Communication Professor Reacts to Quentin Tarantino's Viral Interview
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июн 2024
- Communication Professor reacts to Quentin Tarantino's viral interview with Krishnan Guru-Murthy (Channel 4 News) where Tarantino refuses to answer questions about the connection between violence in his Django Unchained movie and real-life violence.
Original Interview: • Quentin Tarantino inte...
Free Download pdf Confident Speaking: www.alexanderlyon.com/
free-resources
See Alex's New Book on Amazon (affiliate): amzn.to/3XEmOaY
Visit the Communication Coach Academy: www.alexanderlyon.com/cca
ALEX’S CLASSES AT SKILLSHARE (Affiliate):
How to Have a Conversation with Anyone: skl.sh/2PVYDkl
Effective Listening Skills for Leaders: skl.sh/2GnIRMR
Public Speaking: How to Open and Close Like a Boss: skl.sh/2ykPJX3
Public Speaking: Confident Delivery Skills: skl.sh/38usFFe
Become More Clear, Concise, & Confident: skl.sh/36m6dxO
The Art of Persuasive Communication for Beginners: skl.sh/2RNY4wt
Courageous Communication Strategies for Leaders: skl.sh/3di1vEX
Linkedin: / alexlyoncommunicationc...
For Creators. I use TubeBuddy as my go-to tool for researching topics and many other channel tasks (affiliate): www.tubebuddy.com/alexlyon
Communication Coach, this channel, helps rising leaders like you increase your impact and lead your teams with more excellence. The channel focuses on communication skills for leaders, presentation skills, group and team skills, and conversation skills. If you're looking for self-paced communication skills training, this is the channel for you.
Top 5 Communication Skills for Professionals: www.alexanderlyon.com/free-resources
Coach Alex, I really enjoyed this video because it provides to me the clarity I needed when I have used communication training techniques & observational body language skills in workplace interviews and in the past with direct managers/supervisors----without them knowing what I was doing. I know I have made persons uncomfortable in my approach because they acted just like Guru-Murthy----but would often try to end the conversation with "I'm not here to argue with you".....and my response would always be..."When did this become an argument? We're just having a conversation in a question-and-answer format. I dont argue with anyone---If wanted a job in politics I would then be arguing----but I'm not into politics" ---- This is good stuff Alex. Instantly subscribing to your channel and downloading anything you have to offer. Might you have anything to add to what I've communicated here---I am all ears as I am always in the interest of improving my communication skills in a professional setting or in a normal setting---as I believe often may be confused with being arrogant or snobbish. The last thing I or anyone would want. Thank you!
Hi Patrick. Feel free to dig in to the other videos. I've published over 250 videos (but only about 20 reactions).
Hi Alex, thanks for sharing this video, and for drawing attention to the way Tarentino shifts the framing of the conversation. It seems to me that the interviewer might have been able to reframe again at the point where Tarentino said he was just there for advertising his movie.
What might have happened if at that point the interviewer had said something like, "you're right Quentin. We are engaged in a commercial transaction, you get advertising time, and in return for that time, we would like our viewers to have a little special insight into your process. For example, what have you found is an effective way to move your plots forward through the sensitive yet dramatic use of violence? I'm sure you could suggest a scene in your new movie that demonstrates this and will have our viewers eager to see it in action."
Would something like that change the balance, or is there not much that can be done in this situation? Thx for any comments you may have.
That may have shifted the balance. It's possible.
I feel like this guy is lying but I want you to check it out
Honestly, seeing Tarantino shut down interviewers like this when they ask questions that cross a line for him gave me the ability to give myself more permission to keep up boundaries. He's not perfect or professional, sure, but I needed that brutality to imagine myself pushing back at all.
I understand what you're saying.
He’s very professional here I feel. He doesn’t make it personal and politely puts the interviewer down as he knows the interviewer has an agenda which is not about interviewing the director.
It’s especially impressive now knowing that this interviewer is kinda known for shameful “gotcha” journalism.
@@J.Artan6lol except that the "gotcha" never really even worked for him
@@J.Artan6 Kinda known? It's his entire schtick, and it fails on a consistent basis.
This was a great example of owning the narrative. Nice work pulling this into a work setting. Great nuggets of insight.
Much appreciated, Craig.
My god is that interviewer thick. He had similar success with Robert Downey Jr.
Yeah, I saw that interview too, and it didn't go well for him. digging for some nonsense.
@@craigg5051
Yeah, got put in place real quick and firm there too.
I loved the RADICAL HONESTY of the meta -communication angle!
I love Tarantino's movies and his style of interviewing.
It's not easy to do but a few moments of meta-communication can completely flip the situation.
Really love your videos! Just found you on RUclips recently and have enjoyed your channel so much! Learning a lot of applicable improvements for day-to-day and professionally.
Thanks for what you’re doing! God bless you too!
Tarantino knows his boundaries and stands firm. He refuses to take the speaker's bait and calls him out.
he was on epstein’s island…
@@raywilliamjohnsomfanAnd so was many other celebrities, what’s your point?
@@OGStarlightKYthe point is he is a pedo just like the rest of them
It wasn't bait. It was a question that allows the interviewee to say how he feels on a subject. It's what interviews are. If you understand who the interviewer is you might understand.
@@AndruidJacksonI love your train of thought. Come to think about it, I love trains in general. But I don't like people on trains. I hope AI takes over so I can ride trains with no people on them.
How you brought it all together at the end and reminded the "commoners" to take the lesson from Tarantino without the exact execution...was very important and well-articulated.
Thanks, Keith. Well, I sure didn't want people thinking that they should demonstrate an exaggerated nonverbal vibe like Tarantino. Ha. Nobody is going to put up with that for long. But the assertiveness, boundaries, etc. are really necessary skills for most people.
Know your place Serf. How dare you question the Nobel.
It's uncanny how every time I watch one of your vids it immediately helps me deal with some tricky conversation. Thanks Coach! Great interview breakdown.
Glad to hear it. Thank you for the encouragement.
I absolutely love your style!!! Truthful/honest, humble, insightful, and wise.... you could be a fantastic TV arbitrator! Society as a whole, can learn so much from you.
I love this idea of examining real life taped videos that show us real moments of conflict between two (in a tense interaction). And then learning what went wrong. I hope There’s a few more like those around. If so, Please do them! 🙏
Really love your analysis of these pieces! Having a professional like yourself break down intense conversations is very illuminating as a casual viewer can get caught up in the emotion of it all
This is great, when I was a teen I would sit and listen to talk interviews, to learn how to listen and receive communication, and doing so helped with good communication 🙏🏻
Awesome video - loved how you broke down the interview which I loved before watching this video.
Fascinating! Thank you for sharing!
Very interesting analysis. From my perspective, this interviewer should have built his line of questioning featuring his agenda into questions related to the movie, dealing with violence-related issues through the movie characters' actions and motivations and role model aspects. Instead, he went about it putting Tarantino front and center instead of using his movie as a go-between. (by the way, Tarantino loves being front and center for as long as he's praised for his talent and cinema knowledge - which by the way, he can be praised about since he's quite a unique asset in today's movie industry!)
Anyway, thanks for the video. Interesting tips for sure!
Hi, Raphael. That's actually really great advice for Guru-Murthy. That would likely have gotten a lot of good stuff out of Tarantino!
It's true the questions should mostly focus on the movie... but it's fair to ask questions of what was meant in the movie. Where the interviewer made mistakes was to phish for controversy... and I get that this was not well prepared interviewing. However, I will argue this was the sort of tone-deaf-ism. He's basically saying to a black man, you will do your job because I pay you to do what I want (and even tells him, he's (edit: Tarantino's) not his slave, and the black interviewer is not his master). The language, tone, and passive-aggressiveness (that actually tends towards aggressiveness in demeanour) while it's reasonable in the context of a personal discussion between individuals considering the discussion, is a totally inappropriate (IMO) way to deal with a a public/professional situation. Unless he also wanted to prove a point - and wanted to shut someone down on film. There were many better ways to define those boundaries - and to explain - without resorting to histrionics. Tarantino is someone that has lived off this stuff - his career thrives on it.
It also seemed to me that he hadn't even watched the movie, which is a huge rookie move. He should have watched and taken notes and yes, absolutely, asked about specific scenes which would have made for much more interesting conversation.
@@AdelaideBen1But I mean...he kind of doesn't have to be kind, or nice, or answer ANY questions he doesn't want to. He's a legendary film maker who has proven himself time and again talking to an arguably 3rd rate interviewer who is ineptly trying to call him out.
I also think his aggressive stance is entirely intentional, and I mean...this is the guy that directed movies that are ALL ABOUT characters who aren't afraid to get in your face and make things extremely uncomfortable. Hans Landa from Inglorious Basterds? Pai Mei or Bill from Kill Bill? John the Hangman from The Hateful Eight? I think he's just channeling some of that energy.
I hate subversive manipulative people like this interviewer so much. Its really hard to deal with people like this, because you think you're just having a conversation with another fellow human being when in reality they are secretly trying to exert control over you and make you look bad in a super creepy way. Its extremely dishonorable.
I think you’re reading a little far into it. The interviewer was asking pretty tame questions as part of an interview.
@@jimyeats Naah it's spot on, I hate this guy. He did the same thing to robert downey jr.
@@dan226343 But during the interview was Downey playing a dude, playing another dude, disguised as another dude?
@@jimyeats I think he was there to talk as a dude who plays a dude. all the interviewer was interested in was getting him to say he used to do drugs, which isn't exactly new news.
He has a personality disorder.
Calling out the situation (Meta communication) really changed the dynamic and was the exclamation point of the sentence.
This is a really good video to watch and learn about different styles of communication and how to be assertive. I really appreciate this!
He is quite assertive, but there is a lot of ego involvement and he’s a bit aggressive too. Assertiveness looks much calmer than this.
Fantastic video! Educational and helpful.
This is an amazing channel, so happy your videos landed in my feed :)
Brilliant. I like Tarantino more now than when he was younger. His instincts are excellent, knowing he doesn’t need to explain or justify himself.
His last film once upon a time in Hollywood, is mature genius.
Good videos! Thank you!
Your videos are incredible. Thank you
Thank you, Dan. I appreciate it.
@12:17 That's an apt description if I've ever heard one. Thanks for the chuckle.
I love how Tarantino doesn't take any bullshit. He makes his art, like it or not, & doesn't apologize for it.
I really enjoy watching your level of professional analysis and comments in this the first youtube video I´ve seen by you.I´ll watch more for sure. As a senior consultant psychiatrist (Ret:) I would like to recommend your viewers additional reading of communication theory by Paul Watzlawick, (whom I´m sure are well known by you) . "Light reading" - "The Situation Is Hopeless, But Not Serious: The Pursuit of Unhappiness, 1983". Mid level - "Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution (with John Weakland and Richard Fisch), 1974". Heavy reading - "Pragmatics of Human Communication, 1967". P.S. I´m also a fan of Tarantino and his movies, have watched them all and are not a bit violent myself. D.S.
Great illustration on framing and.boundaries
To be honest, I like the questions (not the attitudes or the framed implications). One might also say that Quentin did not have a good answer at that moment, and chosen the "lame" approach of shutting down whatever he didn't want (for whatever reason) to talk about at that moment. But nothing wrong with the questions, I would also like to know why tarantino seems so attracted to violence (cathartic or not).
I agree in the sense that I believe there was a way to explore the topic that Guru-Muthry could have taken but gave off too much of an accusatory vibe or pushing beyond the point of helpfulness. I still think Quentin had good reasons to not want to talk about it with Guru-Muthry if he didn't want to. By the way, in the full interview, Tarantino does talk about the two types of violence in his films and gives a long answer to that. He handles it really calmly. It's only when the interviewer interrupts him and challenges his view that he says he's done talking about it.
If you'd like to know, then do what Tarantino said and Google it.
@@alexanderlyon I really don't agree that he was accusatory. Guru Murthy is assertive . He doesn't gush. I can't stand interviewers talking to film stars and Directors as if they're Gods.
@@alexanderlyon So what you're saying is - have a prepared answer (and preferably one you broadcast pre-emptively), and if you're questioned, shut it down. Not sure that's effective communication? This is the problem with modern communication "experts" - it's all about defining the solution, not having a dialogue. You are looking this at an effective shut-down technique, rather than an effective engagement with an audience (his audience in this case is a foreign news station).
It's so arrogant of US movie stars who think that Hollywood is so important, that an interview is purely supposed to be a commercial for their benefit only. Even when interviewed by a news ancor journalist, on a news show, on a state owned public broadcasting channel.
Great review - really enjoyed the real world application at the end ❤
Very interesting video. Also about the Meta communication. Thanks for sharing. About the interview: at least Quentin and Guru-Murthy wrapped it up at the end on a polite note.
Omg that was so funny. Just seen you analyse it and finding it funny really cracked me up 🤣🤣🤣
It didn’t make the rounds at the time like this interview did, but if I’m remembering right, like a week before this Tarantino had a very similar interview to this on the NPR show Fresh Air with Terry Gross. Remember hearing that one while going to pick up some pizza. I’d assume Krishnan Guru-Murthy and his people were well aware of that NPR interview going into this. There may have been one other interview between the Gross and Guru-Murthy interviews (or even before the Gross one) that didn’t get as heated as those two.
Thank you for this content! I learn so much every time 😁
I love your channel❤❤❤❤❤
Thanks for being my newest find!
Such a good interview
Really insightful analysis. Many thanks Alex for the usual great delivery!
What most impressed me, for both Tarantino and Guru-Murthy, is their ability to not let their emotions- anger- take over. It is so challenging to allow emotions to happen, and to have them enhance your message and be evident. In my experience emotions cause everything tp deteriorate. But not for these guys!
Hi, Adam. Good point. Well, I'd say they came pretty close to boiling over but then pulled back. By the way, if you watch the very next question (about how aging directors often go downhill in quality), I was totally amazed at how they both instantly regained complete composure and had a polite conversation. Maybe their hearts were still pumping but they both got right back on task. I don't know if I could have done that.
Perfect 🎉
🤣 T did get very angry and very agitated.
Violence in films does cause copycat violence. Tarentino came across, in the UK at least, as a twat.
Love this guy. Great replies. People need to take lessons!!!! Thank you. The Interviewer reminds me of a Psychiatrist I came across. I shut him down. Amen
OUTSTANDING ANALYSIS BY ALEXANDER LYON. I hope the journalist learns a lesson or two from this interview and by listening to your analysis . I have seen more than one instance in other interviews by the same journalist - a desire to go for controversy or Tabloid journalism to agitate the star being interviewed. This approach will keep back firing on the journalist for sure.
Can you share your top 5 -10 books on communication? I'd love to dive deeper for personal study.
I get that question a lot, Thomas. I should put together a list at some point. For the moment, I'll just say that Allen Weiner's classic book is great. _"So Smart But . . ."_
@@alexanderlyon Thanks for the response Alex! Love your videos, they keep me fresh and excited for what I do.
We don't have to answer questions just because someone asks them. That's the point. Tarantino said he's answered the question many times before and they can be googled.
youre helping very much about how to claim my boundaries, i was a person who was very permisive , now i can say "no" for some people who wants to step me on, thanks very much.
What is even the point of this example? The way I see it the power relationship between Gurumurthy and Tarantino is completely asymmetrical, and Gurumurthy has no choice but to accept Tarantino's framing of the conversation. He doesn't have the power to walk out of the interview and leave, whereas Tarantino does. ... And now that I have seen the complete video, you admit as much yourself. Ultimately we just end up experiencing this vicariously through Tarantino and learning little from the experience of Gurumurthy.
Very interesting video.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy, gutter level journalism at its worst.
While I agree with almost everyone who has an opinion on this (the interview was pushing his boundaries, and annoying) it’s clear that Tarantino wasn’t perfect either. I agree with the last part of this reaction video, that we can’t get away with that kind of animated/aggressive framing like Tarantino did. Instead of “politely reframing” the conversation, I think Quentin was quite triggered by the questions and this was his strategy to avoid dealing with the critiques of the violence in his movies. I don’t love how violent they are sometimes, but the writing and screenplay is always simply incredible. I would’ve liked to hear his answer to those questions and instead I got a dramatic, rude dismissal that did very little to save face or even professionalism. It kind of felt like a tense scene in one of his movies.
Yes the journos can't win. If they ask light hearted questions they're criticised for making fluff pieces if they ask serious questions the interviewees get defensive.
I agree, it almost seems that he didn't have a good answer and he just wanted aggressively switch the topic. It left a bitter sense to me, without excusing the attitude and implications of the journalist (his questions are pretty interesting though)
His answer is "it's fun". He's been answering the question for 20 years, like he said, it's easy to find his answer.
This is a dumb opinion, he's already answered it a million times
If you want to know his thoughts on this matter then spend the time to look for other conversations where he has explored and answered this question.
I enjoy your videos and I always find your observations to be thorough and on point, not because I already knew, but because what you say rings true. However, my concern is that it may not be practical to try to implement this knowledge in real life confrontations. We are all creatures of habit and certain tactics may not jibe naturally with our unique personalities without feeling forced or contrived. I liked that you addressed that to some degree in saying that Quinton’s tactics are specific to him and that you don’t recommend attempting to adopt them. Even though my gut is telling me that this is fascinating and valuable info, I’m discerning that it might be best to just internalize it, and if it naturally integrates and influences my communication skills then great! But it’s probably best that I don’t make a conscious effort to employ them in an actual situation. If you can expound upon this or have any advice, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
Hi, Mark. The reaction videos I do are to provide real life examples and a bit of inspiration. However, my reaction videos only represent about 10% of the videos on my channel. The other 90% are very practical and give specific instructions about how to do what I'm asking. If you look at the "Videos" page on my channel, you'll there are hundreds of how to videos going back over 6 years.
You can definitely make a conscious effort to improve your communication. It will be a work of working against what you're used to, but if you think it's needed, do it.
Good on Taratino! He is obviously skilled at dealing with interviewing & takes charge of the situation! Refuses to be putty in the interviewer's hands!
Learned a lot from this, since so much discourse is basically people trying to dictate the terms with premises that aren't necessarily true.
The interviewer is pushy, he asks hypothetical questions and expects an answer Tarantino can't realistically answer. How does he know what other people think about violence in movies.
I love Quentin. I love his movies. Reservoir Dogs has played several times this week as well as Kill Bill. What I took from the last part of this exchange is no means no. (Imagine if this was an exchange regarding a male to female heterosexual romantic relationship and the woman said no). Quentin said I have a right of refusal. I have the right to my integrity and high standards I set for myself and my films. He's an artist who enjoys, loves, critiques, and breathes film and cinema. The interviewer should have known that. And yes, I am slightly biased here because I have enjoyed his films and get a better understanding of what he's trying to accomplish to the audience. Django Unchained is a black comedy drama spaghetti western about a traveling man rescuing his bride from an evil man. The premise sounds like a western but it's in the premise of Pulp Fiction mixed with Jackie Brown and a lot of historical references The setting happens to be during slavery. And yes people are still talking about! Thanks so much for sharing this.
I wonder if Tarantino really has the higher status / upper hand in this discussion, because that frame the Interviewer is trying to put on the conversation seems to represent quite well the view of the political mainstream. And the political mainstream is extremely powerful these days. In terms of invested money, media coverage, social media spin, political activism, academic discourse and political decision making...
Fair points. The main reason I brought up his status, is that it is very unlikely that we as average people have that level of status in our own conversations.
This was.a really interesting post. I enjoyed your explanations.
I didn’t realize that there were professors of conversation. While I’m happy to not have a conversation expert putting me in my place, perhaps one could listen to my husband and I bicker about whatever it is, and then our follow-up debate over what was actually said, and give a fair analysis. I can only imagine that I would leave said analysis with a big piece of humble pie
You and most of womankind.
We see how you argue, and its usually over feelings.
The only thing I don't like about Tarantino, his name is on that flight log.
I've seen this interview in full and found it so amusing. Quentin wins, hands down. He's a tougher cookie than the interviewer and I'm sure he's seen it all in terms of challenging people coming at him. He now lives with his Israeli wife in Israel. I wonder if that was to get away from paparazzi, the public that follow him around and film him while he's going about his day (who he equally gets agitated with and challenges, just like this), idiotic interviewers, etc.
Krishnan Guru-Murphy is a seasoned journalist, former war-reporter, and experienced news anchor, who regularly conducts tough interviews with people far more powerful and difficult than Quentin Tarantino. His laughs aren't from embarrassment - they are from bemusement at Tarantino's ridiculous assumptions and self-regarding attitude to a perfectly legitimate question about a bloody movie.
@@ZeroFilmClips Both you and Krishnan sound equally arrogant and pompous. Congratulations. And what a shame something happened in his career where he went from apparently being important, to ending up interviewing film directors......
I never noticed it before, but look at the slight twitch just above the right side (our left) of Tarantino's upper lip the moment after he says it's not trashed by more people. It's quick and subtle, almost imperceptible. It think he held back a sneer.
I try to use meta communication when me and my wife get in fights. Didn’t know that’s what it was called until this video. I was just trying to expose intentions on both sides and fight about the actual problem instead of whatever tangent we get on
I’d love to see your reaction to some other Krishnan Guru-Murthy interviews! Specifically Robert Downey Jr. and Richard Ayoade!
I think Tarantino was more patient than i would have been. I probably would have said "let's go on now to the next question if you have one, otherwise thank you for having me today".
Awesome lesson and breakdown. I learned a lot!
I keep correcting people assertively when they make false claims about me or other things and most of them get really angry really quickly. They get aggressive and although i pretend to keep my cool, as a single woman i keep getting more and more PTSD, and feel less and less safe to speak up in any situation :(
Sounds like you're hanging around a lot of negative people. Maybe you need to change your friendship circle.
Guru-M has a history with many actors, directors, etc of asking poking and prodding to "people want to know" and asking questions that continually aggravate his interviewees. Im surprised he is still employed. Robert Downey Jr walked out of one his attacks lol. Great vid-
Yes, he's got a rep for exactly that. Thank's for watching and responding, brother.
Love your “Name “. Fun 🤩. There are many in our Society that knows and loves to s”stir that pot” unnecessarily. Again. Trying to bring CHAOS where it’s not welcome. This STOPS the Human imagination to prosper and grow our World. Sad. However it does bring a Contrast Many can’t see. Cheers
Surprised? Why? These interviews are legendary. You would never have heard of them, much less watched a discussion about one of them, if they weren't in some way extraordinary.
@@jrphartley extremely insightful
Be firm, stand for your beliefs and use your middle finger whenever needed
Would love to see you analyze a couple Vivek Ramaswamy interviews. Especially the David Pakman or one of the CNN interviews.
I don’t know that ‘not biting’ doesn’t actually make him look just as suspicious as ignoring the question.
I remember that "interview"...the dude just kept pushing and pushing, it was mot the first time he did it with someone.
Well, he's being as violent as his movies! Actually by not answering he's totally answering. He likes violence in conversation and in life. I think you can call that Meta.
Educational
Can't help imagening this little incident as a scene in his metamovie about moviemaking. Would be hilarious with this conversation with this same exchange but with the interviewer more hostile and doubling down when Tarantino cuts him off ("so you're selling your movie, well I'm not buying it ahole") and where the argument finally leads to a physical fight with Tarantino kicking the interviewers behind. "you want violence? here are some violence for ya" This exchange really reminded me of his movies.
I love Tarantino but I don't see Tarantino as the winner. Guru Murthy wins it for me by staying calm. It's an interesting question about why there is no link between screen violence an actual violence . Tarantino shuts him up by being unreasonable . I don't think Guru Murthy pushed it too far . The Director doesn't get to talk only about what he wants to. He might as well just do a commercial to camera taking no questions if that was the case.
Agreed that Gurumurthy may have been a little too intrusive but Tarantino was downright rude and seemed afraid of delving into uncomfortable areas which he showed by aggressive behavior. That's my take on the scene...I am not buying that he was firm on boundaries. No
Interesting. I got the opposite impression. Tarantino met rudeness with confidently calling it out and defending his boundaries.
I've only seen this interview twice, and both times, he went for the ambush.
Impressive work by Tarantino!
What many people don’t know is, these are usually literally paid for by the movie studio as a “Native Ad” or part of a commercial package deal. When he says he’s here to sell his movie , literally that’s how it works. If u see actors or directors being interviewed about a movie while it’s out , it’s part of a promotion paid commercials deal literally.
When it’s on network TV I mean like this kinda show discusses abive
Beeb doesn't do ads, sorry.
No, that is not true. At all. The interview here is from Channel 4 news in the UK. It is a public broadcaster. Channel 4 does not get paid by the film companies to interview Tarantino or other A list stars. When Tarantino says 'this is a commercial' for his movie, he means that for him its purpose is to promote the film, not that it is literally a paid ad. I rarely post any comments on youtube but your's was just stunningly misleading to anyone reading here. Actors and directors also do interviews where questions are provided in advance and the answers can be semi-scripted by PRs for the celebrities, but this does not mean they're paying for the interview. They don't need to! The TV shows want the celebrities to boost their ratings. It is a win-win.
Quentin is a cinema master
Just a suggestion my friend. Have a look at the Richard Ayoade one and Samuel L Jackson. They ran rings around Guru.
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll take a look.
RE: the meta-communication, it is an interesting tension. Of course QT wants the interview to be an ad for his movie. The news programme wants the interview to be compelling to their viewers so they get attention. It's a symbiotic relationship, so it's a little arrogant of QT to claim the media should bend to his purposes alone, and essentially shill his product. However, Guru-Murthy being a news man repeatedly disregarded QT's boundaries, which is something you don't see in these usually-fawning interviews by entertainment outlets that want to stay sweet with directors and stars. It's something we're more used to seeing in political interviews.
I know QT didn't WANT to address the issue of violence again with Guru-Murthy. I thought he looked a little weak for not simply summing up his previous statements on the issue. Idk I feel conflicted. I agree with QT that enjoying violence on-screen doesn't mean people go out and commit violence. But WHY that's the case is interesting and worth discussing, and as such a purveyor of violence in cinema, you'd think QT would be more up for discussing something so central to his work.
I do admire QT for keeping his boundaries. I guess it left me wondering WHY that was such a strong boundary for him to the point he refuses to answer the question. "We can discuss my work, but only on MY terms" seems rigid and a bit weak.
But if it’s agreed upon beforehand that this is going to be a puff piece for the movie, and then you get ambushed with Barbara Walters-type questions which you weren’t expecting then QT has every right to be pissed. Guru-Murthy has done this to multiple people now.
@@jeremymullins1294 Yeah, if it was agreed upon beforehand what topics would be covered, and then the interviewer does this to purposefully catch QT off-balance and then won't take no for an answer, it is an ambush.
QT is not a politician or an academic. He is a director who wants to sell this art. What this interviewer doesn't understand is that for most people in the world who dont have the job of analyzing art and media to determine its meaning, you have to establish rapport and trustworthiness. The gotcha-where-i-want you journalist who hides behind the journalistic principles of "getting real" with people and getting the "truth" out of a person is an abusive, not inquisitive personality. His interviewees are pawns to his great big story in his mind.
Most communications, especially the ones in a professional field are stage shows and we are called to play our role. We have to follow certain social conventions and it gets to a point where we know its all BS and the other part of the conversation knows its BS but we keep this facade up in order to be able to have a working relationship (or even allowed to have a working relationship).
What Tarantino did was literally breaking the forth wall, or if you like breaking the spell that binds us into this play along behavior. He dropped every pretense and called the situation as it really is, not allowing the interviewer any space to maneuver and save face in the context of the aforementioned social convention. We have to note that the interviewer went there expecting that Tarantino would HAVE TO follow the accepted social conventions, and he abused that by inserting insulting insinuations under the pretenses of an inquiry ''for the public''. The problem was that Tarantino refused to be confined in those confining lines drawn in the sand and decided to play in the whole beach so to speak.
As it was mentioned that is something that can be done only from a position of power and strength. Guru-Murthy came asking for an interview with Tarantino. He totally abused the hospitality of a promotional event but still he was the one who asked to be there. Tarantino could dismiss him and call in the next guy. Now imagine a young Tarantino starting his career and get invited for an interview by Guru-Murthy. Unless he was willing to throw a Klaus Kinski tantrum he would have to stay there and endure the abuse as best as he could in the confinement of the expected social norms.
Breaking the forth wall of social norms and being 100% honest in your opinion is something that many people wont like and many people in higher position than you will take it as an affront and questioning of their power. Imagine going through an interview for a job. You are expected to sit there all the HRM hogwash about the company ''being like a family'' and that ''they value their partners (a euphemism to say ''work horses'')'' while at the same time they are trying to low ball you financially. Now imagine plainly saying that you already have a REAL family and a life and that in order to maintain and support those you are willing to sell your skills to the highest bidder, that you are there to do a job and do it well and you would appreciate if you could have a straight talk without the BS and glossing over the fact that you are to be exploited to a degree. Cause thats how it is and you cant do otherwise. I dont think you would get the job. In fact you would be hated for calling out that little stage play.
Powerful, silence is agreeance. This is important. I have experienced this a lot, I've been silent instead of asserting my position.
That's a great takeaway!
@@alexanderlyon thank you and thank you for your videos!
Is silence also violence? I disagree with the analysis on this interview.
No, silence is not violence. That's a nonsense expression and it is unrelated to the point made in the video. In the video, I'm talking about a debate (e.g., literal competitive debate with judges the way they do it on the college circuit), if one side makes a point and the other does not refute it, the judges assume that the opposition does not have a counter argument and/or agrees. That's been the standard for judging debates centuries' worth of competitive debates.
By extension, in everyday debates (like this one on screen), if the interviewer claims/implies there were rapes in the film and Tarantino does not clarify that, for example, some viewers will be left with the inaccurate impression that there are in fact rapes in the film. That's why it is important to clarify and correct false claims in a debate. In a debate, if you don't call people on their inaccurate statements, they'll very quickly get the upper hand.
As far as the silence is violence (on whatever issue), I consider that a bogus argument. That is something protesters say because it rhymes and to make observers feel guilty. There's no relationship between that ridiculous concept and the principle of debate mentioned in the video.
Still, all that said, I respect that you disagree with the analysis in the video. I just wanted to clarify that the two ideas were not related and state directly that I find the the "silence is violence" claim to have zero merit.
Anyone can get away with an "animated" style, I do it all the time. There's nothing wrong with being blunt, honest, and yourself. If others don't like it, they can kick rocks. Yes you may have to go back to work tomorrow and that might be uneasy... for others at work since they were the ones to cross boundaries.
I think what you missed is the effectivness of stalling as a tactic while you formulate a more well thought out argument. Quentin didn't lead with what I think was ultimately the nail in the coffin of the interviewer's questioning - that he had already explained his position ad naseaum and wasn't going to do it again just for his entertainment. He lead with basically just saying he didn't want to talk about it, and then after a couple more light back and forths explained himself. When he was first asked the question, he knew he wasn't going to answer it, but didn't yet have his crisp articulation of why not nailed down in his head so stalled a bit before delivering it.
I'm not in his head so can't prove that, but seems pretty obvious to me that if he would have just lead with "I've already explained myself on this topic, there's nothing else to talk about" instead of that being his secondary point after the interviewer kept pressing. Probably could have shut it down even faster
Well, without your explanation, I would probably look at this conversation completely differently. But I admire Tarantino's attitude, and how he was able to get out of what the interviewer wanted from him. But I think he was also a little angry and nervous, because he was again explaining things to me that he had already explained many times. However, he managed it quite calmly. I admire him for that, because the interviewer pushed him for quite a while, and he kept coming back to clarify. I honestly don't know if I could stand it. I would be afraid to go back and away from the topic for such a long time, whether it would cause a conflict. And I don't like them very much. But I admire Quentin.
I love the way Tarantino handled this. This interviewer keeps coming up against the same problem with people he interviews. He's a bully and very rude and people have actually walked out on him.
This interviewer is very good at making people put him in his place and walk out on him. I do not understand how he gets so many interviewers. Maybe he should stop interviewing actors who are there to talk about movies and start interviewing professionals who are there to talk about in depth observations.
-It's trashed by more people
-It's not, that's a lie
-No-no-no, I'm not saying that's it's trashed by more people, I'm just asking...
He has a very short memory span...
Has the Robert Downey Jr interview walk out with this same interviewer been done on this channel?
I been enjoying your videos very much. Very helpful so thank you for that. I was wondering if you could make a video on the interview with Zeinab Badawi and Trevor Noah, if you haven't already? Im sure your insight will be amazing! Thank you Alex Lyon
I'll take a look. Thank you for the suggestion.
A big takeaway from this that people should be aware of:
as soon as more than two people are in on or are privy to a conversation, the conversation no longer is about two people having an earnest discussion, it becomes a showboating event
In all ways - including YT-bers commenting on videos.
If you and a friend are together you just showboat?
@@jerbear7952 You are illiterate.
Nice flash transition 😅
Hm. Serious comment or not? I'm curious because I want to make improvements.
T pissed me off with dusk til dawn, presuming to violate the contract the film had made with the audience to present as a conventional melodrama. But I still have mad respect for his directorial-fu. He is one of the great film artists of our day.
I'm failing to see where the interviewer did anything wrong - the discussion on violence in film is a common one that's been going on a long time and indeed, Tarantino's films have a lot of it (some would say a gratuitious amount). Django is by it's nature a controversial movie, and by dictating the terms of questioning to be less oppositional just seems like he wanted a "puff-piece."
Not saying being questioned criticially is fun, but it should be expected. Of course he is in his rights to walk away from any interview if he so chooses, but it just seems self- serving. He wants to direct the film, and direct the response to the film in the eyes and minds of others, instead of submitting it for critique and response.
I think your wrong of your assessment. He couldn’t answer the question about why he likes violence in films. He got triggered told him that he’s “shutting his butt down.” Then slouched in his seat like an adolescent in the principles office. Personally I love bloody gory films and when someone asks me why I do (I’m only 5 years younger than QT and grew up watching the same films and living in roughly the same area SoCal) I tell them that the violence is Shakespearean, dramatic and grabs you attention. Gory images and scenes have been around for centuries. Case in point the popularity of the Grand Guignol in France that was popular among the working classes. He knows this he should’ve just laid on some pseudo academic bs and he would’ve been fine. QT’s biggest problem is that he likes being loved. Personally I love being hated. If you love being hated you can F with the interviewer in a much more sardonic way. Here he’s like a child who can’t answer his parents question succinctly and instead crosses his arms and sulks.
Nah. It's not relevant why QT supposedly likes violence in films. The interviewer was trying to spin an agenda that violence in movies = bad. He was obviously being manipulative, and Tarantino realized this and shut him down.
@luckybastardprod that’s a pretty astute observation. I noticed this myself as well, and found it interesting that Mr Lyon maybe didn’t pick it up, because of the overall exchange.
What a king
Fabulous movie, yes hard to watch!
For the link about violence in real life and movies i would have answered : in the middle age there was a lot more violence and movies did not exist at that time
He's exactly right: those who actually watch his films know where he's coming from. Artists say everything they need to in their work. Also, smooth-brained journos have always focused on his films' stylized violence and deliberately ignored the fact that most of them deal with redemption.
May please react to Bassem Youssef vs Piers Morgan, Bassem Youssef vs Adam Sosnik, Katt Williams vs Shanon Sharp, Dave Chappelle vs Deray Davis, Tucker Carlson vs Vladimir Putin.
As a corporate comms professional my two cents' worth: Murthy lacks the skill to ask a more nuanced question that could prompt an intelligent conversation about violence in film. Eg "There are moments of cathartic violence in the film. As a director, what skills are needed to make scenes like this so effective?" Secondly, Tarantino is right re boundaries and rejecting the framing but comes off looking like as much of a jerk as the interviewer. It's not necessary to get this combative to maintain a boundary. Jordan Peterson demonstrates this beautifully in his viral interview with Cathy Newman.