A Study Of Interviewmichael Parkinson

A Study of Interview

Michael Parkinson interviews Meg Ryan

In order to analyse an interview, it is utmost important, to understand the difference between a speech and an Interview. A speech is usually prepared and rehearsed well in advance, much before the actual date of event and the speaker can also take his liberty to add-in more details according to the responses receive from the audience.
An interview would be more structured activity; wherein interviewer can prepare a series of questions and prepare himself; whereas interviewee would not have any idea about the questions and therefore they would be unprepared and this effect the interview in various ways.

As everybody has got different viewpoints, analysis of an interview can be concluded with lots of different reports, based on the analysers view points, judgements and method of study they have used. Some might find it more criticisable and others find more positively.

This interview took place in the BBC studio on 25th October 2003, between Michael Parkinson, as Interviewer and Meg Ryan, as Interviewee. The studio set design was very minimal with a few numbers of audiences and therefore it helped them to focus on the interview at all times without any distraction. It is vital to use the format simple and standard Language in an Interview and Michael Parkinson used the same.

The interview was expected to reach other audience all over the World through BBC broadcasting and the internet.

After emphasising an old word of Meg Ryan, “You did say that, yes you did say that. Did you-Are you denying you said that?” Michael Parkinson was able to reveal the fact of Meg Ryan, towards her reluctance of being a movie star in her answer to the question “You can be an actor and not a movie star, I am a movie star”.

There were build up of tensions as the interview progressed on, due to its features of speech used. The conversation between both parties was on a very confrontation style with lots of tension and stress. It was not making anybody feel comfortable and not seemed friendly and supportive. Meg Ryan body postures, facial expressions, the fillers, hedges, digression, the minimum responses that she used to avoid further questions and the bluntness of her replies (not audience friendly quality especially during an interview) were the true reflections of her words of feeling awkwardness in front of audience or in the spotlight. Michael appeared very compelling and stubborn as he was not considering the above facts and failed to move on. He continued with his embarrassing questions, which she really does not want to talk about.

The problem with this technique is that confrontation style interview made the conversation not enjoyable and the interviewee appeared stressful throughout the interview. The way Michael Parkinson re-adjust his position further into his seat reflects how embarrassed and humiliated him was.

Approximately 2 minutes of ending she appeared reluctant to continue by answering diplomatically “Just wrap it up” towards Michael Parkinson’s question of “You are very vary of me, you wary of the interview, in other words, if were me, what would you do now”? Michael sensed the horizon now and turned towards Susannah with a question, to finish the Interview.

The interview neither reached the expected standard nor revealed much of the interviewee’s personality. Meg Ryan became hostile and rude due to the features of speech used and this showed her up as both fragile and cold.

Even though Parkinson did a little to ameliorate the clearly tense situation, he could have avoided interrogative questions, pushing her hard for answers, refusing to back down, which obviously made Ryan feel very awkward to develop subsequent conflict between them.

Conclusion

Overall, the interview was more awkward, compelling and painful with lots of tensions. As an Experienced Journalist, the interviewer should have used his all skills to their maximum and more professionally; rather than attacking the interviewee with his eagerness for forceful answers, without the realising the fact that it was damaging further. The interviewer should have adopted a much more comfortable audience friendly style. To achieve this, BBC should have set out a standard proper guidelines and criteria for the interviewers, which would have helped the interviewer to perform more professionally during an interview.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx