Analysing Telephone Techniques

Phone interview: Chérif Kouachi claims Paris terror plot financed by al-Qaeda

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11337155/Phone-interview-Cherif-Kouachi-claims-terror-plot-financed-by-al-Qaeda.html

Chérif Kouachi, one of the two brothers who killed 12 in a massacre at French magazine Charlie Hebdo this week tells TV news channel BFM-TV he received financing by al-Qaeda preacher Anwar al Awlaki in Yemen

The importance of this particular interview is to get coverage on the recent incident (killing of 12 people), trying to understand the terrorist's reason behind the killings. The role it plays is to show everyone that these people who have killed have done it for what they believe is a good reason, that they have killed to avenge their prophet as they believed these people did no good. This interview's content is also important, as we find out about the terrorists more - why and who they kill, who they don't and for what reason. Another role this interview plays is to feed information to the audience who read and watch this magazine online, as they are given an insight to the goings on. This interview unlike many, is very controversial and rare, due to the fact the subject is about the interviewee killing twelve people along with his brother. For this reason we can see that the importance is to understand their side, as we're usually not able to have this sort of information from the actual source of the crime, it is usually fed through an array of media platforms, through journalists then onto either newspapers or television. This interview is also very important in the way that it presents the terrorists, such as developing understanding and for the interview to go into more detail about the incident so the public know as much information about it as possible. I feel that the terrorist's use of their religion and culture, using it as the reason for their killing spree is a form of emotional manipulation as I feel some of the public who share these cultural views/religious views as the terrorists may see the reasoning. On the other hand, this could cause a lot of trouble as the people who are not supportive of these beliefs may see their religion in a different light/negative light, which I feel would cause a lot of complications for many people of the same religion. 

Throughout the interview, both open and closed questions have been used. In the instances where the conversation seemingly pauses after the terrorist has talked, the interviewer asks a question which develops the conversations so he is able to get as much information from him as possible. In many ways, this interview is more like a conversation than an array of questions, as the interviewer makes statements rather than asking questions as the interviewee pretty much gives him all the information he needs and is very detailed in his answers. When it comes to closed questions, they are used in instances such as when the interviewer asks the terrorist whether he had killed anyone that morning, where the terrorist plainly answers killed who? which differs from a open answered question because if it was an open question, the terrorist would have gone into a lot more detail like we had seen from the rest of the interview and the interviewer would have asked a longer question which may have two questions within it. Suggestive questions have also been a theme throughout this interview, in instances such as when the interviewer mentions that he had killed 12 people, which suggests to the interviewee that everyone thinks he is going to do it again/suggests that is what is going to happen.

This interview isn't a conventional structure, as no confidence building is evident between the interviewee and interviewer. It comes across as 'strictly business' or that neither party is happy with each other and they are simply doing their job - for the interviewee, it is getting his point across, why when and how he killed the 12 people in the terrorist attack. For the interviewer, it is important in this instance to get as much information from this person without building rapport between them, as the nature of the interviewer isn't usual for an interview and is very rare, but he remains calm and collective. To summarize this interview, I feel its main purpose is to help either party. The interviewee needs to deliver information and the interviewer needs to collect and disperse this information to the public as correctly as possible, so by doing a phone interview a). the interviewer is safe b.) he is able to refer to the information correctly that the interviewee has said and c). it can become knowledgeable to the public of the reason behind the actions of the terrorist. 

The communication between the interviewer and interviewee is pretty basic as neither of them builds an emotional relationship between one another. This is based on the fact that the subject of this interview is a touchy subject and isn't something that either party feels as though they have to get to know each other about and I don't feel they would want to either. There is no sign of the interviewer even trying to build rapport with the interviewee, which I feel is to do with the fact he has been personally effected/upset by the actions of the terrorist and his ignorance to what he has done, which is understandable when looking at what they are talking about in the first place. The interviewer talks to the interviewee as if he doesn't understand him, which quite a questioning tone which I feel would make the interviewee feel angry/stupid and make him feel uncomfortable talking further about what he had done. The interviewee is able to listen well and lets the interviewee speak quite a lot which is important as the purpose of the interview is to extract information about the terrorist attack and occasionally with the interviewer trying to push the interviewee into saying more about the incident by questioning him after each question.  

Krishnan Guru- Murthy/Richard Ayoade Interview - Techniques

What interview techniques did the interviewer use, considering communication skills and question types?

Krishnan used informal and formal language, as if he was talking to an everyday person (casual language as well). He was quite intrusive when it came to questions, as he could see Richard Ayoade was getting annoyed with the interview situation. The communication between Richard and Krishnan was difficultly achieved, as Krishnan found it hard to get any answers out of Richard, due to his lack of interest in the interview. Krishnan sounded a little bit agitated as he was not getting any information out of Richard, often ending with him repeating himself.

Was the interviewer successful in extracting information from the interviewee, if so how was this achieved?

No, because at the end of the interview there was still no information from Richard collected, which defies the purpose of an interview. Although in this case I don't feel this was the interviewer's problem, more the interviewee, as he was reluctant to answer any questions, which is confusing as
the interview was basically banter between two men.

What was done by the interviewer to incorporate structure into the interview? 

Krishnan began by introducing Richard Ayoade, but from then on there was not an apparent structure, as Richard was reluctant to answer any of the answers asked by Krishnan, so there was no structure, just conversation between both parties.

What would you have done differently to make the interview successful?

I would have firstly talked to the interviewee before hand so I knew where I stood with the interview, so I could make my interviewee feel more comfortable. I would also let Richard finish what he was saying throughout the interview as he felt as though he had to talk over Krishnan because he wasn't being heard.

List general and specific interview skills needed to conduct a successful interview in different situations 

With a difficult interviewee, I feel that if the interviewer was to keep calm and collective, it would make the situation easier, as the interviewer would not show themselves up or act unprofessional.

For an emotional interviewee, the interviewer would need to act with empathy and have sensitivity toward the subject as they can see that it is effecting who they are interviewing. As well as this,
comforting the interviewee without patronising them is important, as they want to feel as though they can talk and still feel comfortable with the interviewer despite their emotional state.

With a interviewee reluctant to talk, I feel it would be important for the interviewer to carry on with the actions they are taking to get information from the interviewee, as well as sustaining a professional interview.

Evaluation of ADR: Sound Production - TASK 10

Similar to our previous unit within sound production, we were asked to create two more ADRs of our choice from moving image, either television or film. From this I decided to take on two familiar pieces of entertainment. The first was a scene from the 2004 film Mean Girls, which showed four friends having a split screen conversation on the phone in which they were putting each other on hold to gossip about the friend on the other line. I felt this scene had a diverse array of elements to recreate throughout, such as sound effects (beeping of phones being used throughout conversation), music in the background and most importantly, spoken word – dialogue. The other ADR I created was from the new television show Gotham, which again had the content I needed to recreate in order to meet the criteria for this unit such as sound effects (ambiance, clattering of tables/chairs in background), music to create mood/atmosphere and again spoken word dialogue. This scene focused on the death of one of the main characters in the show, Oswald Cobblepot, who the Detectives Montoya and Alan were questioning Fish Mooney about.

The first thing I did was try and find the scripts for the two scenes I was creating ADR for. When looking I couldn't find the script for Gotham, so instead I listened and transcribed the dialogue onto word and printed out 3 copies so each of the voice actors had the words in-front of them, which I felt was important to do considering the dialogue was quite in-depth and confusing in parts. For Mean Girls, it was a little more straightforward as the script was available to print online, which again helped within the recording process as we had the dialogue in front of us. It also helped each members of the cast learn the lines more rather than just watching the clip to learn them. After this, I began to record Gotham and Mean Girls. The Mean Girls recording took quite a lot longer than the Gotham one, as Gotham took 15 minutes and Mean Girls took an hour. I feel this was due to the content, as there were a lot of different parts to record and in some cases we had to re-record because the lines were messed up. Once this was done, I set up Garage Band and imported the videos so I could start creating my ADRs.

I began to manipulate the dialogue that I had recorded with my cast within Garage Band. The cast consisted of Theresa and Wallice (who voiced Detective Montoya and Alan) and me, who voiced Fish Mooney. The character which I did the dialogue for had a very smouldering voice, almost seductive and a bit evil. I wanted this to come across with my role, which I feel even though having a massively different voice to the character, I pulled off quite well. Theresa and Wallice also did very well at being Detectives Montoya and Alan, although their parts were easier (as their voices were as every day folk, not much acting involved or emphasis on words) but never the less they did very well. In some instances, the words were spoken to fast or too slow - which was a huge issue, as I wanted the recordings to sync exactly to the video. Similar to the dialogue in Gotham, me and my cast (Me as Regina George, Theresa as Karen, Noran as Gretchen and Cloud as Cady) had to vocally act and put a lot of emphasis into the spoken word side of things, which I felt was quite difficult as the characters were speaking in quite an unusual pace and got confusing throughout the recording.

To create the illusion of the ADRs being the original dialogue for both scenes, I began to move the sound clips around, snipping them in certain places (such as unwanted distortion of sound bites heard at the start and beginning of the clips) by holding cmd, T and then selecting the place I wanted to cut, then removing the unwanted sound. This helped my project's quality, as there were no sound bites that would look unfit for the scene and again created the illusion that this was the original sound recording. Another thing I did which I feel improved the quality of the finished production was the technique I used to sync the sound with the video. As the original video had sound along with it, I had the option whether to listen to it or not (by clicking small speaker icon, I could turn mute on & off on this track). Although I did not keep the original sound within it, I occasionally kept the track off mute, as by doing this, the track was able to show me the levels of sound and where they were at their climax. This helped me as I was able to move the new sound I had recorded in the exact place, replicating the levels (clicking and dragging back & forth) so they matched the original but in a new track beneath it. I feel this technique helped me a lot, as it was hard for me to sync the dialogue perfectly but this gave me the upper-hand as I could visually see the sound rather than just hearing the audio along with the mouthing of the words. 

I then began to find room ambiance sound FX for the Gotham scene. I decided not to use ambiance within the Mean Girls scene, as it was quite basic layer wise and I did not feel the need to add in any ambiance FX or atmospheric sounds, as in the original I can only hear three sound elements such as; FX of the phone buttons, music and spoken word. I feel if I were to add ambiance within the Mean Girls ADR, it would have been pointless and would not be heard when listening to it back, as the background music and dialogue would have overpowered it more than say the Gotham one, as the sound level of the ambiance was higher in the Gotham scene. In the original sound for Gotham, in the background we hear distant clattering and talking, in which I felt was important to keep within my version as it creates special awareness for the audience and creates the scene through sound as well as picture. On YouTube, I sourced a sound effect, which was not copyrighted and was free to use without concern. This sound effect mimicked that of the original, and felt that this combined with the other layers of sound would create a convincing scene. As this was the base of my project on Garage Band, I began to build upon it, as then I knew what direction I wanted to go with my ADR. 

When editing my Mean Girls ADR, as the scene did not audibly have any signs of ambiance or atmosphere, I decided to concentrate more on the music in the background, which would add a reflective mood onto the scene. To do this, I used Google to find songs which were released the same time of the movie (as I felt this would have a relevant connection to the scene in this case) and found a song by the Ting Ting’s called That’s Not My Name. I used this song due to the upbeat tones used within it, which I felt would work well with the contents of dialogue. I used an instrumental version of this song, so the sound of the scene was not overpowering along with the other layers I was to add in later. The impact this had within the scene was that rather than having only the dialogue, we had depth within the ADR and it sounded more natural that if it hadn't been used. Looking at the original Gotham scene, I realized there was subtle background music used, which actually impacted the scene much more when listening to the music and dialogue together. I decided to use YouTube once again to find a piece of music which would resemble my scene audibly, as I wanted to reflect the serious mood that the scene was giving off to the audience. I found a soundtrack when researching for serious toned sounds, and even though it was my first I decided that it was perfect for the clip, so I made a new sound track on Garage Band and dragged the newly downloaded song into my project. The only difference I made to this sound clip was snipping the beginning of the track off by using a familiar method (cmd + T) and deleting it as it was dead sound and made the beginning of the ADR sound odd when listening to it in full. 

Once I had re-recorded the dialogue I needed, had reviewed the ADR and made sure it was in sync, the final editing decision I made was to add in sound FX to emphasis and highlight an important part of the scene. This was the part when Fish Mooney revealed Cobblepot's death by bluntly saying 'He's dead' and the detectives turn to one another in shock. I decided to add in a sound effect within this part as in the original there was one, which I felt worked really well, but wanted to do another in a different tone as I felt that I could improve on the original. I created this sound effect by drawing in notes with a cello (as this instrument is associated with serious mannered situations and I felt reflected the on-going situation. I drew in around 6 different tones, one on top of each other, to create a depth-y and rich sounding effect, such as the infamous 'dun dun dun', often associated with revelation of story line or character. When it came to adding SFX for Mean Girls, it was pretty straight forward as the only sounds I needed to recreate was the beeping when the girls pushed the buttons to change caller. To recreate this, I decided to put a sound recorder up against my phone whilst pressing the buttons, so that the recorder captured the beeps, which I needed for the scene. The first time I did this, it didn't turn out too well but when using a different sound recorder, which was able to collect a high level of sound, I had quite a good outcome. With this, I imported the sound clip into Garage Band and snipped the bits I didn't want out, moving it around to fit in the place of the original sound.  

When showing this back to class mates, they were impressed with how I was able to create the scene atmospherically, without making it look fake and still being as effective as the original. Once I knew that my peers were impressed, I decided to mix down the project and was finished with my Gotham and Mean Girls ADRs. If I were able to re-do these again, I feel I would have given myself and my voice actors a bit more time to rehearse the scenes, as this would have avoided any re-recording of particular dialogue that was not up to scratch while also maybe having more convincing voices for the characters, especially when looking to the Mean Girls ADR, as this was a big issue within the production. Other than these improvements, I don't think I would change anything about how the project went or what quality the production was. This is due to me feeling that I did very well within this particular ADR, as I feel the goals I set for quality were met in all areas (music, spoken word and sound FX). When comparing it to the original sound, I myself can see a little difference in quality - as the original was obviously done professionally, but I feel I recreated the scenes quite well and in terms of what was better, I would say the original. This is only due to the fact that they had the equipment and actual actors voicing the characters which synced perfectly, whereas mine was not, but I am proud with what I have achieved within this particular part of the unit. I kept the original idea in mind rather than creating a completely different one (using similar sound effects + music) as I felt this was the best way to convince my audience that what they were hearing was the original sound. I feel if I was to have gone in a different direction with the scenes, such as if I were to put a comical spin on the Gotham scene, it would have been risky as I feel the visual content would not match a long with anything other than what was intended originally. I feel I could have gone a different direction for the Mean Girls seen though, as the comedy within it could have been exaggerated a little bit more, but other than this I am happy with the outcome of both of the ADRs I have created. 

Evaluation of interview

When looking at the footage I have collected, I have noticed that out of the three people who I interviewed, they all have pretty much have the same view on the subject matter as they all answered the questions in a similar way. They all more or less had positive responses to the questions rather than negative, such as saying how they disagree with what goes on within society when looking at the plus-size category. What I did not see throughout the interviewing is anyone going against the questions I was asking, or giving a different opinion as to what the rest did, which would've been more controversial and unusual to see rather than having people with the same answers. Saying this, if I had answers such as this I would feel quite offended - say if someone agreed with the treatment of overweight people in society, as a person overweight, I would feel as though I would have to bite my tongue slightly in order to carry out the interview properly. I interviewed three people, of different gender and races, which showed me whether colour or age was evidently different, it didn't make a difference to someone's opinion. It also made it fair, rather than asking 3 people of the same race, age or gender, as they may give different answers to one another.

Through carrying out the interview, I learned more about the opinions of my fellow class mates whilst also coming to a conclusion that not everyone has the same views about the issue I am talking about. I have also become aware through the vox-pops that I should broaden my horizons when it comes to the people I ask, as although this selection of people were on my side during the interview, I would like to ask more people to see if their views differed to make things more interesting. I also achieved experience to interview people in a professional like scenario, as I was in-control of the questions and frame/camera shot throughout the interview, which gave me an insight to how it feels to interview someone.

I feel my vox-pops were quite effective, they were open questions which lead to long, detailed answers which gave me an insight to the thoughts of people about this particular subject matter.
If I were to improve my interviews, I would probably give my interviewee less time to answer, as I felt their answers at some points were too drawn out and I should have cut in so I had the opportunity to ask connective questions which would progress the interview more, rather than cutting to a completely different question and losing track of what the interviewee had just told me. I would also probably prepare myself more, so I came across more serious about the matter & prepare my interviewee's with what they're going to talk about, rather than throwing them into the deep end not knowing what the questions are going to be about. Saying this, I feel overall I was able to conduct a good interview and with some minor touches, I feel I would create an even better interview experience for myself and the person I am interviewing.

Interview questionnaire - doc

1.) What is your personal opinion on plus-size women and how they're viewed within society?



2.) Do you feel that people of all sizes should be able to live and be apart of everyday culture as long as they are taking care of their health in the meantime?



3.) Do you know anything about the prejudice against plus sized women? Do you agree with it? If so, why?



4.) Do you think we as a society are worried that overweight people are becoming the 'norm', by doing so rejecting plus-size completely?



5.) What are your views on those who promote women of average size (size 10-12) as plus-size (size 16+)?



6.) Are there any assumptions that you have about people who are overweight? Any immediate judgements you have?



7.) How do you believe this will effect the current generation? Do you feel women will be pushed to being what society tells them?



8.) Do you think weight is often confused with health?

Graham Norton: Interview Techniques

Graham Norton: Seth Macfarlane interview BBC ONE, Series 15 - MAY 2014 

The style in which Graham Norton presents his show is light-hearted, as the interviews with the guests combined with the characteristics of the interviewer have been done solely to entertain and make the audience laugh without any serious matters coming into hand. Graham Norton is a shown in which not only one guest is interviewed, but rather 3-4 (in this case 4) at the same time, which attracts me to this particular style of interviewing, as it is an un-conventional style of which is different to many other of the shows which have interview based content.

The main objectives of this interview is to entertain and investigate, which both have the audience in mind. Entertain, due to the humour being the core of this show. Graham uses innuendos, which is especially funny when interviewing a comical genius (Seth Macfarlane of Family Guy). Investigative, due to the questioning nature of Graham Norton - asking questions linked to relevant conversation within the chat show. Interviews within this show are crucially important, especially since there is more than one guest being interviewed. Interviewing carries on the conversation between interviewer and interviewee within this show, helps the plan of what happens within the show flow as naturally as possible, without any awkward moments being apparent and makes both the subjects feel comfortable with one another.

I feel the main purpose of this interview is to let the audience feel as though they're involved with the conversations between Graham Norton and the guests, letting them know more about them whilst being entertained, covering any important new events in the celebrities life. This could be things such as new films, book or even music. Within this particular show, we see Graham interviewing Seth Macfarlane, talking about the current roles he has starred in and his most famous, Family Guy, where he voices more than 2 of the characters. Whilst a picture of the Family Guy characters sits behind Graham, he asks Seth about what gave him the ideas to make the characters sound the way they do. This gives Seth the ammunition to do the voices of Stewie and Peter Griffin, as this was a relevant topic of conversation and I could tell he was excited to do. This is done by Graham Norton building rapport with Seth, making him feel comfortable to do the voices within the show. By doing this, the audience, interviewer and interviewee all benefit as they get what they want out of the interview; being entertained, creating a successful interview and showcasing the actor's talent.

Within the interview, none of the questions Graham asks as particularly closed, as rather than asking question after question, he has a conversation with the guest so they feel comfortable with answering any possible questions Graham may ask. For instance, the questions asked are more open, as the answer Graham wants is one which will enrich the conversation further so he can ask another. The way in which this works is with Graham asking Seth or one of the other guests a closed answer question, then with the reply he goes onto the open question which is both longer for him to ask and for Seth to answer. This is a clever technique by Graham Norton, as by ordering the questions by type, he receives a longer and more detailed answer to the important questions his asks.

Firstly, Graham Norton welcomes him guests to the stage by shaking their hand firmly and sitting them down on the couch opposing to him. This 'initial' meeting makes the interviewee feel comfortable, letting them know that they are going to be comfortable with him throughout the interview and shows that he is a friendly person, again building rapport between interviewer and interviewee. The communication skills which the Graham Norton use are important to creating the correct atmosphere, as he presents himself as humorous (not serious/mean or controversial). His body language says a lot about the type of person he is, as he turns to each guest to show he is actively listening and is interested in what they are saying, as well as exaggerating his hand gestures to show that he is excited about the topic which is being talked about. He also approaches the celebrities as if they are everyday people - which even though he is a celebrity in his own right, I feel he would still feel intimidated by sitting with so many famous people. This shows his confidence within the interview, which in turn makes the guests feel comfortable with him. I also feel as though Graham has a clear sense of a humour and voice projection; where even when he speaks over the guests, they aren't offended as he entertains them as much as the audience.

Overall, I feel that as an interviewer, Graham Norton is incredibly good at listening, asking the right questions at the right time and building rapport when it comes to the relationship between both him and the guest. His personality gives him an edge, as in some cases we are presented with interviewers who only ask question, without caring whether or not they are liked, but rather getting on with the job at hand. Graham also obviously knows quite a bit about the main guest (Seth Macfarlane) as he related back to information he had collected - whether through ear, text card, telly prompter or through personal knowledge, he is very convincing and knowledgeable when interviewing.

The Cruel Cut: Social Issue Documentary - Analysis

This hard hitting documentary focuses on the use of FGM on young women in the world, which is seen as a cultural benefit for a woman if marrying a man, as she is seen as pure and more acceptable in the society within her culture. Leila Hussein who presents the show and was also a victim of FGM, confronts the taboo subject by showing the public what really happens to the young girls who go through this. With the shocking images we see and reasons which people think to do so, she goes on a quest to make this known to the world - ensuring that no other girl has to suffer this again. Although this documentary actually effected me emotionally, as a young woman, I feel the documentary lacked clarity. The first half concentrated on feeding information to people, letting them know what happens to the young girls so that they do not misunderstand. The second half of the documentary focused more on the government side of things - where the documentary took a downfall, as she contacted the MP Theresa May and was ignored when approaching her with this issue. Even with Hussein turning up to the office, she is turned away, where then practically the documentary ends with no resolution. Of course, I feel there is no resolution without demand - as a staggering 100,000 petition signatures would be needed for this issue to be brought into the House of Commons. I feel that this documentary has a very good use - to inform people about FGM and the effects we have seen it has had on the women throughout the documentary, but despite this I felt that the documentary lacked hope for the FGM victims and the possible future victims. The lack of persistence that Leila showed was quite off putting, as she basically ended the documentary with telling us to sign the petition.

As The Cruel Cut documentary focuses on a very sensitive subject that effects many women, this is typical of a expository documentary. Documentaries of this type usually focus on a particular subject that effects more than one person, which we delve into and find more information about, whilst also learning of the effect on individuals through interviews which victims of in this case, FGM. One of the biggest conventions used in this documentary the way in which we are fed information - which is through the victims expressing themselves and telling their stories. I feel this has a major effect on the documentary as a whole, as we see just a sample of the women who go through this terrible surgery and how much it effects their life, which made everyone in the room quite emotional when watching - especially when one of the victims expressed that the mutilation had stopped her from being able to have children, which as a woman I would feel extremely angry and sad about. Another convention is actually using a victim of FGM to present the documentary. This gives the audience and the people she talks to throughout the documentary, such as the young men who were clueless about FGM and formed their opinions based on incorrect information they had been told by family members, as she was able to show them what FGM entailed and how much it would effect a woman, especially if that woman was to be their future wife or their child, which shed a light to the young men and also the audience watching the documentary, due to her showing what is done to the vagina during FGM by using play-doh and using large scissors to show what pieces of the female genitals are removed during this process.

When looking at the techniques used to maintain the audiences attention, I noticed the part when she went into the public and asked people to sign a form against her personal beliefs in-particular. I feel she did this to show us how many people are ignorant about FGM, especially when informing them about it in a light-hearted fashion in which she did, as they signed it straight away with only one person rejecting her plead to keep FGM going. Although I felt this showed us how many people do not know the full extent to which FGM goes, I find it hard to understand how she could do it with such ease when she herself was a victim of FGM and it finds it difficult to talk about - whether she feels this would help shine a light on the situation within cultures, I feel it would be difficult for anyone to lie to people about their true feelings about something so serious which effects her life in such a major way. Saying this, it was a good way of enticing the audience to carry on with the documentary as it showed a contrast in opinion as she was going against something she believed in strongly for the sake of a documentary, which I feel pulled the audience in once again. Another technique to engage the audience with the documentary was the way in which she involved politics to show the movement of FGM and she was doing to make people release what a massive importance it was that people knew what was happening illegally within the UK. She did this by contacting the female MP Theresa May, who failed to reply to Leila, which then led us into the petition stage of the documentary - in which Leila involved the audience in and said that we as an audience could make an audience by signing the petition needing 100,00 signatures. The effect this would have on keeping the audience interested is that by including the audience, or giving them hope to believe that they as a person can make a change to FGM.

The purpose of this documentary as it focuses on a social issues - FGM, is to inform and make a change to what females go through such as her self and what can be done to stop it. The change it is campaigning is for the government to lock down on illegal acts of FGM, as although illegal within the UK, it is still a huge issue and young girls are taken out of the country just for this reason. I feel the other reason for this documentary is for the issue to be more known within the public, as although I knew what FGM was, I did not know it was as big of a issue as it was and how much damage it can have to a young girl and a woman's future. This documentary was very good at feeding important about how and what is done, who it is done to and why. I feel that a lot of the people within the UK are ignorant towards an issue such as this, as it is seen as a 'cultural' or 'religous' act, although known of the religious books say anything about FGM or mention that it makes a girl more pure if done. I feel that the public are too scared to say it is wrong, even if they think it as saying something about a religion is usually a bad thing and can start a lot of unwanted trouble. Leila Hussein has been able to inform both her own culture, such as the young Somalian boys about FGM - who originally had nothing against FGM into turning them against it whilst also informing the audience about it at the same time.

The target audience for this documentary I feel would be both men and women, from the ages of 16 and up. This is due to the importance of this documentary to both sexes, as I feel men and women should both know what FGM is especially those who know what it is and whose families believe is a good thing for the women in their families. I also feel that age wise, because of the nature of the documentary and the understanding of a younger audience, I feel 16 would be the right age to talk about this with a male or female as that is the age they generally become sexually active or know a lot more about the female anatomy than of a younger person. The graphic nature of what happens is also very difficult to talk about, especially if the audience are immature - so it would be good to have an audience who have a good understanding without taking FGM as a joke. The target audience would live mostly in the UK, I say this because I feel that FGM is more known in other places in the world such as South Asia (as this is where it happens predominately) and even though it is illegal within the UK, it still happens and people do not know about it - especially when children are taken abroad especially for it to be done, which  people should be aware of and look out for any signs of abuse such as this. Their interests would not come to an importance when looking into this documentary, other than having an interest in politics and/or being a feminist (women's rights movements etc.) - who can be male or female, as this is an abuse against women and some of the audience may feel strongly towards social issues such as this. The language of the audience will be English as the documentary is mostly in English, with some parts in Somalian with subtitles and the majority of the people within the documentary speaking in English.

By Leila Hussein's failure to get in touch with Theresa May, for whatever reason - lack of interest in matter etc. Leila basically tells the audience that the only thing that can be done is for the public to sign a petition to get the subject of FGM into the House of Commons, which makes me as an audience member feel as it is actually up to myself to shine a light on FGM and make it known to the MP's and the British Public. When watching documentaries such as this, the audience feel as though there is some hope to solving the issue, which Leila has clearly stated as the case and due to her own failure, makes us feel as though maybe we could do better/ or help Leila out. This is a way in which the audience have been targeted, as it is almost a 'feel good factor' as if the audience have already made a difference by watching the documentary in the first place.