Tarantino Shuts Dumbass Down Video!

Lost Limb said:
I don't really have any thoughts on it because I don't know enough about it. Common sense would suggests the link is weak at best considering the vast majority who view violent media behave normally.

The media like to blame video games and movies but I think that is more about sensationalist news coverage and looking for a scapegoat. We had a pretty infamous case of this about 20 yearsa ago and it still pops up in the news every now and then.
Click to expand...

Ah yes that infamous case.

What do you think can be done? Does media bear any responsibility in this?
 
Three Gun Fish said:
Ah yes that infamous case.

What do you think can be done? Does media bear any responsibility in this?
Click to expand...

I'll be more specific;

Two ten year old boys abducted a smaller child and tortured him on a railway line before leaving his dead body on the tracks to be hit by a train. The papers blamed the movie "Child's Play 3" because the boys said they had watched it at some point before the attack. This led to people wanting tighter regulations on "video nasties".

The media bares a massive amount of responsibility in cases like these because they are the ones who spread these apparent connections and they are the ones who always say "something must be done," which in turn creates a moral panic and hysteria in the public.
 
Whisky said:
Agreed. He could have answered the followup questions better.

"Don't you have a responsibility to the viewers to explain?"

"With all due respect, my responsibility to the viewers is to make good cinema. Nothing else."

Would have been perfect. But Tarantino isn't a quick witted politician, he's a filmmaker.
Click to expand...

No that would have been horrible. It insinuates that he doesn't know or care whether or not the violence in his movies carries over to society, but he thinks it's good cinema so he rolls with it. You don't want to shirk the responsibility. He should have recognized that it's something he's considered since the beginning of his career but feels carries no merit for reasons X, Y and Z. And if he really didn't want to talk about that, there were better ways to get out of it than telling a reporter that he's shutting his butt down and implying that the interviewer was treating him like a slave.

I don't see why he couldn't just answer the questions. The reporter is right, that's a far more interesting discussion than "so, how much fun did you have directing this movie!!?" or whatever questions QT apparently wanted to answer. Make your own commercials for your movie - an interview with a legit journalist should not be a commercial for shit, and you can't expect complete softball questions in this setting when you make these kinds of movies.
 
highkicknomore said:
QT seems more legit though. Like he's really passionate about films and get excited talking about it.

Jon Jones needs advice from his coach to get fans.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they're both passionate and it leads to them saying some silly things at times.
highkicknomore said:
Egotistical I can see but defensive? The reporter was being an ass so he made him take his own medicine. People nowadays thrive on political correctness and being the "better" person.
Click to expand...

He was definitely defensive, though I would argue justifiably so given how the media vilifies his movies.
 
Tarantino is pissed because it wasn't the time and the place... He was expecting talk for his movie, not his philosophy of violence.
 
It's obvious that movies are tied directly to real life violence, because there were no instances in all of human history of people attacking people until Nic
 
jackietreehorn8 said:
This would have been a perfect way to turn the whole thing back around onto the interviewer. Tarantino should have these arguments locked and loaded at all times, ready to fire at any smart guy interviewer that decided to bring it up. Easy.
Click to expand...

I agree, though watching QT lose his temper was just as entertaining. He's still the man, and the interviewer a hack.
 
Quentin has always come off to me as an impotent, napoleonic man struggleing to be something more than what he is. Some of his moives are interesting but aside from Pulp Fiction and Reservior Dogs I haven't cared for much of what he's created lately. I usually find that really stupid people rave about his films.
 
Oh, and that was the Michael JAckson biographer guy right? He's a shitty self serving individual that accomplishes nothing but creating contraversy about things that shouldn't be contraversial.
 
Madmick said:
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/spike-lee-goes-after-django-unchained/
Didn't realize Spike Lee criticized the film (apparently without seeing it). God, this guy is such an unabashed, racist douchebag. I can't believe I used to defend him. According to him, any film concerning black history made by a white person is a priori racist regardless of how it treats the history and its characters; hell, regardless of whether it contains any palpable, authentic history at all. Django Unchained is a concept piece. It's like Inglorious Basterds where the collective opinion and atrocities committed by a historical demographic are personified in a single villain, and that villain is then made to violently suffer. Tarantino doesn't chain himself to the actual history. He's more interested in forming an emotional narrative. In this instance, I don't understand how it could possibly be more pro-black.
Click to expand...

not wrong, Spikes turned into a real prick, when that black kid was shot he was tweeting addresses of the wrong people, hes lucky nothing happened.
Django would be a hero to the black race imo
 
jackietreehorn8 said:
No that would have been horrible. It insinuates that he doesn't know or care whether or not the violence in his movies carries over to society, but he thinks it's good cinema so he rolls with it. You don't want to shirk the responsibility. He should have recognized that it's something he's considered since the beginning of his career but feels carries no merit for reasons X, Y and Z. And if he really didn't want to talk about that, there were better ways to get out of it than telling a reporter that he's shutting his butt down and implying that the interviewer was treating him like a slave.

I don't see why he couldn't just answer the questions. The reporter is right, that's a far more interesting discussion than "so, how much fun did you have directing this movie!!?" or whatever questions QT apparently wanted to answer. Make your own commercials for your movie - an interview with a legit journalist should not be a commercial for shit, and you can't expect complete softball questions in this setting when you make these kinds of movies.
Click to expand...

This is silly. He's a director. All he does is make movies. He's not a political leader. Who cares what his non-answer insinuates.

The interviewer was wrong. Quentin does not have any responsibility to his viewers concerning the violence in his films. Either people watch the movie or they don't. Either they like it or they don't. It's as simple as that. People don't pay him for his opinions, they pay him for his movies. He holds no moral obligation to explain them.

The reporter was trying to stir the pot because violence is a huge subject right now. Tarantino wanted no part of it. The reporter pushed the issue. Tarantino got angry.

That's all this video is.
 
shotintheface2 said:
This is silly. He's a director. All he does is make movies. He's not a political leader. Who cares what his non-answer insinuates.

The interviewer was wrong. Quentin does not have any responsibility to his viewers concerning the violence in his films. Either people watch the movie or they don't. Either they like it or they don't. It's as simple as that. People don't pay him for his opinions, they pay him for his movies. He holds no moral obligation to explain them.
Click to expand...

This is your perspective on it, but I promise you if he tried to play this card, he would be taken to task by a lot of people. If he tried to answer these questions by just saying I make that I make and feel no responsibility beyond trying to be entertaining, it wouldn't play well.

His movies have a unique combination of popularity, violence, and realism. Almost no one else makes movies that are this violent and also this popular, so he is in a position to speak on the subject, he should have no problem doing so, and explaining why he thinks no harm is coming from his movies.

Now, I can understand if this just wasn't the right forum and he thought the interview was just supposed to be a commercial for his film then it took this turn and he was unhappy. Fine, don't answer the questions then, but I believe taking your strategy would not be a good idea.
 
A Psych Major said:
He was definitely defensive, though I would argue justifiably so given how the media vilifies his movies.
Click to expand...

I dont see it as defensive because the reporter already had an agenda to begin with. If he just asked cus he was really wondering then it wouldve been a different story. The fact that he mentioned there was a rape scene was obvious the reporter was just trolling.

I had no problem QT showing a bit of emotion. Better than politicians who always have the same confusing answers.
 
highkicknomore said:
I dont see it as defensive because the reporter already had an agenda to begin with. If he just asked cus he was really wondering then it wouldve been a different story. The fact that he mentioned there was a rape scene was obvious the reporter was just trolling.

I had no problem QT showing a bit of emotion. Better than politicians who always have the same confusing answers.
Click to expand...

I don't think the reporter said there was a rape scene in the movie but that raped occurred during slavery. QT corrected him because that was not in his film despite other atrocities being included.

Also, reacting the way QT is definitely being defensive, even if its justifiable.
 
A Psych Major said:
I don't think the reporter said there was a rape scene in the movie but that raped occurred during slavery. QT corrected him because that was not in his film despite other atrocities being included.

Also, reacting the way QT is definitely being defensive, even if its justifiable.
Click to expand...

You're right on both ends. The rape part uncalled for though, he just wanted to mention it to make it more dramatic.

As for the defensive part, it has a negative connotation. So if somebody trolls you and you get pissed or show emotion, you're suddenly defensive. So either way you lose.
 
I understand why Tarantino was pissed but he overreacted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,994
Messages
55,460,023
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top