Interviews In Class

What Went Well? 

. Following up on questions, after the interviewee answered them to get there full opinion/knowledge across so the interview overall would be more open and full of things to have a full discussion about.
. Showing that both parties were relaxed and I feel the way I was asking the question and my body language showed my interviewee that it was a nice relaxing environment so the questions/answers were easily followed from both sides this is something I will be putting/using in my documentary and interviews.

What Could I Improve? 

. The angle of the interview is something that can be improved and will be improved when I do my interviews in my documentary it will either be an interview in which will be moving around because I maybe talking to people who are handling dogs at the time or if its sitting down both of us will be facing the camera/each other at a sort of angle so we can not just get the dialogue in the interview but facially expression and body language as it is just as important.

. Improving on some questions get so more together, while also getting some more facts together for the serious interviews I will be doing so I don't muck up on any information or facts when I'm trying to get a point across to get an answer or even just an opinion.

Life On Death Row - Documentary Analysis

One of the documentary's I have chosen to analysis is a BBC Three documentary called Life On Death Row in this documentary they focus on two people who are in death row leading up to there final days and also interview both them and the victims of there crimes getting both sides, this documentary is very different any I have seen before for example there are no one leading the documentary no voice over no interviewer just the odd words to say what day it is they do most of the description of the documentary through the victims and the criminals explain what had happen and also through the victims going back to the scene of the crimes and explaining what happen and also flash of pictures of the victims.  

Even thou the victims get emotional the camera does stay on them and does a weird effect of showing all the victims and then the two different criminals no words are needed as I feel it sums up the documentary as forgiveness and regret.

These are the the victims daughters 

This is the guy who killed there dad who was a off duty police officer

And this is the criminals Dad, it shows both sides on how it can effect both families

They show the victims daughters, the wife and then the person who committed the crime and then his family members all while a preacher is praying for him and his family, this documentary does a good job at not just showing one side of the argument and saying yes this man should die but showing the effects of his family and the victims family and gives the audience a winder view on the death penalty in America and how strong they are with putting people on it. The one question they is asked which I think is something that doesn't just stick with the victims but also the audience is if they agree with the person being killed, do they agree with the death penalty and the two daughters say guilt is there for someone dieing but they do want justice for there father so leads the audience to question is the death penalty right or is the death penalty right for everyone?  

The documentary itself is so different mainly because of it's grittiness and how it doesn't try to hide the facts it gets right into the true effects of murder and the death penalty in America, which i personally feel is a real issue that people face in America as a lot of people are against it while on the other hand just as many people are for it. The way it really tries to get this through to the audience is like I said showing both sides of it and not holding back on any details or images. They also focus on how both of the crinmals focus on god and how they really feel about being in here and knowing that they will die in the next couple of days, that there's no second chance that this is it while get there full opinion/feelings on it they ask the same thing to the victims and the families even thou most documentary's wouldn't either be able to ask that or just plain wouldn't as i said previous this documentary does not hold back on anything and let's you sort of feel how everyone effected from what has happen feels and really pulls at the audience heart strings. 

   

American reporter James Kirchick hijacks an interview on Russia Today Interview 3

In this interview a homosexual interviewee changes the subject completely while talking to Russia Today to aim the interview at the way homosexual people are treated in Russia and the laws that are supported behind it and his outrage and opinion on it in general and talks over the interviewee's a number of times when they try to silence him and get him back on to the subject at hand.

The interviewee starts by directing a previous question she had asked to a previous interviewee, right away the interview starts with a quote "As this person once said etc" then begins to let it be known what he is here to talk about by showing what he is wearing and speaking his opinion right off the bat of the interview. The interviewer then quickly responds by saying "Yes, we will talk about that later" but the interviewee does not stop his point and continues talking and then the interviewer tries for a second time to get back on to the subject and asks what about this? to the interviewee. Then the interviewee makes it plain and simple on what he is here to talk about and there is no other reason why he is here, he continues it by sending a message too all homosexual Russians and shows how strongly he feels about the treatment.

The interviewer doesn't really know what to say and just says "Oh I see" and then tries to move on to another interviewee about the subject at hand, but then again the interviewees emotions take over and he voices his opinion about the treatment and asking how they get to sleep at night being an interviewer who see's this all and doesn't do anything about it and just hides it, then she laughs and says he has to come over and see for yourself and laughs again while he is asking how she sleeps at night but she also stumbles on her words not knowing what to say you can see she is trying to get ride of him and doesn't what his opinion on that subject in the interview. Once again the interviewer tries to move him on again but still has a small laugh and reminds him at the subject at hand even thou what he is talking about upsets him a lot she still laughs this isn't a good example of an interviewer she has no consideration on his feelings and doesn't even try to calm him down just shows she doesn't want to talk about his opinion and doesn't care.

Then one of the other interviewers jump in and he starts to say that it's Jame's right to voice his opinion so making him feel like he is aloud to voice his opinion but then goes on by saying are you ready to move on to the panel we have set up to talk about the subject at hand, give him a choice to move on instead of letting him talk and talk is a good sign on a good interviewer unlike the lady who just shown zero intrest in what the interviewee was saying which is the wrong way to approach someone with the emotions that was backing his point. Even then the interviewee shows evidence that the subject they have been talking about is something they have been talking about for over twenty four hours and while the subject he wants to talk about is not in sight. Then the male interviewer bounces back with evidence that they did have a talk in a panel about the laws and the subject that James feels so passional about and he says he an go and look for it on Youtube and he ergues him to do so which is a good way on trying to show that they do care about his opinion but they have already had time to talk about it and they are talking about something different at this point in time while being polite and trying to get back on topic. While the interviewee has one last thing to say the female interviewer shows she has had enough and moves on by ignoring him and talking to someone else and cutting him off completely this is a bad way to do an interview and she is very unprofessional while the male interviewer tries to calm down the siations by also making the interviewee feel like his opinion is needed but not about the subject he wants to talk about and gives him references on when it was needed.

Different Ways (Interview Skills) to deal with different situations

Difficult or Challenging Interviewee 
If you have a interviewee that is being either difficult or challenging about the interview/questions asked/topic in general there are a number of ways to deal with it;

Firstly don't let them take control of the interview at all time you must be in control of your interview if the interviewee starts to try take control by asking you question answer them but then remind them of the interview at hand and start to ask them double of amount of questions back to let them know whose interview it is. Then if they start to be difficult with the question your asking and either trying to change the subject or refuses to answer do either one of two things ask them why they don't want to answer or restructure the question and ask it again so you are able to overall gain the answer you have set out to get.

Secondly and lastly if they are being difficult or challenging to the point the interview looks like its beginning to get heated keep calm and explore why things are getting heated by finding out why they don't want to talk about that subject, if it starts to continue getting heated move on but always come back with a smiler question to fit too the subject matter.

Emotional Interviewee 
If your interviewee begins to get emotional from the interview/subject matter/questions asked then while refraysing your question start to comfort them by offering a tissue use less body language and start to talk in a different tone of voice to start to show your not here to upset (changing the tone in your voice can show you care and your not in a big rush to get the answers) while doing this asking a question in a more gently way to make them feel comfortable, also saying things like "In your own time....no rush" while make them feel more comfortable and more willing to answer the questions.  

Interviewee Reluctant to Talk 
Finally if your interviewee is reluctant to talk depending on the subject matter you either ask them why they are reluctant to talk about the subject that you have put forward or if they are too upset and are reluctant because of that you start to try relate to them, make them feel comfortable in the interview by letting them feel they don't have to answer the question if they don't want too while restructing the question and trying to get the answer out of them while making them feel comfortable at the same time by using suggestive questions like "Well if you don't feel like answering that question how do you feel about this one?" and explaining yourself why your asking the questions at hand and use a lot of evidence to back up points and questions.

Jonah Hill Interview With Empire (The Wolf Of Wall Street)

This interview is between Phil de Semlyen of Empire Magazine and Jonah Hill talking about his latest  film "The Wolf Of Wall Street" among other things in his previous roles, the interview and Jonah Hill have a laugh and use a lot of comedy between them two by joking around and not taking a topic into a serious areas expect right at the end when they talk a small portion on drugs in the film and how he got into that frame of mind as Jonah Hill's character Donnie Azoff is addicted to a number of different drugs.


The interviewer mainly surrounds the interview around the movie 'The Wolf of Wall Street" but also when he turns into joking around with Jonah by mentioning a prop in the film and then goes on to ask about what other things (props) Jonah Hill keeps, he then does stay on the subject of the film by making him feel comfortable by giving him a number of compliments about Jonah Hill's acting in the film and asks him how he felt working along side the people mainly focusing around Leonardo DiCaprio and a number of crazy scenes they both do together. This is a good way the interviewer is mainly surrounding on how good the film is and what is in the film while joking around and making Jonah Hill feel comfortable so he shares as much as possible so the target audience get's to know a bit behind the scenes and about the film that might get them to either read/watch more Empire interviews and to also see the film.

While the interview is very jokey like the film itself the interviewer knows that there are serious things in this film and spends the last part of the interview to shortly explore with Jonah them asking about how he acted being a crazy drug addict who works in Wall Street and how he was able to show he was under all those drugs and they talk a bit about Jonah seeing a drug councillor to talk about the serious effects of the drugs and how his character would be acting while under these drugs and even thou these scenes are very funny one of the funniest moments of the film even the interviewer says this, he explores and mentions that it is a very serious topic.

You can see throughout the interview the interviewer keeps Jonah Hill very happy by keeping either a smile on his face or keep him laughing, this I feel is a good interview technique and works in this certain subject as the film is very jokey and crazy, while if the interviewer was interviewing him or someone else for another subject that is more serious you would want them to feel happy and comfortable but you wouldn't be making jokes and trying to make them laugh as it would not work as it wouldn't be considerate to the subject matter at hand while this interview is done perfectly by the interviewer having lots of humour with his interviewee but also mentioning that there is a serious topic and this is it and how did you do it which I feel is a great way of controlling a interview like this.  

Quentin Tarantino: 'I'm shutting your butt down!' Analysis

In this interview channel four news teams Krishnan Guru-Murthy interviews Quentin Tarantino about his new film Django Unchained while in the interview things get heated as Tarantino refuses to discuss any link between movie violence and real life violence. Tarantino see's this interview as him selling hi movie and nothing else while Krishnan see's it as a chance to get some of the directors opinions on the film and his previous films and bring up one of the key features to his films which is violence which is everywhere in the news at the time and also the theme of racesum in the film and the bad press it has got while Tarantino does not want to talk about any of this.

Krishnan jumps straight into the interview by first congratulating Tarantino then starts to jump into the questions about the subject matter of the film he doesn't bother wasting time in anything else, he does this for a number of reasons; firstly it is a news show and one that is a serious news show talking about serious issues, Secondaly the subject matter is one that is very taboo but also has been brought up in the news at the time and so instead of leading up too it getting straight in is/was a great approach from Krishnan and Lastly before they even go on to the interviews in channel four news they let people know throughout the news show what they are going to be talking about and who they will be talking too so that in its own sense is an introduction.

The interviewer (Krishnan) starts of by congregating Tarantino on the film then carry's on with a number of open questions about the films subject while waiting for Tarantino to answer the question but while asking other questions Tarantino jumps right in to answer the question before the interviewer finishes in which the interviewer takes a quick step back to let Tarantino answer, while in the interview Krishnan he asks if Tarantino is happy or not happy about some of the bad reactions towards the film referencing a director who had a lot to say about the film subject (Spike Lee) in which brought a lot of free publicity to the film over the subject of slavery.

While the interviewer tries to agree with Tarantino in a way of saying "Well yes it good publicity" but Tarantino right away cuts him off by saying no and exampling what he thinks it is in which Krishnan again takes a step back so Tarantino can have his say on the topic at hand. While then Krishnan shows he is doing his research in the films he has made but also the bad press this film is getting, for the very taboo subject of slavery by saying "But you must care very deeply that this film stands out from your body of of work that its not trashed by more people" in which this is true and there is evidence all over the internet Tarantino again is very fast to jump right in there head first by saying he isn't correct while Krishnan is saying it isn't but is he worried with the subject matter and the reaction that people have had is he worried. While again Tarantino does not back down with his point and interrupts Krishnan once again, in which once again his skills as a interviewer knows to back down so Tarantino can get his point across.

Then knowing to move away from the subject of slavery and the film for a bit Krishnan then asks the question related to Tarantino's movie which is violence and asks why does Tarantino think his audience loves watching his violent films and why does Tarantino love making violence movies. While Tarantino answers it like its a closed question so Krishnan responds fast in which to keep Tarantino on the subject at hand so he can get the information out of him. In doing show Tarantino starts to explain the violence in Django Unchained but not violence in his movies altogether which was the original question. In which Krishnan lists the violence that happen during the slavery times in which again Tarantino shuts him down again. Kirshnan then uses the topic of violence again to swing round to asking about people who aren't violent or twisted people liking going into a cinema to watch violent films he uses his skill as an interviewer to get back on the topic of violence in films in generally, to get Tarantino's opinion on it from this point this is were the interview gets heated by refusing his question by moving right on to quotes from actors who star in Django Unchained then once again Tarantino shuts him down and doesn't want to answer that either while Tarantino then says that he is only here to sell his movie and not to do these questions he doesn't want to do. While Kirshnan ask's why he doesn't want to talk about a serious topic and Tarantino responds by saying he doesn't want to talk about what Kirshnan wants to talk about. He then lets Tarantino continues by saying that he has talked about it twenty years ago and doesn't want to do what Kirshnan want's to talk about in which Kirshnan tries to find out why. Kirshnan then tries to explain his self and what his interview is trying to do and this is why he is there but again Tarantino is having none of it.

Kirshana deals with Tarantino very well by trying to end the interview as soon as it gets heated instead of having a guest that is unhappy he does so but in my opinion you can still feel Tarantino isn't happy by the end of the interview as the purpose in Tarantino's mind for this interview was to sell his movie (Django Unchained) and that is it. Even when Kirshana does mention the press it has had Tarantino still doesn't want to believe this as he says his film is the reasons why people are debating and talking about slavery and he is proud of it and not that it's getting any bad press, after it got heated Kirshana does even say that he enjoys Tarantino's movies and it's not his opinion he is voicing just the opinions of other people throughout American and even around some of the world one of them being "Spike Lee" in which Kirshana should have brought that up as evidence to back the point that not everyone is happy about Tarantino's steps in a taboo subject. Kirshana does deal with this in a number of different ways by asking open questions so Tarantino can openly voice his opinion in which he does even with closed questions throughout he interview but also bringing some suggestive questions towards Tarantino which he says he encourages but doesn't show it through he answers and body language.

Throughout the interview both Kirshana and Tarantino have a lot of body language going on in which to both get there point across Tarantino uses a lot more body language in the interview then Kirshana and I feel the body language added to when the interview got heated and really showed the true feelings from both the Kirshana and more so Tarantino.

I feel Kirshana uses a number of techniques to make Tarantino happy and relaxed while talking about two difficult subjects one more so then the other but even with his techniques with an interviewee like Tarantino it is very hard for Kirshana to keep Tarantino happy and get the information out of it which he does as much as he can while keeping things controlled and then ends it as soon as he thinks he has got enough information.

  

Super Size Me Review

In the documentary “Super Size Me, ” independent filmmaker Morgan Spurlock documents himself each day for a month. During that month, he consumes nothing but McDonalds’ food. For breakfast, lunch and dinner he orders off the menu of the fast food restaurant, making sure that he tries every last thing on the menu before the end of the month. He would super size his meal only when asked, which was pretty often. He also makes sure to not exercise any more than the average sedentary individual. He limits himself to engaging in only light physical activity, walking sporadically throughout the day. Thus, he is consuming over 5,000 calories a day and he is working off very little of it. By the end of the month, he gained an average of a pound a day. The large amounts of fat and sugar intake created irregular heart palpitations and resulted in a decrease in his sex drive. Throughout the movie, we see him visit his doctor, who repeatedly warns him that he must quit this month long experiment if he wants to avoid any long term and serious residual health consequences. Spurlock, however, perseveres and lasts the entire month. It takes him over a year to get back into his original shape. And he never stepped foot in a McDonalds again.

At the beginning of the movie, Spurlock cites the court case Pelman v. McDonald's Corporation, where two teenage girls sued the McDonalds corporation for making them fat. Although the girls did not win the case, Spurlock states that he believes this can be one of the first steps towards ending the rising obesity epidemic that is growing in the country. Since the year 2000, the largest growing obese population is that of adolescents. Spurlock’s goal is to bring a stop to this epidemic and to teach America the harmful effects of fast food like McDonalds. With that being said, is Spurlock blaming corporations like McDonalds for the rising epidemic? What does he wish to accomplish? Does he want to end the success of these fast food chains? Or does he want to teach people how to make healthy choices? There is a clear difference here. When watching the movie, I see McDonalds being cast as the evil victor. Spurlock goes on about the growing portions and the new innovative and fattening choices that they add to their menu. He highlights the number of times that the server asks him if he would like to super size his meal. Spurlock seems to believe in the validity of the court case made against McDonalds. It seems as though his goal is to bring down the corporation.


But in doing so, however, I believe that he is ignoring the real problem. How can McDonalds be at fault for the rising epidemic in this country? Are they forcing us to eat their food? By placing McDonalds as his target, is he really going to end the rise of obesity in this country? Who is to say that we are not going to go eat more pie instead of cheeseburgers? Bringing down one corporation will not stop people from making bad choices.

The first time that I watched this movie was in my health class in high school. I remember watching it in the gym and hearing all of the girls groan in disgust. Spurlock would show himself stuffing his face with food, grease and cheese dripping down his chin. Every girl in that class swore that she would never eat at McDonalds again. But did that solve the problem? Yes, Spurlock does demonstrate how the high amounts of saturated fats and cholesterol in McDonalds’ food has a drastic and negative effect on his health. However, he does not clearly distinguish these effects as a separate problem from McDonalds specifically. Spurlock spends the bulk of the documentary placing a dark shadow over the fast food corporation. He leaves his audience running away from the golden arch and toward, well toward anything else that looks appetizing. McDonalds may be bad, but what is wrong with that pumpkin pie?

Spurlock suggests that he is mimicking those people who are addicted to fast food. He states that he is hoping to raise the warning flag for those people who walk in and out of the fast food revolving door. Yet, studies show that even the greatest fast food attics limit themselves to fast food only about 4 times a week. There are very few people who eat McDonalds everyday, let alone for every meal of the day. Thus, it could be seen that his attempts are too unrealistic. Ninety-eight percent of his audience could cast off his antics as being too extreme. The problems that he faces are not applicable because his habits are not the same. Still, did Spurlock put a stop to the evil empire? Did he successfully get those fast food attics to step away and take a bite of an apple for once?

Well, Spurlock did start the wave of a new change in fast food. Since he created this movie in 2004, the super size option has faded away. All fast food restaurants, including McDonalds, have started to include healthier options in their menus. There are now things like apples, orange juice, water, and yogurt being offered. McDonalds has started to create a healthier vision and they are still a successful and growing corporation. They have taken the advice of Spurlock and offered their customers a variety of options: both healthy and otherwise.



Despite the changes that have been made however, people go to McDonalds to get greasy hamburgers and fries. While, yes, an apple or two may sliver down the occasional throat, McDonalds is not in business because of its healthy options. It is the go to place for that yummy and greasy comfort food. No matter how many options they have, people still want the fries.



Furthermore, despite the changes that have been made, there have been no signs of improvement in the obesity epidemic. Childhood diabetes has been growing as obesity has been spreading. Despite the occasional apple being offered, there have been no clear signs of keeping that doctor away. 



Thus, the success of Spurlocks’ documentary lies in his intent. It cannot be said that he failed, because his movie did create a spiral effect of changes. He did help bring down, or at least modify, the giant corporation he was after. He poked a hole in the evil empire and forced them to swat at the tiny little fly of “Super Size Me.” If Spurlocks intended audience was the McDonalds corporation, then he was a success in relative terms. 



In a final analysis of the documentary, I think that Spurlock did a fantastic job of disgusting his audience. By providing close-ups of his throwing up and forcing his audience to see crumbles of chewed up slime fall across his face, he successfully fought against the appeal of fast food. However, his focus was too immediate. The frequent doctor visits and the tracking of his weight gain provided the audience with the sense of what the food was doing to his body, but he was too focused on the disgusting factor of fast food. His priorities and plan of attack did not seem clear. Spurlock failed to take his documentary into the broader context of reality. He failed to fully demonstrate how his agenda related to his audience as a whole. He became isolated within his documentary, leaving the facts of life somewhere in between his movie and the audience. 


For this activity, students will watch and analyze a documentary of their choice. When watching the documentary, they must provide an introductory paragraph that explains the goals and intended audience of the documentary. They must then outline the key arguments that the documentary makes in supporting their claim.



After this is done, the students will go one by one and contradict each argument. They must flip the coin and support the other side. The students do not need to have a central focus or counterclaim as a whole; instead they are to be looking at many different viewpoints that are left out by the documentary. They are to focus on each single argument and provide a discussion for what sides are left out and how these ideas could be looked at from a different angle. Thus for each argument that the documentary makes, the student is to take on a different perspective. This different perspective may vary from argument to argument.