I'm Shutting Your Butt Down!

Thwip!

Quentin Tarantino interview takes an interesting turn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrsJDy8VjZk

Real Life

I love tarantino interviews. **** always goes down.

Senna

Lay off the coke dude

Dunny

Legend.

Max Power

Welcome to yesterday.

RikkFlair

Bring out the gimp

uch

something

Chuck Stone

He's on the ball.

The US has been involved in two multi-billion dollar invasions since 2000 with the violent deaths of thousands of US soldiers (leaving aside injuries and psychological trauma) and tens of thousands of civilians and Quentin Tarantino gets asked hand-wringing questions about fictional violence performed by actors.

Business as fucking usual in mainstream media-land.

fergiesfolly

Surely the interviewer is entitled to ask the question, without Tarantino behaving like some spoilt prima donna. If he thinks its a load of nonsense, argue the point. Don't refuse the debate. It makes him look like he knows the question has merit and maybe more than a hint of truth in it.

Duggy747

Every time his movies comes out he's thrown these same ol' questions, like he's the poster boy for movie violence.

He's sick to death of answering them, like he's somehow responsible for the ills of society.

GoldenLight

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Surely the interviewer is entitled to ask the question, without Tarantino behaving like some spoilt prima donna. If he thinks its a load of nonsense, argue the point. Don't refuse the debate. It makes him look like he knows the question has merit and maybe more than a hint of truth in it.

Alsolutely a brilliant interview, fair play to the the interviewer, I loved it,

and by the way I'm a huge Quetin fan up to now, I loved his older movies, I loved his violence, most of the time it's based on revenge, I loved the trailer to this movie, I loved every part of the being.

Too answer the way he did to an innocent question (most journalist don't ask innocent questions, he should have being prepared) yet he went crazy on him, WFT which seemed to control the interview.

I just want to see voilence because of revenge, I'm thinking he has gone beyond that, that's his fail I'm no longer a fan

Jimoslimos

Tarantino came across as a hypocrite there. Happy enough to waffle some bullshít about his movie provoking debate about slavery, yet throws a tantrum when someone wants to explore some of the other themes.

Chuck Stone

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Tarantino came across as a hypocrite there. Happy enough to waffle some bullshít about his movie provoking debate about slavery, yet throws a tantrum when someone wants to explore some of the other themes.

Yes but nobody is asking him if his movie has some sort of affect on people's desire to keep slaves.

Solair

He agreed to do an interview with a serious, respected news programme. It's not some movie show on a tiny cable channel or something.

Channel 4 is a public service broadcaster (especially for news) and makes very little out of his appearance on their news programme.

If he's just there to 'sell his movie' he should pay for an ad and stop whinging when journalists ask questions.

It's basically free publicity for his movie in the UK on a major, mainstream, highly-watched news outlet. Channel 4 cannot charge for his appearance, nor can they do product placement during the news.

If you agree to be interviewed by a serious current affairs presenter, you can expect to have to field some questions! These guys will take serious offense at being told what to ask / to stick to a script. It would very much undermine their journalistic integrity.

If he has a problem answering questions that are quite likely to come up, nobody forced him to do the interview! There's no point in just getting ratty with a journalist about what were fairly straight-forward and reasonable questions.

I seriously lost quite a lot of respect for him after seeing that interview. He came across like a spoilt brat / diva type.

Chao

Senna wrote: »

Lay off the coke dude

My first thought!!
Ah he half has a point though, interview is trying to make something out of nothing.

Jimmy Garlic

He is spot on.

Jimoslimos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes but nobody is asking him if his movie has some sort of affect on people's desire to keep slaves.

The slavery angle is a non-issue. It's what he imagines people are talking about.

The reality is that 99% of people watching Tarantino films, do because he doesn't shy away from violence, bad language, etc. If he doesn't like journalists asking those questions, stop making those type of movies or stop giving interviews.

callaway92

FionnMcCool87 wrote: »

Welcome to yesterday.

Welcome to having a life. . .

GoldenLight

Jimoslimos wrote: »

The slavery angle is a non-issue. It's what he imagines people are talking about.

The reality is that 99% of people watching Tarantino films, do because he doesn't shy away from violence, bad language, etc. If he doesn't like journalists asking those questions, stop making those type of movies or stop giving interviews.

That's Life:D

IM0

fair game, guy acted the prick, tarantino saw right through it
spot on IMO he was basically trolling him!

Chuck Stone

Jimoslimos wrote: »

If he doesn't like journalists asking those questions, stop making those type of movies or stop giving interviews.

He said in the interview that he has given his opinion on violence in his films loads of times before.

He's absolutely justified in rejecting the questions. He makes movies with violence in them and if nobody noticed the most violent people in his movies almost always end up dying violently.

That's a theme with Scorcese films too. The most violent people end up dying brutal deaths. So if anything these films' message is that if you lead a violent life you're quite likely to die a violent death.

Lenin Skynard

Absolute nonsense, the lot of it. His movies are just other people's movies stuck together with a half-arsed mandatory storyline. He contributes nothing to cinema and hasn't since ten years or so ago. If he had the balls or intellect to answer the question being put to him, he wouldn't just cower like he did. He's one of those beneficiaries of the brainless hollywood movie industry and it's completely unsurprising that he's unable to answer very basic questions or stand by the absolute rubbish that he makes.

DonkeyStyle \o/

I can see why he was irritated. Watch 4:30 again... he's basically put in the position of answering the rough equivalent of 'tell us why the sandy hook shootings weren't your fault', it's a hot potato and it's not directly relevant to the film. Tarantino tried to explain violence in the context of the film, but the interviewer kept pressing on with this agenda and trying to steer him into defending violent movies. He's not being a diva, he's just being media savvy, spotting the corner he was being pushed into, and refusing to participate in the witch hunt by being put in a position of defending violence in movies and being a fresh soundbite.
noob interviewer gets owned IMO

You can see directly after 4:30 when the interviewer smiles - he knows what he tried to do and he knows why Tarantino isn't biting.

Sinfonia

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote: »

I can see why he was irritated. Watch 4:30 again... he's basically put in the position of answering the rough equivalent of 'tell us why the sandy hook shootings weren't your fault', it's a hot potato and it's not directly relevant to the film. Tarantino tried to explain violence in the context of the film, but the interviewer kept pressing on with this agenda and trying to steer him into defending violent movies. He's not being a diva, he's just being media savvy, spotting the corner he was being pushed into, and refusing to participate in the witch hunt by being put in a position of defending violence in movies and being a fresh soundbite.

Absolutely spot on.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Tarantino came across as a hypocrite there. Happy enough to waffle some bullshít about his movie provoking debate about slavery, yet throws a tantrum when someone wants to explore some of the other themes.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

If he doesn't like journalists asking those questions, stop making those type of movies or stop giving interviews.

He wasn't asked about themes in his film(s).
He was asked to explain why he felt there was no connection between movie violence and real-world violence.

Scanlas The 2nd

GoldenLight wrote: »

Alsolutely a brilliant interview, fair play to the the interviewer, I loved it,

and by the way I'm a huge Quetin fan up to now, I loved his older movies, I loved his violence, most of the time it's based on revenge, I loved the trailer to this movie, I loved every part of the being.

Too answer the way he did to an innocent question (most journalist don't ask innocent questions, he should have being prepared) yet he went crazy on him, WFT which seemed to control the interview.

I just want to see voilence because of revenge, I'm thinking he has gone beyond that, that's his fail I'm no longer a fan

It wasn't an innocent question, it was deliberately provocative. Notice the stupid smirk on the interviewers face. Quentin didn't handle it well but it's understandable why he'd be p1ssed off having interviewers asking their sneakily provocative questions again and again hoping to make him look bad. When someone wants to make you look bad and possibly harm your career you might just want to quit playing their game.

Solair

Well at least Channel 4 broadcast his little tantrum. He probably assumed that he'd intimidated them and that would be edited out.

You never, ever, ever throw a strop during an interview! It just makes you look ridiculous.

He produces very violent movies and his PR people set up an interview with Channel 4 News, one of the hardest hitting news outlets in the world, never mind the UK.

You would expect that they'll probably ask a question about movie violence in the context of recent school shootings... It's hardly a totally unpredictable question..
It's also very much about the film and his work. It's not some left of field question about his personal life.

The guy produced some of the most gratuitously violent films in mainstream cinema EVER. It's not like his movies are just incidentally a bit violent. They're entirely about violence.

So, really he either needs to stop giving interviews entirely, or learn to deal with what are totally normal questions!

You don't get to just do an unpaid advert on a major, highly respected news outlet.

Channel 4 News asks hard questions, that's why it's successful. It doesn't get bullied by stuff like that.

I would call what he did a crude attempt at aggressive media management. He wants to close down debate on movie violence because he's a massive vested interest in that debate not occurring.

I don't see it as any different to having the CEO of a major bank on and them throwing a strop because they were asked about the financial crisis!

Artful_Badger

Duggy747 wrote: »

Every time his movies comes out he's thrown these same ol' questions, like he's the poster boy for movie violence.

He's sick to death of answering them, like he's somehow responsible for the ills of society.

Seemed that way to me too. He was getting into how he has broadened the discussion of slavery to address the very serious reality of it (and seemed proud to be part of the reason for that) and the interviewer basically just went back to the same chestnut he's been accused of with every movie in terms of the violence in it.

And he hit the nail on the head too when he said it was a promo for his movie and what he has to say about it, not a chance for the interviewer to boost ratings or credibility by pulling the old Tarantino on violence routine in relation to the most recent shootings or violence.

thebman

Solair wrote: »

You would expect that they'll probably ask a question about movie violence in the context of recent school shootings... It's hardly a totally unpredictable question..
It's also very much about the film and his work. It's not some left of field question about his personal life.

I wouldn't have expected it.

It is completely bang out of order to ask a movie director does he think his movies might be causing school shootings of children that have recently happened and why is he so sure it isn't responsible.

A movie director is unlikely to have any insight into that. You should ask a someone that studies that for a living that kind of question.

It isn't unreasonable to react like someone has offended you when they have. If I made a movie, I'd get pretty pissed off if someone asked me do I think the violence in it is at least partly responsible for some shooting that happened recently because it has nothing to do with the movie.

He could have handled it better but as he says himself, the question is thrown out all the time to him over the past 20 years and he is sick of appeasing interviewers that still continue to ask the same stupid questions.

Capt'n Midnight

Solair wrote: »

He produces very violent movies and his PR people set up an interview with Channel 4 News, one of the hardest hitting news outlets in the world, never mind the UK.

Channel 4 do not make programs.

They just buy and commission them.

ITN actually do the news for Channel 4 (and Channel 5)

Just gives you an idea on how dumbed down the News at Ten is.


Oh yeah the Texas Tower shootings (and media induced copy cat shooting) were back in 1966 when Quentin was 3 years old.

Gone Drinking

Love the finger wagging that came in the shot telling them to wrap it up once it got a little heated

padi89

Channel 4 news is normally excellent but i was astounded they broadcast this. It was like watching a child teasing another and it just dragged on for so long.

IMO Christian Guru Murphy made an absolute ass of himself, he reminded me of that cuntwitch Kay Burley on Sky News.

Gone Drinking

padi89 wrote: »

Channel 4 news is normally excellent but i was astounded they broadcast this. It was like watching a child teasing another and it just dragged on for so long.

IMO Christian Guru Murphy made an absolute ass of himself, he reminded me of that cuntwitch Kay Burley on Sky News.

Why? because he asked him some serious questions he didn't like? The interviewer didn't come out of this looking bad, Tarantino did.

Scanlas The 2nd

Gone Drinking wrote: »

Why? because he asked him some serious questions he didn't like? The interviewer didn't come out of this looking bad, Tarantino did.

No because he was smirking like an a$$hole and he was clearly enjoying being an a$$hole and knew perfectly well what he was saying would piss Tarantino off.

lightspeed

Jimoslimos wrote: »

The slavery angle is a non-issue. It's what he imagines people are talking about.

The reality is that 99% of people watching Tarantino films, do because he doesn't shy away from violence, bad language, etc. If he doesn't like journalists asking those questions, stop making those type of movies or stop giving interviews.

The man is a complete an utter c**k who makes consistent garbage movies that people like to call "artistic".

Looking back at some of his movies, kill bill, deathproof, inglorious bastards to name a few i thought were all garbage. Drawn out badly scripted dirt. I reckon if steven Spielberg or some young up and coming director suddenly made a movie like any of the above, it would flop and he would criticised to death. Tarantino can release any kind of movie and if the plot does not develop or if the ending seems silly, he will still be labeled one of historys greatest directors. I just dont see his work as art and ive never seen a movie of his that I liked.

He seems to just make badly scripted movies and uses extreme violence so people dont notice so much how bad his movies really are. Reservoir dogs would just be a bunch of guys talking bollax in a room without the part where the guy gets his ear cut off.


He is not in the ball at all and just does not want to draw peoples attention to the above criticism.

In the same month that Lincoln is released, he talks about how no movie has ever addressed the issue of slavery the way his movie has???

Also, he seems to be so vain that he casts himself in almost all of his movies.

A vain whinny big headed little girl that should have been put it in his place a long time ago.

Doc Ruby

Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs were awesome, amazing movies. After that I get the feeling he was just surrounded by fawning sycophants who didn't challenge him (hence the prima donna thing), and his movie making suffered accordingly. I really didn't enjoy rest of his movies aside from a few bright spots. I turned off Kill Bill halfway through to be honest, and I almost never do that.

Solair

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Channel 4 do not make programs.

They just buy and commission them.

ITN actually do the news for Channel 4 (and Channel 5)

Just gives you an idea on how dumbed down the News at Ten is.


Oh yeah the Texas Tower shootings (and media induced copy cat shooting) were back in 1966 when Quentin was 3 years old.

Doesn't really matter, it's still the Channel 4 News team and ethos. It's a news brand in its own right.

ITN are also a seriously heavy weight news gathering organisation that goes back to the dawn of commercial tv in the UK.

Don't really see how any of this is relevant to his little rant tho.

Wibbs

My take on him would be a mix of lightspeed and Doc Ruby's. I don't rate him beyond Pulp Fiction. The knowing "wit" and rolloercoaster scripts may pass the time, but they're royale with cheese not cordon bleu. I'd defo agree he's an egotistical eejit who believes his own hype.

lightspeed wrote:

In the same month that Lincoln is released, he talks about how no movie has ever addressed the issue of slavery the way his movie has???

A perfect example of the rarified air he inhabits. Daft and never mind Lincoln, plenty of other films have explored the subject in ways he couldn't begin to dream of.

Don't get me started on Inglourious Basterds. Yea mindless fun K, but good christ beyond that it was beyond daft. He does love his vengeance guff. Scarily I've met Americans who thought it based on fact. :eek:

mad_man

QT was dead right , he no more has a duty to consider the effects of violence than shane mc gowan does the effects of poor liver and tooth choices

snausages

His films are pure pastiche but I don't mind that as such. I never expect anything profound when I go into a Tarantino. I just go in for the blood and the humour. I have a hard time reconciling the man with the movies he makes though. You'd think when watching Basterds that it's trying to be a self-deprecating film but perhaps Tarantino himself thinks it's a brilliantly subversive piece of historiographic metafiction when it really isn't much more than revenge porn.

clairefontaine

He's probably sick of being a pawn in the left wing gun/violence debate, which is exactly where that question was going.

padi89

Gone Drinking wrote: »

Why? because he asked him some serious questions he didn't like? The interviewer didn't come out of this looking bad, Tarantino did.

Not because he asked but because he asked again and again and again ...... and again ..... and sat their with a smirk on his face like a proper smug pr1ck. It was uncomfortable and childish, Tarantino is a movie maker not a politician.
It was like watching one of those "filler" segments at the end of the RTE News, " Now in other News .....

Duggys Housemate

padi89 wrote: »

Not because he asked but because he asked again and again and again ...... and again ..... and sat their with a smirk on his face like a proper smug pr1ck. It was uncomfortable and childish, Tarantino is a movie maker not a politician.
It was like watching one of those "filler" segments at the end of the RTE News, " Now in other News .....

So what? If an NRA member had a tantrum because of these types of questions for similar reasons - he had been asked them before opinions would differ here.

nyarlothothep

He sold his movie really well in that interview, by loosing the plot he's created a snowballing effect, eg 'did you see that video where Quentin Tarantino goes nuts?" This means word of his movie will spread and statistically more people will see it. Did he genuinely lose the plot? Maybe or maybe he was playing it up and using channel 4 as his commercial vehicle while also boosting their ratings/hits on youtube. What a guy.

padi89

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

So what? If an NRA member had a tantrum because of these types of questions for similar reasons - he had been asked them before opinions would differ here.

The questions would have been valid towards an NRA member. If is a great word, would you be interested IF they got an NRA member on to talk about directing movies?

Christian was acting the mug, it was unprofessional to keep prying.

Micky Dolenz

I'd say he is some craic on a night out.

Duggys Housemate

padi89 wrote: »

The questions would have been valid towards an NRA member. If is a great word, would you be interested IF they got an NRA member on to talk about directing movies?

Christian was acting the mug, it was unprofessional to keep prying.

Why are questions more valid in some cases rather than others. This merely reflects an ideological position.

Capt'n Midnight

Wibbs wrote: »

Don't get me started on Inglourious Basterds. Yea mindless fun K, but good christ beyond that it was beyond daft. He does love his vengeance guff. Scarily I've met Americans who thought it based on fact. :eek:

Everyone knows that it was Gustav Weler who dead in the bunker in Berlin in '45 :rolleyes:

And Leo Rudolf Raubal, Jr. who got away with it.

padi89

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Why are questions more valid in some cases rather than others. This merely reflects an ideological position.

Because he wasn't there to harp on about his views on guns and gun culture. If they wanted that they should have got an NRA member on. I wanted to hear what Tarantino had to say about the movie, instead i had to listen to a shoddy journalist try to lure him in to very sensitive questions that if not answered perfect could have landed him on his arse. I didn't mind the questions, it was the constant pressing when refused yet he kept asking again and again whilst he sat there grinning.

Im not a fan of Piers Morgan but heres your NRA fruitcake, Morgan handles himself properly without the smugness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg

lightspeed

Pippa Middleton's Arse wrote: »

I'd say he is some craic on a night out.

Yeah i cam imagine getting kicked out of many a nite club with him when the bar man asks what he would like to drink?

Im not your slave and your not my master mr barman.
Im not your monkey!

Sinfonia

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Why are questions more valid in some cases rather than others. This merely reflects an ideological position.

The question of whether there is a correlation between movie violence and real-world violence should be asked of a social critic or psychologist - in other words, someone who undertakes research in that field. Not an artist.

Guru-Murthy then asks him - in fact asserts that - "surely" he has a responsibility to explain his work and/or comment on its further implications. Which is horseshit.

123 LC

meanwhile last night....