In this interview, Alan Carr's approach to One Direction is different to any interview that I have previously watched with another host. Firstly, he gives a fun and entertaining introduction to his guests and so sets the mood for what is about to come and what sort of show his is, if anyone hasn't seen it before. He allows the audience to get involved by asking their opinions and allowing them to scream in return.
When One Direction come on stage for the first time, he greets them all with a hug and so sets a friendly mood also, as hugs are seen more friendly than just a handshake, which can be considered as more formal and his show isn't very formal. To prove that it is not a very formal chatr show is, to start with, Alan Carr does not ask them questions striaght away. Instead he pulls out some dolls which have been made and starts to laugh and joke about them and how some of them don't look like them at all. It is very funny and has everyone laughing, even the audience at home. Alan Carr is always saying jokes and making the conversation very light-hearted which will relax the boys and give them confidence in the interview. There is also a dance off at the end between One Direction and Alan Carr, which you never normally see and so it was unique and different.
Alan asks a multiple of questions, both open and closed. A closed question he asked was 'So do you all have houses of your own now?' to which they answered 'Yes'. A closed question is when you ask someone something to which they normally only say yes or no to beacsue there is nothing to elaborate on. However, an open question is when you ask someone a question which they can describe something or give you more detail on a particular topic. An open question that Alan Carr asked during the interview was 'Tell us what the name of your album is about'. to this question One Direction explain and describe their new apartments to Alan and the audience and give a lot of detail about them so the viewers get a good description as to what sort of place they live in. The reason that both open and closed questions are asked is because some questions are more important than others and are what people are really wanting to ask about. For example, the housing question you can't really go into it too much because of security reasons, but the CD is what they have come to promote and so an open question is more suitable so that it can be spoken about in a well explained way so the audience has more insight into it.
The interview starts off with the boys being introduced in a humorous way, and there is music to lift the mood and the audience are allowed to scream and shout, whereas in Interviews such as Piers Morgan's life stories people normally only clap in appreciation, which shows that The Alan Carr Show is aimed at a younger audience because they are having One Direction as the guests which would appeal to the younger audience rather than older people who adults would recognise and grew up with.
Alan Carr then asked each boy a question in turn about things that involved only them so that they all got a mention of something that has happened to them or that they can do. He doesn't linger on one boy for too long to make the others feel like they aren't as popular.
After these questions was the dance off, and so entertainment was given after the questions so that there was that light-hearted feel again and then Alan Carr wound it up whilst dancing and introduced his next guest at the end and so it had a different ending than most chat shows.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=one+direction+on+alan+carr&oq=one+direction+on+alan+carr&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=0l0l0l6254361l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Wednesday, 8 February 2012
Light Hearted, Promotional & Entertainment - Jonathan Ross Show (Daniel Radcliffe, Seal, Noel fielding & Sir David Attenborough
The beginning of the structure for The Jonathan Ross Show was the opening sequences with the music and the animation and the bumpers, to introduce the programme. You are then presented with Jonathan Ross who goes straight on to telling some jokes and adding humor to some stories that have been in the news. It really sets the tone for the programme, making the viewers realise that, although it is a chat show, there will be humor added to the interviews that are going to take place and that it will be a a fun and interesting thing to watch. He takes the mickey out of things that have happened in real life, such as a Chinese airline hiring men that have had operations to become women, and so is mainly aimed at the older generation as its target audience. It is also aired after the water shed and so the audience know that there will be mild references to things that they may not want to show their children if they have any. There was also a showing of a clip from YouTube of an acrobatic dog, and so this will promote the popularity of this video and it is bound to now get more followers.
Jonathan then goes on to introduce his guests one by one, who are all sat back staged and are linked into the main screen in the main studio so that they can talk to Jonathan. He introduces them in a positive light, always saying something nice about then, and having a short talk to them to make them feel at ease.
The first guess was Daniel Radcliffe, who is more commonly known for playing Harry Potter. Firstly they spoke about Harry Potter as a whole and Jonathan asked open questions to Daniel so that he could elaborate on his time as Harry Potter and what it was like when they shot their very last scene. There was also clips shown of the Japanese fan girls to add humor, and stories were told about obsessive fan girls to also add humor into the interview. The audience also laughed which created a light hearted feel. There was also promotional talk because Daniel discusses his new role in the movie 'The Woman in Black' which is coming out in cinemas on the 10th of February 2012. So they are promoting Daniel as an actor who is now doing other things aswell after being involved with Harry Potter for 10 years and so they want to now show him in a different light and promote all of the new things that he is doing, such as talking about a new film he is in also, which they are currently filming, called 'Kill your darlings'. They also discuss his personal life and chat about his girlfriend, so the audience and viewers at home can feel like they are relating to his life as a real person and not someone that he is pretending to be, there are sexual references in this part of the interview and so adds laughter and is nice to know that he can joke about his personal life in front of thousands of people. Both Daniel and Jonathan are relaxed back in their seats and so they both have laid back body language which instantly puts the viewer and audience at ease because they can tell that there is no tension between either of them.
The summary of this interview is Jonathan complimenting Daniel again on his success in Harry Potter and everything else that he is now doing and he is given a round of applause from the audience and Jonathan himself as a way of saying thank you for coming onto the show.
Jonathan introduces all his acts in the same way to make them all feel as comfortable as each other. There was also a time in this interview when he was talking to Sir David Attenborough, that Jonathan bought a couple of penguins out onto the stage so that David could feed them. It was just something that you would never really expect to see, two penguins on a stage in London. And so it really gave the show a feel good mood and had everyone bonding with eachother when all his guests were feeding the penguins.
The main purpose for the interview was to promote everyone's new upcoming programmes, films and songs. But it was also to entertain people so that they would want to watch it again if they really enjoyed it and it made them laugh. He normally has quite well known people on it aswell, people with big fan bases so that it is more likely that he will have a bigger viewing rating.
The wind up of the interview is Jonathan saying 'that's all we have time for this evening' after everyone has finished talking about what they have been asked. He then tells the viewers who will be on his show next week so that everyone knows and then he says good evening, and so ends the programme on a positive note. The structure is mainly interviewing someone and then getting the next guess on and once everyone has been interviewed then they have a music artist that is on the show playing at the end as the credits go across the bottom of the screen.
http://www.itv.com/itvplayer/video/?Filter=302560
Jonathan then goes on to introduce his guests one by one, who are all sat back staged and are linked into the main screen in the main studio so that they can talk to Jonathan. He introduces them in a positive light, always saying something nice about then, and having a short talk to them to make them feel at ease.
The first guess was Daniel Radcliffe, who is more commonly known for playing Harry Potter. Firstly they spoke about Harry Potter as a whole and Jonathan asked open questions to Daniel so that he could elaborate on his time as Harry Potter and what it was like when they shot their very last scene. There was also clips shown of the Japanese fan girls to add humor, and stories were told about obsessive fan girls to also add humor into the interview. The audience also laughed which created a light hearted feel. There was also promotional talk because Daniel discusses his new role in the movie 'The Woman in Black' which is coming out in cinemas on the 10th of February 2012. So they are promoting Daniel as an actor who is now doing other things aswell after being involved with Harry Potter for 10 years and so they want to now show him in a different light and promote all of the new things that he is doing, such as talking about a new film he is in also, which they are currently filming, called 'Kill your darlings'. They also discuss his personal life and chat about his girlfriend, so the audience and viewers at home can feel like they are relating to his life as a real person and not someone that he is pretending to be, there are sexual references in this part of the interview and so adds laughter and is nice to know that he can joke about his personal life in front of thousands of people. Both Daniel and Jonathan are relaxed back in their seats and so they both have laid back body language which instantly puts the viewer and audience at ease because they can tell that there is no tension between either of them.
The summary of this interview is Jonathan complimenting Daniel again on his success in Harry Potter and everything else that he is now doing and he is given a round of applause from the audience and Jonathan himself as a way of saying thank you for coming onto the show.
Jonathan introduces all his acts in the same way to make them all feel as comfortable as each other. There was also a time in this interview when he was talking to Sir David Attenborough, that Jonathan bought a couple of penguins out onto the stage so that David could feed them. It was just something that you would never really expect to see, two penguins on a stage in London. And so it really gave the show a feel good mood and had everyone bonding with eachother when all his guests were feeding the penguins.
The main purpose for the interview was to promote everyone's new upcoming programmes, films and songs. But it was also to entertain people so that they would want to watch it again if they really enjoyed it and it made them laugh. He normally has quite well known people on it aswell, people with big fan bases so that it is more likely that he will have a bigger viewing rating.
The wind up of the interview is Jonathan saying 'that's all we have time for this evening' after everyone has finished talking about what they have been asked. He then tells the viewers who will be on his show next week so that everyone knows and then he says good evening, and so ends the programme on a positive note. The structure is mainly interviewing someone and then getting the next guess on and once everyone has been interviewed then they have a music artist that is on the show playing at the end as the credits go across the bottom of the screen.
http://www.itv.com/itvplayer/video/?Filter=302560
Promotional - Radio Interview with Andrew Scott
A promotional interview that happened was on the radio station, RTE 2FM which is based in Dublin, Ireland. The interviewee is Andrew Scott, who most recently played Moriarty in the BBC adaption of Sherlock. The listener automatically knows this because the radio presenter announces this in his introduction of Andrew, because it is his most recent piece of work and so many people were raving over his incredible performance that they wanted to get him on their show to congratulate him and promote himself as an actor and Sherlock as a series. There is automatic confidence building in the introduction by the way the newsreader congratulates Andrew on his role and his amazing acting talent.
Instead of going straight on to serious questions about how Andrew got the role, there is humor added beforehand to add that to even more confidence building and to laugh away any tension that either of them may have. They were joking about one of the scenes in Sherlock where Moriarty (Andrew) has to ask a policewoman to slip her hand into his pocket, just so that he can have some chewing gum whilst he is in a courtroom for his own trial after trying to steal the crown jewels. He says it in such a seductive way that people can only but laugh at the sheer awkwardness that was created in that scene. So there is a humorous approach right at the beginning of the interview, which could appeal more to the audience if they know that it isn't going to be totally serious and that there will be some laughter in there.
The radio presenter asks both open and closed questions for Andrew to answer, but even on the closed question, Andrew elaborates on them anyway and so there is never any need to ask why or how because he explains it all in his first answer. The questions are mainly direct questions about Sherlock, so as to make the audience aware that this is the most recent piece of work that Andrew has done, and to promote it as a television series. They also talk about Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays Sherlock, and so they promote the main characters because some of the listeners may have already seen some of their work and be interested to watch Sherlock if they haven't seen it already because their previous work was enjoyable.
Aswell as promoting Sherlock, the radio presenter also tries to promote Andrew as an actor. They discuss past work that he has done such as Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Dead Bodies and a 3 short films called SeaWall, Chasing Cotards and Silent Things. Two of which you have to purchase online to watch or download and you can watch Silent Things on Youtube. The radio presenter is always cheery, which makes the conversation light hearted between both himself and Andrew and he cracks some jokes in there aswell, so as to further build confidence, as Andrew speaks quite quietly to begin with and then he becomes louder as the interview goes on.
Andrew also gives the listeners a brief description of what it was like playing Moriarty and how he felt about the conpetition he faced because of there being so many previous Moriarty's before him. And so he allows the audience an insight into those emotions that he felt whilst playing Moriarty and it was all his own opinion and it was straight talking, rather than hearing things from another persons mouth and suggesting that it may have been nerve racking for Andrew to play this part. They also talk about his private life, such as where he was originally born and where his family live and where he now lives and how long he has lived there for, and so the listener can feel like they are learning more about the man himself rather than just Moriarty.
There is a real summarisation of this interview in the last few minutes that they are talking. The radio presenter asks Andrew where the listeners and himself can see him next, and Andrew says a number of films and dramas that he is currently doing or has just finished filming. The radio presenter then reads out some texts that were sent in from the listeners, congratulating Andrew on his performance and their speculations as to whether Moriarty is actually dead or not from the last episode in January. He then thanks Andrew for his time and they say a happy farewell to eachother.
Overall the structure was really good. There was an introduction, a well done to Andrew and then questions about his acting, previous acting and his current affairs and what we can see him in next if people have become a fan of him and his work. The radio presenter was a good interviewer as he kept the conversation going and so there were never any silences or him not knowing what to ask next and so it flowed nicely.
http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradiowebpage.html#!rii=1%3A3168723%3A4678%3A16%2D01%2D2012%3A
Instead of going straight on to serious questions about how Andrew got the role, there is humor added beforehand to add that to even more confidence building and to laugh away any tension that either of them may have. They were joking about one of the scenes in Sherlock where Moriarty (Andrew) has to ask a policewoman to slip her hand into his pocket, just so that he can have some chewing gum whilst he is in a courtroom for his own trial after trying to steal the crown jewels. He says it in such a seductive way that people can only but laugh at the sheer awkwardness that was created in that scene. So there is a humorous approach right at the beginning of the interview, which could appeal more to the audience if they know that it isn't going to be totally serious and that there will be some laughter in there.
The radio presenter asks both open and closed questions for Andrew to answer, but even on the closed question, Andrew elaborates on them anyway and so there is never any need to ask why or how because he explains it all in his first answer. The questions are mainly direct questions about Sherlock, so as to make the audience aware that this is the most recent piece of work that Andrew has done, and to promote it as a television series. They also talk about Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays Sherlock, and so they promote the main characters because some of the listeners may have already seen some of their work and be interested to watch Sherlock if they haven't seen it already because their previous work was enjoyable.
Aswell as promoting Sherlock, the radio presenter also tries to promote Andrew as an actor. They discuss past work that he has done such as Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Dead Bodies and a 3 short films called SeaWall, Chasing Cotards and Silent Things. Two of which you have to purchase online to watch or download and you can watch Silent Things on Youtube. The radio presenter is always cheery, which makes the conversation light hearted between both himself and Andrew and he cracks some jokes in there aswell, so as to further build confidence, as Andrew speaks quite quietly to begin with and then he becomes louder as the interview goes on.
Andrew also gives the listeners a brief description of what it was like playing Moriarty and how he felt about the conpetition he faced because of there being so many previous Moriarty's before him. And so he allows the audience an insight into those emotions that he felt whilst playing Moriarty and it was all his own opinion and it was straight talking, rather than hearing things from another persons mouth and suggesting that it may have been nerve racking for Andrew to play this part. They also talk about his private life, such as where he was originally born and where his family live and where he now lives and how long he has lived there for, and so the listener can feel like they are learning more about the man himself rather than just Moriarty.
There is a real summarisation of this interview in the last few minutes that they are talking. The radio presenter asks Andrew where the listeners and himself can see him next, and Andrew says a number of films and dramas that he is currently doing or has just finished filming. The radio presenter then reads out some texts that were sent in from the listeners, congratulating Andrew on his performance and their speculations as to whether Moriarty is actually dead or not from the last episode in January. He then thanks Andrew for his time and they say a happy farewell to eachother.
Overall the structure was really good. There was an introduction, a well done to Andrew and then questions about his acting, previous acting and his current affairs and what we can see him in next if people have become a fan of him and his work. The radio presenter was a good interviewer as he kept the conversation going and so there were never any silences or him not knowing what to ask next and so it flowed nicely.
http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradiowebpage.html#!rii=1%3A3168723%3A4678%3A16%2D01%2D2012%3A
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
Combative News- Shirley Phelps-Roper on Fox News
Definition of Combative - Showing an inclination to dispute or disagree, to willingly want to fight.
Most news stories are quite sophisticated and there is a limit as to what can be said, here in the UK. But there was one interview that became very combative between both the interviewer and the interviewee.
The interview was between Shirley Phelps- Roger and a Fox News reader. The newsreader firstly intorduces the story to the viewers and talks about the rights of people and how we all have free speech, but she goes on to ask us if we think pikiting dead soldiers funerals is going too far. And so she is making the audience get involved with the debate that is going on to make them feel like part of the argument. There is a sort of structure to the way she presents this news story. She introduces it first and then goes on to two different interviews, for and against. The subject that is being focused on are the people of a certain church who believe that all soldiers are gay and that God hates gay people and that we will all be going to hell because we worship the gay people and we worship Jews and we support soldiers going out to war. They believe that everything that happens in this world is God's will and we should just let it be rather than interferring with his work.
The first interview she does is to a father of a dead soldier, whose funeral was protested at by this cult of people. This interview firstly adds sadness to the story, the fact that they have a real witness from what they are doing, and it really sets the mood for what the story is actually about. It is actual evidence of how it is effecting people. In this interview, the newsreader is kind and expresses her condolences to the father who has lost their child. She makes it obvious that she is against the protestors and so it is obvious that it is already quite a bias interview that is going to happen. She also asks why they are going to sue this lady and her community for protesting at the funerals, even though it is obvious why they are doing it. It is an open question which allows them to elaborate on their answer and say more than one reason why they are doing this and to explain themselves clearly. There is also a lawyer present at this interview and so their are currently three people against one, another indication that this news report has already been decided who is on whose team. She also uses really suggestive questions in this interview, such as 'Tell us what lies they have said, because they have said lies haven't they?' This question lets the audiences know that lies have been told and that she wants the interviewees to elaborate on them and explain what these lies were.
There is also some promotional aspects in this interview because they talk about the website where people can go and donate funds for their sons charity, to support other soldiers in the war. There is also a serious approach to this story, there is no humour in anything that is being said and no one is laughing or smiling when they are talking, it is a very serious topic. As said before, there is already a biased view on the story, because the newsreader calls the Shirley a 'crazie'. The main purpose of this news story is to enhance the audiences understanding of the churches purpose and why they do the things that they do. Whether there is a valid reason for it or whether they are all just mentally challenged.
When the news reporter switches over to interview Shirley, she is already against her and her way of doing things, and so emotion is already showed when they are talking because her anger is slowly building by the things that Shirley is saying and she is willing to fight this lady in the things that she is saying and doing because she believes, like so many others, that this is wrong, and so she is allowing the audience to see her emotions clearly. The interview develops further until they are both throwing abuse at one another because they both have such different views. Their body languages are negative, they are both leaning forwards towards one another and both pointing their fingers and yelling. Not many questions are asked by the news reporter, she is mainly saying what she thinks about what Shirley and her family are doing.
At the end of the news report there is no final summary or round up. They are continously yelling and shouting at eachother and there is no way that she is able to summarise it up, so she simply says her last word and then cuts Shirley off. This means that there wasn't a proper structure to the interview. She had an introduction, two interviews for and against, but there was no conclusion to what they had learnt about Shirley and her family.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3PyoUPcobA
Most news stories are quite sophisticated and there is a limit as to what can be said, here in the UK. But there was one interview that became very combative between both the interviewer and the interviewee.
The interview was between Shirley Phelps- Roger and a Fox News reader. The newsreader firstly intorduces the story to the viewers and talks about the rights of people and how we all have free speech, but she goes on to ask us if we think pikiting dead soldiers funerals is going too far. And so she is making the audience get involved with the debate that is going on to make them feel like part of the argument. There is a sort of structure to the way she presents this news story. She introduces it first and then goes on to two different interviews, for and against. The subject that is being focused on are the people of a certain church who believe that all soldiers are gay and that God hates gay people and that we will all be going to hell because we worship the gay people and we worship Jews and we support soldiers going out to war. They believe that everything that happens in this world is God's will and we should just let it be rather than interferring with his work.
The first interview she does is to a father of a dead soldier, whose funeral was protested at by this cult of people. This interview firstly adds sadness to the story, the fact that they have a real witness from what they are doing, and it really sets the mood for what the story is actually about. It is actual evidence of how it is effecting people. In this interview, the newsreader is kind and expresses her condolences to the father who has lost their child. She makes it obvious that she is against the protestors and so it is obvious that it is already quite a bias interview that is going to happen. She also asks why they are going to sue this lady and her community for protesting at the funerals, even though it is obvious why they are doing it. It is an open question which allows them to elaborate on their answer and say more than one reason why they are doing this and to explain themselves clearly. There is also a lawyer present at this interview and so their are currently three people against one, another indication that this news report has already been decided who is on whose team. She also uses really suggestive questions in this interview, such as 'Tell us what lies they have said, because they have said lies haven't they?' This question lets the audiences know that lies have been told and that she wants the interviewees to elaborate on them and explain what these lies were.
There is also some promotional aspects in this interview because they talk about the website where people can go and donate funds for their sons charity, to support other soldiers in the war. There is also a serious approach to this story, there is no humour in anything that is being said and no one is laughing or smiling when they are talking, it is a very serious topic. As said before, there is already a biased view on the story, because the newsreader calls the Shirley a 'crazie'. The main purpose of this news story is to enhance the audiences understanding of the churches purpose and why they do the things that they do. Whether there is a valid reason for it or whether they are all just mentally challenged.
When the news reporter switches over to interview Shirley, she is already against her and her way of doing things, and so emotion is already showed when they are talking because her anger is slowly building by the things that Shirley is saying and she is willing to fight this lady in the things that she is saying and doing because she believes, like so many others, that this is wrong, and so she is allowing the audience to see her emotions clearly. The interview develops further until they are both throwing abuse at one another because they both have such different views. Their body languages are negative, they are both leaning forwards towards one another and both pointing their fingers and yelling. Not many questions are asked by the news reporter, she is mainly saying what she thinks about what Shirley and her family are doing.
At the end of the news report there is no final summary or round up. They are continously yelling and shouting at eachother and there is no way that she is able to summarise it up, so she simply says her last word and then cuts Shirley off. This means that there wasn't a proper structure to the interview. She had an introduction, two interviews for and against, but there was no conclusion to what they had learnt about Shirley and her family.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3PyoUPcobA
Hard News & Investigative - Michael Moore 'Bowling for Columbine'
Definition of Hard news - This is when news deals with serious topics or events that have happened.
An example of an interview that does this is Michael Moore with his documentary film called 'Bowling for Columbine' This is a documentary where the filmmaker Michael Moore looks into why the shooting happened. It could also be classed as investigative news because he investigates into the two shooters and as to why they may have done what they did.
The introduction to Bowling for Columbine was Michael Moore making an account at a bank in America, at which point they give you a free gun, just for signing up for one of their accounts. It starts the film off with people thinking 'Do you think it's a good idea to be handing out guns in a bank?' It gives the audience into the first insight that there is something definately wrong in this town if they hand you over a gun for free. The introduction mainly shows the people of America obsessed with their guns and how they worship the guns and that this is a place where young children grow up, and are constantly seeing guns or hearing about violence in the news involving their own country and so may be influencing them.
Certain towns have certain reputations. In the documentary there was one guy who was put 2nd on a state bomb list just because of the town that he was from and because he owned a book which allowed people to make small bombs. He came from Colorado and this was seen as a state that had a bad reputation for people and their guns. In these towns, Michael Moore interviewed the residents both for and against the guns. One of them was Charles Heston, who lead Pro gun confrences all around America. There were also residents who thought Colorado was a good place to raise their children, even after the Columbine shooting and those who were still scared and affected by that shooting that took place.
Michael Moore didn't really do many interviews, it was mainly him narrating and giving out facts to the audience along with pictures or footage of what people were saying or wars that were going on. There was an example when he used a montage of pictures and captions linked with music soundbites, which were describing how the U.S backed wars and assasinations on people and countries. It was shown because he wanted people to realise that this could be what influenced those two boys to commit the Columbine shoot out. They were two boiys who grew up knowing violence, simply because of the country and town that they grew up in. In 1989, a CIA agent disobeyed orders from Washingtion. He was from Panama. And so because of what he did, they decided to overthrow him by invading Panama, and this resulted in 3,000 casualties of innocent people. The U.S also trained Osama Bin Laden, who later went on the destroy the Twin Towers, making it one of the most well known terror attacks in the world. They also gave millions of dollars to Saddam Hussain, another terroist who they later hanged for terroist attacks. In 1998, America bombs a factory in Sudan because they believe that they are making explosive weapons. They then later find out, after blowing it up, that it was infact a factory making Aspirin. On April 20th, 1999, America dropped the most amount of bombs in one day than ever before in the kosovo war. And so this leads the audience to think that Americans are obsessed with violence, and so like to make everything seem like a threat so that they can cause destruction.
Just one hour after the largest amounts of bombs dropped by the U.S, the Columbine shooting took place, with guns bought from a local store legally and using bullets from K Mart, which have no restricitons as to who buys those bullets. Just 10 days after this shooting, Charlton Heston held a Pro Gun confederation in Colorado, where the shooting had taken place. So still, even after a massive tradegy like the shooting, Americans were still promoting guns to people, therefore inforcing the fact that they are obsessed with guns and violence, and most probably the reason why the shooting took place.
The narration by Michael Moore is done in a serious tone. There is no laughter or light-heartedness in his voice because he is talking about a real life tragedy that took place. However, in some parts his voice does have some sarcasm in it, to show that even he, a fellow American, thinks that some of the people from his country are gun obsessed and he finds it ludicrous. It mainly is narration throughout the whole documentary, apart from interviews done for a specific reason. One of these interviews was to Charlton Heston himself, to ask why he holds his gun conferences to towns who have just had a serious tragedy happen to them. Aswell as the Columbine shooting, there was a young girl of 6 years old who was killed by her classmate, a 6 year old boy, because he brought a gun to school which he had found at his Uncle's house. Just 3 days after this happened, Charles Heston went to the town and held a Pro Gun Conference to the people of that community. It was Michael Moore's turn to then interview him to ask why he did this. He used very suggestive quesitons throughout the interview, such as 'Then why not do this?' He was suggesting that why doesn't Charlton Heston go to other towns to promote guns, rather than to towns who have recently been seriously affected. He also used many open questions such as 'What would you say...?' This way the interviewee can give an open answer and is made to elaborate on their answer instead of giving a simple yes or no.
Before he goes into his main questions though, Michael Moore uses quite confidence building questions so as to make the person whom he is interviewing feel relaxed and comfortable in the environment in which they are and not feel intimidated in any way. However, he also asks serious questions after making them feel comfortable because he wants to get to the point. When Charlton Heston would not answer his questions properly, he placed a picture of the dead 6 year old girl on his front drive, as to make a stand for the fact that she was shot in the face by a gun, a weapon that Charlton Heston promotes.
He summarises his film by pointing out that the Americans think that people such as Marilyn Manson and violent movies are to blame for all the shootings that happen in America. But Michael points out that other countries listen to Marilyn Manson, other countries watch violent movies, and thier killing rates due to guns are miniscule when they are compared with U.S figures. In the UK, 68 people a year are killed due to guns. In Australia it is 65 and in Japan the number is 39, Japan being the home of violent video games. But in America, the amount of people killed each year by guns is 11,127. A much higher figure than other countries. With that, he ends his documentary after stating real facts and figures to the audience, to leave a lasting impression on them.
the purpose of the interviews and the whole film was to enhance the audiences understanding on the subject of the Columbine shooting and all the other shootings that happen in America, and to explain, possibly, why they happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jGtAcDefHg
An example of an interview that does this is Michael Moore with his documentary film called 'Bowling for Columbine' This is a documentary where the filmmaker Michael Moore looks into why the shooting happened. It could also be classed as investigative news because he investigates into the two shooters and as to why they may have done what they did.
The introduction to Bowling for Columbine was Michael Moore making an account at a bank in America, at which point they give you a free gun, just for signing up for one of their accounts. It starts the film off with people thinking 'Do you think it's a good idea to be handing out guns in a bank?' It gives the audience into the first insight that there is something definately wrong in this town if they hand you over a gun for free. The introduction mainly shows the people of America obsessed with their guns and how they worship the guns and that this is a place where young children grow up, and are constantly seeing guns or hearing about violence in the news involving their own country and so may be influencing them.
Certain towns have certain reputations. In the documentary there was one guy who was put 2nd on a state bomb list just because of the town that he was from and because he owned a book which allowed people to make small bombs. He came from Colorado and this was seen as a state that had a bad reputation for people and their guns. In these towns, Michael Moore interviewed the residents both for and against the guns. One of them was Charles Heston, who lead Pro gun confrences all around America. There were also residents who thought Colorado was a good place to raise their children, even after the Columbine shooting and those who were still scared and affected by that shooting that took place.
Michael Moore didn't really do many interviews, it was mainly him narrating and giving out facts to the audience along with pictures or footage of what people were saying or wars that were going on. There was an example when he used a montage of pictures and captions linked with music soundbites, which were describing how the U.S backed wars and assasinations on people and countries. It was shown because he wanted people to realise that this could be what influenced those two boys to commit the Columbine shoot out. They were two boiys who grew up knowing violence, simply because of the country and town that they grew up in. In 1989, a CIA agent disobeyed orders from Washingtion. He was from Panama. And so because of what he did, they decided to overthrow him by invading Panama, and this resulted in 3,000 casualties of innocent people. The U.S also trained Osama Bin Laden, who later went on the destroy the Twin Towers, making it one of the most well known terror attacks in the world. They also gave millions of dollars to Saddam Hussain, another terroist who they later hanged for terroist attacks. In 1998, America bombs a factory in Sudan because they believe that they are making explosive weapons. They then later find out, after blowing it up, that it was infact a factory making Aspirin. On April 20th, 1999, America dropped the most amount of bombs in one day than ever before in the kosovo war. And so this leads the audience to think that Americans are obsessed with violence, and so like to make everything seem like a threat so that they can cause destruction.
Just one hour after the largest amounts of bombs dropped by the U.S, the Columbine shooting took place, with guns bought from a local store legally and using bullets from K Mart, which have no restricitons as to who buys those bullets. Just 10 days after this shooting, Charlton Heston held a Pro Gun confederation in Colorado, where the shooting had taken place. So still, even after a massive tradegy like the shooting, Americans were still promoting guns to people, therefore inforcing the fact that they are obsessed with guns and violence, and most probably the reason why the shooting took place.
The narration by Michael Moore is done in a serious tone. There is no laughter or light-heartedness in his voice because he is talking about a real life tragedy that took place. However, in some parts his voice does have some sarcasm in it, to show that even he, a fellow American, thinks that some of the people from his country are gun obsessed and he finds it ludicrous. It mainly is narration throughout the whole documentary, apart from interviews done for a specific reason. One of these interviews was to Charlton Heston himself, to ask why he holds his gun conferences to towns who have just had a serious tragedy happen to them. Aswell as the Columbine shooting, there was a young girl of 6 years old who was killed by her classmate, a 6 year old boy, because he brought a gun to school which he had found at his Uncle's house. Just 3 days after this happened, Charles Heston went to the town and held a Pro Gun Conference to the people of that community. It was Michael Moore's turn to then interview him to ask why he did this. He used very suggestive quesitons throughout the interview, such as 'Then why not do this?' He was suggesting that why doesn't Charlton Heston go to other towns to promote guns, rather than to towns who have recently been seriously affected. He also used many open questions such as 'What would you say...?' This way the interviewee can give an open answer and is made to elaborate on their answer instead of giving a simple yes or no.
Before he goes into his main questions though, Michael Moore uses quite confidence building questions so as to make the person whom he is interviewing feel relaxed and comfortable in the environment in which they are and not feel intimidated in any way. However, he also asks serious questions after making them feel comfortable because he wants to get to the point. When Charlton Heston would not answer his questions properly, he placed a picture of the dead 6 year old girl on his front drive, as to make a stand for the fact that she was shot in the face by a gun, a weapon that Charlton Heston promotes.
He summarises his film by pointing out that the Americans think that people such as Marilyn Manson and violent movies are to blame for all the shootings that happen in America. But Michael points out that other countries listen to Marilyn Manson, other countries watch violent movies, and thier killing rates due to guns are miniscule when they are compared with U.S figures. In the UK, 68 people a year are killed due to guns. In Australia it is 65 and in Japan the number is 39, Japan being the home of violent video games. But in America, the amount of people killed each year by guns is 11,127. A much higher figure than other countries. With that, he ends his documentary after stating real facts and figures to the audience, to leave a lasting impression on them.
the purpose of the interviews and the whole film was to enhance the audiences understanding on the subject of the Columbine shooting and all the other shootings that happen in America, and to explain, possibly, why they happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jGtAcDefHg
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)