David Lynch is extremely patient and professional during this series of jabs. His greatest quality is how unapologetic he is as he stays true to his visions.
I do respect the Tarantino way of answering this question. It's a fucking movie, grow up. David lynch is a fucking film god he can make anything that he likes.
@@R.Lennartz Had you never seen it before? It's very visceral, no holds barred. I saw it again yesterday for the first time in many years, and was blown away. It's a terrific film.
The "host" is so unprofessional. None of her questions are unbiased, and she just seems like she has a personal vendetta against David Lynch (who, by the way, handled her very graciously). No wonder I have never seen her anywhere else. She must have lost the job right after this "interview." "I actually found the movie very disturbing." Yeah, GREAT way to start an interview.
NESherv this interviewer also gave a cringeworthy interview with R. Lee Ermery about “Full Metal Jacket”. She wants to live in a bland vapid sterile world where nothing ever happens and everything is lollipops and roses.
"I am a human being." That line send shivers down my spine. Also, why is she so aggressive? He's being very polite, and just discussing his film. She's the nobody on a nobody network that no one knows about, and she is speaking to one of the most prolific filmmakers of all time.
If a film is disturbing it doesn't make it bad. Art can give you all sorts of feelings and emotions. With Blue Velvet, David Lynch really did create another world through atmosphere and style. Sure, it is disturbing, but that is just the effect of experiencing that kind of world, and people like Frank Booth really do exist. Why shouldn't David have showed that in his film? This woman has no understanding of art or the purpose of cinema.
I think that this was a very good interview in that Lynch was able to speak to the people who don't "get it", like the interviewer. I have a lot of admiration for Lynch's work and Lynch himself.
This program allows David Lynch to answer. So the woman is not close minded, cuz she is part of a show that is not making a monologue or stating something; she is asking from a honest point of view and lets Lynch to answer. I don't think this is bad journalism, or close minded journalism, because, again. The full scene involves two characters, one representing the one who "doesn't get it" and the other one portraying the director who can explain himself and his art.
I always read that his career was redeemed (or something like that) because of this movie. You know why? Was he being bashed by the critics or the viewers?
yiyuwazza No I think he was just considered an old time actor at the time Hollywood was bringing in a bunch of kids like Charlie Sheen etc. They just offered him fewer roles until he was almost forgotten .
I find that interviewer to be nothing more than a conservative mind set on the world of film. It can’t play out the way you wanted it be lady. Grotesque films like Blue Velvet and many of the Criterion Collection truly make the cinema experience amazing.
He's so very polite and patient here. I'm glad garbage interviewers like this really don't exist anymore - with idiotic questions like "why tell *this* story and not something lighter and more "fun"?
no, it's fine. there's plenty of people who have never seen his films or share the same opinion she has. and as long as she's not talking down on him or calling him a horrible person, it's just fine. she probably shouldnt do an hour long in depth interview with him, but a for a short segment like this it's no problem, it's actually a pretty fitting introduction to Lynch and the way people perceive his work.
Eye of the beholder, I guess. I'm all for interviewers not softballing interviews, but her questions were so dumb and so obviously hostile, it was downright unprofessional. And I think a decent journalist can and should walk the line between meeting the mass audience where they are, and elevating the conversation beyond where an ordinary person off the street would pitch it.
See, the reason why people (Certain people, I should say) thought Blue Velvet was disturbing and misjudged it, was because they tried seeing it from a distance and as a reality, but the things is you are not supposed to see it as a reality, you are supposed to see it as almost a dream. This interviewer obviously hasn't seen too many films to understand such a masterpiece as Blue Velvet happened to be
People saying this interviewer is awful, but i actually think this interview is great bc it really highlights the difference between people that appreciate someone like Lynch for the range of emotions you can have in watching one of his movies, vs those that just prefer comfortable monotonous pictures where theyre never really challenged at all. A mind that wont willingly participate with a challenging film is a sign if weakness from an art perspective and is of low culture. Considering her take away from the film is "it upset me" shows this is a person operating mostly on a level of basic emotion rather than endeavoring for anything deep or true. Unfortunately MOST audiences are like this and have minds that are completely.switched off from a filmic experience with actual range and depth beyond just "happy, sad, mad". It basically mirrors how ridiculous she appears to me as Lynch does to her. I find that quite funny. Afterall its ironic how her attitude towards film is purely surface level, afraid to peek too far beneath the surface for being unsettled, which essentially is the whole thematic journey of the film. If Maclachlan's character did it her way, he'd find the ear, and then just pretend it never happened. Best not go looking for trouble... There's great irony in this interview for the journey a film takes you on if youre willing to go, and shes not willing. This does seem ti demonstrate for me another prime example of hiw truly great films or art are usually polarizing to some degree. Any film that is "easy" to like is usually a film that deals in ideas that are easily dispensed with. Its the films that unseat you in some way that arr exsctly the kinds of films you SHOULD key into, to learn abour yourself and why this film makes you uncomfortable, instead of just thinking "discomfort bad, must happy".
The producer of that specific segment, the head supervisor of the show, and David Lynch and his agent who both receive PRE-INTERVIEW INFORMATION! Grrrrrrrrr!!! CAPS LOCKS!! GRRRRRR!!!
No, because she asks horrifically terrible questions. 'Do you think you're a genius or a really sick person?' Do you think that's a suitable question to ask an artist? Because if you do then you have no business watching movies or experiencing any art whatsoever.
She was disturbed and horrified because she does not want to acknowledge the truly disturbing and horrifying things that exist just under the surface of society. Her attitudes and unwillingness to attempt understanding are actually one of the more truly disturbing aspects of society and a major problem with media still. Does she want to pretend there are not deranged kidnappers and abusive people in the world so she can sleep at night? That certainly does not help the actual victims. David conveys relevant issues in an artistic way. Look at the elephant man should that be considered disturbing because of how John looked or because of how he was treated by society?
Anna Vajda I think that the interviewer wants film going to be beautiful and escapist. When she mentioned putting Walter Matthau on the screen that was very telling. She wants a clean 🧼 prim and proper world of 1950s and 1960s cinema that doesn’t allow for seediness and the grotesque.
David Lynch and his way of interpreting a darker side of human nature is beyond Valerie's simplistic and shallow comphrension. "Ra Ra" Let's go gang" More Walter Matheau!! Bad choice - the most bizarre choice of interviewer and interviewee. never could the 2 reconcile or understand one another....
Well David was interested in painting first then got the idea one night about a "moving painting" and turned to film instead I laugh when he says that because moving painting sounds the same as "motion picture" to me. In the world there are beautiful and benign things but they coexist with hideous and dangerous things too some have cognitive dissonance about it. Imagine going through an art gallery and first you look at some Norman Rockwell style work then suddenly in the next room there is Francis Bacon that's how it is sometimes that's what Blue Velvet is like at first it's like Norman Rockwell white picket fences and flower gardens happy children...then you see behind closed doors violence and kidnapping and that's actually realistic.
"Do you think you're a genius or a really sick person?" WHAT THE FUCK When someone truly talented has to interact with television people you know why you despise them
The comments on here are funny. A woman has a different opinion and everyone becomes cruel and superior to her. If you act like this to people who simply do not agree with you, you are missing the best points of Lynch's style, namely his grace and humanity. You are also the reason why everything has become so safe and bland. If you don't like a news anchor having an opinion go watch Jay Leno, he wont offend any of you. :-)
This is a really weird take. Is it supposed to be ironic? It's clear that commenters mostly aren't criticizing her for disliking the film, but for being so dumb and inarticulate in her expression of her opinion and so unprofessionally hostile. It's entirely possible to dislike a work, be honest about that, and still question its creator in an intelligent and respectful way. I've seen it done. She doesn't do it. Lynch has to struggle to get out anything of substance in response to her simplistic jabs, and she doesn't follow up much on his comments and explanations but keeps bringing things back to her revulsion.
Cosmic86x I completely agree. Lynch is very humble, and only thinks of himself as a filmmaker. Tarantino is a fat, arrogant pig, who thinks that he's a revolutionary in the area of filmmaking.
Now that's where you're wrong, I actually relate Lynch to Tarantino because they're probably the two directors who have always been criticized for their Art for a long point in their careers
Question to people who have seen this movie and liked it: would you say this movie changed your life somehow? I see a lot of people saying the lady shouldn’t have raised the points she did, but I’d say it was fair criticism. Personally, I thought the film was alright and I’m interested in seeing more of Lynch’s work, but what about this movie, let alone the entirety of Lynch’s movies, makes people so passionate in defending him against a couple of minor jabs?
I believe it is the fact that Lynch made such a bold move to make the movie as provocative as it was (especially for the mid-80s) while at the same time weaving a complex narrative which heavily involved themes of sexual dysfunction and the now-stereotypical "The American Dream gone awry". This is one of Lynch's most straight forward movies, yet the metaphors such as Jeffrey entering manhood and the ugly hidden layer of evil underneath the pleasant classic American exterior, are woven in quite well in my opinion. Dennis Hopper's performance is also extremely noteworthy. Best Goddamn villian I've ever seen.
To look at him and hear him speak, he's basically the classic, good-natured, Eisenhower-era suburban Midwestern boy next door. He just happens to create films that strike right to the dark heart of reality, the subconscious, the stuff underneath the calm surface of mundane, everyday life that makes you shudder to think of it.
ohw..well i guess i'll stop making art then. i think she's just asking honest questions, and he doesnt seem to mind really, nor is her tone condescending, he's used to these types of questions and people not getting his work. it's the fanboys who, 25 years later, scream bloody murder, not lynch.
I’m just going to go around saying, “This is horrifying!” at random times now. 😂 because isn’t that the point of the film, how things can appear nice, sweet and normal when ugly things are happening all around us. Lol so funny , I love it
It's not that she had a different opinion. At least not to me. To me, it was the fact that her interview questions came off as so scripted and unoriginal. I have interviewed people before, and the best way to do so, I have found, is if the interviewee says something new or brilliant, to follow that train of thought, rather than sticking to the script.
Well she can ask honest questions as long as they're somewhat interesting. If someone okayed the question I mentioned (I'm not sure if it was off the cuff or planned) then that person is horrible at their job. If it was her question, she should stick to reading from a teleprompter. It was banal and ignorant. There's no two ways about it.
![David Lynch • Interview (Blue Velvet/Eraserhead) • 1986 [Reelin' In The Years Archive]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/p3PFf0VAQWw/mqdefault.jpg)
![David Lynch • Interview (Blue Velvet/Eraserhead) • 1986 [Reelin' In The Years Archive]](/img/tr.png)
David Lynch is extremely patient and professional during this series of jabs. His greatest quality is how unapologetic he is as he stays true to his visions.
I do respect the Tarantino way of answering this question. It's a fucking movie, grow up. David lynch is a fucking film god he can make anything that he likes.
People forget how shocking Blue Velvet was when it came out.
yeah but she is hostile for ne reason. Gets offended by art of all things. Not very broad thinking person. Close minded.
This movie is a ahead of time.
She was also offended when she interviewed R. Lee Ermey for “Full Metal Jacket”.
It was shocking when I watched it last night
@@R.Lennartz Had you never seen it before? It's very visceral, no holds barred. I saw it again yesterday for the first time in many years, and was blown away. It's a terrific film.
If she was terrified by Blue Velvet, her eyes must have popped out when she saw Fire Walk With Me or Mulholland Drive.
The "host" is so unprofessional. None of her questions are unbiased, and she just seems like she has a personal vendetta against David Lynch (who, by the way, handled her very graciously). No wonder I have never seen her anywhere else. She must have lost the job right after this "interview."
"I actually found the movie very disturbing." Yeah, GREAT way to start an interview.
NESherv this interviewer also gave a cringeworthy interview with R. Lee Ermery about “Full Metal Jacket”. She wants to live in a bland vapid sterile world where nothing ever happens and everything is lollipops and roses.
NESherv here is her interview with R. Lee Emery: ruclips.net/video/MjffzVCno84/видео.html
Lynch deals with the dumb questions very cleverly
It is horrible to see these closed minded people attacking something just because they don't understand it
Haha that's the moral of the Elephant Man, isn't it?
"I am a human being." That line send shivers down my spine. Also, why is she so aggressive? He's being very polite, and just discussing his film. She's the nobody on a nobody network that no one knows about, and she is speaking to one of the most prolific filmmakers of all time.
Whatever who remembers her now
"umm ahh uhh" - David Lynch
If a film is disturbing it doesn't make it bad. Art can give you all sorts of feelings and emotions. With Blue Velvet, David Lynch really did create another world through atmosphere and style. Sure, it is disturbing, but that is just the effect of experiencing that kind of world, and people like Frank Booth really do exist. Why shouldn't David have showed that in his film? This woman has no understanding of art or the purpose of cinema.
"you're dreams must be awful, do you ever sleep?" WHO LET U INTERVIEW PEOPLE?
David's thought after Hopper telling him he wants to play Frank because he IS Frank: "I thought, 'I dont know if i want him on the set...'" LMAO
some people just don't "get" art
valerie is one of them
god damn interviewers act so offended by ART
Yeah, but it gives us a chance to see Lynch completely keep his cool and address her questions, while saying what he wants to say. Bravo.
I think that this was a very good interview in that Lynch was able to speak to the people who don't "get it", like the interviewer. I have a lot of admiration for Lynch's work and Lynch himself.
"Do you think you're a genius or a really sick person?" -- LOL What kind of question is this?
This program allows David Lynch to answer. So the woman is not close minded, cuz she is part of a show that is not making a monologue or stating something; she is asking from a honest point of view and lets Lynch to answer.
I don't think this is bad journalism, or close minded journalism, because, again. The full scene involves two characters, one representing the one who "doesn't get it" and the other one portraying the director who can explain himself and his art.
right, she obviously has a limited context to understand the movie but appears curious enough to ask - albeit bluntly
He is gorgeous, eccentric and complicated, I love him 😍
There is only one David Lynch. I love his creative vision and idea driven artistic ethos.
I've never seen a more hostile interview. Jesus lady.
This was Dennis Hoppers best role ever
I always read that his career was redeemed (or something like that) because of this movie. You know why? Was he being bashed by the critics or the viewers?
yiyuwazza
No I think he was just considered an old time actor at the time Hollywood was bringing in a bunch of kids like Charlie Sheen etc. They just offered him fewer roles until he was almost forgotten .
Thanks!
***** I haven't seen that . I'm going to look for it .
He has an awesome scene in true romance with Christopher walken
I love unscripted interviews so much. You really get to see the into the mind of the person on the other side of it
Oh my gosh, what is with this lady?! Even if she hates his movie and finds it disturbing, this interview seemed so unprofessional!
I find that interviewer to be nothing more than a conservative mind set on the world of film. It can’t play out the way you wanted it be lady. Grotesque films like Blue Velvet and many of the Criterion Collection truly make the cinema experience amazing.
LYNCH IS A GENIUS
Handled like a genius.
Hey Tarantino, this is how you conduct yourself when an interviewer questions the purpose of your films, with honesty, respect, and dignity.
She thinks it's an exploitation film when it's an art film.
I love the arkward in Lynches voice, so much.
He's so very polite and patient here. I'm glad garbage interviewers like this really don't exist anymore - with idiotic questions like "why tell *this* story and not something lighter and more "fun"?
This lady isn't all that well versed in cinema
no, it's fine.
there's plenty of people who have never seen his films or share the same opinion she has. and as long as she's not talking down on him or calling him a horrible person, it's just fine.
she probably shouldnt do an hour long in depth interview with him, but a for a short segment like this it's no problem, it's actually a pretty fitting introduction to Lynch and the way people perceive his work.
Eye of the beholder, I guess. I'm all for interviewers not softballing interviews, but her questions were so dumb and so obviously hostile, it was downright unprofessional. And I think a decent journalist can and should walk the line between meeting the mass audience where they are, and elevating the conversation beyond where an ordinary person off the street would pitch it.
See, the reason why people (Certain people, I should say) thought Blue Velvet was disturbing and misjudged it, was because they tried seeing it from a distance and as a reality, but the things is you are not supposed to see it as a reality, you are supposed to see it as almost a dream. This interviewer obviously hasn't seen too many films to understand such a masterpiece as Blue Velvet happened to be
Masterful use of scholar’s cradles here by Lynch.
Thanks! I just learned a new term.
lol. wow...very gracious way to deal with the situation.
Came here because a Shrine's song called "Multitude of Sin". On it, it has a part of this Lynch's speach
People saying this interviewer is awful, but i actually think this interview is great bc it really highlights the difference between people that appreciate someone like Lynch for the range of emotions you can have in watching one of his movies, vs those that just prefer comfortable monotonous pictures where theyre never really challenged at all. A mind that wont willingly participate with a challenging film is a sign if weakness from an art perspective and is of low culture. Considering her take away from the film is "it upset me" shows this is a person operating mostly on a level of basic emotion rather than endeavoring for anything deep or true. Unfortunately MOST audiences are like this and have minds that are completely.switched off from a filmic experience with actual range and depth beyond just "happy, sad, mad".
It basically mirrors how ridiculous she appears to me as Lynch does to her. I find that quite funny. Afterall its ironic how her attitude towards film is purely surface level, afraid to peek too far beneath the surface for being unsettled, which essentially is the whole thematic journey of the film. If Maclachlan's character did it her way, he'd find the ear, and then just pretend it never happened. Best not go looking for trouble... There's great irony in this interview for the journey a film takes you on if youre willing to go, and shes not willing. This does seem ti demonstrate for me another prime example of hiw truly great films or art are usually polarizing to some degree. Any film that is "easy" to like is usually a film that deals in ideas that are easily dispensed with. Its the films that unseat you in some way that arr exsctly the kinds of films you SHOULD key into, to learn abour yourself and why this film makes you uncomfortable, instead of just thinking "discomfort bad, must happy".
The producer of that specific segment, the head supervisor of the show, and David Lynch and his agent who both receive PRE-INTERVIEW INFORMATION! Grrrrrrrrr!!! CAPS LOCKS!! GRRRRRR!!!
I imagined David Lynch's voice saying that and I believe you're right.
No, because she asks horrifically terrible questions. 'Do you think you're a genius or a really sick person?' Do you think that's a suitable question to ask an artist? Because if you do then you have no business watching movies or experiencing any art whatsoever.
Wow. This was kind of hard to watch. I wish she just would have said "I don't care for you or what you do."
Thanks for posting this nonetheless.
wow i wish the interviewer at least tried to understand the film. this is just hard to watch.
"Yes he does."
The movie is disturbing, brilliant, and entertaining. That's what makes it an awesome movie.
She was disturbed and horrified because she does not want to acknowledge the truly disturbing and horrifying things that exist just under the surface of society. Her attitudes and unwillingness to attempt understanding are actually one of the more truly disturbing aspects of society and a major problem with media still. Does she want to pretend there are not deranged kidnappers and abusive people in the world so she can sleep at night? That certainly does not help the actual victims. David conveys relevant issues in an artistic way. Look at the elephant man should that be considered disturbing because of how John looked or because of how he was treated by society?
Anna Vajda I think that the interviewer wants film going to be beautiful and escapist. When she mentioned putting Walter Matthau on the screen that was very telling. She wants a clean 🧼 prim and proper world of 1950s and 1960s cinema that doesn’t allow for seediness and the grotesque.
shocked by these questions
what a terribly simple women.
David Lynch and his way of interpreting a darker side of human nature is beyond Valerie's simplistic and shallow comphrension. "Ra Ra" Let's go gang" More Walter Matheau!!
Bad choice - the most bizarre choice of interviewer and interviewee. never could the 2 reconcile or understand one another....
leading questions much
Well David was interested in painting first then got the idea one night about a "moving painting" and turned to film instead I laugh when he says that because moving painting sounds the same as "motion picture" to me. In the world there are beautiful and benign things but they coexist with hideous and dangerous things too some have cognitive dissonance about it. Imagine going through an art gallery and first you look at some Norman Rockwell style work then suddenly in the next room there is Francis Bacon that's how it is sometimes that's what Blue Velvet is like at first it's like Norman Rockwell white picket fences and flower gardens happy children...then you see behind closed doors violence and kidnapping and that's actually realistic.
Well said
"David, what is this movie aboot?"
"Do you think you're a genius or a really sick person?"
WHAT THE FUCK When someone truly talented has to interact with television people you know why you despise them
I don't know how Dune flopped. it's wonderful, one of my facourite films.
he is the well dressed man
The dark underbelly of small town America is more embodied by Jeff than Frank to be fair.
I'd kill to look like him when I'm old
Except he wasn't back then.
you guys are all wrong, she's not attacking him lol - she is asking fairly normal questions. this is a news show remember? appeals to a large audience
The comments on here are funny. A woman has a different opinion and everyone becomes cruel and superior to her. If you act like this to people who simply do not agree with you, you are missing the best points of Lynch's style, namely his grace and humanity. You are also the reason why everything has become so safe and bland. If you don't like a news anchor having an opinion go watch Jay Leno, he wont offend any of you. :-)
This is a really weird take. Is it supposed to be ironic? It's clear that commenters mostly aren't criticizing her for disliking the film, but for being so dumb and inarticulate in her expression of her opinion and so unprofessionally hostile. It's entirely possible to dislike a work, be honest about that, and still question its creator in an intelligent and respectful way. I've seen it done. She doesn't do it. Lynch has to struggle to get out anything of substance in response to her simplistic jabs, and she doesn't follow up much on his comments and explanations but keeps bringing things back to her revulsion.
Lynch seems like a much cooler person than Tarantino. Tarantino is annoying, in my opinion.
Cosmic86x I completely agree. Lynch is very humble, and only thinks of himself as a filmmaker. Tarantino is a fat, arrogant pig, who thinks that he's a revolutionary in the area of filmmaking.
Now that's where you're wrong, I actually relate Lynch to Tarantino because they're probably the two directors who have always been criticized for their Art for a long point in their careers
Tarantino kinda scares me as a person. Lynch does too but in a nicer way.
why even compare the two? where u draw this paralel from?!?!
lol @ Canadian accents sneaking up on me
"David, what is this movie abeeoouuut?"
Canadian prudes
IF ANYONE WAS MORE DISTURBING IT DEFINITELY WAS THIS INTERVIEWER !
Question to people who have seen this movie and liked it: would you say this movie changed your life somehow? I see a lot of people saying the lady shouldn’t have raised the points she did, but I’d say it was fair criticism. Personally, I thought the film was alright and I’m interested in seeing more of Lynch’s work, but what about this movie, let alone the entirety of Lynch’s movies, makes people so passionate in defending him against a couple of minor jabs?
I believe it is the fact that Lynch made such a bold move to make the movie as provocative as it was (especially for the mid-80s) while at the same time weaving a complex narrative which heavily involved themes of sexual dysfunction and the now-stereotypical "The American Dream gone awry".
This is one of Lynch's most straight forward movies, yet the metaphors such as Jeffrey entering manhood and the ugly hidden layer of evil underneath the pleasant classic American exterior, are woven in quite well in my opinion.
Dennis Hopper's performance is also extremely noteworthy. Best Goddamn villian I've ever seen.
she understands nothing
Why are people interrogating art like it was a crime?
Such a waste of an interview. This reminds me of a terrible interview with Hitchcock where he's told he doesn't have a sense of humour.
how many times does he say "aaahhh"?
He's getting grilled by this lady!
I never expected Lynch to be this polite based on his reputation, but he seems like a really nice guy. He has a lot of wisdom to share with everybody
To look at him and hear him speak, he's basically the classic, good-natured, Eisenhower-era suburban Midwestern boy next door. He just happens to create films that strike right to the dark heart of reality, the subconscious, the stuff underneath the calm surface of mundane, everyday life that makes you shudder to think of it.
"Jimmy Stewart from Mars," as Mel Brooks called him.
shes acting so condescending.
ohw..well i guess i'll stop making art then.
i think she's just asking honest questions, and he doesnt seem to mind really, nor is her tone condescending, he's used to these types of questions and people not getting his work.
it's the fanboys who, 25 years later, scream bloody murder, not lynch.
Don't know what interview you watched. She was not only condescending, but hostile, all the way through.
She is hilarious, guess this film just went over her head.
I’m just going to go around saying, “This is horrifying!” at random times now. 😂 because isn’t that the point of the film, how things can appear nice, sweet and normal when ugly things are happening all around us. Lol so funny , I love it
yeah...is there a 3rd option there? jeezus louizus
To be fair, most interviewers for the news are about as artistically knowlegdable as a fetus.
whats with the hostility towards the woman?
because she found his film disturbing?
because she asks common questions?
Because everyone who liked this piece of trash is just as perverted as Lynch is.
"Mommy!"
Omg, did she really say "genius or a really sick person"? What the Eff!!
Why was this woman tasked with interviewing a true artist? This is painful to watch.
It's not that she had a different opinion. At least not to me. To me, it was the fact that her interview questions came off as so scripted and unoriginal. I have interviewed people before, and the best way to do so, I have found, is if the interviewee says something new or brilliant, to follow that train of thought, rather than sticking to the script.
Well she can ask honest questions as long as they're somewhat interesting. If someone okayed the question I mentioned (I'm not sure if it was off the cuff or planned) then that person is horrible at their job. If it was her question, she should stick to reading from a teleprompter. It was banal and ignorant. There's no two ways about it.
the interviewer seems a bit dim
It is clear to me that at the point she did this interview, this interviewer was a novice.
Exotic Isabella Rossellini? Lmao
It looks like she's razzing him but she's literally sitting in a puddle this whole interview
everyone make's mistakes I guess. and YUP #caps
Go lady, go get your emotional trauma checked for free!
she's disturbing!
@JaxHad For god sake yes!!!! SHE is disturbing
canadians.
She is horrible. Hopefully her career crashed and she doesn’t do this anymore.
This makes me very angry.
This disgusting movie made me angrier.
When everyone in this comments section is dead and buried Blue Velvet will still exist and be remembered as a masterpiece.@@sader1
@sader1 poor little prude 👶🧠
This woman is awful. One of the most insulting and narrow interviewers I've ever seen.
What a Canadian piece of childish drivel. Stay away from Montreal, David!
Such terrible questions
Hostile interviewer! OMG!
All this pretentious hype for a less talented and rather pointless take on Clockwork Orange
not even close sir!
You wanna talk about pretentious and pointless takes (also hilariously misguided)
...
...
...
Whut?