Promoting Oscar-nominated Django Unchained, which had its premiere in London last night, Quentin Tarantino refused to repeat his position on violence in movies during an interview with Channel 4 Evening News host Krishnan Guru-Murthy. Asked about the link between movie violence and real violence, Tarantino responds in the video below: “Don’t ask me a question like that – I’m not biting.” When asked why, he says, “Because 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.” Saying he was doing the interview as “a commercial for the movie,” Tarantino elaborates, “I don’t want to talk about the implications of violence… The reason I don’t want to talk about it: cause I’ve said everything I have to say about it. If anyone cares what I have to say about it, they can Google me and they can look for 20 years what I have to say. But I haven’t changed my opinion one iota.” Guru-Murthy later presses, “But you haven’t said why you think there’s no relationship”, to which Tarantino exclaims, “It’s none of your damn business what I think about that!… And I’m shutting you down.” The exchange in question begins at about the 4:30 mark:
Quentin Tarantino Has Heated Exchange With UK Journalist On Film Violence, Says “I’m Not Your Slave”: Video
Subscribe to Deadline Breaking News Alerts and keep your inbox happy
445 Comments
Load More CommentsWhat's Hot on Deadline
-
1
Sawyer Sweeten Dead: 'Everybody Loves Raymond' Actor Was 19 - Update
- 2
FYI Orders Spouse-Swap Series 'The Seven Year Switch'
- 3
'Avengers: Age Of Ultron' Continues To Set Records With $44.8M In Two Days
- 4
Netflix Defends Adam Sandler "Satire" After Native American Actors Walk Off Over Script
- 5
Bruce Jenner Interview: ABC News Launches Conversation Tonight
- 6
'Everybody Loves Raymond' Creator & Cast Remember Sawyer Sweeten
- 7
Bruce Jenner On 'Keeping Up With The Kardashians': "I Had THE Story" And Couldn't Tell It
- 8
'Grey's Anatomy' Original Cast Member Departs
- 9
The Joker Photo: First Official Look At Jared Leto's 'Suicide Squad' Villain
- 10
'Grey's Anatomy' Pays Tribute To Dr. McDreamy In Farewell Video
Latest Film News
- Christian Bale Knee Injury Means ‘The Deep Blue Good-by’ Will Follow ‘Wolverine 3′
- The Joker Photo: First Official Look At Jared Leto’s ‘Suicide Squad’ Villain
- A24 Acquires ‘The Adderall Diaries’ In 2nd Tribeca Deal Of Day For Distrib
- ‘Iron Man’ Copyright Lawsuit Against Marvel Has Weak Links In Its Claims
- Fox Searchlight Sets Fall Release For ‘He Named Me Malala’, About Youngest Nobel Winner – Update
- Eric Idle: “We’re Funnier Than Scientology” – Monty Python Invades Tribeca Film Fest
Marketplace
Featured Jobs
- Creative Development Coordinator
Triptyk Studios, New York, New York - Account/Project Coordinator (Ad Agency)
Petrol Advertising, Burbank, California - Media Specialist
Bridgewater Associates, Westport, Connecticut - Executive Director, Aspen Film
Company Confidential, Aspen, Colorado - Associate Director, YouTuber & Gamer Partnerships
Save the Children, Fairfield, Connecticut - SEE MORE JOBS
&a.2=p-31f3D02tYU8zY" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt="Quantcast"/> - 2
-
1
LOL. hilarious.
It’s like watching a crazy person, only this wacko makes movies that influence millions of people.
If you’re influenced by anything in a movie, you are the wacko.
Ummm…..”anonymous” you must be in the industry. lol Do some real research…images effect the brain very powerfully. Hollywood is viewed, by many Americans, as the biggest hypocrites. The game is over…Hollywood needs to take responsibility. You elitist millionaires need to pay the piper. Maybe your scripts need to pass through Washington’s sensors, then you will know how the rest of us feel that are having our 2nd amendment rights diminished.
OH and let us NOT forget how when great movies are made, directors and writers take all the credit for INFLUENCING change. ie….political movies…awareness movies…so you can’t have it both ways. What is your art, if NOT to influence?
Hollywood doesn’t need to take responsibility for anything. This is the typical “push the blame on someone else” bullshit that gaining traction in the world. If someone does something violent, it’s not as if he was a completely non-violent person before and just happened to see too much violence in movies. I’m a peaceful person, and I love every bit of violent movies like Tarantino’s.
If your agenda is to suppress and censor violence in movies, TV and games, then you are trying to impose your morality on someone like myself, which you have absolutely no right to do.
Exactly Pizza Royalty. It’s laughable that these actors are “speaking out” about gun violence when that’s all they ever do in movies. Effing hypocrites.
Pizza Royalty…I think you have some serious angst problems. First of all, any person who is committed to the protection of the second amendment would never wish some one else have their first amendment right to free speech stripped. THAT is hypocritical. Second of all, I don’t think Tarantino would say movies do not influence people (Sorry Anonymous). As he said, he wanted to start a discussion (which he has), but just because people are influenced by images does not mean that a movie will turn a person into a violent psychopath if it is about violent psychopaths. Considering Mr. Tarantino has dedicated his life and career to the gruesome and bloody but hasn’t turned into a serial killer, I think this proves as much. And there have been violent terrifying gruesome movies since the early years of the film industry. Mr. Tarantino just draws more attention to himself than most because he is an auteur of the genre. And before you ask…Ya…I’m a film student.
Nobody forces you to go watch a movie. Don’t like it? don’t go see it. I have watched many violent movies from rambo to django and I am the least violent person you will come across.
Great reply and right on target (oops! is that a violent word). Loved the hand-flapping Tarantino(reminded me of Pelosi,they must have been to the same public speaking coach)getting so defensive and refusing to answer something when he was cornered. If these Hollywood elites want blame e gun owners of the US while they make millions off of their violent movies, then don’t expect people to remain silent. Glad the interviewer pushed the subject and made Tarantino squirm like a worm.
I agree with Tarantino completely. Guns don’t kill people. People do. The fact there is access to guns only side steps away from the true causes of murder, which if not true self-defense is simply a lack of moral judgement that stems from a number of things from mental illness to lack of education, etc. There have always been guns, in movies an elsewhere. We have always been a gun culture. Yet these particular types of shootings, while very very rare are new. Guns are not. People just aren’t thinking this through.
I believe the point Pizza is making includes the hypocrisy of hiding behind the First Amendment as you attack the Second, Fourth, Sixth, and especially the Tenth Amendments. The founding fathers spoke with one voice that the Second Amendment is the right that insures all the others. It’s sad to watch the sheeple of the Left give themselves airs as they try to lead other folks off the cliff so they can whine about how they didn’t know what they were doing as they hit the rocks below. Read your history, it’s the artists and intelligensia that are the first to chug the kool aid and the first to knuckle under when their fool’s paradise turns ugly.
I’m late on this, but anyone who says films don’t influence is deluded. As a grade schooler (long before video) I remember seeing West Side Story on tv. These are the days of event viewings, the whole country would wait for the one night they showed Wizard of Oz, or Charlie Brown’s Christmas. There were no repeats. Point is, you saw it once and only once, no tape, nontivo, no Hulu. Well after that ONE viewing, the next day the entire schoolyard separated into Sharks and Jets and we beat each other.
As a teen it was Bruce Lee and Enter the Dragon, we’ left the theater karate chopping and kicking nd screaming with bad Japanese accents.
Now of course we were adolescents, but the those single viewings did affect/influence our behavior. Some joined karate classes. Some got knives. Anyone who thinks film and tv don’t influence behavior are lying to themselves. Does that mean people who act stupid should get a pass because they saw a film, NO, but to say there is No affect on the population and attitudes is ridiculous. and I am a writer director in Hollywood. Not a major player by any means, but it is how I make my living.
The problem is western culture, and nothing more. We live in a society, where virtuous behavior is often mocked. I’m not one to be all religious and all, but we’ve pretty much pushed that out of our society, and what has it been replaced with? I’m not saying EVERYONE needs to be praying, or sitting in a church- but nobody respects nor cares for the basic teachings- you don’t need to be a Christian or whatever, to respect, learn, and teach those basic teachings.
Here in America, in some schools its gotten so bad- to where if you mention the word “god”, you can be prosecuted, as a female student was- when mentioning god in a graduation speech.
We live in a society where everyone only cares what they can get, me me me, I I I. People are more concerned with how many hits they get on youtube, or likes on Facebook. This past December, a homeless man on the streets, in the dead cold- was being laughed at by people passing by; laughing at the fact he has nothing on his feet. Later on a man was pushed on to the tracks in the subway by a crazed individual- and instead of everyone rushing to help this man up- as he was trying to get back on to the platform… People just stood around afraid to do anything, while one person just filmed it, up until the point the man was hit by the train. What kind of society do we live in?
Blaming movies, music, TV, or video games- is complete crap. I lived in Japan for awhile, they have the most violent cartoons, violent movies, video games which have always been the top sellers in the west since the late 80’s and 90’s- have been the most violent- and yet we do not hear such violent stories coming out of Japan. Sure there is crime and violence, you’ll find it no matter where you go- its just the dark side of human nature, but never will you hear or see the violence in Japan, on the same level as the west.
Its because their culture respects more, traditional, virtuous behaviors. I’ve played violent video games (still do), read violent comics, watched violent movies, heard violent music, yet I never once in my life felt the need to go out and do something violent to someone-its just not in me. It pisses me off when I hear stories of people doing violent things to others, and people blame it on movies, and games and such. If I could grow up in a single parent home, with all of those violent things- with a mother who worked A LOT- though was great… Then there is no excuse for any other parent, or anyone else.
Some people are just flat out crazy, or evil- and speaking of crazy, we do not do enough to deal with the mentally ill in this country- which is another problem.
If you’re influenced so easily at the point of actually commiting an act of violence because you watched a violent movie, blame yourself, not the movie and/or the movie makers. Cinema is cinema I don’t even know why you are debating this its ridiculous. If its not for you, well, don’t watch movies and stop whining. You know, us, normal people actually enjoy cinema. I watched all Tarantino’s movies and he’s just my favorite. Still, I’m nowhere near being violent. If you pick up an assault rifle and kill your entire class, you’re fucked up and it’s not Quentin’s fault.
So, advertisers pay millions so that they can NOT influence people who watch TV and movies w/their products displayed?
Such things have great power to manipulate weak minded people. The responsibility is on the individual, however. One always has a choice, whether to do the right thing or the wrong thing.
Tarantino is a jerk..making movies that resolve conflicts with explosives. His movies are way to predictable..and frankly very lazy
A jerk is he ? And you moron, what exactly have you accomplished ..Loser !
get mad boy. No one told you to watch his movies yet you’ve watched enough to know that they are “predictable” haha it’s like burning your hand on a stove for the 55th time. so predictable, WHY YOU STILL DO IT? so my question is WHY DO YOU STILL WATCH? and FRANKLY, i don’t see you making any movies that make $$$ so you must be the lazy one…
Mike. You just do not know. Lazy? Honestly. You don’t have a clue. Anyone who tackles writing and making a film is not lazy. Anyone who manages to make a film deserves some credit. So don’t offend all filmmakers out there by calling one as great as Tarantino lazy.
The rest of you who say film is to blame for violence or violent people. You’re wrong. Violence dates way back before film. “So it must be the books fault”. Anyone who wants to kill someone has a problem that started way before they saw a film. Seriously, how on earth can anyone with a straight forward thinking mind honestly think that a film is solely to blame for any hurt caused on anyone. The excuse “because i saw it in the movies” is bullshit. People should know there morals and what is right and wrong through good upbringing not from watching a film. sorry if you never got that but thats what parents, schools and generally people are there for. Film is for entertainment, so stop taking it so seriously. If you take something good from it, brilliant, it served another purpose. If you didn’t well just take it for what it is.
Looks like you and Tarantino are made of the same creepy stuff
Cigarette companies paid actors to smoke in movies and the percentage of smokers went through the roof. Same with unwed motherhood, gang membership, drug use and GUN VIOLENCE!! Tarantino is an arrogant, selfish and ignorant yet typical representative of Hollywood.
Of course, Tarantino used the key word ‘slave’ to simply pimp his movie. However, he curiously did not use the word ‘gun’ or ‘violence’. Frankly, the Democrat Party has been a ‘slave’ to Hollywood for decades.
I don’t want to restrict the First Admendment, but I would like the following reforms to better ensure our liberties. 1. Prevent any company having any Federal or state contracts from owning a media franchise – does GE owning NBC ring a bell.
2. Allow media producers and actors to be held liable Ina court of law. As an architect, If I design stairs which look nice (free speech), but are unsafe – I’ll get sued. Why can’t Tarantino be judged in court if his speech influenced dangerous behavior.
Great analogy, that would be like allowing gun manufactures to be held liable when one of their products is used to kill someone. It’s called prior restraint, ask the Supreme Court about it. I’m not a gun owner, that’s my choice, and I really don’t have a problem with people who own guns, that’s their choice. We need some common sense here, the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to gun ownership, but it doesn’t say that the Government can’t make some guns illegal. What’s the point of an assault weapon? We avoid the elephant in the room when we shift blame to the “Hollywood Elites” for making violent movies, but never put any of that angst on Schwarzenegger, Stallone, or Willis since they are good Republicans, you can’t pick and choose. Nor do we look at the rest of the world, a uniquely American reaction, to see that while we claim violent movies and games are the root cause of our gun problems, they don’t seem to have the same affect on the populations of other countries. Why is that?
Of course, you are not influenced by video. This is why advertisers have spent in excess of a trillion dollars on video images. It doesn’t work and they simply like to throw money away, right? This slime will take a gorgeous song like Roy Orbison’s very best, attach stark images (rape, child kidnapping, and sexual imprisonment), and the idiots will hail it as edgy art. Its actually a form of cultural rape to unwittingly or willingly destroy unearthly beauty he could never begin to create. He is a sick little twerp who has repeated the pattern with many a wonderful song. How artistic? Phew!
Er, if you think that people AREN’T influenced by what they see in films YOU are the wacko.
You are correct the wacko’s are influenced by a movie.
I’m not influenced by anything in a movie. But others are. And, yes, they are wackos. And they shoot people.
If Hollywood has no influence on what consumers do – then why are they trying to stop smoking in films? Why do they charge people to put products in movies? Only a fool would believe that people do not identify with or make choices for or against behaviors in information they take into their minds. Having said that, Mr. Tarantino – who I can take or leave as a person and an artist – consciously creates a look for his films and they are not rated anything but R. So if kids are seeing his films, it is with their parents permission or lack of oversight.
that tarantino moron should’ve just replied like an honest man. but he’s not, obviously. he’s there to sell his film. so, why are you people defending him? he said it himself. he likes violence, he thinks it’s entertaining and he makes millions out of it, so why bother with the ‘details’? portraying violence without a reason is wrong and we all know it. it’s like saying ‘it’s cool’. no it’s not. it’s stupid and cruel. just like the psycho killers that massacre innocent people every now and then. i could’ve defended him a little bit, that is if his latest films where completely fictional, with zombies, vampires etc but he turned historical events into splatter/gore ridiculous movies. that’s unethical. then of course he’s in hollywood’s film industry, can he do otherwise??? not all people turn into maniacs just by watching a film, but knowing that you live in a society that sells guns to whomever can afford it (even psychos)you should’ve made at least one film that doesn’t concentrate on violence but peace.
That’s right. Either that, or mentally ill. I’m tired of people saying that movie influences people to shoot others. There are a lot more thing that are harmful in life. And they’re real.
which part of US you are from? Looks like from the South. …
South of what, Anonymous? Then your impudence suggests you may be from New York – or Southern UK? Please. Try to let go of the asinine stereotypes that diminish any credibility you might have had.
@ Anonymous insinuating that the South is mentally diminished. Don’t be a Bigot. It’s ugly. Check your Southern Literature, Southern Music, Southern Art, Southern Cuisine. And bite me.
At the folks who think movies don’t influence. You must have forgotten all the deliberately influential movies used as propaganda. Or Art or Literature.
Pizza Royalty is exactly correct.
One the one hand people want to say that the movies don’t influence culture or attitudes, and then they want to brag that China Syndrome and Full Metal Jacket and the Deer Hunter changed our attitudes on nuclear energy and war.
You can’t have it both ways. Ask Leni Riefenstahl.
No, this guy just make lousy movies. The current is a POS.
Why do GM, Mercedes, Subaru, Honda, and all car companies spend $500- $1Billion on televised advertising…on video commercials? Give up yet?
The reason they advertise in video is because it works at getting people to buy their cars, it gets them to “behave” in a certain way that they might not have.
Please this egomainiac is very ill and the only redeaming quality I can discover in his life is the fact that people are employed making his video rubbish. This was not at all a discussion about slavery, two of his stars said it was good because they got to kill whitey…well ok, , but I had no one here in America then.
The fact that African Muslims, fed the British and Spanish slaves for the new world and it became an American problem that was solved by Americans is not discussed at all. He’s a fraud…pure and undiluted fraud.
When I need to buy a car I will pay attention to their commercials. But no way am I ever in need to want to commit violence. Influence is not the word you want to use here. If you watch movie and want to act it out in real life, you’re wacko!
Why is no one has complained about a foreiner comes to our country and then attacks aour way of life especially a Brit? We kicked them out for what he wants to happen now, remove guns. The second amendent was written becasue of the British. Mr Morgan need to stick to reporting and quit trying to push an agenda. This is the same as a white guy telling a black to get over slavery, it is a sensitive issue and rightfully so.
“Give me Liberty or give me death” Free me or kill me – Patrick Henry
No the second amendment is to protect the first amendment and us from the government becoming lawless, tyrannical and extending its powers beyond constitution. Read the federalist papers. “The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms ia s last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government” Thomas Jefferson
interesting observation… this white al sharpton wannabe associates “slave” with “monkey”… a closeted racist for sure.
Quentin Tarantino is a “shill”
Way too go Tarantino – You should of asked the reporter if he has seen any violent movies and if he acted out because of it.
The reporter in no way infers that there is a correlation between the violence in movies and people “acting out because of it”. He is simply doing his job as a reporter (as he clearly states throughout the discussion) and trying to get Tarantino to explain his views!
That being said I also have no problem with Tarantino’s response and I think everyone that is calling him hypocritical are ridiculous!
WOW. THIS GUY IS COMPLETELY WHACKED OUT OF PANTS.
I thought the movie was completely crazy too, and not in a good way it wasnt. Thats why i had to figure out if he had an accident involving a train wrecking his head..and it seems he had. I would try to wash it away as something like a provoking comedy, but he is actually serious about this on a political level with people talking about slavery again. Man this guy is self-indulging to a stupid level but is now also expanding the universe. Never again will i spend a dollar on his movies.
The arrogant journalist comes across as a pompous ass, even before he asks the question about violence in movies. He throws very critical questions at Quentin from the beginning.
No he doesn’t. He just doing his job. Q is disorganized in both thought and dialog. A real pain to listen to. A jerk.
I think Q is just tired of explaining himself and is tired of people trying to blame recent events on his movies.
I get annoyed when I have to explain myself over and over. That being said he really should expect questions like that and if he doesnt like answering them shouldnt do interviews.
Stick to your comments Quentin, because these media people think they have a right to know everything. While I don’t like to hear all the cursing in a movie, I appreciate the fact that you
put a debatable subject on the screen. You don;t have to explain anything. The fact is that your movie has been elected one of the best pictures of the year. Hurray. I wish you luck at the Oscars.
A dinner mate at a wedding in LF.
Jeff said: …he really should expect questions like that and if he doesn’t like answering them he shouldn’t do interviews.”
I think it was all part of the slavery discussion he talked about during the entire interview. Q has restarted a discussion about slavery in America with his movie and, as a free man, he doesn’t have to answer any question he doesn’t want to answer. He also plainly said that he does interview’s because they are a commercial for the movie. He doesn’t do interviews because he likes the same questions over and over again.
He’s just a little on edge because his movie isn’t being praised like he thought it would be. Sam Peckenpah meets Mandingo is even crappier than that Basterds movie.
Does Quentin think that all interviewers MUST serve HIS own interests and publicity alone? Maybe the interviewer feels a responsibility to viewers of his own show. Nobody held a gun to Quentin’s head to do this interview.
Yes, serving ones “OWN INTERESTS AND PURPOSE” is usually the REASON to do PUBLICITY FOR A MOVIE. It is not a political discussion and no one is there to air views or “debate”, you are there because the MEDIA CONGLOMERATE that paid for your movie also owns or has relations with a network so that they can PROMOTE their PRODUCT. So you couldn’t have been wronger if you tried.
Truth is always or should always be paramount to agenda (in this case, or to your point, profit) and especially for a journalist. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
For all we know, this entire “interview” might have been a setup for even more publicity. I would like to believe there may be one or two people left in the entertainment industry that haven’t sold their soul for money and fame. That’s probably foolish of me.
Everything is a political discussion now because everything has become political. That’s the world we live in now, and anyone earning a living from the creation of violent films had better be prepared for a little grilling. Tarantino is not above being questioned despite his belief that he is.
“Wronger?” You mean “more wrong?”
Pretty ignorant, you clearly haven’t ever worked in the industry. An individual that is nothing more than a P.A. doesn’t have a choice on what they work on; so grilling an unpaid intern just for trying to break into the entertainment industry seems ridiculous in my opinion.
In a word . . . YES!
But that’s the same with all celebrities who agree to be guests on talk shows. They are there to promote their latest projects, but that’s all they want to do. They believe the program is designed for this purpose, alone. Many practically hijack the show from its host to further their own agenda. After all, talks shows are normally required to submit their proposed questions/topics to the celebrity’s PR machine prior to the interview.
As for Tarantino, his inflated ego expects EVERYONE to hang on his every word, as if it is gospel, and only his interests bear any weight.
Well to be fair this wasn’t an actual interview. This happened on a press junket for the movie. These “interviews” are exactly what QT said, they are commercials for the movie.
morph1138 – exactly and simply stated. Everyone here thinking that the interviewer should expect an answer to any question they ask is foolishly, moronic. Politicians don’t answer the questions at their own public meetings/press conferences, why should anyone if they don’t want to. There is supposed to be as much freedom not to speak as there is to speak.
Exactly. This is publicity for the movie. The interviewer is trying to get publicity for his news organization.
My favorite line — “We explore serious themes.” Yeah, by coming to a press junket to interview hollywood celebrities because no one knows the real world implications of philosophical debates like a person who has millions of dollars and lives in a fantasy land.
I have said it many times, but the hard truth is that hundreds of millions of people watch violent movies and TV, they read violent novels and comics, but probably less than .0001% act out violently. We need to find a way to identify and help those people. Not throw blame across the board because it’s easy. 10 years ago the blame was on video games. 20 years ago it was on rap music. 30 years ago it was Rock N Roll. 40 years ago it was Television. Now , it’s movies. Let’s grow up, America.
An artist has no responsibility to anyone to “explain” his position. Just because some second-rate interviewer wants answers to stupid questions, doesn’t mean he has to answer them. I don’t think either Beethoven or Mozart, or Piccaso for that matter, or Hemmingway as far as I know, or for that matter Nicholas Ray or any of the other great directors of the past, cared a nickel for what people thought. The truth, as always, is in the art, but literal people with an agemda that has nothing to do with the artist, just don’t get it and never will. Tarrantino’s retorts were right on the money.
Mike
Typical. Incite violence and then claim no responsibility.
God I’m sick of these hysterical reactionary idiots! Guns are evil, movies are evil, video games are evil!
SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s about parents you idiots! Parents who either don’t parent or who wanna treat their kids like “best friends.” (Yeah, worked wonders for Lindsey Lohan.)
It’s about a lack of basic mental health services. (because we must of course spend billions of dollars rebuilding mansions on barrier islands instead. Here’s a tip, dipshits. They’re called “barrier islands” for a reason.)
I’m off to crank up my “violence-inducing” Die Hard collection on my home theater. To be followed promptly by Sin City, Pulp Fiction, and both Kill Bills.
And if you hyper-sensitive members of the morality police don’t like it you’re all cordially invited to suck my ass.
Bob, when someone tells you to jump off a bridge do you do it?
Let me answer that for you. No, you don’t. It would not serve your best interests. This is common sense.
So to say that films incite people to act violently is to say that people have no control over themselves, and that is simply absurd.
Up Yours Morality Police,
I enjoyed your concise, colorful, and accurate comments.
I agree with you. Like Picasso, or any famous artist, Tarantino is a genius. He might be a bit eccentric, but that goes with the territory. The interviewer, on the other hand, was too pushy— no manners. An ass. QT put him in his place— way at the bottom.
“I don’t think either Beethoven or Mozart, or Piccaso for that matter, or Hemmingway as far as I know, or for that matter Nicholas Ray or any of the other great directors of the past, cared a nickel for what people thought.”
LOL. Absolutely the dumbest statement I’ve read on any comment board. If they didn’t care what people thought, how would they ever be successful? Obviously QT does, and he serves his large market well.
Actually, Acrtic Lion is correct. I know it’s hard to believe for this generation but there was a time when people created things solely to create things. What?! That’s right, kids. It was called being an artist and at that time, you were often poor and overlooked and weren’t really appreciated until later in life or you were dead. There were very few artists who were celebrities/rich in their own time.
If you told Picasso that he was a negative influence on art, he’d have relished that idea. And if you tried to get him to curtail his vision, he would have punched you in the face.
Critical questions? Krishnan Guru-Murthy was trying to have an insightful conversation with a man who is held up as a genius of his craft, who then turned into a snivelling high school punk cornered by the principal.
QT has screwed up by calling his stream of cr*p “cathartic”. Killing whitey provides catharsis — really? Maybe it was foolish for so many white men to give up their lives to end slavery. BTW, although the white man and Western civilization continued slavery (did not INVENT it), the white man and Western civilization have lead the global effort to eradicate slavery. You are welcome.
The civil war was about state rights.
Perhaps Tarantino should stop making violent movies and cancel all interviews. That would serve society.
or you could just stop watching them.
h
Of course he throws very critical questions at Quentin from the beginning that is really what journalism is supposed to be about. Quentin was simply acting like a spoiled child.
“Make no mistake, this is a commercial for my movie.”
Why shouldn’t the interviewer be able to ask Tarantino relevant questions concerning his movie. I appreciate a journalist who will challenge him with questions that are important to the issues of the day as they relate to the movie. Should he be afraid of this director who makes millions off of violence?
“Only a moron can think that screen violence has no effect on viewers,” Sly Stallone.
Yet all his movies are violent.
What a hypocrite. He sounds like the guys from the tobacco industry who say there is no connection between smoking and lung cancer. I’ve been shot in the leg with a lil .22, I’m sure if QT had ever been shot or beat-up in fight his feelings on the subject would change quite quickly. Great-great filmmaker who has given me endless hours of joy, but once he steps out of that arena a complete moron.
No smoking actually causes lung cancer. Violence in movies isn’t real doesn’t look real and certainly doesn’t make someone want to be violent….I watched Milk and liked it. It didn’t make me want to be gay. Why would it? Same reason why a violent movie doesn’t make you violent.
I don’t agree. Tarantino’s movies are not just violent, they are over-the-top violence. I do believe that watching violent movies, playing violent video games can provoke certain people to violence. Just because YOU don’t feel the need to shoot someone after watching violent movies, does not mean others don’t. In fact, there have been young people who have committed violent acts and quoted that they had played a certain game or watched a certain movie and just wanted to see what it felt like to do that to someone. Hollywood is hypocritical on violence. All of the stars who have come out against gun violence have at one time or another made movies, some of them multiple movies (Sylvester Stallone) and now are coming out for stricter gun control. Gun control does not work. It never has and it never will.
But you might be normal. Lunatics might see it differently. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were said to dress and act like they were in the movie “The Matrix”. So we either need to accept that risk is associated with freedom or start lopping off everyone’s freedoms in exchange for the hope of less risk.
Yeah cause no kids have wanted to be like Harry Potter or any of the Avengers.
But they know the difference between being a superhero or a wizard and reality.
Tarantino movies, which are often graphically violent, make violence look messy and death look final. They’re actually more realistic than some violent media that sanitizes it. After all, Wile E Coyote keeps getting back up after being smacked with an anvil. (Though kids know the difference there, too. They’re not stupid. And kids should not be watching Tarantino movies.)
I have guns and it doesn’t make me want to shoot people…
Oh no? You put on a uniform because the government tells you there’s a war and sends you overseas. Would you be capable of shooting to kill someone? I’d say you would, so it IS in you, and you’d be a hero! What’s it feel like?
These days, with all the freewheeling freedom of thought, QT type films, the making of personal enemies, the First and Second Amendments, the guns, what’s the boundary, what stops you? Thou shalt not kill? Fear of authority?
If I had a gun I’d be in prison already or dead. NO QUESTION.
your argument is silly.
first smoking does not cause lung cancer in *everyone*. there are plenty of really old people who have smoked all their lives and never got lung cancer (my mom would be one).
the same logic applies to violence in movies. not *everyone* is going to play out scenes from violent movies in real life, but some are – and have.
no amount of plugging your ears and holding your breath is going to make that fact go away…
violence in movies and video games desensitizes some people, especially those that already have problems.
“Violence in movies . . . certainly doesn’t make someone want to be violent. . . ”
Provide credible objective traceable proof of that or retract what you allege.
You cannot prove a negative .. the burden of proof is on you ..
Start with every violent act being perpetrated by someone who saw a violent movie and/or played a voilent game .. End with everyone who has ever watched a voilent movie or played a game comitted violence.
One or both of those would need to be true if you wish to conclude that Violent Movies / Games cause voilent acts ..
Now that we have concluded that there are many other factors involved we can go on with our lives .
Do you know why we know violent media doesn’t cause violence? Because violent crimes are down despite the exponential increase of violent video games, music, and movies. Perhaps you should inform yourself on crime statistics before acting as if you know movies cause people to do violent things… or are you speaking from anecdotal evidence? My anecdotal evidence: I have met hundreds of people in my life.
What about dreams? Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were in dreams. Do dreams cause violence?
I find your answer interesting. Perhaps you can explain why companies pay millions of dollars every year running ad campaigns on T.V. the internet print publications etc.It’s an obvious effort to sell a product/service. I suggest you google “The Lion And The Lamb Project” and read the paper on the subject . It’s a joint effort of the AMA, the APA, and several other groups in the medical community. It’s an eye opener. Educate yourself.
“Violence in movies doesn’t look real”???
Are you watching movies from fifty years ago, or today?
Hey moron, time to do your homework: there is absolutely no link between violent games/videos and violent behavior. This theory has been debunked repeatedly and there’s no scientific evidence to support it.
Hey “Dan the Maam”, I have no clue where your “theories”, or “debunked evidence” studies come from, but I think you are just repeating some big words you heard the adults saying on TV, and you actually have NO idea what you are talking about- am i close?? No study, or “scientific evidence” that you could point to would ever make such a claim, or maybe you could pass the Links along?? I would LOVE to see who did those “repeated studies”, and what their criteria was and what grants they received and the length of these repeated studies!!
However, Like I said, the reality is you and I and everyone else reading this actually knows you are nothing more than a little piss-ant little liar repeating words you heard political hacks use on TV, the truth is you have NOTHING to back up your claims!
Fact is – ANY Scientific study or researcher knows they CANNOT Prove – or make such a claim thru a behavioral study. Trying to prove a negative that relates to peoples upbringing, mental disorders, personal individual differences, varying tolerances, learned behavior, psychosomatic variations in each individual just to name a few of the obvious issues such a study would need to take into account! People like you are so used to making crap up, you couldn’t tell the truth – or recognize it – IF your life depended on it!! IF Violence doesn’t affect people – Why are there so many catatonic War vets?? I know things like the TRUTH, and FACTS don’t slow a good left-wing liberal’s B.S down even a little bit – but if you are going to try and have any credibility at all outside Move-on.org types, you may want to research those big words before you recycle them into your own sentences..
“left-wing liberal’s B.S ”
Sorry, Mike, but any time I see this nonsense I discount your argument. What it says to others is, “I’m bigoted and instead of keeping up with — up until that point was a pretty good argument — a logical argument I’m just going to spout off bullshit because I can’t break party lines and have a real discussion.”
People always want to find scape-goats for the “immorality” of our society. In fact, what is truly the problem is shitty parenting. This is why we have the MPAA and ESRB. If parents aren’t being responsible, then chances are their kids are more likely to be irresponsible as well. If they’re going to let their unstable kids watch violent films or play violent videogames knowing full well what the consequences could be, as well as access to weapons, then who knows what could happen.
And none of these high-horse moralists that are so against violence in music, movies, video games, etc. can explain how violence in society has actually dropped in America by a huge percentage over the last 50 years. How is it that 150 years ago, hell, even 100 years ago (before movies and games) our society was far more violent than it is today? How is it that Japan, a country that enjoys a very low crime and violence rate, also produces some of the most violent entertainment you’ll see?
Typical Leftist – knows that his “Position” is 100 Percent Hypocrisy – therefore, will not discuss it.
He doesn’t have to…freedom of speech duh.
Guru-Murthy made QT blow his top? Blimey. Imagine what Jeremy Paxman would have done to him.
I feel like someone’s monkey for having watched this.
I know right… f all this bs.
Good.
“I’m not a monkey.” Is he equating slaves with monkeys??
Post of the day.
“Because 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.”
Monkey was referring to the “dancing to your tune” part. As in an organ grinder monkey.
I think the post was pointing out how conservatives would have been lambasted for that comment as a secret code words for blacks.
I also want to point out that if the sale of semi-auto Guns and clips are the reason for the violence we should be able to discuss how much Hollywood is contributing.
Seems Tarantino has some psychological issues for which he should seek immediate, intense, prolonged help.
Haha.. Or maybe he’s an artist going into areas you don’t feel comfortable with and you’re reacting with the typical Kübler-Ross first stage of acceptance – denial of his sanity and the issues he raises.
John, we know a racist code word when we hear it. You’re defense of racist code words is sick.
Familiar with the term “context”? Obviously not.
Nice job, Quentin. May I suggest the next time you go through this you might ask the interviewer…”Would you ask the same questions about violence to John Wayne if he were still alive?”
For sure, violence is more graphic today, but the violence has ALWAYS been a part of filmmaking.
It is a HUGE mistake for the media to climb all over Quentin or others seeking the answers to contemporary violence in our society. Perhaps, it would serve us all better to discuss the “if it bleeds…it leads’ mentality of the media.
No, it’s NOT wrong to pressure him on this. In fact, it makes perfect sense. If the liberal movie makers who produce violent films are then going to take a stance on our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms, and claim that “gun culture” is responsible for violence, and THEY create movies that glorify gun violence, they deserve to be questioned.
You see, they are picking the First Amendment as being inviolable, but then promote violation of the Second Amendment. Therefore, they deserve to be put in their places, and challenged for their idiocy and hipocrisy.
Exactly.
curtis:
agreed and very well said!
So it’s wrong for someone to create a story about violence but deplore actual violence? What idiot planet are you from? Tarantino is right, he HAS answered this question, numerous times, even since the tragedy. I wouldn’t say his conversational tone in the video clip was at all useful or appropriate but yours is far worse. Anyone who wants to put film on notice for “causing” violence is A) moronic and B) attempting to shut down the expression of humanity in art. I mean, really, why point the finger at just film and murder? Let’s take the incest out of the bible, hell, lets take war and slavery out of history books because obviously then we will never be able to replicate those horrors. And yeah, liberals do care more about the first amendment than the second: because anyone who doesn’t is a pathetic moron with lopsided morals.
Fan-freaking-TASTIC response Curtis! Well said!
Are suggesting that the viloence in old westerns was anywhere nearly as extreme as in today’s movies?
First of all, if Wayne were alive today, probably yes, they would ask him. Secondly, sure violence has always been in film but to say that the level of violence in movies today is somehow equitable to the violence in Wayne’s pictures is just asinine.
Irrelevant. Violent crime is lower now than in the period of those westerns so realism in violent media means nothing. People like you are about censorship not freedom of speech. You have a right to choose to not watch those movies. But you’ll say “I have the right to complain about it too.” Which you do. The problem with people like you is you aren’t really going to stop at “not watching” or “complaining”, you people aren’t going to satisfied until some sort of legislation is put in place which bans violent media you don’t agree with.
I think there is a difference between “themed” movie violence (Westerns, war movies with distinct good guys and bad guys) such as John Wayne’s flicks, and gratuitous violence. The majority of Tarantino’s movies ooze grat violence. Prime example – Pulp Fiction, which I enjoyed, by the way.
Hey Adam,
I had/have trouble with some of Quentin’s violence, but have adjusted as it a part of his storytelling. And, for that matter, I can’t stand Texas Chainsaw Massacres and all other graphic horror/violent films. I really don’t like graphic violence as entertainment.
Violence is a part of Tarantino’s style of storytelling. Anyone who sees his films knows this, and still often many enjoy them including me. Plus, Tarantino’s violence often is comic book/video game imagery (sort of).
Finally, the distinct lines between good guys and bad guys have merged as the complexity of society has, so the ‘difference’ is much more gray.
I think violence at the Quentin level in movies is similar to graphic sex jokes in comedy. An easy way out. They don’t want to work very hard. Put in just enough work to make some money.
Gratuitous violence without purpose or meaning is QT’s schtick. Intentionally obfuscating good and bad is the result, like most Hollywood crapola these days.
Hollywood is too PC to make anything with meaning, so it’s all just senseless. QT makes movies about other movies, with no purpose, no story, no meaning, no context.
He’s a loser.
Not according to his fortune.
Exactly. Violence is thoroughly human, and males are built for it from the ground up. We like it, and it’s our imperative … protect the women and children by smashing the bad invader.
And that’s what’s missing in Hollywood. The context, the moral purpose, the right and wrong, and the meaning.
Shooting up the guards so you can rob the bank is bad violence. Shooting up the James Gang who are trying to steal your horses thus leaving you and your family to die on the open plains is good violence.
But Hollywood is enamored with that pathetic, pre-adolescent “shades of gray”, emo, cut yourself cuz you’re upset crapola. There’s no good, there’s no bad, it’s all the same.
So flipping boring. And you end up then with just another QT flatulent bit of senseless violence for no apparent purpose, with no apparent meaning, and no moral reference. I despise the guy.
Obviously everyone who watches QT movies have no moral compass and are unable to distinguish right from wrong. They need movies to tell them what is right and wrong because parents can’t be trusted. Obviously people also have no self-control so they can’t choose between watching QT movies or ignoring them.
But at least John Wayne didn’t go around trying to tell people how to live their lives and whine on and on about curbing violence while he was making piles of cash from his violent movies. He didn’t try to impose his “beliefs” on people while profiting from the very violent lifestyle he portrayed in his films. He was who he said he was. These actors/directors/producers nowadays are so pathetic. they should do their job, draw a paycheck and SHUT UP!
Agreed. You also see in action a spoiled rich brat of a man who blows up at being asked uncomfortable questions. We are all supposed to just shut up and idolize his “genius”.
John Wayne got into trouble spouting racist crap about white supremacy in a 1971 Playboy interview.
So you’re saying that it’s ok to be angry with someone for bringing up a subject you’re not comfortable with? Good job, Rob Tarantino, welcome to the irony train. And since when has he tried to “impose” his beliefs on someone? Hell, in the clip I was watching he was trying NOT to talk about it.
It is a stupid topic to talk about. Anybody who has done any research knows there is no correlation between the violent crime rate and violent media. Crime is down despite the record number of violent movies, video games, and songs that are out today (of which accumulates each year). This debate should really be about: “Why can’t people just ignore movies that they don’t agree with?”
So reporting on violence is the problem?????
No. I do not think reporting the violence is the problem. I believe that the media knows violence is ratings, and as such, gives it extraordinary coverage. And, since we are an instantaneous 24/7/365 speed of light social media society…there is an impact. And this impact is far greater than it is from movies.
Truly, and I really do not wish to go here, but am I the only one who believes there is a definite correlation between violence, the media, troubled souls looking for attention and schools?
This particular violence at schools is growing rapidly. Why schools. I don’t recall growing up with this as a part of society, and people had lots of guns.
The focus on the guns is valid, and certain weapons and ammunition should be removed from the marketplace, but the guns only killed the people…the guns did not select the targets.
Unfortunately, the media has become a targeting mechanism.
I wonder why you ask about John Wayne? I don’t remember him ever mentioning that he was for limiting guns, ammunition, or infringing on the second amendment in any fashionm,unlike Mr. Tarantino. So what relevance does your remark have?
John Wayne did not make PSAs denouncing the very type of violence he glorified on-screen. He never went on a publicity-tour denying the obvious just to sell tickets. Tarantino is a hypocrite; that’s why he’s being asked the question over and over, and his puerile tantrum is because his unabashed denying of the emotional truth is embarrassing – and one must never embarrass a narcissist.
Agree 100%
John Wayne was a real man…..Tarantino and the Django entertainers are not in the same league.
I’m in total agreement with you. Remember where and how he lives….he lives in the LA area, within his gated and secured compound, where successful film directors/producers are treated like demi-gods-his viewpoint is so skewed that is loses all validity in an honest discussion about film violence. His own addiction to film violence is obvious for all to see.
Perfectly said.
No they wouldn’t ask John Wayne. Because back in those days, people, lawyers, and a broke down society at large were not looking to scapegoat something or someone for everything that went wrong. When a NUT went on a rampage we blamed the NUT, and moved forward to limit the ability of NUTS to wreak havoc on society. Today we make excuses for NUTS, look for anything to blame but the NUT. It’s the GUN, the MOVIE, the ENVIRONMENT, SPANKINGS, BULLIES, GLOBAL WARMING, the WATER…on and on. anyhting but the LUNATIC that does the crime or act…. No fan of Tarantino, but geez.
Interesting side note: John Wayne was on record as deploring the amount of violence seeping into Hollywood films in the late 60’s and early 70’s, particularly in Westerns. He saw the increased brutality of pictures like The Wild Bunch, and even Leone’s Dollars trilogy, as a perversion of his beloved genre. He most likely would have been on the interviewer’s side here, however unlikely it seems. Not really relevant to the discussion, but interesting nonetheless.
Much easier to blame law-abiding gun owners…..
Amen to that!!!
He should just point out that the human race has been plenty violent long before the existence of movies and video games — there’s no way entertainment is the cause, but it’s a convenient scapegoat.
yeah, but human violence didnt exist before guns so we should make them illegal. there’s no way the people who shape public thought (the media) are more responsible for people thinking and choosing to act violent then guns – for goodness sake, there was never murder before guns existed!!! its not like what we see has anything to do with how we act, right???
From Journal of Communication article: “Alienation, Aggression, and Sensation Seeking as Predictors of Adolescent Use of Violent Film, Computer, and Website Content”
“Use of violent media content by adolescents has long been a matter of public concern and debate, a concern that was heightened by the reported use of violent computer games and websites by the killers at Columbine High School in 1999. This study examined predictors of various types of self-reported use of violent media content by 8th graders (N = 3,127) from 20 schools around the U.S. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that gender, sensation seeking, aggression, and frequency of Internet use had relatively strong contributions to explaining the use of violent media content composite and the measure of violent website content use. Alienation variables contributed significantly, though modestly, to variance explained in the use of violence-oriented websites, but not to the composite measure. Alienation from school and family also appeared to partially mediate effects of sensation seeking and aggression on use of violent Internet content. A negative feedback loop model for linking uses and gratifications approaches to the study of effects of violent media content on adolescents is suggested.”
How many of those adolescents went on to become murderers again?
No one says that entertainment is the cause, what is being said is that it contributes to the problem. And if you don’t see how it contributes to these nuts doing what they do, then I suggest you are also part of the problem.
I’m a law-abiding gun owner — I’m a big fan of law abiding gun owners. If we were all law abiding gun owners, the world would be a safe place. I also happen to work in the entertainment industry. I love etiology and logic and I value human life. As a result, it really pains me to see us spending our efforts impugning movies and video games, instead of questioning our mental health system or our access to highly efficient weapons (a much more logical combination, causally).
By the way, Michael, a big problem is how dismissive we are of each other’s respective view points when they don’t conform to ours, or how quick we are to label well intentioned people who disagree with us “part of the problem” — not much hope for progress when that’s the case.
In WWII the US Army had to go from damn few to millions of soldiers under arms. One of the biggest challenges was improving the “hit ratio” of shots fired to actualhits on the battle field. They Army psychologists found the answer in the targets being used. The soldiers were practicing on bullseye targets, and when they were switched to silhouettes of a soldier for practice, the actual hits went up tenfold. It seems the human mind has a natural aversion to killing another human, so when they starting practicing on targets that looked like a person, they could then shoot a soldier in the field. What does this say about practicing hours on end,day after day , on video games “Killing” targets on screen? Desensitization, and practice shooting “people” makes it EASY to shoot a real person. Simple.
Ability vs. desire. Let’s not confuse the two. I am extremely squeamish when I see actual blood or witness some kind of violence that is real, even if it’s only via the television set. (aka news) It’s horrific to me. Playing in a virtual world has not desensitized me one bit. It’s not real. Repeat: it’s not real. I can see where one might make that correlation if that person did not understand this “training.” Also, when did the ability to make a killing shot during wartime become easy on the psyche? A change of targets was part of a strategy to make the most of the soldiers. Temporary desensitization at best for a necessary (necessary?) evil that comes complete with emotional time bomb. BAM! The aftermath was an afterthought. Plus, the WWII vets were treated like heroes. Not so for every war. Acceptance and a good support system is crucial for reacclimatization.
Just thinking about my father (God rest his soul)and all of his friends who fought in WWII; they all jumped to enlist the moment they turned 18. Many of them had to finish high school when they came home. If they came home. Not a single one of them returned to go off on some mad shooting spree, or any alternative scenario. There are so many variables; please take the time to consider them.
I am assuming that you are implying that movies, tv and video has no influence at all on folks. If that is the case, why is my TV filled with commercials. Also if a full length feature film has no effect on someone, how is it that a 30 second cigarette commercial got banned from TV because it would make every kid in the country light up. Seems to me some folks like to have it both ways.
There’s a pretty big leap from smoking a cigarette and killing someone.
My point wut, is that History stated that “there’s no way entertainment is the cause”. Pretty definitive. My statement was merely, if what you see on the screen in no way influences your behavior, why in the world do companies spend so much money on television ads? If what you see on screen has no influence on a person then how in the world can a 30 second cigarette commercial make every kid in the country want to light up? Either the big/little screen affects you or doesn’t but you cannot have it both ways.
Tango, you made your point w/complete clarity. I find it difficult to understand how it could not be understood.
My point was that any form of advertising isn’t even on the same level as being influenced to fucking kill someone by a violent movie. Normal people don’t watch Reservoir Dogs and think “Hey, I’d to cut someone’s ear off today” like they watch a McDonalds commercial and get hungry. Your point is weak.
Gareth, your sarcasm is appreciated — not sure where I said anything about outlawing guns or that murder didn’t exist before guns (I think I pointed to the opposite, actually), but you took that straw man down hard, bravo.
It’s simply unfair to point fingers at the media when the problem, at its most basic level, is a combination of the violent nature of the human race, coupled with extremely efficient means (in this case, guns) to commit violence. How we choose to solve that problem, whether it’s attempting to eliminate access to those means, or making sure everyone has easy access to defend themselves, is another debate.
Tango, I only mean to say that as far as evidence goes, it’s really short-sighted in my opinion to point the finger at forms of media that have existed for a mere fraction of the time that extreme human violence has, gun related or otherwise. I hope that makes sense. The Crusades didn’t happen because someone watched Kingdom of Heaven or played Assassin’s Creed, know what I mean?
There’s no doubt that what we see and hear affects us (pornography being my personal favorite) — however it’s a slap in the face to the hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of people who watch violent movies and play violent video games and have never/will never hurt someone. When math and history aren’t on your side, it’s time to look for another scapegoat.
I own a Glock and I personally can’t imagine ever needing something so much more powerful like an AR-15. I agree it’s also a slap in the face to the hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of gun owners who don’t murder people to suggest that guns need to be taken away. I think that, like a lot of people who are pro gun control, they should be harder to get and that their lethality (how many people/deer should you able to kill before reloading?) should be a factor.
History…your ignorance is showing…your “typical” AR-15 is not “more powerful” than your Glock. As a matter of fact, most AR-15s are no more powerful than a .22. I own several hunting rifles…and each one is more powerful than an AR-15. What people like you and others that are trying to restrict gun ownership get your knickers in a twist over is how a gun LOOKS…and most AR-15s look like what you perceive as an “assault weapon”. Can a gun be modified (higher capacity magazine, etc)…sure…and maybe that’s a legitimate issue to have an adult conversation about. But to think that restricting the purchases of higher capacity magazines is somehow going to STOP some nutjob from killing people is utterly ignorant. Guns don’t kill people…PEOPLE kill people. And most of the time the guns that are used are not legally purchased. And if a nutjob wants to kill people…not having a gun isn’t going to stop him. There are more killings every year that are done with knives, hammers, baseball bats, bare hands…than occur with guns…yet strangely enough nobody is talking about banning any of those.
I personally don’t believe violence in movies is to blame for the terrible incidents that have happened. I don’t believe that gun ownership (I don’t care what type of gun) is to blame. Can a violent movie influence somebody who’s already not wrapped too tight? Sure…but what about the millions of people that watch and enjoy violent movies or violent video games that DON’T run out and kill people? I like violent movies (althought I think QT is a talentless POS…but a rich one)…but I’m not going to go nuts and kill a bunch of people.
Those screaming for more gun control are using a tragedy to push their political agendas…that’s what this boils down to…and that’s what has millions of people in America angry. And when some rich Hollwood screwballs with their own personal armies of armed bodyguards decides that the rest of the “smelly masses” need to give up their guns…at the same as they’re making movies that glorify gun violence…it is the height of hypocrisy.
Everything today is political…and as the current U.S. administration has shown time and time again…they never let a crisis go to waste.
There is no sole reason that these terrible occurrences happen…bad parenting, mental problems (which seems to be the case most of the time), violent movies or games, easy access to a gun, etc, etc…throw in global warming and the price of fuel just for the heck of it. Picking one out of the pile and blaming it solves nothing.
I could be mistaken, but aside from your points about the relative power of a Glock vs. AR-15, you and I seem to agree on most points, Spaz.
So how come violence has been on the decline for 30 years as violent games and movies have proliferated?
And why do countries like Japan, with mind-blowing violence in their entertainment, have such low levels of violent crime?
Why little violence in Japan? Maybe they have few monkeys and just the Yakuza to worry about.
That is an interesting point. Japan’s mainstream movies are far more violent and twisted than mainstream American films. Look at just about anything by popular Japanese director Takeshi Miike. His films feature horrendous acts of violence, torture, rape, etc, however Japan is considerable less violent than America. It’s not the guns and it’s not the movies or video games. I think the answer is much harder to get at (I certainly don’t have it) and everyone just wants an easy answer at this point.
Actually film has always promoted violence. Yes we have been a violent socity, but doesn’t everyone live around hollywood, flim T.V. it’s as much a part of our everyday lives as air. If we are effected thios much by anything then we as humans would fashion ourselves after than. As much as I love movies and TV it’s been one of the biggest downfalls and has shaped us in the way the artist like Tarantino see fit.. Just admit it.
What Andy says is true,”film has always promoted violence.” You ask, “always?” I say, “Yes!” The first “film” was of a man sneezing, a mighty, VIOLENT sneeze. Believe the hyperbole. It is true, film has ALWAYS promoted violence.
U tell’em Q.
violence is violence, regardless of the means. The entire gun violence debate is vacuous at best.
If people really wanted to curb violence, we’d discuss single parent homes, and how it’s the main contributor to poverty in North America.
Dude you just covered the root of most every problem in America.
Break down of the family unit
Poverty
It all starts here.
This post about violence is vacuous at best! So are single-parent homes the reason for violence? Make your empty point, already! I guess unemployment and racism have nothing to do with it…
That would involve things like personal responsibility, the question of right and wrong, family before self, self restraint, and likely, even the ‘sin’ thing.
Much easier – and politically profitable – to point the finger at the symptoms, rather than the disease.
Hence my comment. Thanks for paraphrasing for me. Guns are the “symptom”, not the problem. Any free thinking person should understand this.
I enjoy watching Tarantino yell at people. It’s like watching a short Tarantino movie for free.
… BOYCOTT …. Vote with your wallets!
I agree completely! Boycott Krishnan Guru-Murthy.
What are we boycotting?
We’re boycotting boycotting!!! We’ll all do the nothing we usually do, but with much more vigor.
Tarantino is an arrogant ass who happens to have power. Way too much power. He’s an arrogant man and a narcissist who refuses to take any responsibility for the violent images he contributes to society. Meanwhile he’s making millions. Boycott his films. I plan to.
Quentin is a genius..What have you done, you dolt ? Posting mundane garbage doesn’t count..Make some movies that reap millions,,Then come back here and post..You loser !
Good for Tarantino! He shouldn’t have to be the scapegoat for the industry and apologize for his films.
What a hypocritical, narcissistic tool
He is a hypocrite. Plain and simple.
So how exactly is he a hypocrite? Do you know what that word means?
“if gun control were to happen in America, I would have no problem with it whatsoever. Gun control would probably do wonders here. The street violence in America is horrific.” Quentin Tarrantino Playboy Interview. What is your definition?
He’s a hypocrite because he believes that movie violence is less of a cause of real-life violence than actual guns? OK …
I look forward to never watching any of his films
Yep. Your probably not old enough to watch any of his film or be allowed to watch any of his films.
….And the world just doesn’t care…PROUD OF YOU MIKE
Your not the boss of me! Waaaaaaaa…
ROTFLMAO. Well played, NoRinos.
Oh ya. Qt, what a prince of a guy. How dare you do your job and ask me questions like an interviewer should do? You think the interviewer wants to chat you up for the fun of it? It’s his job you dummy. I understand you might not want to talk about it, but seriously, stop being a douche to everyone. Just do like every other major director and say no comment or retread your old talking points. The interviewer will dutifully record and then let you plug your movie over and over again.
He didn’t want to answer the questions or talk about it because he knew his responses would make him look like a HYPOCRITE, which is what he is… He should just come out and say it and embrace his hypocrisy. You can make violent films, show a man going on a shooting spree and still be in favor of gun control. It just kinda makes you look like a sell out slime ball, which is what he is.
Dude, if you owned a resturant and were being interviewed to promote your resturant and the interviewer’s first question was “do you think it’s ethical to murder cows in making your burgers” you’d have the same reaction. This interviewer ambushed him with irrelevent questions. Grab a brain.
My, my, my – kind of “touchy” about this “movies=societal violence” issue aren’t we Q.T.?
Nobody – well, I wouldn’t blame violent movies for motivating crazy people to kill – a movie is a movie so just say it Q, there is NO DIRECT linkage – unless maybe- you’re NOT quite sure that’s true?
james
He was there to promot his movie. the question was inappropriate.
Oh I get that QT is on a press junket and the idea is to pimp the movie.
All he had to do was say “no, I don’t think my typically ultra-violent movies contribute to societal violence, next question,”
…but in a FLASH OF BRILLIANCE QT blows it up into a big story – gets a Drudge link – thus making his non-answer even more effective than a legitimate answer – sharp guy this QT, well played.
God, wh are the Brits such insufferable TWITS!?
Super uptight about guns, violence etc. It’s almost as if they are subjects of a queen or something.
I’ve read a lot of dumb comments on Deadline over the years but this has got to take first prize.
Good for him.
If he disdains repeating himself why keep making the same kind of movie over and over again?
he doesn’t.
Good one!
because it sells…BIG!
He doesn’t, Jim. You should watch them. They’re amazing.
Jim Hines,
You win the award for sharpest rhetorical skewering of a pompous, wildly overrated hack. Well done!
Tarantino, what a classic elitist…….do as I say not as I do. When are people going to realize that they are being used? These Hollywood hypocrites make me sick! “Ban guns, ban guns …… but not for us rich guys, politicians and loud mouths, we’re special, we need protection. You commoners don’t.”
Where do you get your news Marj