Tarantino Shuts Dumbass Down Video!

[Islam Imamate]

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.

Accusing someone of acting defensively does tend to have a negative connotation but I didn't intend for it here.

 

[BEER]

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.

Tarantino has no obligation nor responsibility to answer a loaded question that was asked for the sake of controversy. He is a film director. He grew up watching westerns and kung fu flicks, so his movies are naturally violent. He probably doesn't give a shit if his movies inspire violence [which they don't] because he enjoys doing what he does.

If you put film makers to a higher standard, that's on you, not them.

 

[hitcher]

Quentin handled it very well. Too bad there are not too many good interviewers / journalists left.

 

[m0353]

If I was asked similar questions based the violence in them since Reservoir Dogs, I'd get a little upset.
Not as bad as people are making it out to be, the interviewer didn't do his research and ask the proper questions. Instead he just asked things that have been asked time and time again to Tarantino.
Tarantino acted very professionally and continued the interview and even gave the interviewer a really good quote about film makers and boxers.

 

[jackietreehorn8]

Tarantino has no obligation nor responsibility to answer a loaded question that was asked for the sake of controversy. He is a film director. He grew up watching westerns and kung fu flicks, so his movies are naturally violent. He probably doesn't give a shit if his movies inspire violence [which they don't] because he enjoys doing what he does.

If you put film makers to a higher standard, that's on you, not them.

Of course he gives a shit if his movies inspire violence, he's not a sociopath. He firmly believes they don't; that there's a distinct difference between cinema and real life. It wouldn't have been that hard to say that.

As far as the higher standard...a guy like Tarantino and a lot of these high level directors want that - they are often saying something about the world and you have to take the good with the bad on that. It goes way beyond entertainment for a lot of these guys.

Sure, he has the right to not answer that question in that setting - he's answered it before. But to say he has no obligation or responsibility or needn't have any opinion on the ramifications of violence in movies is silly.

 

[youngsteinel]

He came off as a douche. Completely.

 

[Terror Zone]

What exactly do you guys think interviews are? Answering questions you've already been asked before, that's it. It's a copout to pick and choose the questions you want to answer based on the faulty premise that you've already answered some of them before. Well no shit, keep making the same movie from 2003 on and you're obviously going to get the same questions. If you can't handle anything but softballs without throwing a fit, shut the fuck up and stop doing interviews.

 

[minute bull]

Interviews are COMMERCIALS, for the movie and for the show.

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.

That's a great point. My usage of "media" also includes entertainment -- so how would you apply this responsibility onto makes of film, television, videos games, music, etc.?

And what sort of direction would you give to the non-news media?

Sure, he has the right to not answer that question in that setting - he's answered it before. But to say he has no obligation or responsibility or needn't have any opinion on the ramifications of violence in movies is silly.

Why silly?

You already grasp he thinks there's no connection. Why's it silly to want to stop talking about what he considers silly?

 

[m0353]

To everyone complaining about Tarantino I'll leave you with this, take it as you will:

I am currently taking journalism, and the first thing we are told about interviewing is research your guest. That doesn't mean just looking him up, watching other interviews and seeing his work; it means getting into contact with him and do a pre-interview to know the person better and which questions should be asked. If I didn't pre-interview Ari Taub, I would have never known or been prepared that he was also in the making of creating his own MMA promotion.

To me it seems that this journalist didn't do his work entirely. I feel like he is a Tarantino fan, but he just dived into asking Tarantino some very very repetitive questions. It would be like me going up to Charlie Manson and asking him why he killed those people in the 4th or 5th line of questioning. Something like that takes a proper setup and needs to be asked in a way that isn't leading or repetitive; so instead why not ask "how did (refer to the day when the first murder started) begin yadda yadda yadda..."

Tarantino handled it very well, yes it was preturbed, but the guy does an enourmous amount of promotion and interviews and being asked the same question in the same way will affect you no matter who you are. Tarantino could have acted like other people in Hollywood and just say that he was done and left, but no he didn't do that. Instead he wanted the guy to ask him different questions and wanted to be there, and gave him a great quote towards the end.

TL/DR You wouldn't ask Picasso why he paints as the 3rd or 4th question, especially if he's been asked that time and time before.

 

[Primitivo]

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.

Spike Lee is short minded when he ain't making movies.

 

[Lost Limb**]

^^^ The guy who was interviewing him is primarily a news presenter for Channel 4 in the UK, he is not your standard journalist who is going to research Tarantino. He wanted to ask him about violence movies since violence is such a hot topic at the moment.

 

[m0353]

^^^ The guy who was interviewing him is primarily a news presenter for Channel 4 in the UK, he is not your standard journalist who is going to research Tarantino. He wanted to ask him about violence movies since violence is such a hot topic at the moment.

If that is the case, he's just trading away journalism integrity for sensationalism and Tarantino shouldn't waste his time.
It doesn't matter who is he, if he's not going to take the proper time and live up to the journalistic code and do his work before the interview, he has no business interviewing celebrites. He is now no different than TMZ

 

[Lost Limb**]

Interviews are COMMERCIALS, for the movie and for the show.

That's a great point. My usage of "media" also includes entertainment -- so how would you apply this responsibility onto makes of film, television, videos games, music, etc.?

And what sort of direction would you give to the non-news media?

I don't think entertainment media has any real responsibility. Provided the material is approved for release and given appropriate age restrictions, which must be enforced by retailers and judged by parents, I don't think there should be anything changed.

 

[Katsumi Yamada]

Seriously though, whats the deal with Tarantino and black people?

 

[Lost Limb**]

If that is the case, he's just trading away journalism integrity for sensationalism and Tarantino shouldn't waste his time.
It doesn't matter who is he, if he's not going to take the proper time and live up to the journalistic code and do his work before the interview, he has no business interviewing celebrites. He is now no different than TMZ

I think you are blowing things out of proportion. It seems to me that Channel 4 were offered the chance to interview Tarantino and he was available to do so and had a specific topic in mind. QT saying things like; "my fans know my views on this stuff," doesn't help the majority of viewers who haven't heard his opinions before. It's a news show, not a Tarantino fan show where everyone watching has listened to all of his interviews over the last 20 years.

He should have answered the question or declined in a more graceful manner.

 

[minute bull]

I don't think entertainment media has any real responsibility. Provided the material is approved for release and given appropriate age restrictions, which must be enforced by retailers and judged by parents, I don't think there should be anything changed.

I think you've touched on the real symbiotic nature between consumer and product. While the consumer can bitch and complain about regulating the product, it's ultimately the consumer's decision to regulate themselves. Their dollars regulate, and I think their criticisms tend to hurt their own mission.

The dialogue is interesting if it bridges understanding between parties, but it seems to me not many people have the level of resolve to actually considering what the opposing party has to say.

 

[jackietreehorn8]

Why silly?

You already grasp he thinks there's no connection. Why's it silly to want to stop talking about what he considers silly?

I didn't say it was silly to stop talking about it. If he didn't want to go there in the interview, then he doesn't have to go there. I said it was silly for him to have no opinion or feel no obligation or responsibility about the ramifications of violence in movies.

If he always answered questions about violence in movies with a "not sure, never really considered that, don't care either way...I just make entertainment" that would be pretty silly on his part. The fact is he has considered it and has decided it amounts to nothing, that's his opinion. Fine.

 

[Lost Limb**]

I think you've touched on the real symbiotic nature between consumer and product. While the consumer can bitch and complain about regulating the product, it's ultimately the consumer's decision to regulate themselves. Their dollars regulate, and I think their criticisms tend to hurt their own mission.

The dialogue is interesting if it bridges understanding between parties, but it seems to me not many people have the level of resolve to actually considering what the opposing party has to say.

I pretty much agree.

It really does piss me off when parents want video games banned or CDs taken off the shelf. If you don't want your child exposed to certain material then it is pretty easy to not let them have it. Adults who enjoy such entertainment shouldn't pay the price for bad parenting and witch-hunts.

 

[m0353]

I think you are blowing things out of proportion. It seems to me that Channel 4 were offered the chance to interview Tarantino and he was available to do so and had a specific topic in mind. QT saying things like; "my fans know my views on this stuff," doesn't help the majority of viewers who haven't heard his opinions before. It's a news show, not a Tarantino fan show where everyone watching has listened to all of his interviews over the last 20 years.

He should have answered the question or declined in a more graceful manner.

I'm not blowing this out of proportion, re-read my post before it. I said that it shouldn't have been asked in that manner, but rather set up differently.

You told me that he is not the standard journalist who is going to research Tarantino, which why I replied the way I did. It absolutely doesn't matter who you are, the cardinal rule of interviewing is doing research on the person and how the questions are going to be asked.

Why should Tarantino repeat himself over and over again? The interviewer was asking some generic questions, which to me just shows unpreparedness. The great interviews sound like conversations, this one did not in the slightest.

Which question do you think Tarantino has been asked before, and where you could probably read it from another interview:

Q.Why do you like making violent movies?

Q. On the set of Django Unchained, Christopher Waltz, who of course just won the golden globe for best supporting actor for his role in Django, he recently said that you guys were doing shots as celebrations after a certain amount of takes. Who was involved in this and what made you guys want to do that?

With a little bit of more research, the interview could have gone a lot better. Quentin just caught him on his questioning, the interviewer tried to continue down that path and it wasn't working.


Just realized that was a pretty big rant lol, but you get where I'm coming from?

 

[jackietreehorn8]

If that is the case, he's just trading away journalism integrity for sensationalism and Tarantino shouldn't waste his time.
It doesn't matter who is he, if he's not going to take the proper time and live up to the journalistic code and do his work before the interview, he has no business interviewing celebrites. He is now no different than TMZ

You've got this all backwards Walter Cronkite.

He was asking pretty relevant and interesting questions. You make a movie like that, there's nothing wrong with a journalist following that line of questioning. I'd agree this guy was not the most skilled interviewer, but the debate about violence in movies is far from over, and he was asking someone who's pretty much in the middle of it what his thoughts are. That's called getting a story.

If you're going to be concerned with journalistic integrity, how about the part where the whole thing is apparently a "commercial for the movie." There goes any connection to real journalism right there.