I love Quentin's attitude. In fact I envy his ability to just not care what other people think when in this kind of scenario. He is a leader, he doesn't back down and he stands up for not only what he believes in but for his own thoughts and opinions.

*cinema

Adding video to channels (Cinema) - requested by kulpims.

I really love the interviewers' tenacity in trying and eventually failing to get Quentin Tarantino to talk about the violence topic. Thumbs up for the interviewer.

I personally find his attitude pretty childish. He reminds me of a scumbag politician who sidesteps answering a serious question because he's worried about what impact it could have on his career later. He could have given a succinct and mature answer and moved on, but no, he raves for almost 3 minutes and turns it into a narcissistic power trip. If he was a leader he would have had the courage to defend his point of view by giving a fucking answer.

....Weelll, I feel like punching the shitty interviewerHe was quite polite about kicking the dead-horse but he did keep hammering the fucking issue ad-nauseum. I thought his interviewing skills on par with Fred Rodgers when he used to ask professionals in his "neighborhood" about their jobs...."Well Mr. Baker, how do we get all those tasty rolls from this sticky dough, into this happy little gravy-biscuit?"

This interviewer ranks well-below rank amateur. To rephrase, he's a fucking idiot in an ugly suit.

Have you ever interviewed someone? Have you ever had a set of guidelines given to you as to the prospective content of an interview you must do with a celebrity? I didn't find his questions to be idiotic in terms of content. You can't assume that "everyone" has heard Tarantino's opinion or stance on the violence issue, I hadn't and still haven't. The interviewer has an audience that he was trying to get information for and encountered a hostile interviewee. There isn't anything wrong with him pushing the issue. Whether or not YOU think the issue is a dead horse doesn't mean that others aren't interested in it.

*quality interview

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by kulpims.

Tarantino is just tired of being asked the same questions ad nauseam.

NPR ran into the same roadblock with him during their interview with Tarantino, but they handled it with much more tact.

Bollocks. He's already given a "fucking answer". He's not side stepping the question, he just refused to answer a question he's been asked and answered repeatedly and the idiot interviewer couldn't take the hint. Tarantino just gets too excited over it.

the movie was awesome... and they dont say nigger THAT much, katt williams... a man is torn apart by dogs and one has his eyes ripped out but its... tastefully done

Violence, death and danger raises the stakes of a narrative and triggers the production of adrenaline in the minds of the viewer. Our ancient ancestors got the same rush by outrunning a grizzly bear. Luckily, we can tap into this brain narcotic with much less risk.

There are films that do seem to pointlessly revel in gore and suffering, most notably Saw 1-26, but Quentin certainly isn't guilty of this kind of torture porn. Steven Spielberg killed at least as many Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark as Quentin killed racist confederates in Django, but Spielberg never gets criticized for it. The violence in both films serve the dual purposes of making the bad guys really bad, and making the catharsis of revenge in the end really good.

Violence in media is a reflection of violence in culture, not the other way around. Quentin didn't dream up slavery, lynchings, torture, mutilation and the other types of racial violence in his film. That stuff really happened.

And to Spike Lee: Django blowing racists to hell with TNT is how Tarrentino deals with race in cinema. Mookie tossing a garbage can through the front window of Sal's pizzaria is how you deal with race in cinema. Both are great films with the same perspective on race done in completely different styles. Get over yourself. If you want to criticize a film about race directed by a white guy, do 'Crash', that movie was a patronizing pile of shit.

Though no demagogue, Quentin was refusing to answer because...career. That he already answered the question is a red herring. Directors who are "selling" their movies are used to answering the same damn questions ad nauseum to interviewers because film media asks the same questions (sometimes given the same list) so they can show themselves answering those questions.

I don't know Tarantino's stance on the topic.
Kudos to the news interviewer for asking and pressing.
Boos to Tarantino for dodging it. You form opinions, buddy. So be prepared to give some when you get a mic and air time. Again. And again.

"...childish.", "...narcissistic power trip.". Are you talking about the interviewer? Seems to me that is exactly what is going on.

Succinct answer: he doesn't think there is a link. why?. Movies are fantasies. That was pretty succinct answers from this video clip.

Seems to me a boring question. Haven't we covered this topic at some point since humans first began telling stories? Only 1 out of 10000 people who like movie violence likes real violence so they are obviously not the same thing. They don't trigger the same responses. One is life-threatening and the other is play-time, safe, imagination, etc.

If the interviewer had approached the issue honestly, he'd have likely gotten an honest answer. Tarantino has answered similar questions multiple times before in other interviews, even in relation to this particular movie.

However, it was quite obvious that he came to push an agenda. Like a lot of news media these days, he's attempting to goad his subject into condemning himself on tape. And Tarantino was smart enough to at least shut him down, limiting the damage.

hit the nail on the head pretty much. I like most his movies, but he's not coming out of this interview well.

movies and cinema are at their best when they're depicting violence and sexuality. That is the epitome of what they do. The storytelling aspects surrounding the graphic elements of our incarnation is what makes the movie worth watching.

B I N G O

Agreed, it was clear that the interviewer was steamed about violence and slavery and wanted to finally be the reporter who actually got Quentin Tarantino to say "you're right, I'm the reason black guys worked for white guys two hundred years ago and everyone shoots each other today".

Tarantino is under no obligation to answer any questions posed to him by anybody, I'm surprised by the number of people who are defending this douche of a reporter who decided it would be a good idea to throw a moral tantrum during a promotional interview.

I feel like this is just embarassing for both Murthy and Tarantino (acting like a kid).

I think that in his own mind, Murthy thinks that he's the hard hitting interviewer for the modern age, getting to the hard issues by asking the hard questions. We could do with one of those. But not talking to bloody Tarantino. How about having a go at David Cameron or something? This film director made a film and didn't force anyone to watch it so your tenacity is misplaced. Cameron has been forcing shit down our necks for years now and stealing money from our pockets, people want someone with tenacity to hound him until he breaks or screws up.

I'm just waiting for the one person to advocate guns for all AND complaining that movies promote violence. At that point you really may as well give up, grow your beard out and go live in a cave in just your underpants, cos there's no hope.

Nothing wrong with the question. It is only because of the childish tone of Tarantino's response that this is even a discussion. The "master and slave" reference about a movie that has slavery in it was in bad taste. And then telling the interviewer to play his "role" so he could sell his movie was bad too.

The fault lies with the producers. Krishnan Guru-Murthy is a poor choice of interviewer for someone like Tarantino.

I like the discussions, but don't lose your heads now.

Quentin had the same weird fit when he was interviewed on NPR. I'm sure he's got good reasons for doing the things that he does, but he always get all crazy and uncomfortable describing the reasons. I don't know, maybe he's doing drugs or deep down he knows that things are way over his head.

He's not comfortable revealing himself out in public, yet he's constantly out there revealing his private self and gets an anxiety attack each time he is asked a private question. It's Quentin's job to know his way around this charade. He's in charge of his own reigns. You can't blame every jokester out there who shoves a microphone to your face if you've agreed to be a public figure making internationally well known movies.

The interviewer is no champion of journalism, that's not his job. He's just some douche with well connected parents to have made it that far up the social ladder to have a seat on Channel4-BBC. Emotional interviews by public figures like these are amusing to watch, and that's exactly what the interviewers want. Amusement translates into ratings quite nicely.

If he's not feeling comfortable getting the same questions over and over, just prepare an answer for them that would satisfy them. Or stop revealing your real self that gets you uncomfortable in the first place. It's all games, gotta play it well.

Too many spoilers in this thread, goddamit.

Fair question, violence and the link is in the news at the moment. And like the interviewer states the Vice President was talking to representative of hollywood and the movie industry that very day. Why isn't it a relevant question? Oh he already answered that? He's already answered ever question he could possibly answer so why is he giving interviews anymore? Cop out answer if you ask me. The journalists "agenda" is to ask serious questions. It's a news show not a movie show. Tarantino is just shocked that real journalist still exist in this world.

He is not a real Journalist until he has to interview a director about a movie. Give him Edward Snowden and we'd see he's an ignorant git.