Follow The Stir

Say What!?

Quentin Tarantino Flips Out Over Movie Violence Question & Misses a Valuable Opportunity (VIDEO)

by Linda Sharps on January 11, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Quentin TarantinoHey, remember that cringeworthy clip of a film critic and Samuel L. Jackson where Jackson aggressively insisted that the reporter actually come out and say the forbidden word he was being asked to defend, and the guy was like, Please god, let a hole open in the Earth and swallow me right now? You wouldn't think another Django Unchained interview could possibly top that profoundly awkward moment -- but wow, did Quentin Tarantino ever do just that.

The latest almost-too-uncomfortable-to-watch video comes courtesy of an interview between Tarantino and British news reporter Krishnan Guru-Murthy, and it starts sliding off the rails when Guru-Murthy asks Tarantino to offer his opinions on the connection between movie violence and real violence. Tarantino starts by red-facedly refusing to answer, then progresses right to insisting that "I'm not your slave! I'm not a monkey!"

Yeahhh, you're gonna want to see this one.

In the clip, Guru-Murthy addresses the violence present in Tarantino's slavery revenge western Django Unchained -- and grills him on why he likes making violent movies in general. At first Tarantino seems in control of the situation: It's as silly as asking Judd Apatow why he likes making comedies, he reasons. But when Guru-Murthy asks why Tarantino's so sure there's no link between enjoying movie violence and enjoying real violence, Tarantino kind of ... loses it.

I refuse your question. I'm not your slave and you're not my master. You can't make me dance to your tune. I'm not a monkey. (...) It's none of your damn business what I think about that. If anyone cares what I have to say about it, they can Google me. (...) I'm shutting your butt down!

Here's the clip -- and if you want to fast-forward right to the increasingly awkward part, it starts at 4:30:

You know, I understand that it must be extremely frustrating to hear the same questions over and over. Tarantino has likely been asked about the controversial violence in his films a million different times, and you can't really blame him for being visibly sick and tired of it.

However, there's a reason the interviewer is asking about the subject, and it's not because he didn't do his homework on Quentin Tarantino. It's because of what happened in Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, and regardless of how unfair Tarantino might think it is for someone to explore whether real-life violence has any connection to the sort of entertainment provided in Django Unchained, I sure don't think he offers a very good defense by reacting with such anger.

In other words, I totally disagree with the opinion of this Guardian writer:

(...) you ask him questions that he was unpicking 21 years ago when he promoted his debut Reservoir Dogs? Tarantino's indignant response was proportionate and refreshing.

Proportionate and refreshing? Jesus, I thought he was going to have a stroke right there on camera. For crying out loud, there's an explosive national debate happening about gun violence in America, and a massive pro-gun lobby with deep pockets targeting Hollywood. Here you are, perhaps the most provocative director in the industry who could have taken the opportunity to defend your artistic freedom, and you peevishly remind the interviewer that "I'm here to sell my movie. This is a commercial for my movie, make no mistake"?

I wouldn't call that refreshing, actually. Next time, I think Tarantino needs to suck it up and given an honest, articulate answer to this question, even if he's done so in the past. He may be more interested in promoting his movie than taking a political stand, but he's a smart guy who should have had the balls to engage.

What do you think about how this interview turned out? Do you think Tarantino did the right thing by refusing to answer the question?


Image via YouTube

Filed Under: movies, interviews

Comments

9
  • Pinst...
    --

    Pinstripes4

    January 11, 2013 at 1:57 PM
    As a fan of Quentin Tarantino movies, I understand his reaction but by no means approve of it. It was completely unprofessional.
  • psych...
    --

    psychofab

    January 11, 2013 at 2:30 PM

    If he had kept cool and just been like, "this is a question I've been asked a thousand times over. Can we please discuss something new?" it would've been so much better. Shutting him down without looking like a crazy person. 


  • names...
    --

    namestaken

    January 11, 2013 at 3:28 PM
    He is disturbed in a bad way. After watching Hostel, I honestly believe he needs a psychological evaluation....Strange, strange man.
  • Danell
    -- Nonmember comment from

    Danell

    January 11, 2013 at 4:34 PM
    Meh, not so sympathetic to the having to answer the same questions all the time. So what? He makes a shit load of money for what he does, suck it up and deal with the annoying parts, for f*cks sake. You think, say, an oncologist doesn't get tired of answering the same questions over and over to patients who have just been diagnosed? And even a well paid, top-notch oncologist doesn't make as much.

    Plus, comparing making a comedy to a violent movie still doesn't address the question...uh, I make comedies because I like laughing. And you?
  • proud...
    --

    proudmomma6804

    January 11, 2013 at 5:38 PM
    Um to the comment about hostel...Eli Roth directed that. And in response to the article...he isbt obligated to answer any question least of all one he's been asked repeatedly
  • proud...
    --

    proudmomma6804

    January 11, 2013 at 5:39 PM
    *isn't
  • Danell
    -- Nonmember comment from

    Danell

    January 11, 2013 at 6:57 PM
    Not obligated? Like, legally? Of course. But morally? I think if you are in the entertainment industry, then you ARE morally obligated, more so than the rest of us, to endure more questioning than the average joe. It's the public who is willing to fork over all their money for your products that serve NO PURPOSE in life other than entertainment. You have gotten obscenely, ridiculously wealthy BECAUSE of that public. If someone very close to you, say your mother or father, for instance, became very ill and needed a lot of complicated medical care...who would you find more endearing: the doctor who patiently explained things as many times and in as much detail as necessary? Or the doctor who explained things a few times to your mother but frothily proclaimed that HE WASN'T OBLIGATED to explain anything to anyone repeatedly and definitely NOT to anyone but the patient? Both could be fabulous doctors as far as treating the illness, but the one that isn't an asshole is going to be more appreciated.
  • Sherry
    -- Nonmember comment from

    Sherry

    January 13, 2013 at 12:08 AM
    Nina Dobrev and her Ian Somerhalder are in Shanghai ringing in the New Year. Nothing like an exotic vacation to get the love flames brewing, but it seems Nina fell into the arms of someone a little less smoldering and a lot more ferocious! She tweeted on New Year's Eve that she had found her "soulmate" and that she was in "heaven" with her new friend.
  • Mutant
    -- Nonmember comment from

    Mutant

    January 13, 2013 at 8:34 PM
    Quentin Tarantino is a human being. I applaud him for standing up to the media, a group of people that save the "tough questions" for directors and actors but don't do their jobs and report the dirty, underhanded things our government has been doing for the last 12+ years. Anyway, if you pay attention to the series of interviews he gave prior to this one he's been asked about violence. He has a right to be upset because he gets asked about it ALL the time. Guess what? Violent moves DO NOT cause violence. Human beings are violent. Movies are art that are imitating life, and then pushing it into the realm of unbelievable. Art always imitates life. So, if you don't like violence in movies, then you don't like yourself, other humans, or our society very much. You people commenting obviously don't know that the homicide rate is at the lowest it's been since the 1960s. What funny about that? How many really violent movies were there in the 1960s? Not as many as there are today. So, what gives? Do some research before you start spouting off crap you know nothing about. (<-- This comment is really directed at every person jumping on the "bash Tarantino" bandwagon either because they want ratings or they are poorly educated about the world they live in.) Sex and violence are linked in the human brain. According to Naomi Wolf (The Porn Myth) contrary to Andrea Dworkin's crusade porn didn't make men rapists. In fact, porn decreased a man's desire for a real woman. Why? Because fantasy was better than the real thing. Likewise, violence in movies and video games are keeping many would-be violent people satiated in fantasy land. I hope the people that want to ban violent movies and video games get what they want. Please do it, don't say I didn't warn you.
1-9 of 9 comments

To leave a comment, log in as a CafeMom member:

Log In

OR, use our non-member comment form: