SKYLIGHTS EVALUATION

My strengths when doing the children’s drama was that I created the story for the children’s drama alongside Fraser, a group member, so I got to share ideas and work together to create something with another person.   I felt that I was quite organised in the pre-production work, I wrote down what everyone did in the group, and I did a variety of pre-production work from the codes of practice and copyright, to the shot list. I always turned up and was in time for filming sessions, and met up with others who didn’t know where the set location was, to help them get there, so I was reliable to the other group members.  I felt that I my camera skills were good for a first production as they were not too shaky and I had a range of shots, and also for a first time my editing skills weren’t too bad and I picked it up quickly.

My weaknesses were that next time for the thriller I will try to get more of a range of shots such as over-the-shoulder, to make it seem more realistic, and to improve on the steadiness of the camera from my children’s drama. Another weakness of mine is I feel I could have done a bit more editing than I did, just to put in that bit more of an effort. Maybe to do better next time, I should do something bigger on my own, such as writing the script or doing the storyboards.

The main problem we encountered was before we started filming, we had 2 child actors that a group member knew, and they kept mucking us about and not getting back to us. After a few weeks of them not telling us whether they were going to be in it or not, we decided that we would use teenage actors that we knew better, and that were more reliable to act instead of the child actors, which was our solution. This worked out better for us anyway as they were more mature so it was easier getting them to learn their lines and act when we wanted them too, and also we didn’t have as much codes and conventions to follow as we would have with child actors. And they didn’t look too old for the age we said they were going to be.  Another problem we encountered was that we didn’t know where to film our drama, it was going to be set in a house due to our setting choice in our script but we didn’t know where to film. Our solution was that one of our group members was allowed to let us film in their house, and it being the only setting sorted out that problem. However this created the problem of 2 of our group members not knowing where it was and therefore did not know how to get their. The solution of the problem was because I knew where the house was; I met up with the other 2 group members at Fareham College, and walked with them to the house. We then got another major problem which was the house our drama was set in, had a major water leak and the ceiling in the lounge (one of our main setting) collapsed, leaving a massive hole and rubble all over the floor, the main problem with this was this wasn’t a part of our script, so we solved the problem by using the collapsed ceiling as an important part of our script and it worked pretty well.

MATT
COMMUNICATION SKILLS

Interview 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwlsd8RAoqI

This interview was between Jeremy Paxman's and Michael Howard interview about an event that took place in the House of Commons, and some statements and accused threatening to Mr Louis that Michael Howard had apparently said.

The interview started off with Paxman quickly interrogating Howard asking him if the allegations towards him were true, it could be seen as if he was implying that he was a liar. Howard quickly answered stating that none of the allegations came from his campaign and that the journalist that wrote the story hadn’t even spoke to any of his team. The first thing I notice with both men is that they are both well presented with suits on, which is a good start to having a good interview, and that they both speak slowly and clearly for the other person and audience to hear, however they both came across quite moody and tended to frown at one another. Paxman spoke clearly but it came across less formal than Howard, in the way his words came across.

Paxman then goes on to imply again he is lying as he said “clearly they came from somebody sympathetic to you though” with seems as he is saying that Howard is behind the whole thing. Howard denying this and continues to speak in a formal manner. Paxman then goes on to support Howard by saying asking if Howard thinks such stories are cheap and nasty and bring shame on anyone who spreads them. This could also be seen as maybe a hint of making fun of Howard, who immediately replies saying that he doesn’t think they should be “wasting anybody’s time talking about stories like that”. This came across quite rude as he then goes on to say there are far more important things to discuss than that. He soon became very rude and commented on how he started off the interview, saying that he didn’t introduce him by talking about more important things he had recently done. Howard later on butted in the middle of Paxman’s sentence and they moaned by saying he hope the whole interview wasn’t going to be able that topic. This is a bad thing to do in the interview because it’s impolite and makes you come across as a bad person, and he clearly hadn’t prepared himself for the interview and showed that he had a lack of patience. The best thing to do was just to smile and answer the questions even if their out of your comfort zone, politely. Howard however at this point, had continued to speak in the same manner and hadn’t changed his reactions towards Howard.

Paxman then asked if Howard had ever lied in an interview, which could imply that he thinks Howard is lying in his interview that they were undergoing. I think this is inappropriate as it is quite a rude thing to ask in a formal situation and can make things awkward. Howard in his own right replied saying “certainly not” and went on to say he made a full account of the dismissal of Derek Louis to the House of Commons, to prove that he hasn’t lied.

Later on in the interview after Paxman asked if there was anything Howard would change about your statement to the House of Commons and Howard saying no, Paxman reads out a statement from Howard, and then a statement from Louis, Paxman then asked Howard if he was saying Louis was lying, Howard turned around and said no, with a lot to say t back him up, before Howard could even get through the whole sentence, Paxman butted in and said “so you are saying that Mr Louis lied”  The interview quickly went downhill as Paxman reads out again a statement from Louis saying that Howard threatened to overrule him, they both start to speak over each other more frequently and both start to raise their voices, during Howard replying to the statement, Paxman rudely speaks over him many times saying the same thing “did you threaten to overrule him?” This soon got annoying as he wouldn’t stop asking the same question, you couldn’t hear Howard’s reply properly and because Howard only answered with “I did not overrule him” Paxman continued to ask the same question over and over again.

Paxman then changes his posture, by leaning in with his hands by his face, he laughs and says he is going to be rude, his tone of his voices changes to a more light tone and he is in a less formal manner. By this time they are both talking over each other and it’s really hard to understand what is going on as it just sounds like gibberish. Paxman then asks again if he threatened to overrule him, again Howard avoided the direct question, in doing so gave Paxman a grin on his face.  Paxman then gives up and changes subject, which I think was the best thing to do as it would have gotten worse and Paxman probably would have been very informal and started laughing. Again a really long speech from Howard and then Paxman said he would leave it at that. They politely thanked each other and ended the interview on a good note.

This is a bad interview because they both didn’t keep a formal exterior and it was awkward to watch. Good points were that they continued to keep eye contact throughout the interview, and they remained seated without fidgeting. But the conversation would have made the audience fidgeting as it was hard to watch as so much was being said it was hard to keep with it, and Paxman repeating himself 12 times was hard to watch and got annoying, if this interview was in the morning I would have definitely turned it off because it would be to hard to watch.

MATT
COMMUNICATION SKILLS

Interview 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=zG9hZ66TA4E

This interview is between the GMTV presenters and Guy Goma, discussing his interview on the BBC that didn’t go to plan, where he was interviewed as an editor of Newswireless.net, a specialist internet publication, when he really went for a job as an accountant.

The interview starts off with Penny Smith and Andrew castle start off the interview by showing a clip of the BBC interviewing Goma and the look of horror on his face. Penny then explains what happened. The interview you can tell already is light hearted as their all smiling and it is set in a bright room. Richard Arnold, another man in the interview, then compliments Goma and jokes around with him at the same time, you can tell by this that it is an informal interview as their posture is light, for example Arnold is sat with one leg crossed over the other with his elbow resting on the top of the chair, if it was a formal interview they would be sat straight with a more serious expression,  also they all have big smiles on their faces, Penny also begins to ask a question, gets half through and stops to say something else, which wouldn’t happen in a serious interview.

After a few jokes, Penny shows the headline from “The Sun” that said “big bluffer” and again after a few laughs ask politely asked Goma what was going through his head. Goma replied nicely with a smile, and at first it was easy enough to understand what he was saying, but as he went on it was hard to understand him.  They laugh at what he was saying and Penny goes on to ask him if he found it weird that they tried putting make-up on him when he was going for an interview as an accountant. Again Goma politely replies and after a while it was hard to understand what he was saying. Because it was an informal interview they did another flash back showing the look of horror on Goma’s face from his BBC interview while they were talking and making jokes about it. Arnold then goes off topic a bit saying he came to the set in 1997 to talk about the middle-east and said about how Penny “lost her marbles” asked him about Coronation Street. 

Penny then goes back to Goma and immaturely shows Goma’s face from the interview yet again, they had a big laugh about it and asked him when he looks back at that, what he thinks, he replied with a smile saying it was terrifying for him and how it was his first time on television.

Later on Penny then goes on to ask Goma if he saw the time when they interviews a man about the price of beer going up when he was actually there for a different issue. So again another slightly going off topic.  And they then go on to say how Goma needed an agent because every time that clip is shown he will get money for it, and again they made a joke about that. Penny then ends the interview by asking Goma if he enjoyed the experience and if he’s been asked for his autograph, Goma then gives his autograph to the GMTV team and they thank him with a few laughs and there are some claps in the background. 

I thought this was a good interview because all questions were relevant and they weren’t statements or anything to make anyone feel uncomfortable. They were smiling and joking throughout the interview and I thought that it eased the tension but didn’t offend anyone. It didn’t really seem like an interview as they were all so relaxed, they were lounging about, the studio had cups of coffee/tea on the table with newspapers and it just didn’t seem formal.

Goma wasn’t a very good interviewee because his accent made it harder to understand him, he should have spoke slower and clearer so you can understand what he was saying. However he had a good posture and smiled throughout.  Because this interview was easy going, it was easy to watch and there for if it was set in the morning I would be able to watch is, as it wasn’t and awkward interview.

MATT
COMMUNICATION SKILLS

Interview 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blpq-Iwu25s

This interview is between Michael Parkinson and Meg Ryan, and they are discussing Meg Ryan’s career.

The interview involved Parkinson and Ryan, along with two other people sat next to Ryan. Parkinson states “You said once that acting wasn’t in your nature” and she replies with “I did?” and Parkinson insists that she said that, and asking if she is denying that she said it. While he is doing so Ryan starts playing with her hair and shifting slightly, showing she was uncomfortable. This isn’t good when interviewing as it shows you are under confident. She replies calmly to his inquiry and says how it doesn’t come naturally to her but she does it. Parkinson then goes on interrogating her again; his posture is leaning forward towards Meg. Meg responds well throughout as she smiles as she answered the questions.

 I would say this wasn’t a well structured interview from both sides due to the fact that Michael Parkinson implied statements throughout the interview, rather than asking Meg Ryan questions about her and what she thinks about acting, and her past. From the start he implied that she said that acting wasn’t in her nature and was more interrogating her than asking her questions, making the interview awkward. This is a major don’t as in a interview an important part of it is to be polite and focus more on the positives than the negatives and Parkinson did the opposite. So with that I think how Meg reacted was well, she stayed rather confident throughout.

They went on saying how she was a movie star by choice, and Ryan replied with “seemingly” and Parkinson said how she had a problem that wasn’t going to be resolved on this show. There was laughing from both and the audience but yet it seemed awkward and I didn’t really find it funny. They then went to go on talking about her past about how she wanted to be a journalist. She said how she didn’t finish, and Parkinson asked why she decided to be an actress. Meg replied with saying how she did commercials to pay for university and acting took over. Parkinson asked what kind of journalist she thought she would be, Ryan laughed, which I think is a bit inappropriate as it wasn’t a funny question and maybe it was nervous laughter. She replied saying maybe for a magazine on food or something. Parkinson then asked now that she is wary of journalists does it give her an insight as to what their after, she question this and then Parkinson was very blunt by saying “yes you are wary of journalists, you’re wary of me, you’re wary of the interview you don’t like being interviewed you can see it in the way you sit and the way you are” which is quite rude and unnecessarily, he then said if you were me what would you do now, and Ryan replied with “just wrap it up” People may think that that was rude but I think it was fair enough as he was making her feel uncomfortable, whenever she replied to a question he interrogated her a bit more.

Ryan’s only fault was being rude to other members of the interview at the end when another lady commented on her shoes. Ryan was blunt and ended the interview on a low.  The interview suffered because both Parkinson and Ryan both came across as they didn’t want to talk to each other, Ryan in particulars body language showed she didn’t want to be there as the show went on and she clearly had had enough by the end when saying “wrap it up”

If this interview was set in the morning I would probably turn it off as it wasn’t very light hearted and was awkward to watch in the way Parkinson really directed quick questions to her and laughed at her a bit. It wasn’t like other interview such as on GMTV where everyone is sat around and their all discussing a topic, making jokes and giving you something easy to watch, this would be something I would watch as a last resort.