"I like the way you die, boy." - A thread for Django Unchained

[PyrosNine]

Tarantino is a man who has the sense to make a good movie, and none of the sense needed to handle serious, topical, controversial subject matter with any sort of caution. Some other movie makers handle difficult subject matter gently, carefully, while he hits it with a bull dozer and doesn't care about the possible effects beyond whether or not it will make a good movie, because he doesn't know, care. He's in the business of making movies, not in starting social movements or swaying public opinion for the better.

In other words, : He's great in movies, but an idiot in everything else.

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Here's Mr. Tarantino setting the "violence in movies" dialogue back eons with stupidity, also comparing himself (under duress with a question he doesn't want to answer) to a slave which is kind of ridiculous.

Edit: It's actually kind of funny that less than a couple minutes after he's congratulating himself for restarting a genuine conversation about slavery and race in America, and less than a couple minutes after expressing that he's using the interview to publicize the movie, he compares himself to a slave because he doesn't want to answer the interviewer's question, then criticizes the interviewer for asking tough questions for publicity purposes.

...Is this what Tarantino is usually like? Because if so, he's totes an asshole.

The interviewer here starts throwing loaded questions. Maybe that's his job, I dunno, but that's probably why Tarantino starts getting visibly pissed. To be clear, those were pretty loaded, not 'tough.' That the interviewer then sat there and kept trying to tease out his questions despite being - and I'm no conversational master here, but - REALLY CLEARLY shut down, is a sign he didn't know when to move on, or he wanted to get Tarantino as riled up as possible. And whether incompetent or asshole-ish himself, that's not positive.

Of course, Tarantino is obviously kind of a dick. I haven't watched a ton of interview footage of him, but he's always been kind of socially awkward. He could have answered the interviewer and moved on quickly, or just sat there deadpanning and saying 'no comment.' Lacking his special effects crew necessary to make the interviewer explode, I guess he's just a little rude.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Azisien

The interviewer here starts throwing loaded questions. Maybe that's his job, I dunno, but that's probably why Tarantino starts getting visibly pissed. To be clear, those were pretty loaded, not 'tough.' That the interviewer then sat there and kept trying to tease out his questions despite being - and I'm no conversational master here, but - REALLY CLEARLY shut down, is a sign he didn't know when to move on, or he wanted to get Tarantino as riled up as possible. And whether incompetent or asshole-ish himself, that's not positive.

I disagree. I don't see how those questions are 'loaded.' If Tarantino wants to make movies that glorify obscene amounts of violence, he should be ready to defend his use of those scenes in the movie. Tarantino acts indigent that the question would even be asked, which seems ludicrous to me. Of course that question's going to be asked. What director is so self-centered and arrogant to refuse to engage in a critical response to his work?

Prior to asking those 'loaded' questions, Tarantino noted that he was present at the interview to promote his product. And, stonewalling when asked those questions ultimately was far worse than simply relying on the First Amendment or making some other justification while actually answering the question.

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

I disagree. I don't see how those questions are 'loaded.'

They are loaded because the interviewer is assuming the connection between real violence and fantasy violence as he asks the question. That is what a loaded question is. It's specifically designed to piss Tarantino off. Considering every movie he's ever made is violent, too, maybe he does feel like he doesn't have to answer that question, yet again. Though he did answer the first. He makes violent movies because he thinks they are entertaining. Both public critical response and public sales agree.

You know, like some NPFers don't feel like writing out long-winded counterarguments to bigotry anymore, and just opt for "ur dumb." That, plus 15 years.

I'll say this though. I think Tarantino is on drugs. He seems like he's on drugs. I've watched the clip twice now and I'm reasonably sure he's on a lot of cocaine. So maybe some of his behaviour can also be attributed to, he's on drugs.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Azisien

They are loaded because the interviewer is assuming the connection between real violence and fantasy violence as he asks the question. That is what a loaded question is. It's specifically designed to piss Tarantino off. Considering every movie he's ever made is violent, too, maybe he does feel like he doesn't have to answer that question, yet again. Though he did answer the first. He makes violent movies because he thinks they are entertaining. Both public critical response and public sales agree.

I don't see the interviewer making that assumption.
And even assuming that assumption is being made, and even assuming that the interviewer is 'wrong'* on the correlation between fantasy violence and real violence, his position is only being further supported by Tarantino's angry stonewalling. In other words, Tarantino's only supporting the underlying thesis of a correlation by refusing to engage on the topic. He's damaging his own cause.


* (I actually don't think the interviewer would be wrong to assume this, but that's a different subject entirely and bound to cause huge kneejerk arguments from gamers and fans of violent content who are offended by the mere possibility that our culture's a bit fucked up.)

[Azisien]

Well he's clearly super duper into the cocaine, so damaging his own cause is not a big problem for Tarantino.

**to the violence thing: sounds like a possibly fun discussion. My own position is very not-kneejerk, and pretty simple actually. On the topic of society being sick, though, agreed, due to a couple hundred factors (some of which have active discussions threads, right now)

In closing: we'll have to agree to disagree. I see the interviewer making that assumption, you don't. I don't think we'll convince each other one way or the other. Cocaine.

edit edit: Actually the loaded question thing is a smaller thing. I think he did it, so that is that. But the bigger mistake is just that he kept pushing Tarantino to answer the question(s) even though it's frighteningly obvious to even the most socially-inept folk that Tarantino just didn't want to talk about it or answer it. He should have moved on to his other questions instead of poking Tarantino with a stick for 2 minutes. Maybe he didn't because Ratings. If that's the case, interviewer wins, everybody is a dick (the interviewer is just the polite dick).

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Azisien

**to the violence thing: sounds like a possibly fun discussion. My own position is very not-kneejerk, and pretty simple actually. On the topic of society being sick, though, agreed, due to a couple hundred factors (some of which have active discussions threads, right now)

On the related subject of violent videogames, I just think gamers really repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot and feed into the negative perceptions of their hobby by kneejerkingly defending the most grotesque scenes under the guise of 'creative expression.'

In America, even the oft-lauded First Amendment never covered obscene content. And we're at a point where we as gamers should be the first in line to ask developers and ourselves whether certain content has artistic merit, of it's just being outrageously obscene for obscenity's sake.

I do believe that some of Tarantino's depictions of violence, maybe even in Django (though I haven't seen it), may be justified. We should be confronted with scenes that expose how truly and irredeemably awful slavery really was. A lot of it depends on the tone of the scene. Is the audience being asked to reflect upon how terrible the violence is, is the audience being asked to cheer the cathartic defeat of a monstrous villain, or is the violence just being glorified and existing for the mere sake of entertaining through gory close-ups of death and destruction?
I do think Tarantino just likes tossing in a bit of extra violence for violence's sake, and that's where his credibility is damaged. It lessens the impact of the violent scenes that do have a purpose, and it contributes to a broader discussion about how fucked up our obsession with grotesque, over-the-top violence is.

edit edit: Actually the loaded question thing is a smaller thing. I think he did it, so that is that. But the bigger mistake is just that he kept pushing Tarantino to answer the question(s) even though it's frighteningly obvious to even the most socially-inept folk that Tarantino just didn't want to talk about it or answer it. He should have moved on to his other questions instead of poking Tarantino with a stick for 2 minutes. Maybe he didn't because Ratings. If that's the case, interviewer wins, everybody is a dick (the interviewer is just the polite dick).

I agree with this -- the interviewer definitely didn't want to move off the subject of violence.
Where I think I disagree though is whether it's inappropriate for the interviewer to press Tarantino there. If Tarantino wants to be interviewed to increase the publicity for his upcoming release, he needs to understand that interviewers retain the right to challenge him and won't just fawn over his glorious presence. It seems to me like Tarantino only wanted to be asked positive questions that could lead him to sell his movie, and that's just not what good* journalists do.

TLDR: The tradeoff for the opportunity to market your work to an audience is that you will be criticized, and you should be able to handle the criticism and respond to it like a reasonable adult.

* (I have no idea whether or not this particular journalist is 'good' -- for all I know he's been a self-righteous jackass in other interviews. Doesn't change my general perception of his work here.)

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

On the related subject of violent videogames, I just think gamers really repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot and feed into the negative perceptions of their hobby by kneejerkingly defending the most grotesque scenes under the guise of 'creative expression.'

In America, even the oft-lauded First Amendment never covered obscene content. And we're at a point where we as gamers should be the first in line to ask developers and ourselves whether certain content has artistic merit, of it's just being outrageously obscene for obscenity's sake.

Perhaps this should be a thread, then?

I do believe that some of Tarantino's depictions of violence, maybe even in Django (though I haven't seen it), may be justified. We should be confronted with scenes that expose how truly and irredeemably awful slavery really was. A lot of it depends on the tone of the scene. Is the audience being asked to reflect upon how terrible the violence is, is the audience being asked to cheer the cathartic defeat of a monstrous villain, or is the violence just being glorified and existing for the mere sake of entertaining through gory close-ups of death and destruction?
I do think Tarantino just likes tossing in a bit of extra violence for violence's sake, and that's where his credibility is damaged. It lessens the impact of the violent scenes that do have a purpose, and it contributes to a broader discussion about how fucked up our obsession with grotesque, over-the-top violence is.

Based on my one viewing of Django - most of the violence falls into the two groups that Tarantino mentions. Maybe the cathartic violence is actually two sets though: one part cathartic, one part over-the-top Tarantino-style violence (re: Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds, etc). While a fully serious movie might get rid of the over-the-top part, I have to agree with him, it's entertaining for me, so I justify it that way. He was certainly going for the Spaghetti Western finale of the Hero just shooting loads and loads of Bad Guys trope, and it was worked in very well.

I agree with this -- the interviewer definitely didn't want to move off the subject of violence.
Where I think I disagree though is whether it's inappropriate for the interviewer to press Tarantino there. If Tarantino wants to be interviewed to increase the publicity for his upcoming release, he needs to understand that interviewers retain the right to challenge him and won't just fawn over his glorious presence. It seems to me like Tarantino only wanted to be asked positive questions that could lead him to sell his movie, and that's just not what good* journalists do.

TLDR: The tradeoff for the opportunity to market your work to an audience is that you will be criticized, and you should be able to handle the criticism and respond to it like a reasonable adult.

* (I have no idea whether or not this particular journalist is 'good' -- for all I know he's been a self-righteous jackass in other interviews. Doesn't change my general perception of his work here.)

What I can't possibly know from just that clip is that was it Tarantino overreacting, or the cocaine? I don't know much beyond this clip either. I SEEM to vaguely recall other interviews and overall he's just a pretty snippy guy, yeah.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Violence in movie/videogames defineatly creates violence in real life because I want to natural-born killers murder all the people complain about violence in the media.

[Magus]

Tarantino's pet peeve is being asked about violence in his movies' impact on society because he's been asked that question 900 times and gets tired of answering it. I'm not sure if an interview goes by where he isn't asked about it, though I think I remember an Inglorious Basterds interview on NPR that only mentioned it in talking about the cathartic qualities it has as "alternate history" fiction. He's said that he's answered that question multiple times in multiple interviews and has no more to say about it.

http://news.yahoo.com/everything-que...200748205.html

There's also this rather infamous interview (popularizing his "BECAUSE IT'S SO MUCH FUN, JAAAAN!" reaction):




For more on this particular movie, listen to his Django Unchained NPR interview:

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/02/168200...ned-and-unruly

Skip to 20:19 to hear him get somewhat comparatively pissed in a much less bombastic after he is asked, "Is it [movie violence] ever less fun after a massacre like Sandy Hook?"

Tarantino: Would I watch a Kung fu movie three days after the Sandy Hook massacre? Would I watch a Kung fu movie? Maybe, because they have nothing to do with each other.

Gross: You sound annoyed. I know you've been asked this a lot.

Tarantino: Yeah. I'm really annoyed. I think it's disrespectful to their memory, actually.

Gross: To whose memory?

Tarantino: To the memory of the people who died to talk about movies. I think its totally disrespectful to their memory. Obviously the issue is gun control and mental health.