Pigeon Army
Posts: 14611
Joined: 29/1/2006 From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rawlinson And it's not the interviewee's responsibility to go down that line of questioning if they don't want to. If the interviewer keeps pushing it, they're the one making it an uncomfortable interview, not the interviewee. As I've said, Tarantino isn't obligated to respond to that line of questioning, but neither is KGM obligated to drop it. Your position seems to be that KGM was obligated to drop it, and while his line of questioning is simplistic, I can't back that because that's simply not in the spirit of what an interview is, even if Tarantino holds some misguided opinion that everyone who comes through the door is there to be real nice and give him free ad time. quote:
quote:
Django isn't just 'how was Jamie Foxx on set/how do you feel about your Best Picture nomination/how was it finally working with Leonardo DiCaprio' - incidentally, questions to which he has probably provided answers many times. And nobody has said that it is. So why are you 'shutting down' any broader questioning on the basis that 'he's decided what he's there to talk about' and nothing other than mere puffery - on-set trivia and how he achieved x scene - will suffice for these interviews? KGM's not forcing him to discuss anything - he's merely pursuing a line of questioning he wants an answer to because Tarantino is an auteur renowned for his use of violence, selling a revenge film about slavery - a film explicitly about violence, which is the latest in a serious of films about violence (including at least one, which Olaf mentions, which is explicitly about the audience's relationship to onscreen violence). That Tarantino starts talking about 'catharsis' in a pretty empty way before shutting it down when it comes to deeper, more probing questions on a subject his films have tackled isn't KGM's fault - that Tarantino looks bad for what he does say and what he doesn't say isn't KGM's fault. Indeed, KGM got a pretty telling response from his line of questioning. What if Tarantino had been asked about accusations of trivialising slavery and the African-American experience in relation to the film and the same thing had happened? What would your response be to that? Basically, what I'm challenging is Tarantino's idea of what an interview about Django 'is' - how he doesn't get to define what conversations he has about his film, just walk away from (or, in this case, stumble awkwardly and problematically through) the ones he doesn't want to have. quote:
And it's not Tarantino's (or any one else in the arts) job to enter that debate unless they choose to. And he doesn't. You're making it sound like KGM has a gun to his head - if KGM was there because he wanted answers on this specific question, and because he thought his subject was evading the question, he has every right to press it. Indeed, he's obliged to press it. It's his job. I can't understand why you're saying he didn't do his job because of some notion that he had an obligation to leave Tarantino alone once he threw a tantrum about being questioned about something he didn't like. quote:
So why is there even a debate? He clearly refused. So why is he the one in the wrong? He's not 'in the wrong'. I don't think anyone has a problem with him refusing to discuss the issue - indeed, elab, Reb and I have said as much. The things they have a problem with are the ways he presented that refusal ("you're not my master and I'm not your slave"; "this interview is a commercial"). One's a deeply troubling metaphor to use given the film he's advertising; the other is just flat-out wrong and painfully naive and reductive of what KGM's job really is. You're the one who's suggesting there's duplicity (there isn't, as I've outlined), that he's brought an agenda (which, if he has, isn't clear from the questions, and your misquoting of KGM doesn't help), and that Tarantino was right for throwing a tantrum because KGM was unprofessional (which was stupid and makes him look bad but eh, the problem people have is with the content of the tantrum). quote:
So unless you're really saying that a film director on a pr tour should feel obligated to discuss a subject he clearly states he feels he's discussed enough already simply because the interviewer decides that's what he wants to talk about, you have no case. Nobody's said he's obligated to respond. They've just said that the way that he did respond makes him look like a tit. Which it does. I don't know how you can go from 'Tarantino looks like a bit of an arse throwing a tantrum about the line of questioning and saying some shitty things during that tantrum' to 'Tarantino is obligated to answer every question ever thrown at him'. quote:
Actually, what he did was answer the first few questions on the topic. Yeah, and he stumbled over them and they were really fucking empty. Are you saying KGM - a journalist for a show that is hardly frippery - should've just been satisfied with that? I'm not sure he or any journalist would agree. quote:
Decide he wasn't going to go down the path that the interviewer wanted to go down. State that clearly, and then get upset at the interviewer refusing to let the subject drop. And again, to Tarantino it was a mere commercial. Why should he have to play by the interviewer's rules? He doesn't have to play by the interviewer's rules. He should, because it makes him look better. And if he thinks people are interviewing him to give him free air time he is sorely fucking mistaken. But he doesn't have to. Nobody's said this. quote:
quote:
These attitudes are pretty telling and totally right to be criticised, because Tarantino's lambasting KGM for doing the job he's paid to do and doing so in a way that can legitimately be called problematic. KGM has no duty to be nice to him. The attitude that he has no duty to answer a question simply because an interviewer keeps pushing him on it? Good job misquoting that bro. That was referring to the 'slave/master' metaphor and the 'interview = commercial' line. quote:
And all this talk of "he should have engaged" or "he would have looked better if he'd answered" is essentially saying "Well of course he didn't have to... but he should have" NO SHIT. Of course that's what we're saying! Because Tarantino would have looked like a bigger, intelligent man if he did. He might have even had some interesting things to say. And he definitely wouldn't have launched into a worrying tantrum. How is this objectionable? How is it a problem that he should have said something, even if it is to say 'I don't believe in the proposition you're advancing'? I mean, it's great you believe strongly in Tarantino's right of refusal - nobody's contested that. They've contested the way Tarantino refused and said that he should have - but did not have to - answer. And if he didn't answer, there were better ways to navigate that than to throw his toys out of the cot and complain KGM was being mean.
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rinc She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though quote:
ORIGINAL: MonsterCat quote:
ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army Stop being mean to Deviation No.
|