Jeremy Paxman & Chloe Smith

In this interview we have Jeremy Paxman - the host of the programme - interviewing Chloe
Smith who is the Treasury Minister for Tory in 2012. The interview is a combative and hard
news based interview, which focuses on a U Turn decision made about the tax rise policy.
Chloe Smith has been invited to discuss the change of plans recently made on car tax policies.

The Jeremy Paxman and Chloe Smith interview is a hard news based interview. We understand
this at first sight from the use of the seating of the interviewer and interviewee. Jeremy Paxman
starting from the very first shot, sits at the head of the table, suggesting importance, which gives
the sense of him holding power and authority over Chloe Smith. They are seated close to each
other however, there is also a clear division between them which suggests that the interview is
based on important topics and possibly on different perspectives. This also suggests the
combative side of the interview, as they are able to come in direct contact with each other and
eye to eye, due to the seating. This therefore allows them to show their views about the topic
clearly, also allowing for debating. The use of this setting will indicate that the purpose of the
interview is informational - as it also suggests politics - but also possibly interpretative as they
have a clear division between each other.

Both Paxman and Smith have dressed very smart as we can see Paxman has a sharp, black
suit on which could suggest seriousness and formality. This also suggests the interview being
based on hard news and in this case politics. Similarly, Smith has also decided to go for a very
smart and formal look however, with the colour pink, which may be in order to stand out as its
her first time she is taking part in a TV show. Therefore looking good is important for her, as she
needs to feel positive and build a good first impression. Paxman has pieces of paper in front of
him which not only suggests hes in the lead of the topic but also that he holds importance as
being the host of the programme. Which is once again reinforced to us through the use of
Paxman sitting at the head of the table.
The colour of the set also suggests that the interview is based on hard news, as there has been
tones of navy blue used which automatically suggests some sort of importance. In the
background image, we see there is an image of a briefcase, this automatically suggests what
the topic they will be discussing is, which is budget. Another way we understand that the topic is
based on budget is through the use of the photograph of George Osborne who back in 2012
was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This combined with the briefcase once again reinforces
the idea of budget, therefore suggests hard news again. We then find a u turn sign next to the
briefcase and Osborne which also suggests straight away that they are constantly doing u turns
and a decision has been changed. This suggests that Smith today will be talking about the
decision. Therefore these background images suggest budget and politics at first sight. Setting
an informational purpose, as politics is hard news and Smith is there about the decision. This
will keep the audience interested, informing its hard news. The use of the images being quite
jumbled together, without a particular layout, could suggest how much chaos is going on within
the party and the change of policy. This suggests the party is disorganised and chaotic, as
making a last minute policy change is not sensible. For this reason, Smith struggles to answer
Paxmans questions as she is afraid of causing more chaos.

Hard news

Evidence of hard news used throughout the interview, which is shown from the very start,
through Paxmans use of When were you told of this change of plan? This allows Paxman go
straight into the conversation, without any confidence building speech for Smiths comfort
beforehand. This is not only evidence of hard news, but also puts Smith off guard, as she wasnt
expecting a sharp start. The question is very direct and makes the audience feel as Paxman is
strict with time and wants to hear what Smith has to say. This also breaks the confidence she
may of had, as it is her first TV show, therefore she may have expected welcoming and
comforting. These direct questions could also suggest that he has done his research and knows
to start his interview with the important questions. This also suggests the interview is hard news
and that they may be debating from different perspectives as Paxman seems harsh towards
Smith. This question is effective as the audience would have not expected such a quick and
punchy start, building a feeling of tension and curiosity of what Paxman knows. Smith
declarative reply, Well, as a minister in the Treasury and indeed dealing with fuel matters this
has been under consideration for some time.., once again suggests the interview is hard news.
However, she does not provide Paxman with correct answers, suggesting that she is
unprepared for questions on the spot. Smith uses the words minister in Treasury, fuel
matters and under consideration. These inforce the idea of hard news and politics, as they
are politically linked matters. This combination of words and images all suggest hard news,
politics.

One other example Paxman uses But you didn't take the decision, obviously, you said the
chancellor and the prime minister did, so when were you told?. The words chancellor and
prime minister suggest it is hard news, as it is a politic based subject. We get the sense of
direct questions again through the personal pronouns you, directing Smith. Paxman suggests
he does his research, which is a positive thing for himself and the audience, as he is interested
in finding out more about what the party is doing with their policies. This makes Paxman seem
as the powerful participant, making Smith look less capable of what she is doing. Smith replies
with We had a, uh, collective discussion of that, er, er, in due course and although I can't, you
know, give you the sort of full gory... Smith starts talking about something else, almost like she
is avoiding Paxmans questions, suggesting herself and the party and not trustworthy and
unsure. Although he does not get direct answers - which is annoying for him and audiences -
Paxman challenges Smith and makes her feel locked up. This then brings up a debate between
the two, linking to the interview being a hard news interview, about politics. Words like collective
discussion used by Smith suggests they are both talking about politics and this is a political
interview. The use of hedges er, shows us that she was unprepared and Paxman was playing
a combative role within the interview (also seen through her facial/body language). He was
being very sharp and stubborn, and unlike some others wasnt helping Smith with replies,
making her feel more uncomfortable. This suggests hard news again as there is no comforting
and being very combative. They keep the eye contact to suggest theyre talking with each other.
I think this technique is effective as it engages the audience making them think about the debate
and different perspectives.

Why didn't the transport secretary know about it yesterday? the words transport secretary
once again reflects the idea of hard news (also a key question). When a decision is made about
transport, the transport secretary should be informed straight away. Therefore this question is
important for the party, this would show that the decision was made last minute, which is what
Paxman is trying to find out. This proves again that Paxman has done his research and knows
what to say. This also links in with the seating plan of him being at the head of the table, he has
importance and authority, also shown through him being informative. Therefore, we can see that
he is as powerful and importance as he is trying to be shown, this look also suggests hard
news. The reply It's important that the government [coughs] excuse me it's very important
that the government uh, acts on concerns it hears, and as I said about, about who, what and
when, the government will make its policy and importantly come to parliament with it. also
suggests the interview is hard news, as she talks about some concerns and decisions within the
parliament and government. Smith coughs, which suggests she is struggling and we can see
how she was actually choking on her own words, Smith therefore struggles and shows a lack of
confidence again.

Her body language at this point is also a sign of weakness, she holds onto her chest - like she is
trying to calm herself down - and takes a sip of her water to clear her throat, as her only support.
The coughing could suggest hard news as she is struggling, on her own, without support. Smith
loses eye contact at this point and looks down at the table, suggesting she is trying to hide her
lack of confidence and confusion on what to say. She also stops speaking, which could suggest
to the audience that she is lying and is now trying to hide it. We get the sense that Paxmans
plan of trying to lock her up works, as there is now a lack of trust and belief in the audience.

Combative

Combative speech is another feature used through the interview. At the beginning of the
interview, we see that Paxman is already, very quickly being combative with what he is saying.
Paxman asks When was the decision taken?, straight after his first question. Paxman has
changed the way he asked his first question as he becomes aware that Smith is going to ignore
and change the subject. This change suggests Paxman is being combative, also suggesting
hard news. Again after his second re-worded question, Smith does not reply to what is being
asked, therefore Paxman repeats his question. This suggests Paxman being very combative as
he is will not allow Smith get away with it, reinforcing the idea of Paxman doing his research
beforehand and knowing what is important. This also puts Smith in an uncomfortable position as
she does not know what to say - she has been warned to not say anything - therefore goes off
on a tangent about irrelevant things.

Paxman with a combative questions asks I'm not asking for a running commentary, I'm asking
for a statement of facts about when you were told. You were told some time today, clearly. Was
it before lunch or after lunch?. This combative sentence not only again makes Smith feel very
uncomfortable but also makes her look as someone who is not doing her job properly. As this a
interview, not providing correct information for Paxman and his programme is unacceptable by
him. Therefore Paxman insists on asking for a statement of facts about when you are told..
This also suggests hard news but more importantly we see Paxman is still trying to ask Smith
the same questions, reworded, suggesting to Paxman and the audience that she is unaware of
things she should know. This therefore may also make the audience feel uncomfortable about
Smith. As the interview is hard news, politics based, it should be taken seriously. However, it is
clear that Paxman is more informative than Smith, also suggested by seating. This could also
suggest Paxman is investigative as he trying to find out facts. Although this seating is to allow
Paxman be more investigative we find that it is not very effective due to Smith not providing
Paxman with the necessary information - the information he and the audience are looking for - ,
therefore the use of the seating could be argued as not very effective.

(Paxman sits at the head of the table - importance)

You ever think you are incompetent? is the final combative sentence Paxman uses against
Smith. The use of this sentence at the end of the interview made the point quite unsuccessful as
the purpose of this was to make Smith feel uncomfortable, but being at the end didnt give the
effect wanted. However, if he were to use this sentence at the beginning or mid way, then this
may have put Smith in a very uncomfortable and difficult position, making the interview very
different. However, putting this at the end didnt give the effect and impact it should, we can also
still see that Smith is not responding to Paxman with correct answers. The seating could also
suggest that she may be incompetent as she is seated in a less powerful position unlike
Paxman, at the head of the table. The word incompetent also reflects the idea of hard news
once again. This combative sentence could also suggest enhancement of audience
understanding, as audiences may wonder what she feels and thinks about herself.

Summary

This interview also uses a lot of summary points in order to be informative and provide the
audience with a wider understanding of what is happening. An example of this is when Paxman
says But you didnt take the decision, obviously, you said the chancellor and the prime minister
did, so when were you told?. This summary provides the audience with information about who
made the decision, therefore being informative. It also has a direct question at the end,
suggesting he builds up the information for a direct question. This could also be enhancement of
audience understanding as Paxman is repetitively asking a question the audience will want to
ask. However, as Smith does not give a direct reply, we find Paxman makes different summary
points to rephrase the question for Smith to understand and answer. Just after we find Smith
uses the words as a minister in the Treasury.., automatically giving the suggestion of Smith
trying to show she holds power within her in contrast to how she looks (powerless) on the
programme. She believes that if she uses these words she will be seen more important, holding
more of an authority. This could also be interpreted as Smith warning Paxman about who she is,
almost trying to tell him to watch what he is saying.
At this point we find that Paxman is being interpretative with the use of his facial expressions
and body language. He has hand on hand almost as if he is bored and waiting for something.
He makes eye to eye contact with Smith suggesting he is listening carefully, however his facial
expressions suggests that he is very frustrated and bored of the lies that being told. He is
frustrated about not getting answers to his questions, which he has reworded and repeated
several times. Paxman is being interpretive as he looks at Smith as if he sees her as an
uncertainties machine, someone who can not even provide answers to questions about the
topic she is there for. This interpretation of opinion also suggests to the audience that Smith is
unreliable and can not provide answers to simple questions, therefore the audience will lack in
belief they have for her and the government. The look Paxman gives her at this point could also
suggest that he feels sorry for her as if she needs help and support, because she is struggling
and going off on a tangent. This is shown through his frowning eyebrows, giving the sense of
him accusing her. The effect this will have on the audience will be negative in terms of the party,
because Smith is part of the party and is there to actually talk about and defend the party -
which she does not do a great job of - therefore the audience may lose trust not only to Smith
but to Tory also.

One other summary point example Paxman uses is But you said that it wasnt certain that
cutting fuel duty would have a positive effect on families or businesses. That was on the 23rd of
May, now whats happened between the 23rd of May and today which is, what, the 25th June?.
This summary point firstly allows Paxman bring forward evidence of what Smith has previously
said about cutting fuel duty and what she is saying during the interview - also suggesting
research by Paxman. After this point we understand Smith is supporting different views now, to
what she supported back in May. This could be a use of enhancement of audience
understanding, as those who remember her speech in May, may be questioning the same point.
For this reason this summary is useful for enhancement but also for informative and research
reasons. This could also bring the suggestion of Paxman putting forward an opinion about
Smith, therefore being interpretative. He almost builds the idea of Smith lying as he suggests
her change in viewpoint, which gives the sense of uncertainty about Smith.
Here we also realise that Paxman does not make eye contact with Smith whilst making his
point, which could suggest some sort of reaction towards Smith for her uncertainty. His hand on
his chin and his head looking down at the papers in front of him could suggest that he no longer
has enough respect or tolerance to even make eye contact and have a debate with Smith.
Paxman suggests that he does not believe Smith through his facial expressions of frowning his
eyebrows, as if he is confused about what she is talking about. Looking at the papers may also
give the suggestion that Paxman is trying to say Well thats not what it says here through his
body language and gestures, making Smith look unreliable, the suggestion of Paxman having
more power over her, as he is also the host of the programme. He is controlling the tone of the
interview, which has been very negative and sharp from the beginning as there was no
confidence building for Smith or a comfortable and relaxed environment to talk in for her first tv
show.

Paxmans summary OK, its going to cost you say now about 550m, in contrast with your
figure on 23 May, which was about 1.5bn. What, you just got the sums wrong, did you? adds
in information about what Smith has previously said certain costs will be, following this point with
the declarative in contrast automatically suggesting uncertainty once again. This suggests to
the audience Paxman has done his research, so is certain that Smith is either confused or is
lying. Therefore making the audience question if Smith is uncertain with what she is saying and
how reliable she may be. This then touches upon the fact that Paxman may be enhancing
audience understanding through the summary statement followed by a direct question What,
you just got the sums wrong, did you?. This also suggests that Paxman is actually a part of the
audience as he is enhancing their views and bringing them into the interview - he is not only a
host for a programme. Paxman chooses to use these summary points before questions and at
the beginning/mid way through the interview, because he would like to get the important
information from Smith and bring in the possible information he has from his research at these
points. He has chosen not to use many summary statements towards the end as he will be
running out of time - due to it being a live show - and he will need to bring it all together to come
to an end. Here we could also say that Paxman is putting forward an interpretative opinion
about Smith and the things she says. The developmental summary used to ask a direct
question What, you just got the sums wrong, did you?, could suggest Paxman does not
believe it is a simple confusion and is actually trying to confront her about this with a sarcastic
question.

Developmental
The developmental questions from Paxman allows him to develop the interview on so he can
ask more questions and find out further information. One example of this used by Paxman is
Right, and at some point during those several weeks they communicated to you that there had
been a decision to change the policy.. As Smith struggled to answer specific and clear
questions such as When was the decision take? and prefered to avoid them, Paxman had to
find other ways to ask these questions for the answers. He has decided to use this
developmental question to repeat the questions she avoids with facts, which makes him believe
that he can get the answers to the questions as he has strong points against her - of which she
cant avoid. However, we see once again that Smith does not answer his question and prefers
to ignore and avoid it. She clearly believes that she will get away without answering these
questions, however, Paxman is quite keen on wanting to know what the answers are. There is
some sort of enhancement of audience understanding here as Paxman is repeating the
questions the audience may also be wanting to know the answers to. Therefore these
developmental questions are in order to prevent repetition of the same question and to also find
out the answers. Paxman believes he can get the answers to the questions through using a
series of questions instead, however, this is also unsuccessful in some way as this is time
wasting. Being a live tv programme, Paxman as the host has a limited time to be able to ask
questions and find out information about the change of decision and the u turns that are
constantly being made by the party. However, due to the avoidance made by Smith, Paxman
wastes a lot of time on asking the same questions that are key. Preventing one main purpose of
the interview which is being informative, as Smith is not providing both the host and audience
with the relevant information. Which may make the audience think she is inconfident with herself
and is not certain of what she is saying. When avoiding these questions, Smith actually also
avoids Paxman putting her into a worse and trickier situation with more questions going into
depth about the decision. Therefore in some way Smith is trying to protect herself quite cleverly
and the best way to do this is through ignoring the important questions and throwing in other
information that may grab Paxmans attention.

During this we once again see eye to eye contact between Paxman and Smith suggesting they
are listening to each other and are debating with each other. However, we get the sense that
Paxman is slowly being interpretative about his thoughts and feelings about Smith, as we can
see he is not very happy and is frustrated. In this shot we also see that they have tried to
include the background images of Osborne, the briefcase and the U turn sign in order to
remind the audience about the subject. This could also show the audience that Smith is there to
talk about the u turn decision made about the increase in fuel tax, however, is unfortunately not
providing us with the purpose of the interview.
Another point of developmental questions is to make a series of questions and points which will
all lead to a key question. One example of this is Can you tell us from which departments that
gap is going to be made up?. Paxman uses this developmental question about which
department the money gap is going to be made up from, which is possibly some important
information the audience would like to know. Paxman uses this for an informational purpose
however struggles, as Smith is trying to avoid answering - she knows she will be fired if she
says something resulting more chaos. Therefore Paxman goes through a difficult time - so does
Smith - to get the answers he is looking for, realising the use of these developmental questions
arent helping much. However, he finds it will be easier to use these just before key questions
like Where? and Which department is it going to come from?. The use of this developmental
question being followed by a key question may suggest to Smith that she has to reply now
because Paxman will just repeat the same questions with his research. Therefore his
developmental questions will include some facts and information that will make her look more
weak. Although Smith doesnt reply again, we understand the purpose of the interview is to be
informative and to enhance audience understanding. The point of the interview is about the
decision, when it was made and why, however, we find Smith refuses to give the information the
interview is after. This may also make Smith look bad in the eye of the audience has she is
refusing and is uncertain of what to say.

One final developmental question Paxman uses is And can you just confirm to us that the
number one priority of the government is reducing the deficit.. This question suggests to the
audience that Paxman is again trying to find out information about the party from Smith - the
point of the interview - however, is once again being refused. In this developmental question
Paxman tries challenging Smith about the priority of the party, which Smith replies with
something that could make the party look bad, which Paxman highlights through the use of a
few key questions such as Thats the number one priority?. This suggests Paxmans opinion
slightly, due to the repetition of the question as if Paxman is trying to get Smith to understand
that she is making a mistake and saying the wrong thing. These suggest once again
uncertainty, making the audience not believe in what she may have to say. This also suggests
that Paxman - as the host - is holding power and is trying to find out more information for the
audience and himself (as someone who supports Tory) and is trying to add the information
Smith is not providing. This developmental question Paxman has chosen to ask is a question to
enhance audience understanding as most people may be wondering the priority of the party
they vote for. Therefore Paxman is enhancing with the audience.
Just after Smiths response about the partys priority, Paxman is shocked and shows his honest
opinions without any hesitation due to his frustration. He bends his body and head down slightly,
close to the table, raises his eyebrows and puts his hands down on to the table. The use of his
body being closer to the table and to Smith could suggest Paxman cannot believe what Smith is
saying and is getting even more annoyed and frustrated with her. The use of these body
gestures could build a negative effect on the audience in terms of Smith, as they could be
feeling the same as Paxman, if Paxman is reacting this way, it is normal for them to do too. This
could build enhancement of audience understanding as Paxman is reacting on behalf of the
audience. His use of questions also does this. His raising of eyebrows suggests he also does
not believe what she is saying and is shocked. This is therefore him interpreting his views and
opinions about what he thinks of Smith and what she says. At this point we also get a sigh from
Smith, almost as if she admits she gives up and she has not got the strength to carry on. This is
a very quick reaction she gives and hides straight away, however, is noticeable and the effect of
this on the audience will suggest that they are right in not trusting her. Smith makes us feel she
is forced to make the party look good through her facial expressions and therefore is punished
by the audience with uncertainty.

Key Questions

Key questions have been used to remind the audience the key points and the topic of the
interview. These key questions are useful to get key information from the interviewee. One of
the very first key questions used When was the decision taken?, automatically reminds and
informs the audience about the purpose of the interview - tax rise - therefore suggests not only
that it is hard news but that it carries informational purposes. This key question is very simple
and fairly easy to answer however, Smith struggles to answer this question from the very start.
This could suggest uncertainties about Smith, also not giving a great first impression. Being her
first tv show, it would have been important for Smith to build a good first impression and a
strong relationship. Smith may have chosen to wear a bright pink blazer for this reason, to build
a good and effective first impression for a strong relationship later on. However, Smith fails this
through her speech, building a different effect and impact on the audience, because theyre after
an informative, strong representative. Some people may also argue that she may have been
excited and nervous as it was her first TV show.

The key question at the beginning of the interview suggests informative purposes of what the
interview is about, linking in with the background images about the interview. The images of
Osborne, a briefcase (suggesting budget) and the U turn sign all represent the discussion and
debate that may take place. The shot of the background images is kept whilst Paxman
questions Smith, to show the connection between the questions and the interview. The images
could also be used in a way of providing a headline to the audience, in other words, its an
easy way to introduce the interview topic.

Another key question used Alright. In May you said it is not certain that cutting fuel duty would
have a positive effect on families or businesses. So whats happened? clearly links to the
interview topic. Paxmans question provides us more information about reasons for the u turn.
However after this, Smith starts talking about irrelevant things, suggesting uncertainty and a
lack of confidence. Paxman has done his research beforehand and has clear evidence of what
shes said previously in contrast to what shes saying now - suggesting research. Therefore,
Smith suggests herself, shes uncertain of what to think, as shes unable to provide reasonable
answers to the different speeches. Not long after this Smith says Jeremy, I dont think many
things are certain in this word., making a mistake as this is her admitting shes not a certain
person and neither is the things she says. So, shes not reliable or trustworthy, breaking the
trust the audience may have towards her and her party pre interview. This statement could also
suggest she isnt necessarily taking things seriously, whereas politics should be taken very
seriously as every decision made affects the public. Therefore, this statement may also make
the audience feel uncomfortable, as they would have expected someone confident, truthful and
certain about what they say. The effect of this key question shows the audience with further
evidence, Smiths incapability of responding to key questions.

One final key question Paxman uses is about the main priority of the party Thats the number
one priority?, repeating his developmental question - also about the priority - with a key
question. The repetition could either suggest that Smiths not replied to his questions again or
his shock to the answer shes given. In this case - differently to other times - Smith has provided
an answer, however, one which shocks and actually in some way worries the audience and the
host. Smith agrees that the governments number one priority is to reduce the deficit, surprising
Paxman, as he uses another key question Is this some kind of joke? I mean how can you
possibly have as a number one priority cutting the deficit when you choose to spend an
underspend in funding a tax cut or failure implement a tax rise that was scheduled?. Paxmans
putting forward an interpretation of his opinions which hes expressing very clearly, suggesting
the partys a joke for the priority they agree to have and that its pathetic. This is an automatic
opinion interpretation Paxman shows, being very frustrated and shocked with Smiths response.
Paxman also fulfills the purpose of enhancement of audience understanding, as most audiences
may also wonder the partys priority. The effect this will have on the audience is that theyll also
slowly start to feel the same as Paxman, shocked at the points made. This will then put both
Smith and the party at a negative place, as people may not trust and support the party anymore.
Some may say however, shes made a simple mistake with the excitement and nerve of being
on TV for the first time and the new environment/people, so this can be understandable, as
anyone can make a mistake. This question also fulfills informative purposes for the point made
and answers provided: informing the audience about the decision; the partys priority; and
government.

Direct
Paxman uses direct questions throughout the interview to show the target of his questions. The
very first question he uses is a direct question When were you told of this change of plan?, not
providing Smith with a confidence building speech, clearly builds a negative impact on Smith as
shes very uncomfortable through her body language and facial expressions. This could be due
to Paxmans interest in what Smith has to say regarding the last minute change of policy,
therefore is quick and punchy. In addition, this question used at the beginning, puts Smith in a
very difficult position, as she may of expected some sort of confidence building and comforting,
However, receives a very sharp start instead. Paxman doesnt pause in between the
introduction of who Smith is and the direct question, which could suggest hes frustrated with the
party already, for the U turn. This could suggest an interpretation purpose of Paxman, being
very quick and not wanting to waste time, hes interested in finding out whats happening. This
could remind the audience that this is a live show, therefore Paxman has limited time and needs
to get all information quickly. This could be another reason why Paxman has chosen not to give
Smith confidence building. However, not receiving this support and being introduced with a
direct question, Smith doesnt give clear answers to Paxman - wasting time. She replies with
declarative Well, as a minister in the Treasury and indeed dealing with fuel matters this has
been under consideration for some time... Paxmans question is very clear and direct, however,
Smiths clearly very nervous and refuses to share particular information. At this point Smith goes
on a tangent about nonrelative information, shes uncomfortable and put on the spot. Smith
uses the words as a minister in the Treasury twice at the beginning of the interview, possibly
suggesting Smith feels uncomfortable with how harsh Paxmans being, and actually wants to
remind him that shes the Treasury minister and is authoritative. This could be seen as a
warning towards Paxman, to be careful and take it easy because shes an authority, possibly
seeing herself more important than a host. This direct question is successful as its informational
for the audience if it gets the correct answer, however Smiths unable to give an answer,
therefore, the question isnt so informational after all. This is also enhancement of audience
understanding as its not only Paxman who would want to find out when and why the decision
has changed. Therefore Paxman fulfills this purpose further through the use of his very first
question.

Another thing he suggests is research, as Paxman is there with papers in front of him which
could reinforce that Paxman knows what he is talking about and has clear evidence and
research for everything he has got to ask and say.

Paxman repeats his very first direct question with another, So when were you told, then? and
So when were you told?. We clearly understand these questions are all the same - worded
differently - carrying the same purposes. Paxman rephrases and repeats his direct questions
due to not getting the answer from Smith - he believes if its reworded and constantly repeated
Smith will give up and answer. Unluckily Paxmans use of repetition doesnt work as Smith
doesnt answer the question at all. This could suggest that Smith has no answer and shes
possibly been warned pre-interview to not give specific information, as the government and
party would look very inconvenient otherwise. However, one other view towards Smiths
incorrect replies, could be as basic as the interview being her first TV show, so shes very
excited, nervous, and unsure of what she should say. This direct question could build on
audience enhancement as most people within the audience may also want to know the specific
information, in addition giving the purpose of informing and trying to find out information that no
one yet knows. The effect of this on the audience would be negative as they may not trust her
anymore.

The final direct question Paxman uses is You ever think you are incompetent?. This question
is directly related to the subject matter and what the interview is focussing on. It gives a very
negative impact to the interview and to Smith in particular, because Paxman seems a bit rude
and almost as if he is forcing Smith to talk. However, if this question was used at the beginning
or towards the middle of the interview, the whole tone of the interview may have been different.
We get the sense that Paxman is being interpretive as he clearly suggests that he thinks Smith
is being incompetent. This therefore automatically builds an effect on the audience, of thinking
similar, so influencing the audience's opinion.

Overall, in this interview Paxman uses many question types and styles in order to find out the
relative information from Smith. Hes able to apply his research to the interview in order to
confront Smith and put her on the spot, so that she can talk further and provide information. He
uses many types of questions in order to reword and rephrase so that Smith can once again feel
forced to reply, as otherwise, she doesnt provide information and answers to Paxmans
questions. However, although Paxman uses various techniques we find that these are not very
successful or effective, as he is unable to get the answers he was looking for at the end. Smiths
overall very nervous and uncomfortable, shes unsuccessful in providing answers, even to the
most basic types of questions and therefore builds a very untrusting, unreliable and uncertain
person in the eyes of the audience.

Jonathan Ross & Tom Hardy

In this interview, we have Jonathan Ross as the host of the programme, interviewing Tom
Hardy. The interviews light hearted, about Tom Hardys life and films hes acting in. The main
purposes of the interview is to introduce Hardy to an audience and to build a good first
impression for them to like him - promote his films to watch. However, although Ross does this
well at times, we find that Hardy isnt the same at the end, as he was at the beginning of the
interview. When Hardy first came on he was more positive and happy, smiling at the beginning,
he was more comfortable and interacted, however compared to the end, he was more quiet,
frustrated and irritated. This could be due to Rosss questions.

The interview isnt a live recording, therefore the edits have been played with, as we find
overlapping speech during the conversation about Warriors. Theres been an addition of
laughter in order to build attention. This is due to the fact that most people start to get bored
towards the mid-end, therefore, start losing concentration compared to the beginning where
they may have a lot of attention and interest. In order to pull back this concentration and build
the attention lost, theres a build up of entertainment towards the end. Its more likely for people
to forget the middle, therefore this is where Ross can waffle on. This is a useful and successful
way to get and keep the audience interested. There has been warm colours used, giving us the
suggestion and feeling of a late night show. Theres a suggestion of a bar look, a loughy and
comfortable place. The two are quite close to each other which is intimate for the audience.
Which could suggest the interviews light hearted, unlike the Paxman and Smith interview which
was clearly hard news based.

The interview shows promotional evidence about Tom Hardy and the movies he has starred in,
eg. Jonathan Ross introduction of him while hes backstage Hes one of those guys, as an
actor who really gets into the role, really immerses himself I believe he gained two stone of
muscle to play Charles Bronson. He went three stone up for his next movie Warrior and his big
challenge now. At the beginning of his promotional sentence we find Rosss self promoting
Hardy, rather than the actual movies. The self promotion of Hardy is useful in terms of
enhancing audience understanding, as the audience will want to know who Hardy is and what
he does. Therefore the introduction of self promoting is useful to tell the audience the roles he
takes and introduce him, as hes relatively unknown. He had only really taken part in one
independent film which turned out very successful. Therefore this self promotion was helpful for
the audience to have a wider understanding of who he is, making it slightly easier for Hardy to
be somewhere which he isnt a complete stranger to. This is also helpful for Hardy as Ross does
confidence building for him which is helpful as Hardy feels more comfortable and relaxed when
coming on stage and talking to the host and audience. Therefore automatically building a
positive environment. Ross makes it look like hes passionate and interested in Hardy with this
promotional technique, which is useful to build a successful relationship - which worked. This
also helps the audience emotionally like Hardy, which is the main purpose of the interview.

This not only self promotes Hardy but also promotes his movies such as Bronson and
Warriors. This is informational as it informs the audience - and promotes - the movies he plays
in, as the audience may want to watch them. If they make the audience like Hardy, they will also
watch his movies - main purposes of the interview. Ross promotes Bronson first then Warriors
- Hardys next movie - speaking of more than one movie could suggest to the audience that
Hardys a successful person, which may build an emotional connection between him and the
audience, as they may like him. This again fulfills the purpose of the interview, to make people
like Hardy so they can watch his movies. This may show Rosss passion towards him and that
he knows a lot about who he is and which movies he has taken part in (which are to come),
which may make the audience like Hardy more. The information of Hardy and his movies also
fulfills the purpose of informative and enhancement of audience understanding, as Rosss
enhancing the audience's understanding by informing them. We could also see that research
comes in at this point as Ross would need to research Hardy to know this information about
him, once again is enhancing to the audience about who he is when he is backstage, for
confidence building before he comes onto the programme.

Towards the end of the interview, we find that there is once again promotion of the new film
Mad Max which actually has not come out yet. Were doing Mad Max in Australia. Hardy
himself starts this promotion which Ross follows on Hang on. He's going to be Mad Max ladies
and gentlemen. We understand that this film is not out yet, however they are promoting it for
the future, therefore this also suggests to us that the purpose of the interview is informational -
to inform an audience. We find Ross says I love those movies, Im so excited theyre making
another one., also suggesting to us that Rosss trying to show love for Hardys movies,
therefore has passion and interest in Hardy. This allows the audience to feel more emotional
about Hardy, possibly starting to like him more. The fact that there has been more than one
promotion throughout the interview, could suggest that hes a successful actor, making the
audience more interested in him. Ross suggests hes excited that theres another Mad Max
coming out which suggests that hes done research for the film, also suggesting informational
purposes of the interview - as theyre trying to inform the audience through the promotional
purpose about the film.

However, theres some questions we find that Hardys unable to answer about the film such as
is Mel Gibson going to be in the film in some way shape or form? Is he involved in any way?.
Reasons for this is that he has a confidentiality agreement and therefore isnt permitted to tell
anyone any information/details about the film before its out. For this reason, we find that Hardy
feels awkward after the question because hes unable to provide details/information and
apologises I dont know, I dont know much about that (laughs). Sorry. He firstly looks away
while saying this as he probably feels awkward and doesnt want to lie, therefore cant have eye
to eye contact - maybe doesnt want to give himself away either. However, we find he then
starts to smile and laugh, because he is aware of the awkwardness that eh question resulted in.
At this point we understand that Ross wasnt meant to ask this question because he shouldve
known about the confidentiality agreement Hardy signs, and therefore he actually put Hardy in a
difficult position. However, we could also say that Ross purposely asked Hardy in order to get
him to spill it out or give a hint whether he is involved or not, and him laughing does clearly
answer the question through expressions rather than words. We find Hardy tries to start off with
a serious expression and tone in order to not give it away and tries to carry it on, however, does
struggle after the silence.
One final promotional statement is Tom before you go, whats this film the warrior or warriors
youre making?, just before the end Ross tries finding out final information about his third film
theyre promoting. Ross asks about what the films based on, at this point we realise Hardys a
bit more combative due to the comments Ross made before about his teeth. Therefore this
promotions a way to soften and make Hardy feel comfortable, as Ross realises hes gone to
harsh on him. We see Hardy tips his head forward a little, making eye contact with Ross,
suggesting hes interested in what Ross has got to say. Hes most probably aware of what the
question may be therefore is looking forward to promote his new film. However, Ross once
again makes it a bit uncomfortable for Hardy, as he wants to talk about Warriors seriously
because hes passionate about it and wants to promote his film himself. Unlike him, Ross isnt
taking it seriously, because hes not interested and he tries making a lot of jokes about it, which
Hardy clearly doesnt like. Ross is also clearly not interested in the film as he doesnt even know
the name of the film properly What was it called, Warrior or Warriors. Hardys facial
expressions at this point give the suggestion of him feeling uncomfortable about Ross not
knowing the name of the film, he doesnt make eye contact with Ross when giving the
information and details of the film. Hardy seemed more interested in the topic as he showed
interest into Ross when tipping his head forward and having eye contact however, this has
changed after the question. This could suggest that Hardy believes this information shouldnt be
for Ross - who doesnt know the name properly, clearly not interested - and actually should be
for the audiences, therefore Hardys found to not make any eye contact.

Hardy flicks his hand a little in order to give the suggestion that hes fed up of him and cant be
bothered to try to answers his questions anymore. Ross then realises that hes making a mess
and annoying Hardy, so he tries ending on a high note - the promotion of the film - to finish
positively.

Entertainment

In terms of entertainment/light hearted, while Hardys backstage we find Ross asks him He
went three stone up for his next movie Warrior and 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. It's a challenge
isnt it Tom?. This automatically suggests entertainment as Rosss implying that the films about
his life and its a struggle to play him. Hardy responds very sarcastically to this question
suggesting he wants to carry the joke further to entertain. This may make Hardy come across as
entertaining and funny, building a more comfortable and positive relationship with the audience.
The interview starting off entertaining suggests to the audience itll carry on that way, these
entertaining and sarcastic questions could suggest Ross and Hardy have a comfortable
relationship with each other, which they have built upon prior to the programme. Its important to
build a positive first impression on the audience - first impressions are very important - therefore
Ross and Hardy is trying to do this through entertaining the audience. This will automatically
make the audience like him, and so watch his films as they may be interested in his acting. The
combination of the promotional and entertaining start, may suggest Hardys promoted films is
worth a watch as itll be interesting and entertaining. Entertaining the audience while backstage
could also suggest that Rosss trying to build a comfortable environment for Hardy, almost like
confidence building to make him feel more comfortable and positive.

Whilst replying very sarcastically Yeah to Ross question about the challenge of playing Ross,
Hardy has a very serious facial expression which could suggest him being sarcastic again, but
also being entertaining. This facial expression could also suggest that Hardy is very nervous as
hes not on the programme yet and is just excited to be on the programme for an interview,
about his movies. This could also suggest however, that Hardy may simply not find the
comment Ross made funny and doesnt necessarily enjoy the topic.

Further into the interview Ross asks How do you keep yourself calm? which Hardy replies
sarcastically Knitting. This entertains the audience hugely as theyre laughing, suggesting the
interview purposes being to entertain/light hearted. This may suggest to the audiences that
Hardys an entertaining person, resulting in them liking him and possibly watching his films - due
to the idea of his films being entertaining and good like him. This could be enhancement of
audience understanding as some may wonder how he copes and keeps himself calm,
especially in a busy life schedule he has. Just for reassurance and for further entertainment
Ross asks Hardy if he really is a knitter which Hardy once again sarcastically - with a very
serious face (below) - replies no. The conversations made more entertaining as Ross asks
what Hardy would knit and Hardy replies, A hat, Gloves and A cat.. Knitting a cat isnt
possible but Hardy uses this sarcastically for entertaining purposes. This allows the interview to
fulfill its main purposes of entertaining, also introducing Hardy as someone whos entertaining,
so that the audience can like him. We find Hardy then goes on a rant about putting the chaos in
his life, into his roles in order to be successful and positive. This builds a positive effect on the
audience, as theyd then want to start watching Hardys movies.
Ross asks Hardy about his teeth, Youre a good looking man, but youve got wonky teeth, but
youre a good looking man., automatically Hardy receives an awww from the audiences as if
they feel sorry for him. At this point theyre booing Ross for bringing this up and making Hardy
feel uncomfortable. Once the booing occurs we find Ross automatically tries to comfort the
audience and Hardy that No he knows, youve spoken about your teeth. As if hes trying to
reinforce the idea of them having a good and comfortable relationship and that they can talk to
each other like this, as he realises that he has made a mistake. However, this has allowed the
audience to build an emotional connection once again. Ross trying to correct himself could
suggest that its entertaining because he was shocked at the response he got and didnt know
what to do. This is entertaining for the audience as they go further in when Ross admits that he
wouldnt give up his tooth I wouldnt give up mine easily..

Investigative

One of the first investigative forms we find is Ross asking Hardy where hes got his accent from
Where are you from Tom.. because your accent is quite hard to place?, allowing Ross find out
more information about Hardy and his background for the audience, in order to enhance
audience understanding of who he is. The use of this question allows the host fulfill the purpose
of the interview - of introducing him - and answer audience questions. Ross is therefore trying to
investigate Hardys life. This question may also be emotional for some as they may feel an
emotional connection when they find out where hes from. This may be because theyre from the
same place, but this also reminds the audience that hes a normal human being, equally from
the same place as many others may be, which may build a more comforting and emotional
relationship. This will also make the audience like Hardy more in result of feeling more
comfortable and close with him. This may come across as being entertaining however, is more
focused on being informative and investigative.

Ross later on asks Hardy about his friend Peanut Someone who works with you and trains?.
Hardy replies A spiritual counsellor and martial artist. His father started training the Guardian
Angels.. At this point Ross is once again being very investigative about Hardy and his life, he
asks more questions about his social life, friendships and relationships, which may be to
understand what sort of a private life he has. We find at a point Hardy says Hell tell me off,
which gives us the suggestion that Peanuts more controlling and possibly more powerful than
Hardy. We understand that Hardy has most probably given this comfort to Peanut as hes able
to control what he says about him, Peanuts also Hardys sons Godfather which suggest to us
they have a much emotional relationship than being just friends. They are very close, they do
everything together and share everything with each other. This conversation about peanut could
also suggest a light hearted feel about the interview as Hardy refers to him as someone always
beside him, therefore suggesting emotion.

One other big investigative form and subject Ross carries is about Hardys young life where he
consumed alcohol and drugs. Ross asks You have had a period where you were a little more
social than perhaps sensible. after the quick statement about someone else who was a party
man. The use of the example starter of someone else, could be due to Ross wanting to make
Hardy feel comfortable and remind him that hes not the only one with a different/bad past. Once
Ross asks this question we understand Hardys a bit uncomfortable, suggesting he doesnt like
the topic and preferring to leave his past in his past. However, these questions suggest a clear
form of investigative purpose and possibly enhancement of audience understanding as the
audience may want to know more about him. After asking this simple question we find that
theres a lot more to find out and hear, therefore Ross takes it further with more questions which
possibly keeps the audience much more interested. Hardy clearly suggests he wasnt happy
with the times he consumed alcohol I dont think I was social, thats why I stopped, therefore
he may be trying to tell Ross to stop asking him questions about his past because he isnt
happy. However, Ross doesnt get the message and carries on. The use of these investigative
questions then later on brings us to the entertainment side of the interview entertaining the
audiences as we find that Hardy starts explaining a story of what he had been through one day.

Multiple Questions

One of the first multiple questions Ross has decided to use is once Hardy is on the interview
Are you enjoying the world cup? Are you watching the football? Are you a football fan?. These
questions are all very similar and are all questions which would actually bring out one answer
which would answer each other. However, we find that Ross has decided to repeat his
questions multiple times. The use of this could be due to it being the beginning of the interview
and Hardy has just come on, therefore is possibly nervous. Repeating his questions may
prevent Hardy from missing the actual question during these nervous moments, therefore he
wont have to go through the hassle of asking Ross to repeat himself - this is some support for
Hardy from Ross. the use of this question allows Ross to be investigative and enhance
audience understanding by trying to find out more about Hardy. Talking about football, could
also suggest that the topic is slightly male based and is more light hearted rather than a hard
news, politics based interview.

The next multiple question Ross uses is So how do you keep yourself calm? How do you
control the turmoil within?. We find that both of these questions ask the same thing, therefore
Ross is repeating himself. The reason for this could be due to Ross wanting to make sure Hardy
has understood the question, therefore repeating and rewording it could be helpful to Hardy.
This could also give the sense of the question being very bombarding, as Ross is asking him
possibly an uncomfortable question, repeating this question may make Hardy feel
uncomfortable.

One of the last multiple questions Ross uses is 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?. These several questions are
multiple questions because they are all very similar questions which could have been asked in
one go. Ross could have easily asked a simple questions where Hardy could have provided one
answer for all, or he could have asked as he went along. However, we find Ross decided to ask
it all one by one at the beginning. Although this could make it seem like Ross is bombarding
Hardy with questions - which may make Hardy feel uncomfortable - however, this could also
show Hardy what the audience and the host of the programme wants to know. Therefore asking
questions all at the beginning could get Hardy to answer all the questions in one go and at the
beginning rather than constantly having to answer more questions asked by Ross. The use of
this multiple question could come across as being private, therefore may not only make Hardy
uncomfortable, but would also suggest the purpose of the interview being light hearted and
emotional. We clearly see that the interview is not hard news because it is more about the
private life and background information of the person. This would therefore suggest that the
purpose of the interview is also research, as Ross - as the host - would need to get information
from him for the entertainment of the audience. Hardy is clearly uncomfortable with the question
and does not like talking about this. This reinforces the fact that most topics that have been
brought up by Ross are uncomfortable topics for Hardy which he is not very keen on talking
about. Hardy seems rather frustrated.

Straight after we find that Ross asks When did you stop drinking? How long have you been
sober for as they say?. This question is a multiple question but also very light hearted and
possibly emotional. Hardy is clearly sensitive about this subject and clearly does not like it
therefore is also very frustrated about Ross asking him the question. This question could
suggest that the interview is light hearted but could also suggest that it is emotional as the
audience's applause to find out that he has been sober for 7 years. At this point Hardy is not
happy and is rather frustrated that Ross asked for a round of applause, as he doesnt like being
applauded for the days which possibly were not that great for him.

Open

Ross uses open questions such as So how do you keep yourself calm? in order to find out
further information about Hardy and how he controls his emotion and feelings. This is therefore
research from Ross about Hardy in order to enhance audience understanding. This open
question firstly suggests to us that Ross is showing interest in Hardy and is wanting to find out
things about his private life. He is allowing audiences to understand that it is normal to be
angry and that people who go through similar things to Hardy may get advice and support from
this. This also allows Hardy to really explain how he really keeps control of his life and feelings -
despite his difficulties - by allowing him to answer in the way he wants to. We find Hardy tries
not answering in a very serious form which may suggest he doesnt think he is in control, as
Ross clearly thinks so by asking the question. The purpose of this open question is once again
to gain further research and information and enhance audience understanding.

Another open question Ross decides to use is and when you want to lose the weight, whats
your secret?. Ross is very open and clear with his question which prevents Hardy from
misunderstanding and/or providing him with the wrong answer to the wrong question. Ross
once again wants to find out further information about his private life and therefore is doing
research about Hardy. He tries to find out how Hardy is able to lose weight when he wishes so.
This is a question most people would want to find out as many may believe it is not an easy
process therefore Ross would also be showing enhancement of audience understanding once
again through his open question. The answer to the question may also provide the audience
with information about diets which therefore could suggest the interview following an informative
purpose.

The final open question Ross uses in the interview is Where would you wake up? Where would
you find yourself? which is about a past memory Hardy is explaining. Firstly we get the
understanding of the two questions being very similar therefore suggesting multiple questions.
We clearly see that Ross is trying to cut down his questions in order to get Hardy to provide the
correct and specific answers he is looking for. Ross asking this open and multiple question
during a story Hardy is explaining, could suggest how interested Ross is in finding out what
happened next. This open question is very investigative as it is trying to find out further about
Hardys past and how certain things may have been for him, therefore showing the purpose of
research along with investigative. We find that this could also be enhancement of audience
understanding - therefore also being informative as they will be getting answers to questions -
as they may also be interested and curious in what happened next in the story.

Introduction

At the beginning of the interview whilst Hardy is still backstage we find that Ross introduces him
as Great to have you here Tom. Tom is famous for changing his body to play roles.. At this
point we find that Ross introduces Hardy for what he is famous for, fulfilling the purpose of the
interview being for informative purposes and enhancing audience understanding. We find first of
all Ross decides to introduce Hardy as someone who is an actor but also as someone who is
dedicated to his roles and films and is up to do anything - like a change - for those roles.
Therefore the audience understand Hardy is an actor but they may also see him as someone
who is adaptable to different environments. Gaining and losing weight is not very easy and
follows a difficult process therefore the audience may feel he is very important and possibly
special for being able to do so successfully. It is important for Ross to introduce him well and for
who he is as Hardy is relatively new and so not many people may know who he is and what he
does as a job. This gives Hardy the chance to be shown off and introduced as someone
important but also Hardy the chance to build some rapport with Hardy and make jokes.

The final introduction Ross uses which is also at the beginning of the interview is when Ross
invites Hardy onto stage Shall we get my next guest out ladies and gentlemen? One of the
most really gifted screen actors of our generation, ladies and gentlemen is the fabulous Tom
Hardy.. We find that Ross introduces Hardy with the use of words such as gifted and
fabulous. The use of these words suggest Hardy is special and much more successful than
thought of. The use of these introductory sentences also allow Ross to provide confidence
building for Hardy as he is relatively new and possibly excited. Therefore the use of introducing
him very positively and successfully provides Hardy with more comfort and self confidence.
Ross is also showing clear interest in Hardy with his descriptive words which may suggest a
positive relationship between the two. The use of this introduction is very informative for the
audience - which may also enhance audience understanding of wanting to know who he is - and
is showing the possible research Ross may have done himself.

Confidence Building

One of the first confidence building speeches Hardy receives from Ross is One of the most
really gifted screen actors of our generation, ladies and gentlemen is the fabulous Tom Hardy..
The use of this sentence automatically builds and boosts the confidence and therefore the
comfort of Hardy when he is backstage and coming onto the show. Being relatively new Hardy
is probably excited and possibly nervous about the interview and the possible questions that
may be thrown at him. Therefore the use of this confidence building speech made by the host of
the programme automatically comforts Hardy. We get a clear understanding of Ross trying to
show interest in him with the use of the words gifted and fabulous however, we also
understand that the use of this allows Ross control how the audience feels. The use of these
words could also suggest Ross interpreting his thoughts and feelings of who and what Hardy is
like. This makes the audience automatically feel more interested in Hardy as he is introduced as
someone who is successful. This confidence building also suggests the purpose of informative
and research as Ross is using his research on Hardy to inform the audience on who he is and
what he is like - this could also touch upon audience enhancement. This use of confidence
building at the beginning of the interview also suggests the power Ross holds and how he may
be in control of the interview.

We find that there is confidence building used for Hardy throughout the interview rather than
being at the beginning of the interview, as expected. Seven years, wow, what an
achievement.. Ross uses confidence building at this point as Hardy is showing discomfort and
a lack of confidence during this topic about how long he has now been sober for. We find that
Hardy is very uncomfortable about this topic and clearly does not want to talk about it, however,
Ross tries to comfort him during this through using a confidence building sentence and make
Hardy feel as if he is doing good and there is nothing to worry about. We could also get the idea
of Ross feeling bad about bringing up this topic and making Hardy feel uncomfortable and
therefore is trying to put it all together by providing Hardy with this confidence building and make
him feel comfortable about this topic. The use of this comment also suggests to the audience
once again that Hardy is very successful and also very achievable as he was able to stop
drinking and is also able to control his weight and body based on the character is plays. This
would therefore suggest the importance of Hardy and make everyone like him - which is one of
the main purposes of the interview as he is relatively new. This would therefore suggest the
purpose of interpretation of Ross opinions of believing Hardy is very successful, which may also
enhance audience understanding as they may be thinking along the lines of Ross.

The very final comment Ross makes at the end of the interview when sending Hardy away is I
am very excited to see you during so well because I think youre a tremendously talented, gifted
and you obviously really apply yourself, youre an intelligent actor and you deserve the success
and its great to have had you here. Mr Tom Hardy everyone. We find here that Ross is trying
to show his interest in Hardy in order to finish their interview on a good note through the words
talented and intelligent. The use of Ross showing he has interest may also build further
interest within the audience which will be beneficial for Hardy as he will have more fans. The
use of these descriptive words could also suggest interpretation of Ross opinions of Hardy.
Ross has made some mistakes throughout the interview and there has been points where he
has annoyed Hardy and made him feel uncomfortable, therefore Ross tries finishing on a good
note to cover up and make up the mistakes he has made. With the use of this confidence
building sentence at the end this also finishes the interview off by making Hardy look extremely
good and talented, which makes more people like him - this is the aim of the interview, to make
people like this fairly new actor. This will make Hardy feel much more positive about Ross rather
than being annoyed with him. This is also an opportunity for Ross to make Hardy look good
before he goes if Ross has made him look bad during the interview, an example could be the
comment Ross has made on Hardys teeth. Finally the main purpose of this confidence building
comment and the interview as a whole is to make the audience like this relatively new actor and
introduce him as someone who is successful and talented. The use of this being at the end
helps Ross reassure Hardy and make him comfortable with the idea that everyone likes him
before he leaves. One final thing that could be said about this comment is the use of the title
Mr for Hardy and everyone for the audience. It gives the sense of Ross separating Hardy from
the audience and showing him as important and as a possible authority, also making Hardy feel
like Ross cares extra for him. The use of this confidence building therefore brings along
purposes such as being informative as they are reinforcing who Hardy is, which could suggest
enhancement of audience understanding as when watched on TV some may miss who he
actually is.

Moore and Manson Interview

The Moore and Manson interview is a very short interview and also very different. We find here -
interviewee in particular - both sides are very laid back and relaxed throughout. Similar to
Nichols interview, Moore has once again cut out most questions in order to show only the
replies by Manson.

At the very beginning of the interview there has been a sound bite of a voiceover used Yes
indeed our children were something to fear. They had turned into little monsters. But who was to
blame? All the experts had an answer. followed by a juxtapositioning of a montage of answers
from various experts. Towards the end of the montage we find that Marilyn Manson was
repeated five times, which automatically builds a suggestive viewpoint from the interviewers also
suggesting interpretative purposes. The use of Manson being placed at the end of the of all the
possibly dangerous things that are thought to be blamed, gives the suggestion that Manson is
also dangerous like them. This would automatically make the audience feel uncomfortable
about Manson. However, followed by the montage there has been a use of another sound bite
of the news anchor Marilyn Manson has cancelled the last five days of his US tour out of
respect for those lost in Littleton.. This allows the interview to also promote Manson, his job and
his tours to the audiences who may have not known Manson before, and will understand
through this promotional sound bite that hes a musician and has tours - someone famous. This
statement may also promote Manson and suggest he is sensitive about the situation and as a
result of being affected by the deaths he is cancelling his tour to show his respect also. This
may show Manson as someone who is understanding and respected for the actions he has
taken and making the audience like him, in contrast to the sound bites and juxtapositioning used
at the beginning of the interview. There is then another montage with another suggestive
statement This is perhaps the sickest group ever promoted by a mainstream record company.
this also goes in contrast to Mansons attitude towards the deaths, which could cause confusion
within the audience. However, this could suggest to us that although Manson appears to be
different - in terms of appearance and attitude - he is still caring and sensitive, unlike how Moore
is trying to portray him throughout the interview with the use of sound bites.

We then have a juxtaposed clip of a part of Mansons Fight Song Im not a slave to a god that
doesnt exist.. This has been put straight after the suggestive clip about Mansons band being
the sickest group ever, which in other words is a visual example of what is trying to be said. At
this point - due to the lyrics of the song - many people may lose interest in him as he is not a
believer of god and believe that he is a negative influence to the young. However, the use of the
positive comments beforehand of Manson cancelling the last five days of the US tour shows the
complete opposite. Many singers would not cancel their tours due the loss in money and
interest, making their fans upset etc. however, Manson has bravely done so in order to respect
Littleton. This mixture of both negative and positive views is a way to allow the audience to
judge and decide what they see in Manson.

In the next sound bite of Moores voiceover also involves a suggestive comment ...why the
shootings occurred was because the killers listened to Marilyn Manson. Two years after
Columbine, Manson finally returns to Denver., with a short clip followed to explain why he is
returning. The use of the killers listened to Marilyn Manson is quite suggestive as Moore is
trying to say that Manson possibly in some way resulted in this attack. This builds a negative
impact on the audience, followed by the next voiceover from Moore There were protests from
the religious right. This could once again reinforce the idea of Manson not being religious and
therefore is receiving negative responses from the community.

We then skip to the interview where there is no introduction or confidence building as there was
in the Ross and Hardy interview. However, this may have taken place but just cut out later, post
interview in order to make the interview quick and to possibly change the views on Manson.
Here we find the interview starts off with Manson talking about his childhood - this was probably
mid interview however, cut up to show like it was the beginning - and simply how music made
him who he was. Talking about his childhood may make the audience feel sympathy towards
Manson (he is also a human like everyone else). At this point Manson also in a way shortly
explains that he did not have bad intentions and that he focussed on music because it made
him feel better. Producing music himself may be because he also wants to make his listeners
feel the same, providing them with escapism and self confidence of who they are, rather than to
provoke violence or danger. However, this is followed by another clip of a religious right activist
who says Some will be brash to ask if we believe that all who hear Manson tomorrow night will
go out and commit violent acts. The answer is no. But does everybody who watches a Lexus
ad go and buy a Lexus? No. But a few do.. This statement is quite pointless and very
suggestive. Firstly comparing a music video to an advert is not very reasonable and doesnt
work out as Mansons music isnt there to persuade people to do particular things, or behave in
certain ways, unlike an advert. Overall this interview is very laid back compared to the studio
interviews (Ross & Hardy or Paxman & Smith) which could suggest the tone of the interview
isnt very hard news based.

Manson then says I definitely can see why they would pick me its easy to throw my face on a
TV sort of a poster boy for fea. Because I represent what everyones afraid of, because I do
and say what I want.. At this point we get the understanding of Manson not being afraid of
anything he says, he tries explaining that he understands that he is the target and suggests that
this is due to being able to speak freely as he wishes, and because he is able to express views
and opinions others may be too scared to say. He also shows understanding of why he and his
music is the target and why he is getting negative feedback. Along with explaining he is free to
say anything we also find Manson doesnt bring limits to what he wants to say, which may also
be a reason to why he gets negative feedback. We also see that Manson doesnt try to defend
himself, as he may believe there is nothing to be scared of or to defend, he is clear on what he
believes and doesnt really take other views seriously.

The use of the clips in between Mansons statements could be to show the difference between
Manson himself and what others have to say about him. This is a good way to show both sides
to the audience - especially those who are not following the situation and to allow them decide
upon their thoughts.

Once again we have a clip of the religious right activist who suggests If Marilyn Manson can
walk into our town and promote hate, violence, suicide, death, drug use and Columbine-like
behaviour, I can say, not without a fight, you cant.. At this point this religious speaker is once
again in a way comparing Mansons music to adverts when he suggests that Manson is
promoting violence etc. this is once again very pointless in my opinion as Mansons videos
doesnt necessarily promote these. However, we can say at this point that Moore may be adding
these clips in order to promote Manson as someone who is bad and responsible for the
Columbine attack, as the religious speaker also says. Some may argue that the use of the Not
without a fight you cant also builds the idea of violence, which is by someone who argues
violence is provoked. It also unreasonable to say that out of all the things that could provoke
violence - such as movies - Manson is the only one responsible for the attack.

Afterwards we have a key question which shows investigative purposes from Moore Did you
know the day that Columbine happened the United States dropped more bombs on Kosovo
than any other time during that war?. This is investigative as Moore is trying to find out
Mansons knowledge and what he thinks of the information Moore has provided. This could
bring along informational purposes to the interview as well as enhancing audience
understanding. This is one of the two key questions Moore asks throughout the interview and it
is the only time he speaks to Manson - other than the voiceovers edited in. This is due to Moore
cutting out the questions he asks and makes it look as if Manson is talking about the subjects he
wants to talk about, however in reality, Moore is leading the conversation with the questions he
asks. The second and final key question Moore asks is If you were to talk directly to the kids at
Columbine and the people in that community, what would you say to them, if they here right
now?. This second key question is also investigative as it is questioning and investigating
Mansons views and opinions once again. This reinforces the idea of informational purposes
and enhancement of audience understanding. Mansons reply I wouldnt say a single word to
them. I would listen to what they have to say. And thats what no one did.. At this point Manson
is once again showing his understanding towards people and is suggesting that no one listens
to kids, which is what they need.

Moore & Nichols interview

The Bowling for Columbine documentary was produced in 2002 by a political documentary
filmmaker Michael Moore. He explores gun violence in America and questions why America has
such a high homicide rate after the high school shooting in 1999. The documentary brings along
the questions of why America still allows possession of firearms even though they know the
amount of deaths that they cause each year. The documentary looks at different American
school shootings trying to come to a conclusion of why America has such a high homicide rate.
One of the first major interviews we find in this documentary is Michael Moore visiting James
Nichols house, who was arrested on suspicion of conspiring to make and detonate bombs in an
explosion that took place in Oklahoma City along with brother who was found guilty and is
serving a life sentence along with Timothy McVeigh who received the death sentence. Nichols
was not found guilty and is now living in Michigan where the interview took place.

There is a use of the investigative form throughout the interview by Moore in order to find out
more information from Nichols and about the situation in order to fulfill its purpose of informing
and enhancing audience understanding. Throughout the interview we also see Nichols as
someone whos very repetitive along with being very blunt and unserious with his comments.
Repetitive comments about his job - being a farmer - is used by Nichols in order to suggest and
reinforce the idea of him being a farmer and no longer a dangerous bomber. There is a use of
light hearted questions at the beginning of the interview about Nichols lifestyle, which could be
in order to start the interview in a positive way. This introductive starter is being done despite
the fact that they most probably have already spoken about this pre interview, however the way
the editing has been done makes it seem like theyre getting to know each other the first time.
This may have also been done in order to get the audience more familiar with Nichols in order to
be able to open up to him more. This may also be argued to be a way of confidence building for
Nichols, starting off the interview with basic and simply questions could make him feel more
comfortable and open. One of the main things in an interview is to be biased, which Moore
doesnt show too much of his views, until towards the very end.

At the very beginning of the interview, whilst both Moore and Nichols are still outside Nichols
house, we find they have a short conversation of which in some way introduces Nichols to the
audience. Being very investigative Moore asks an open question What do you grow here. We
understand at this point that Moore introduces Nichols as a farmer. Nichols replies Oh, all right
now there is tofu beans, soya beans. This shows us that the interview fulfills an investigative
purpose, in order to then fulfill informational purposes. This is also helpful in enhancing
audience understanding of who Nichols is. At the beginning of the interview we find that the
word Food farmer is repeated often - by Nichols especially - which could suggest that Nichols
is trying to reinforce the idea that he is no longer a bomb maker and is now actually a food
farmer. This could be seen as a very defensive repetition, as Nichols is clearly aware that he is
seen as a dangerous bomb maker - possibly a murderer - and therefore is uncomfortable and
wants to change this image. This is already at the beginning of the interview a way of giving the
audience information - fulfilling informational purposes - of who he is and possibly linking to
research purposes as well. At this point we are also reinforced the idea of the interview being
investigative.

We then have a V/O which provides us with further information of who Nichols is and who his
brother Terry Nichols is. We are informed here - fulfilling informational purposes, in order to
enhance audience understanding - through clips also, of who they are, the charges they
received and for what reason. Although being very informing and enhancing for the audience's
understanding we could also suggest that Moore at this point, is being slightly suggestive in
saying that Terry Nichols was convicted and received a life sentence but the feds didnt have
the goods on James so the charges were dropped.. This was Moores way of saying James
Nichols was more involved with the situation than the media had chosen him to show him as. In
a way Moore suggests James is to blame also, however, his charges were dropped due to a
lack of evidence. This could therefore suggest Moore is also being interpretative and is trying to
show Nichols as someone whos still the bad and dangerous guy, even though hes now
introduced as a farmer. Through this V/O we also understand why the interview is taking place,
which enhances audience understanding.

Straight after Moore asks Nichols Did Timothy McVeigh ever stay here?. This could suggest
that Moore is trying to involve him in order to make Nichols look bad however, this is also
interpreted as very emotional. Nichols replies Yeah. Yes. He stayed here several times. giving
an emotional and light hearted feel to the interview.

There is then a cut used here, jumping straight from McVeigh to any explosives on the farm,
which could suggest Moore is trying to show a connection between McVeigh and dangerous
materials.

Moore then uses an open question So they didnt find anything on this farm?. Although this
question is useful for investigative purposes and to inform the audience, we find Moore is also
being interpretative. Nichols replies As to what? Bomb making materials?, giving the
suggestion that he is aware of what Moore is trying to ask and find out. Moores reply Any kind
of explosives? automatically suggests to us that he is expecting there to be some kind of
dangerous materials in the farm - although Nichols is now a farmer he was once a bomb maker,
therefore is still the bad and dangerous guy. This reinforces to us that Nichols was once a bomb
maker, therefore possibly still dangerous, and that Moore is trying to purposely make him look
bad with every opportunity. Moore trying to be suggestive and interpretative could be for many
reasons. It could either be because he simply doesnt like Nichols as a bomb maker, or because
he is extra sensitive about people like Nichols because of the bombing that has taken place.
This could therefore also be seen as emotional due to the amount of deaths the bombing has
resulted in, carrying a light hearted feeling. The effect on the audience is very negative as they
would feel similar to Nichols, they may also see him as someone bad and dangerous.
Combined with the emotional approach of the deaths of the young could also make audiences
very angry towards Nichols.

We are then taken inside Nichols house where he says Them people, them law enforcement if
you want to call them that, they were here and they were shaking in their shoes. They were
physically shaking, scared to death... Although we dont hear Moore ask Nichols a question we
get the feeling and understanding that he did as a prompt, however, they have chosen to cut it
out during the editing. At this point we get a slight serious tone to the interview, where the
audience may also feel slightly confused - as they are there to protect people (therefore be
brave) and not to be scared of them. The process of going back into the house has been cut off
and we are taken straight inside, which combined with the comment Nichols makes gives a
serious tone to the interview - possibly giving the sense of fear also - as it all seems to happen
very suddenly. The use of Moores question being cut off is also a very sudden feeling, as if they
have chosen to go straight into the answer, which could make the audience feel slightly
uncomfortable. At this point we could argue that Moore has tried to make Nichols look bad, as
cutting out the question makes it seem like Nichols has chosen to talk about the topic and has
prompted himself to. Moore then asks what they were scared off which Nichols replies my ex
wife and other people said Im a radical, Im a wild man. Ive got a gun under every arm, down
every leg, down every shoe, every corner of the house, you say anything to me and Ill shoot ya.
Haha. Nichols clearly admits they were scared of him because hes a very dangerous man.
This at this point could build a negative effect on the audience making them once again feel
uncomfortable. This could also in some way seem emotional to some as guns is a sensitive
matter in this case - caused a lot of deaths - therefore should be treated more carefully,
however we find Nichols doesnt really care and adds a short nervous laughter at the end of his
statement. This then gives the sense of him exaggerating with the amount of guns hes spoken
about, however, still builds a sense of tension within the audience due to the subject. It also
sounds intimidating because even though hes different now hed probably still commit a violent
act as so.

Moore then asks Do you believe it was right to blow up the building in Oklahoma City? (pause)
Im not saying you did it. Im just saying. Although he pauses and suggests he is not blaming
Nichols, it in fact was exactly what he was trying to do, be suggestive and therefore possibly
persuade the audience to particular point of view towards him. This is also very interpretative,
showing us Moore believes Nichols is also to blame even though the charges were dropped, he
is dangerous and the bad guy. The use of the editing at particular points of the interview,
provides Moore with further help to show Nichols as bad. At this point Nichols interrupts Moore
and repeats No, no. No, no, no.. not allowing him to carry on further with blaming him and
suggesting he is bad. He is being very defensive by further asking ..why was it blown up? Good
question, why was that building blown up? And who blew it up?. At this point we find an
increase in Nichols voice along with his body gestures which also suggest hes being defensive.
Nichols tries to distract Moore from the idea of him being involved by asking him why and who
blew it up, then replies with a simple Yeah when Moore asks It is wrong to take the lives of
those people.. Whilst replying Yeah Nichols rolls his eyes, looks around then replies after a 2
seconds of thinking of his answer. This gesture and Moores suggestive questions, show us
evidence of Nichols being guilty and feeling guilty as well as unsure of himself. Moores question
could also be enhancement of audience understanding, asking questions the audience
themselves may also want to ask. Also informing the audience with Nichols thoughts and
feelings, therefore fulfilling an informative purpose.

There is then a sound bite, where the interview is quickly cut up to a different part of the
interview. Nichols next quote I use the pen because the pen is mightier than the sword but you
must always keep a sword handy for when the pen fails. is put straight after his guilty actions to
go in contrast with his unsure answers. This automatically gives the idea of violence, suggesting
he can easily be violent which also goes in contrast with the idea of him changing and now
being a harmless farmer. This interview is therefore very different to the other interviews, as
they have taken particular parts, put them together in a different order to make Nichols look bad
with his unsure and violent statements. The exclusion of Moores questions could suggest that
Nichols choses to talk about particular things (violence), as if that theyre all he can talk about,
displaying him as a violent and dangerous person. The effect of this on the audience is negative
as it makes them feel as if Nichols is very dangerous and responsible for the attack. This could
also once again be seen as slightly emotional due to the violence spoken about being similar to
the attack.

There is then another cut to Nichols comment I sleep with a 44 magnum under my pillow.
which Moore responds with a light hearted question Come on, thats what everyone says? Is
that true?. The cut has once again been made straight after Nichols violent pen and sword
statement, to the gun he suggests he sleeps with. This once again is very violent suggesting
possibly an emotional feel - due to people connecting with the attack - and portraying Nichols as
the bad guy. The cut also makes it seem as if Nichols is choosing to talk about his weapons he
has, whereas Moore has most probably asked him a question about it, which also makes
Nichols look bad. Moores light hearted question makes it look like Moore is trying to soften the
tone of the conversation and get the truth out of Nichols, he makes it look as if he doesnt
believe him. At this point we find Nichols inviting Moore to his room in order to show the gun,
proving he holds weapons. We could say that Moore used this light hearted question in order to
act as if he was surprised and unexpecting a gun, however, actually Moore knew and just used
this to make the audience feel more shocked about Nichols. Whilst in Nichols room the
cameraman wait outside, which is explained to us through a V/O and we then get the approval
of the gun under the pillow by Moore, which also is explained through the V/O. Nichols making
the cameraman wait outside suggests that he is hiding something and doesnt want anyone in,
however, as most of the interview has been played with, this may have also been cut up. The
use of the V/O by Moore rather than Nichols explanation builds the curiosity of whether Moore
has made this up or not. Nichols then takes the gun and puts it in his head whilst laughing. This
is a very unreasonable action and is rather dangerous and worrying. However, Nichols treats
this as a joke and rather calmly, suggesting its very simple for him to simply pull the trigger and
murder someone. We find Moore at this point very uncomfortable and rather worried about
Nichols actions as he demands him to Put the hammer back. with fear. The audience also
feels as if Nichols is rather crazy and uncontrollable along with violent and dangerous, which
could also make the audience feel fearful.

There is then one final cut towards the end to Nichols statement Nobody can tell me I dont
have the right to have it, its protected under our constitution.. At this point we can remember
the idea of him now being a farmer and someone who believes taking lives - the attack - is bad,
in contrast to him carrying weapons and supporting this. This could bring curiosity of why he
carries a gun if he believes murders and deaths are wrong. Here we see once again that Moore
uses these editing techniques in order to make the audience feel uncomfortable about Nichols,
by portraying him as the bad guy and as someone who is violent with weapons. He shows
Nichols as guilty along with uncontrollable, and follows a biased interview. Another suggestive
question Moore uses is Oh, so you do believe in some restrictions? when Nichols argues that
some things should be restricted. Here Moore acts shocked and interested in Nichols views on
restrictions, possibly suggesting that it is an unexpected comment from him - as hes someone
who doesnt really apply any restrictions - and building a shocked impact on the audience also.
Moore and Heston

This interview is carried out Michael Moore who is interviewing Heston about Bowling for
Columbine. The interview as a whole follows a hard news and a very emotional tone at times as
it is about a killing which has taken place. We find that Moore is often very suggestive and
therefore interpretative about what Heston thinks and says, which automatically makes the
audience feel similar. We find Moore introduces himself at the very beginning to Heston and in
some ways to the viewers of the documentary, suggesting introduction and possibly carries a
more informational purpose.

At the beginning of the actual interview at the point where Moore starts to walk into Hestons
house we find that there is a short sound opening of a jokey, laid back music. This automatically
gives the suggestion of happiness in contrast to the actual situation, which is very upsetting.
This could suggest however, Moore is trying to give an introduction to the audience of what the
interview will be like (a joke), setting the audience up to Heston. The music also gives the sense
of a battle about to start, in this case between the interviewer Moore and the interviewee
Heston. When Moore finally meets Heston and after they shake hands, we find Moore asks an
open question Hi. Good morning. How are you?. It is a very simple open question, very easy
and easy to answer which could help Heston open up a bit and feel more comfortable - also an
opportunity for him to ask Moore a question back and build on the relationship - however,
Heston replies very blunt and directly Fine, suggesting hes not very happy about Moore being
there. One thing we find often throughout the interview is Heston replying openly to closed
question and very bluntly to open questions, which could suggest that he is not interested in
open questions and shows the basic closed questions as more important.

There are then some developmental questions used by Moore I assume you have guns in the
house here?, So you have them for protection?. These developmental questions are all very
investigative which is helpful to also enhance audience understanding in terms of who Heston is
and what he may be like. Moore ask more developmental, closed questions Have you ever
been a victim of crime? and Never been assaulted or..?, which are also very direct at Heston
and also very clear questions, which Heston once again answers very blunty to with No. No.,
No.. This could suggest to us that Heston is bored of Moore already and is uncomfortable
about the whole interview therefore wants to get it over and done with as quickly as he can.
These closed questions automatically start to give the idea of Moore being slightly suggestive
and therefore carrying and interpretative purpose of what he thinks and feels about Heston. We
then have further developmental questions such as No violence toward you, but you have guns
in the house.. Which is also once again Moore being suggestive and interpretative of his
thoughts, he gives the idea of Heston actually not having the guns for protection but for possibly
other reasons, which may make the audience slightly uncomfortable towards Heston also.
When Heston replies to this developmental with Loaded we find that Moore is surprised and
repeats his answer with a closed question Theyre loaded? which once again is interpretative
and suggestive. At this point instead of saying yes or no to Moores question we find Heston
replies for Loaded. which gives extra detail for a closed question - which Heston does a lot
throughout - also making the audience feel slightly uncomfortable about him.

Followed by all the developmental and closed questions Moore finally asks his key question
Okay, but why why do you need it for self-defense? Because--. Along with being very
interpretative of Moores thoughts, this question is also very enhancing of audience
understanding as most people would want to know why he is being so protective if he has not
been in any sort of crime or a victim of violence before. At this point we could remember that
Hestons house had a big locked gate, with very good security, which then brings us to the
question of what is the need for a gun? This question is very interpretative of Moore as his tone
of voice and the use of his body language and raised tone of voice when he says why do you
need it for self-defense suggests to us that Moore doesnt believe he uses it for self-defense is
rather uncomfortable about why he has guns. This could also automatically make the audience
feel like alike to Moore and therefore, feel negative and uncomfortable towards Heston. We
could say that at this point Moore is being a bit harsh and blunt towards Heston, which could
make Heston feel uncomfortable however, Moore changes the tone of the conversation by
saying Yeah, youve never been a victim of crime, you havent been assaulted. in a more
friendly and understanding way. This could help Moore sooth the tone of the conversation more
making Heston feel slightly more comfortable about the interview, as we clearly understand he
is uncomfortable enough.

This next part of why Heston would have a gun if he has never been a victim of crime is also
very suggestive of Moore as he shows clearly that he believes it is pathetic to have a gun -
loaded - and for self-defense if you arent in danger, also with such big security. Moore is at this
point being very direct and investigative with the questions he asks You havent been, you
know Why would you So why not Why dont you unload the gun?. This investigative - but
also uncomfortably asked question - is useful for enhancement of audience understanding as
the audience may once again wonder why Heston has loaded guns ready. Moore being very
investigative clearly asks these questions which Heston replies Lets say its a comfort factor. It
gives you comfort to know that theres a loaded gun. which also makes the audience feel
uncomfortable again. As someone who is not under danger shouldnt need comfort from a
loaded gun.

Moore then further investigates But you could still exercise the right, just by having a gun
unloaded and locked away somewhere.. This is once again very suggestive which once again
shows us evidence of the interview being very interpretative throughout. We also understand
through these questions and answers that the interview is definitely not necessarily light hearted
but is rather hard news. We find Moore is constantly trying to suggest repetitively that the gun
should be unloaded and Heston possibly shouldnt even have one if he is not a victim or under
danger, which clearly shows us that Moore is trying to persuade and make the audience feel a
particular way about Heston. The repetitive use of the loaded gun and how Heston has this gun
although not under danger, could suggest Moore is trying to make Heston look like the bad guy.
We then find Moore uses statements for informational purposes during the interview in order to
be suggestive and support his idea of the loaded gun being a bad idea and making Heston look
bad through the statement about Canada having seven million guns in million homes. At this
point we can clearly see that both Moore and Heston is being very combative with each other
where Heston replies There wont be very long., trying to suggest that Moores point is slightly
invalid and not necessarily needed. However, here Moore replies But hear me out, though.
which automatically gives us the idea of the interview being very combative at this point and
there being a negative relationship between the two. Moore then further uses statements such
as Canada is a nation of hunters, millions of guns, and yet, they had just a few murders last
year. Why is it that that theyve got all these guns laying around, and they dont kill each
other at the level that we kill each other?. This is once again very combative and but also
interpretative as Moore suggests that there are more murders there compared to Canada,
possibly also suggesting that this is due to people like Heston, who carry loaded guns. This
could also suggest enhancement of audience understanding, viewers may wonder what Heston
thinks of the amount of deaths in the country. We could further add that Moore is also showing
research purposes through the statements he is providing, therefore informing the audience
also.

In return Heston replies with I think American history is uh has a lot of blood on its hands.
which seems like he is trying to somehow give an excuse to Americas murders, which Moore
gets more uncomfortable and replies And Germany history doesnt? No. And British history?.
We find Moore at this point is starting to get really frustrated as Heston replies with No to
Moores questions. We find further evidence of Moores frustration when he repeats his question
Oh, are you Germans dont have as much, blood on their hands?. We find they are very
combative at this point as they are also very different in terms of particular views, however,
Moore is also being very investigative here trying to find out Hestons thoughts and feelings
towards the situation. This could be helpful in order to enhance audience understanding as this
will further answer audiences questions and curiosities. Moore here is being interpretative
whilst showing his frustration towards Heston and he clearly shows that he believes Heston is
wrong in his thoughts.

As the interviewer it is Moores job to wind up the conversation, however, we find that Heston
does this more throughout the interview 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..
This may suggest that Heston is really uncomfortable about this interview and about Moore
being there, therefore is constantly trying to give a stop to the interview. Moores next comment
gives the sense of a combative tone to the conversation once again, which could suggest that
he is uncomfortable with what Heston is saying and that he is trying to end the conversation,
You dont have an opinion, though, as to why that it that we are the unique country. This
automatically once again makes us feel like their relationship is not very great and rather tense.
There is then another direct and combative comment made by Moore once again What do you
mean, you think its a mixed ethnicity.. This once again clearly shows us that their relationship
is very tense and that they clearly dont really like each other, theyre are uncomfortable with
each other. We also see further evidence of the interview being very combative throughout,
following a hard news tone.

The interview then automatically changes to an emotional tone after Moore I come from Flint,
Michigan, and last year, a little six year old boy took a gun into a classroom and killed a six year
old girl. And, uh it was really a tragic thing. This automatically changes the combative tone
of the interview to a very emotional tone however, still holding the hard news also. This isnt a
light hearted interview as the subject isnt a nice subject and therefore is more hard news than
light hearted, however, still carries the emotional tone. At this point as the audience we get the
idea that Heston may be more careful with what he says and feel more uncomfortable with what
he has said. However, Heston replies with A six year old? Yeah. which automatically makes
the audience once again feel uncomfortable about Heston. Although the conversation is really
upsetting and emotional we find Heston is still harsh and tough with the way he talks and treats
the situation. Changing the tone to an emotional interview, Moore uses these statements in
order to develop his main open and key question You didnt know at the time, that this killing
had happened?. This question is suggestive as Moore is suggesting in some way that Heston
may have known about the killing, which builds an interpretative purpose, possibly also making
the audience feel the same. Moore is frustrated and is clearly showing evidence of investigative
purposes for the interview, and therefore enhancing audience understanding in terms of the
curiosity they may have. After Heston replies with No. Moore asks whether or not Heston
wouldve cancelled the events if he had known which he finds it hard to reply and suggests that
it was already planned.

Further on we find that Moore asks a closed question You know, had you know that, would you
have come?. This could be enhancement of audience understanding as they may also be
wondering the answer to the question, however, is also evidence of an investigative purpose.
Moore is trying to find out how Heston would behave and his thoughts through this closed
question which Heston replies very uncertainly I dont know. I have no idea. Maybe not. Maybe
not.. In return Moore asks Okay. Thank you. You think youd like to just maybe apologise to
the people in Flint for coming and doing that at the time, or?. Moore is once again being
investigative in order to get information from Heston about what he thinks and feels of the
situation. This is also enhancement of audience understanding as the audience would also want
to find out more information of Hestons thoughts and feelings. We could also argue that this is
emotional as Moore sees Heston as the bad guy and as someone who didnt care about what
was going on at the time. Apologising could be seen as a light hearted situation as well as being
very emotional for some.

In return Heston replies very shocked You want me to apologise me, apologise to the people
in Flint?. We see that Heston is very uncomfortable and very unhappy about what Moore has
asked for. This could also show us the increased frustration of Heston as he was already
frustrated and uncomfortable about the interview and about Moore being there, however, this
question has further increased his irritation. The relationship between the two is also seen to be
getting worse as they both do not seem to get along with each other. This is also evidenced
through this question and reply as they show a combative tone to the interview between the two,
they are both very strict and direct with each other. Moore chooses to carry on this combative
tone through his next direct question Or the people in Columbine for coming after their horrible
tragedy. This further puts Heston in an uncomfortable position making him feel further
frustrated and irritated about the interview.

At the very end when Moore starts to leave the house we find that he shows a photograph of the
girl who was murdered and says This is who she is or was. This is her. Mr Heston, please dont
leave Mr Heston, please, take a look at her. This is the girl.. Here we see the interview is very
emotional why brings a very negative feeling towards the matter. Heston at this point does not
take any notice of what Moore is saying - despite it being about a six year old girl who has been
murdered - and walks away. At this point we get the idea of Heston being the bad guy - as
Moore has been trying to show - and therefore the audience automatically feels more
uncomfortable about him, especially after the loaded gun. Therefore Heston is shown as the
bad guy through the use of both emotional and suggestive statements throughout the interview.