sharkboy
Posts: 6051
Joined: 26/9/2005 From: Belfast
|
'Fraid that as much as I like him and his movies, he does come across as a bit of a prick here. Yes, he's doing a round of interviews for his movie so in some way it is a "commercial", but when that interview is being conducted by a respected news journalist for a major news programme, surely you should be prepared for the more difficult questions? And is it just me, or does anyone else think that his master and slave analogy was a bit much? For someone who has just released a movie that shows some of the horrors of slavery, comparing that to being asked difficult questions for a TV interview just seems a bit insensitive to the subject. Also, if you read the transcript more carefully, you'll see that at no point did Guru-Murphy claim that movie violence led to real violence. Rather, he asked QT why his movies were so violent and why he held the view that one doesn't lead to another. This wasn't "your movies cause people to hurt other people", this was "why are you so sure that the violence in your movies doesn't encourage people to hurt others?". A subtle difference, perhaps, but if I were as vocal as QT has been on the subject, I'd have welcomed the opportunity to present my rationale on a respected news programme. Instead, he just threw his toys out of the pram when it became clear to him that the interview wasn't going to be the "commercial" he thought it would be.
_____________________________
WWLD? Every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we're reminded that that capacity may well be limitless I left in love, in laughter, and in truth and wherever truth, love and laughter abide, I am there in spirit.
|