Jeremy Paxman

Intro
Jeremy Paxman was an british broadcast who worked for the bbc for a number of years.
He is the interviewer in the chloe smith interview about finding out why the change to
the car tax rise was scrapped on the day it was supposed to be released. Paxmans job
is to be the interviewer and ask questions on why the the government has all of a
sudden decided to get rid of the car tax rise when they was so eager to have it in the
first place and, chloe smith is the interviewee who will answer questions on why they
came to the decision and try to settle unanswered questions.
Hard news
One example I could give that portrays this interview as hard news is the seating
positions paxman and chloe smith are in. We are looking at a rectangular table that is
set out diagonally with paxman sitting at the top and chloe sitting on the side. We could
argue that paxman is seen as a being more important and is of a higher status, This
meaning that chloe smith being on the side is less important. We see this often in
traditional nuclear families where the father would be at the end of the table as he is
seen as the head of the family. The way the interview is reflected through this kindve
layout suggests that it is hard news due to the statement of one person being higher
status than the other linking to serious matters.
One other example that can be used is the costume. Jeremy is suited up from head to
toe in a black suit with a red tie and chloe smith is wearing a pinkish coloured suit. Suits
are traditionally seen as being very serious and formal. Suits are often worn by
businessmen/women, so when the audience is watching the interview when they see
these suits they automatically assume that the interview is of a serious matter or
business. The suits relating to something of high importance is telling the viewer that the
matter is of importance without them thinking about it.
The set also gives a few puzzle pieces that the audience watching can put together to
clue what the interview is about.
Behind the interviewer and the interviewee we can see that there is a projected image
of George Osborne who is the head of the treasury who plays a leading role in what is
done with the money the country owns. So by seeing this we get the idea he may be
apart of the subject matter. Another thing we see in the projected images is a red
briefcase which is referred to as the red box. This red box also known as The Budget
Box is the box that is used to carry important governmental documents from one place
to another. Annually this box is held outside number 11 downing street and contains the
yearly budget plans. So by seeing this box we have the idea that maybe the interview
will be about some kind of change to taxes. The interview room is lit with blue lights
which could represents a couple of things, one being that the party in power at the time

was the conservative government who has unofficially been represented with the colour
blue, so the audience member may get a hint that it has something to do with the
government. The other reason the colour of the room could be lit with a deep blue is the
fact the show is called News Night which is aired in the evening around when the
moon has just risen and the colour of the sky is typically a dark blue. Overall we can see
that there are a number of things we can look at before we even listen to the interview
to get an idea of what the interview will be about.
Language
Now let's look at the language between the interviewer and the interviewee. Jeremy
says which department is it going to come from? The reason Paxman is asking this
question is because he is trying to gain information from Chloe about the department
the money will come out of, She is unable to answer this question clearly or properly so
as a viewer we raise our suspicion towards her as we are beginning to think that she
doesnt know what she is talking about or is hiding stuff from us. One of the first things
jeremy asks is when were you told of this change of plan? which once again his
purpose for asking this question is to gain as much information from the interviewee so
the audience can understand why the sudden change in car taxes. When jeremy asks
this question chloe begins to stutter and lose her ground a bit. She says I cant, I cant,
I cant and as an audience listening to this we begin to get very werey of what she is
saying and lose trust. As Jeremy asks more and more questions and he is unable to get
information out of her which kindve makes you think about jeremy's ability to gain
information as an interviewer as he has not got a single piece of information that we
wanted out of her.
Combative
In the jeremy paxman and chloe smith interview there is a sort of debate going on
between them, We get the sense its very combative. From the very start of the
interview we kind of get this idea that the interview will be very combative as they layout
in which they are sitting gives off a two sided vibe as they are sitting opposite each
other as if theyre opposing sides. We can also tell this by the way jeremy paxman is
repeating the questions he is asking Chloe a lot. For example Jeremy asks her When
was the decision taken? Jeremy is trying to find out when the call for tax was put off. By
repeating the question again and again in a demanding tone of voice and body
language makes Jeremy seem intimidating to Chloe Smith. The reason this makes the
interview combative is because Jeremy is in an intense battle with chloe to get the
information he wants out of her. Jeremy is unable to get the answer he wants from
Chloe so tension builds higher and higher between the two making it possibly awkward
for Chloe as she may not know what else to say since he keeps asking and she doesn't
want to say the wrong thing as she doesn't want to get fired.
During the interview Chloe Smith seems to be very unclear in the information she is
giving us and very unconfident in delivering it so when Jeremy questions her and once

again cannot get a clear answer out of her he becomes very agitated to Chloes lack of
cooperation with him. Towards the end of the interview Jeremy asks Chloe in a
rhetorical question Do you ever think youre incompetent due to his increased
frustration with Chloes limited response. He is being very rude and telling her that she
is useless. Although Chloe clearly didnt have many answers to give in response to his
questions Jeremy's overall technique in gathering information from Chloe wasnt very
effective at all.

Key / Developmental Questions

Throughout an interview an interviewer will often have a few Developmental questions
that will help them get the specific information from the interviewee that they wanted for
the interview. In this case Jeremy Paxman asked Chloe When were you told of this
change of plan? this is a developmental question because its straight to the point and
on topic and in some cases may establish what the interview is about. This is also a
developmental question as Jeremy will hopefully get the information he wants which will
help further develop the understanding of the situation. This often means the interviewer
might be able to ask more questions to get even more details. So in this example
Jeremy's hopes were to develop his understanding of why the treasury made the
decision to cancel the tax rise on vehicles. In this interview developmental questions are
very important as the whole reason the interview is happening is to inform people on the
situation and understand it a bit better, but in this case we can see that if an interviewee
does not answer these questions in the way you want the interview can not continue
One example of a Key question Jeremy uses in this interview is Can you tell us from
which departments that gap is going to be made up? He is recapping the topic and
finding out key information.
Summary
At the end of an interview the interviewer will summarise the information that they were
told by the interviewee for example at the end of the paxman interview he gives a
summary of what chloe told him We are clear that what you are looking for now is 500odd million pounds. You say that various government departments are under spending.
Jeremy has summarised what chloe has said over the course of the interview. This is
too wrap up the interview so it can end and also help remind people on what has been
said.

Jonathan Ross

Introduction
at the start of an interview the interviewer will introduce the interviewee to the audience
or viewer to summarize what they do and/or what they will be there to talk about to give
them some back story on who the person/people are for example in the Jonathan ross
interview he starts off by saying "great to have you here Tom. Tom is famous for..." And
proceeds to talk about what Tom has done and what he does. The purpose of Jonathan
doing this is to give information to the audience/viewer ABOUT Tom Hardy as many
people who are watching may not be aware of who he is or seen any projects he has
been in. What Jonathan has done is give us a brief description of what he is famous for
and promote him.
Styles
The Jonathan Ross interview with Tom Hardy is very promotional. Jonathan talks about
a variety of films that Tom Hardy has been in or will be in as he was a very small time
actor at the time who would be in low budget productions such as warrior and bronson.
The first time we see the promotional side of this interview is at the very start when
Jonathan introduces Tom to the stage where he talks about Toms ability to work hard
and change his physical appearance for his roles.
Jonathan tells the audience that Tom is famous for changing his body to play roles and
I believe he gained two stone of muscle to play Charles Bronson This is our first
example of jonathan being promotional. He is promoting Toms forte in terms of an actor
as in his speciality is if you need someone to play a muscle head in a movie he is your
go to guy or if he you need a skinnier guy you know where to go.
The next thing that Jonathan Ross talks about is Charles Bronson although he talks
about it in his intro that is more him promoting Toms weight loss but, in this part Ross
talks about Bronson and the fact its a low budget movie I dont know if youve seen
Tom in Bronson, its a low budget movie but its a pretty small movie Jonathan Ross
loves movies and his wife is also a screenplay writer so he really appreciates movies
from large scale to small scale. Jonathan knows about Toms work in the small scale/low
budget movie Bronson so he decides to promote the movie since he thinks it deserves a
bigger audience. So by talking about it he is promoting the movie but also Tom as an
actor himself
During the interview Jonathan asks Tom what he is doing now and this is when we find
out that Hardy is filming for his next film he is going to act in which is Mad Max.
Jonathan most likely already knows this about Tom but is he is asking Whats the next
thing that youre doing? to give him the opportunity to tell the audience about what he is
doing and also to help the audience gain more information about Tom. Since Jonathan
is a lover of films he and many others would feel that the audience will want to know

about Mad Max since it is seen as a Cult Classic and since it is being remade they
would want to see it.
The last bit of film promotion Jonathan Ross gives Tom Hardy is Ross asking Tom
before you go, whats this film the warrior or warriors youre making? once again
Jonathan clearly knows about the film as he would have done research on Tom before
doing the interview especially about warriors since it falls into the research /
informational side of the interview but, by asking him this question in a really open way it
kindve gives Tom the freedom/chance to talk about the movie in depth if he wants in
which he does and Tom goes into the filming of the movie and tells us a few behind the
scenes stories. The purpose of Jonathan talking about this last film is the whole reason
Hardy came onto the show; to promote the film warriors. Usually when an actor comes
onto a tv show like jonathan rosss they talk about their recent film and maybe
something theyve done in the past but in this interview they spoke about a variety of
films that Hardy has been in and this might be because Hardy is a very small time actor
in this case since he has been in low budget film productions so Jonathan is giving
promotion to hardy to show how flexible he can be with his roles. Although it arguably
may seem a little rude that Jonathan seems like he threw the last promotion in as he
needed to do it but didnt have much time to talk about it is kindve clever to the extent
that they talk about it last and it would stick with the audience as it is the last thing
talked about said.

Lighthearted / entertainment
The first example we can use to show this interview as lighthearted entertainment is
when Jonathan starts talking about how tom is flexible with his roles. Tom is able to go
up and down in weight at a very fast rate in order to tone up or down for specific films
like he did in Bronson or Warriors. The bit that makes this part lighthearted
entertainment is when Jonathan says and his big challenge now is getting back to a
tourt 10 and a half stone to play me in the film he making of my life . This is suppose
to be a joke as Jonathan is not 10 and a half stone and is inturn say that he is in more
shape than Tom Hardy. This is funny as he is making fun of himself.
Another piece of evidence we can use from the interview to identify it as a light hearted
entertainment show is the fact that Jonathan talks about the football, he says Are you
enjoying the world cup? Are you watching the football? Are you a football fan?. At the
time of this interview the world cup was happening and this is a time when usually even
people who are not big football fans take liking to the sport to maybe watch their
favourite team or their country's team play. Bringing this type of conversation up is very
light hearted but Jonathan also brings it up to kindve build up a rapport for tom and help
the audience relate to him as its very common for someone to like football but this

kindve backfires as Hardy doesnt have any interest in the football nor does he for the
world cup but regardless it is still light hearted talk.
Another piece of evidence we can take from the interview is when Jonathan asks Tom
how he relieves stress during the making of his films where Tom replied with knitting
which is supposed to be a little bit of a joke as he doesnt seriously want to knit.
Jonathan asks Are you a knitter? to Hardy and the conversation is a bit funny and off
task. The randomness of the conversation and light hearted theme is supposed to help
build a rapport for actor Tom as well as build a bond between the audience and him.
This conversation shows light heartedness due to its random nature and off task
funniness
One other use of lighthearted entertainment is when Jonathan talks about how Tom is
flexible with the roles he chooses and his weight change for films that include warriors
and bronson. Jonathan makes a joke in his introduction where he tells the audience that
his big challenge now is to get back down to a taught ten and a half stone to play me in
the film they are making of my life, its a challenge isnt it tom? The joke is that
Jonathan is not 10 and a half stone and that he is what would be considered more in
shape than Tom Hardy is. He also makes this kindve joke when he says Id like to think
that some of those whistles were for you as well? making out that the audience was
cheering for Ross and nto Hardy. This is very lighthearted conversation as there are
jokes and making the audience laugh. These types of jokes are also supposed to make
Tom feel a little bit more relax.
The last example of the Tom Hardy interview I will use to show that its light hearted
entertainment is when Jonathan mentions Toms teeth. Jonathan makes fun of Toms
teeth and says theyre wonky. Youre a good looking man, but youve got wonky teeth
but youre a good looking man Jonathan is making fun of Tom about his teeth but in this
case its not serious as Jonathan also doesnt have the bestest of teeth. Its also not so
serious as Jonathan mentions that theyve spoken about it before and its not something
he has just brought up to be mean. This whole conversation is poking fun of celebrities
who get their teeth straightened and whitened and by jonathan telling the audience that
hardy has bad teeth but he is still good looking is kindve telling the audience you dont
need good teeth as its fairly common for people's teeth to not be perfect this whole
conversation is very off topic from films and being an actor and jokey therefore
considered light hearted.
Investigative

There are a few points in this interview that we can use to show the investigative side of
the interview. At a rather awkward point of the interview Jonathan asks Tom about his
old habits of drinking and taking drugs. This is something that is heard of but has not
really been voiced by Hardy himself. Jonathan says You had a period where you were
a little more social than perhaps sensible. Jonathan is trying to find more about Toms
old past with drinking and drunks as he is has recovered from it and Jonathan obviously
sees this as an achievement but the interview takes a slight awkward turning as Tom is
obviously embarrassed about it but kindve goes along about it because its apart of his
agreement to go onto the show to advertise. We can tell this interview gets awkward
because the subject is touchy as its something not everyone would be proud of and
also can tell from his body language and facial expressions that he isnt comfortable as
he was say when Jonathan introduced im
onto the stage for example, when jonathan
is talking about mad max and hardy's
accent hardy seems fairly relaxed and
enjoying himself as seen to the left

but as soon a jonathan mentions al

green and Hardys youthful party days hardy seems to get a bit annoyed and awkward
as seen on the right.
Windup
In an interview a wind up is what is typically done to move the interviewer along, so the
interviewer will summarize a topic or go onto a new one. For example during the
interview Jonathan says Ok, where are you from Tom, where is it because your accent
is quite hard to place? This is good because this gets Tom to tell us where hes from
and makes the audience pay attention to his accent a little bit more, this also helps tom
go into the fact that his accent is quite flexible therefore promoting him more to film
directors who are looking for an actor with that kindve flexibility. The reason for jonathan
doing this is to gain some more research of tom and find out where he is from

Another time in this interview that there is a wind-up is when Jonathan says Tom before
you go, whats this film the warrior or warriors youre making? Jonathan has quickly
changed the topic to the last thing they will talk about, this is a quick and effective way
to end the interview as it is the reason Tom Hardy is on the show in the first place which
was to advertise the new movie Warrior he is in. Talking about this last gave Jonathan
the opportunity to get the audience to engage with Tom Hardy and promote him a bit
and then finally leaving the last thing the audience hear is about the movie. This is a
good way of laying out the interview because as it is the last thing they talk about the
audience will remember it easier than something that was spoken about in between the
interview
One other bit there is a windup is when Jonathan and Tom have gone off topic talking
about Knitting and then Jonathan quickly ends the conversation by saying OK, so what
are you working on? Jonathan goes on to talk about a small film that Hardy is in called
Bronson. This wind up isnt very effective as Tom doesnt really want to talk about this
movie as it is not the one he has come onto the show to talk about. The whole reason
Jonathan asks this is to be information as he is getting Hardy to present us with
information allowing us to better get to know him and his works. Jonathan is a movie
fanatic and most likely knows about this film so he probably felt like this movie needed
more promotion so purposefully asked Tom this question knowing he was going to talk
about it making him advertise it.
Confidence building / Rapport
One technique that interviewers often use is confidence building. As the name says it is
to help build the interviewees confidence. Often when people go onto tv shows or
interviews in general it is very common for someone to feel nervous or shy when talking
especially when it's in an interview as they may be asking personal questions or trying
to get a personal opinion out of you, So the interviewer might use this technique to
make them feel more comfortable which in turn will help the interviewer get some more
answers out of the interviewee.
The first use of building confidence and rapport in this interview is when Jonathan asks
the audience Shall we get my next guest out ladies and gentlemen?.. after he says
this the crowd exclaims Yes and starts to clap and cheer. By doing this and getting this
reaction from the crowd this may help Hardy feel a little less nervous as he will feel that
the crowd wants him there and that they like him. so the whole point is to make him
more comfortable in the interview which will make him possibly more willing to answer
questions for Jonathan.

Another point in this interview when Jonathan tries to build up Toms confidence is when
Jonathan is tells Hardy that he was really good in his latest movie, he says you were
tremendous in it this part is promotional but it also will make Hardy feel good about the
work he has done. It also builds up a bit of rapport as Jonathan is telling Hardy that he
enjoyed the work he has done may make hardy like Jonathan for the compliments.
The next part where Jonathan tries to build confidence is when Hardy and Him talk
about Hardy's early life where he used to take a lot of drugs and drink on a regular
basis. This part of the interview turns very emotional as this matter is serious and Hardy
may not want to talk about this as he may feel ashamed of what he had done. After they
talk about this Jonathan wraps it up by asking Hardy how long he has been sober for.
Jonathan already knows the answer to this as he has clearly done his research on this
part of Tom's life. When Tom answers that he has been sober for 7 years the audience
cheer for him and Jonathan congratulates him but Hardy turns awkward and doesnt
want people congratulating him for it. This use of confidence building was not effective
at all and it has almost created the opposite effect making hardy a little uncomfortable
and awkward.

Nichols - Bowling in colombia

Investigative
A good example of michael moore being investigative is the first line he delivers which is
What do you grow here? As far as the viewer can tell Michael has gone straight into
topic investigating his interviewee and his actions since the accusation of him being
involved with the bombing. Nichols answer may be a little weird as he might not have
been prepared for the question or feels awkward in the interview since Moore's lack of
confidence building too his interviewee through the use of an introduction. Michael then
begins to ask other questions like So they didnt find anything on this farm? and Any
kind of explosives moore is being very nosey and being very straight to the point. He
almost doesnt care about how the interviewee is feeling compared to someone like
Jonathan Ross who will try to make someone feel comfortable so they will be more than
likely to answer questions for him. The whole point of michael asking this questions is to
find out if there is any evidence that could make nichols suspicious of being involved in
the bombing. Nichols tell Moore that there is nothing dangerous

One other point that can be used to show that michael has been investigative is the
montage of footage shown on screen with a voice over displaying evidence to jame
nicholss link to the case. During this michael says Feds didnt have the goods on
james This piece of dialogue is very suggestive and heavily implies that james was
definitely involved with the bombing but police didnt have enough evidence (The goods)
to put him in prison. After this montage it cuts to michael standing with james outside his
farm house. Michael asks him did timothy mcveigh ever stay here? This is Moore
being even more investigative, the reason he is asking this question is to maybe find out
if Nichols is still affiliated with the people who were involved in the bombings which
makes Nichols look even more guilty if he was.
Another part of the interview were Moore is being investigative is when he starts to ask
Nichols about the bombings that took place and his opinion on whether it was right or
not. Do you believe it was right to blow up the building in Oklahoma City?. When
moore asks this the lighthearted part of the interview ends and it becomes quiet
emotional due to the topic change. This part of the interview can be suggestive as
Nichols will gives his opinion and he tells us its wrong but some people may believe
that he is just saying that because he was on camera.
The next investigative part is when Moore questions Nichols on the equipment he keeps
on his farm and what he uses those items for. Moore asks You think its right that you
haev the right to have nuclear grade plutonium here on the farm? Moore is trying to get
Nicholss opinion as this once again can be interpretive and help the audience
determine whether we think he is innocent or not.
Lighthearted
The first piece of evidence to show you that this interview can be lighthearted is when
moore asks Nichols about his farm. James talks about how he grows his crops saying
No Herbicides, No pesticides. None of that stuff. telling us that his crops are organic
and also may be trying to make us believe he has no chemicals that could allow him to
make a bomb. Michael replies to james saying Yeah, better talking about how this
makes the crops better and healthier. This is almost like moore building up a rapport
with james since they have found some common ground agreeing with how James
grows his crops.
Another example of this being a lighthearted interview is when Michael and Nichols start
talking about keeping guns for their own protection. Nichols tells Moore I sleep with a
44. Magnum under my pillow. In which Michael states that Everyone says that. Moore
says this as it is a little crazy and ridiculous for someone to actually have a gun under

their pillow and someone would probably think that the person is a crackpot. This part of
the interview is very suggestive as it seems to be a random piece of footage put in the
cut without any context to why he is telling us this. For all we know Michael off camera
could have been edging Nichols to talk more about guns provoking him to say
something like this. The interview has been edited to make Nichols look a little mad
which in turn makes him look very guilty in terms of the bombings.
Soundbites
The first use of a sound bite in this interview is when Nichols says If the people find
out.., and then carries on. This makes Nichols sound rather crazy. This line is very
relatable to the audience as this sounds like he is a conspiracy theorist who are often
seen as mentally unstable people with tin foil hats on. This sound bite has been
deliberately edited this way as it almost makes it out that Nichols has said this out of the
blue making him look bad when in reality Moore probably asked him a question and
then he answered but Moore just cut the clip.
The next use of a soundbite in the interview is when Nichols is talking about the
government and he says When a government and carries on, Nichols starts talking
about the government and tells the Nichols that the government probably has
something to do with the bombing that happened. He goes on to tell Nichols that we
need to overthrow the government and rise up. Once again Moore has edited so we
have no real context to why he is saying it which makes him sound a crazy.
The last use of a soundbite is when Moore says Why not use Gandhis way? when
Moore says this he is saying to Nichols that there are other options to solve a situation
other than putting gun in hand. By saying this it makes Nichols looks a bit stupid as he
replies telling us that he is not aware of that method. This in turn makes us as the
viewer feel like he is a bit stupid and cannot be trusted.
Marilyn Manson
The Marilyn Manson interview starts off with a series of sound bites featuring a variety
of people talking about the possible things that could have influenced children into
becoming Little monsters. The last few sound bites are people saying Marilyn
Manson and then to a news anchor who is telling us how he is one of the mainstream
artists who are to blame for promoting violence. The news anchor includes a quote
from Manson saying Marilyn Manson have cancelled the last five days of his US tour
but, singers like himself says that artists like himself are not to blame This could be
seen as promotional for Manson as theyve included a quote of his which puts him in
good light. This seems to be very interpretive and informational so far as there is
information from both sides of the argument and it leaves us as the viewers to judge

and think whether we think he and artists like him are to blame. We could also say that
this is emotional because there is mentions of Manson canceling the last 5 days of his
tour in the U.S out of respect to the people who were lost in littleton. This once again
puts Manson in goodlight.
The next part to this interview is where Moore starts to become investigative. A voice
over plays with Moore saying There were protests from the religious right but, it thought
id go talk to him myself This is Moore going out to investigate for himself whether he
should be partly blamed for the recent acts of violence and Marilyn's own opinions on it.
This is Moore doing his research since up until now all his research would probably
have been from the internet and news articles, which would be very bias, so this is
Moore doing more research and also being informational to the audience since we have
gained knowledge about the protests against manson from religious groups.
The next part in the interview has been cleverly edited as we can see Moore has edited
manson and the religious right group to cut between each other, almost as if one of
them gives an opinion and then the other gives theirs. For example Manson says I
definitely can see why they would pick me because I think its easy to throw my face on
a tv because im in the end a poster boy for fear it then cuts to the religious right's
activist group saying If Marilyn manson can walk into our town and promote hate,
violence, suicide, death, drug use and columbine-like behaviour Moore has chosen
to edit the footage in this way because it shows the two sides of the story and the
juxtaposition between the two, it also makes the confliction between the two even more
visible as they have been played one after the other. In the Manson clip we can see he
has a calm tone of voice and very relaxed body language whereas in the next clip
featuring the Religious right's activist group its a different. The spokesman has an
aggressive tone and is almost shouting and pointing his finger at some points. Overall
we can see that this part of the interview is supposed to be interpretive as both of the
sides have had their say and now it's up to the viewer to make up their own opinion with
the information given.
In this next part of the interview we find a Key question. Moore says Do you know that
the day that columbine happened the united states dropped more bombs on Kosovo
than any other time during that war? This question can be seen as suggestive to
Manson since he may not have heard about this and its being stated as fact which
michael could have just made up. Manson seems to have plenty of knowledge of the
subject though which makes the interview slightly promotional for Marilyn due to people
get to know him and what he is like as a person from his answers he gives in turn
possibly making people think that he isnt the cause for the violence and hatred. This
part of the interview is another example to the interview being interpretive, it also is an
example of Moore having done his research as we can see from the facts he gives us.

In the next part of this Manson gives us an overall on his thoughts and feelings towards
people blaming him for what happened in Columbine. Manson ideology on the whole
subject is that the government and media are spinning the news trying to scare us and
shock us so we consume products, what he said wasYoure watching television and the
news, youre being pumped full of fear then cut to commercial.. buy the Colgate, if
you have bad breath they wont talk to you The whole idea that, keep everyone
afraid, and theyll consume The part of the interview is interpretive once again as we
hear more opinion from Manson leaving us to either agree or disagree with what he
says. Moore has been successful so far in this interview as he has gotten a lot of
information out of Marilyn and the purpose of this is to get more research.
In the last part of this interview Michael asks another Key questions which is If you
were to talk directly to the kids at Columbine and the people of that community, what
would you say to them? This is Moore pushing for more opinions off of manson so this
is a good example of him being informational. Marilyn Manson's reply to Michael's
question is I wouldnt say a single word to them. I would listen to what they have to say
and thats what no one did. Once Moore has the answer from Manson this part
becomes once again interpretive as he gives his opinion but it can also be seen as
emotional, suggestive and promotional for manson as by him being someone who
wants to listen to what they have to say makes him look like a very kind and endearing
person to which may persuade people more to the side that he has no reason to do with
what happened in columbine.

HESTON
This interview starts off after a clip of Moore going up Heston's drive way and talking to
him over the intercom arranging an interview for the next day. Michael has edited this
clip with some lighthearted music as the clip is almost sarcastic and humorous as we
awkwardly watch Moore walk up heston's driveway unannounced, this also may
represent what is known as the Calm before the storm as later on the interview gets a
bit emotional. The next day Moore meets Heston at his home and is taken to Hestons
pool house. Moore starts the official interview off by telling Heston that he is a lifelong
member of the National Rifle Association I told him i was a lifetime member of the
NRA, this is to gain hestons trust and also make him feel more comfortable which in
turn will possibly make him answer the questions Moore gives him.

An investigative part of this interview is when moore is talking about other countries and
their guns laws. He compares them to the united states telling us that they have a much
lower ratio in murders they have. He says Canada is a nation of hunters, millions of
guns and yet, they had just a few murders last year. Moore says this in a slower and
lower tone of voice comparatively to other things he says which might be quick and
somewhat witty which makes the interview turn emotional. Heston winds-up the
interview here by giving a short response to help move on to the next question. By
doing this we can tell that Heston doesnt like the question and shows his attitude
towards the overall situation.
The Heston interview becomes combative a short while after the interview has begun.
Moore says You dont have any opinion, Moore says this in a kindve agitated way as
he is angry that heston will not give a response. This line also also rude due to the tone
of voice Michael used when delivering it.
During the interview Heston brings up the fact that america being a country with mixed
ethnicities could be a reason to why the country has more gun crime. Moore responds
to this with What do you mean, you think its a mixed ethnicity. Moore has picked up
on what Heston has said and it's sounds quite racist so Moore is calling him out and
delving deeper into what he meant by this.it becomes quite awkward here as Heston
trys to change the focus of the interview off of him and on to moore by questioning what
he said I don't know that that's true, but, uh... he states that he doesn't know that other
countries have a lower gun murder rate is true or not, so he tries to make Moore doubt himself
and forget what heston said. Heston also seems very unconfident with himself since he pauses
and says uh.. and its also as if he is being careful to what he is saying now so he doesn't
come off as racist.

A wind-up is a point in the interview when someone will conclude a point and then
quickly change subject to move the interview on. Our first example of this in the Moore
and Heston interview is when Heston says Well, its an interesting point, which can be
explored and youre good to explore it at great lengths, but i think thats about all i have to say
on it he has concluded the discussion almost summarising it and tells Moore that he has
nothing else to say on it so lets move on. This is heston being quite blunt and probably getting a
little angry at this point since Moore had previously been asking him the same question trying to
get a specific response but heston couldnt answer in the way he wanted to. He is being pretty
upfront as he is being brutally honest and tells Moore that hes not going to answer it so move
on.
The last wind up in this interview is when moore says Mr Heston, just one more thing This is
an effective wind-up as it may make some interviewees more willing to answer the question as
they know it's the last one and once they get it over with they can leave. In this case Moore is
holding a picture of the little 6 year old girl who got shot by another 6 year old in school. The

purpose of Moore doing this is to have an emotional turn on the interview. It is also supposed to
make Heston feel bad and rethink his ideology of guns because these are something he loves
so much and promotes but Moore is showing how bad guns are and the chaos it is causing.
Moore also asks if Heston wants to apologise for bringing his NRA gun rally to the same state
as the girl who got shot by a gun and Heston seems to be outraged and leave the interview. The
reason Moore left this part of the interview until last is because he knew it was a very emotional
and touchy subject and he was probably aware that Heston would walk out of the interview so
by doing it last he can ask heston all the questions he wants and get all the answers before then
showing him the picture and asking him if he would apologise.
There are a few parts in this interview where Moore asks or answers Heston's question with a
direct question. An example of this is when Heston is talking about American history and how
they have had a lot of blood on their hands so Moore replies to this with And Germany's history
doesnt? No. And British history? Moore has done his research on this topic and probably just
has general knowledge on the subject. The reason Moore replies in this way is he is sort of
trying to make Heston open his eyes and tell him that Germany has a history of killing people
and so did the British empire but you dont see these countries nowadays with high rates of gun
murders. He is trying to stop Heston from using the petty excuse of weve always done this and
this is how its always going to be.
The next direct question in this interview is when Heston is telling Moore that he was completely
unaware of the girl who got killed in Flint by the 6 year old boy. Moore directly asks Heston You
didnt know at the time, that this killing had happened? Moore is questioning Heston and says it
in a way that almost sounds like Heston shouldve known it happened as it was a major event in
the news and especially since it was to do with guns.
Moore's approach to this interview was to try and open up Heston's eyes to the serious nature
of gun laws in america. Moore did this by using the power of emotion to make him feel guilty.
Especially when he questions why heston would bring a rally that celebrates guns to a state
where an innocent 6 year old girl who had barely seen life had her life taken away by another
innocent year old boy who didnt know any better shot her with a gun. Moore's approach to
making Heston feel guilty and maybe question himself about his love guns was successful but I
believe overall the approach to the interview didnt allow Moore to get as many responses as he
wanted.
Overall in all of these interviews I have covered there are many differences and similarities
between them. For example Jonathan Ross interview and The Michael Moore bowling for
columbine interview are similar in the fact that they used Elliptical editing. They filmed the
content of the interview and then edited it to almost persuade the audience or make the
audience see a particular side of someone for example when Moore uses it to make James
Nichols to be a crazy man. We can compare these two interviews to an interview such as
Jeremy Paxman's Interview with Chloe Smith. This interview was filmed on live TV with the only
edits being in camera meaning that they can change the angle of the camera but not cut pieces
of footage out as it was live so what ever happened you saw. This is because this interview is a

more series interview and its about getting the facts out and for people to make their own
decision on it whereas the Jonathan Ross Tom Hardy interview is supposed to be entertaining
and all the boring bits are taking out. I can conclude that there are a variety of different
approaches to interviewing someone and there are somethings that suit a particular style and
some dont so you have to carefully plan what you want your interview to provide, whether it be
basic knowledge on a certain subject or to entertain someone with humour and jokes to make it
work.