Tarantino gets annoyed at interviewer

[Tony_Montana]

Tarantino vs Channel 4 Guy (UK)

[SS-Block]

I share his irritation. I hate it when journalists go on about the link between violence in movies and levels of violence in society. There's never been any evidence. I don't need to go into details here and preach to the converted.

[psycheoutsteve]

I'm trying not to be too harsh/judgmental, but Tarantino came off like a little bit of a douche in this interview. It's certainly not his obligation to provide his reasons for why he thinks violence isn't directly connected to the cinema, but it would have been interesting to hear them. At the very least, he could've just brushed off the questions calmly instead of flipping out like a crack addict.

[Bourne101]

Tarantino has answered this question throughout his career and dropping this question solely on him and not other filmmakers who have made violent movies recently is unfair and understandably frustrating. It's not uncommon for a director to just say "enough is enough", like PTA did with that interviewer during the press tour for The Master after he had been asked for the millionth time what Tom Cruise's reaction to The Master was.

If the interviewer wanted to delve into that subject, it needs to be approached from a different angle.

[markbot]

Originally Posted by Tony_Montana

Tarantino vs Channel 4 Guy (UK)

Guns, god, and gold baby...that's what it's all about

[KillerKlown]

Krishnan is a dick anyway... He should stick to just reading the news.

[psycheoutsteve]

Originally Posted by Bourne101

Tarantino has answered this question throughout his career and dropping this question solely on him and not other filmmakers who have made violent movies recently is unfair and understandably frustrating. It's not uncommon for a director to just say "enough is enough", like PTA did with that interviewer during the press tour for The Master after he had been asked for the millionth time what Tom Cruise's reaction to The Master was.

If the interviewer wanted to delve into that subject, it needs to be approached from a different angle.

I get that certain directors, (usually the ones who direct more controversial films) can get tired of the same old questions over and over, and I get that they're only human. However, why these guys can't keep their shit together for 15 minutes on camera is beyond me. I mean, seriously, if you don't want to answer the question just calmly deflect it. What can the interviewer do if you give him/her nothing? They can't make you talk. If you flip out on camera it gives the impression that you feel insecure or unsure about how to answer the question that was asked.

Another thing, how can you be a veteran director like Tarantino and not expect this shit from interviewers and journalists? That's what they do for a profession; they get inside the head of the person they're questioning. Granted, their motives are not always pure, but whatever their intentions, questions like the one Tarantino was given are to be expected if you are a creator of controversial work.

Also, was that interviewer singling out Tarantino, or has he asked other directors similar questions about their work?

[DaveyJoeG]

Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve

What can the interviewer do if you give him/her nothing? They can't make you talk.

[SL Dubbs]

He shouldn't have acknowledged the question with any kind of answer. I've seen two people do this in interviews Nick Diaz and Billy Bob Thorton. It actually works.