative, meaning that the editing allows the
audience to perceive the argument is intended to be the right one. For example, Moore appears
to have cut out some of the scenes in his interview with Nichols, suggesting that in this way,
Moore could make us defend his point of view and therefore makes it sound better.
Furthermore, he has probably used the same technique when interviewing Heston as he
sounded combative at times; this could have led Moore to cut out some parts so it looks like his
argument has won rather than letting Heston having the last word. However, there wasnt any
need to use elliptical editing in Mansons interview, simply because Moore was on his side and
there was no need to edit something he knew it was right. On the other hand, in shows like
promotional ones: there might be a bit of elliptical editing, just to cut parts that are not necessary
without meaning these should be cut out because of an argument/debate or because there is a
point to be won. As for instance in the Jonathan Ross show, there is one part which is
noticeable. This is when Hardy was trying to say something but it instantly was cut. Perhaps
with the intention of not showing what it was unneeded or not funny enough to be shown on TV.
This suggests that the fact the interview could have been taken longer to record should be
considered despite its only shown for 15 minutes. Also, there is another editing technique
sound bridge: this can be seen if we carefully pay attention. This happens when a shots cuts to
another the sound is still the same 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 stop, but they cut the applause into the next shot by using a soundbridge. So in
this way, it looks like Ross and Hardy have jumped straight onto the next topic suggesting that
they still keep the flow of the interview. On the contrary, the Paxman interview is the complete
opposite to Ross and Bowling For Columbine. This is due to the fact that the Paxman interview
was live across the world, with a multi-cam edit which means there is no editing involved and
everything shown is exactly as the way it is. With no changes and adjustments. The only editing
involved 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 isnt. 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.