'Beirut’ screenwriter Tony Gilroy addresses critics of his new movie
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 окт 2024
- Washington Post pop culture host Hannah Jewell interviews “Beirut” screenwriter and producer Tony Gilroy about criticism of how his depiction of the Lebanese civil war. The movie stars Jon Hamm and Rosamund Pike. Subscribe to The Washington Post on RUclips: bit.ly/2qiJ4dy
Follow us:
Twitter: / washingtonpost
Instagram: / washingtonpost
Facebook: / washingtonpost
Wow I didn't expect an actual interview. Usually the press is just used as extension of the distributor's promotional arm.
This is not an actual interview by a film critic.
He handled himself well.
This film was great! This is one of the best and most believable films, and I am well versed in the history.
This woman is not a film critic but a woke pretender. Hannah Jewel is so angry that she doesn’t listen to Tony’s answers. She is just consumed about spewing her spew.
Great movie, just watched it for the first time.
There was no such thing as islamic liberation front in the civil war. The music , people, clothing, accents, scenery....are all inaccurate. Absolute rubbish. Hollywood always makes lebanon look terrible.
Tony ______________ It is a movie, fiction. By the way, this movie is not about Lebanon today. It was about Lebanon in 1982 and there WERE car bombs going off; over 100,000 people were killed in the civil war, and militia groups popped up all the time. On top of that, the UN, United States, France, Israel, and the Palestinians were all in Beirut. Beirut today is a nice place.
This is like watching the movie “Gettysburg” and saying, “this movie is BS, Gettysburg is a nice place; there is no fighting today. It makes Gettysburg look like a bloody place.” It was bloody at the time - 50,000 casualties. And oh, by the way, even though it is based on real events, the writers took several liberties with facts. But it was a good movie.
@@traveler121 most people dont know how lebanon is. so having this movie called beirut and showing something that doesnt look anyhting like it directly gives off a wrong expression to any viewer of the movie. We have to explain to people that we dont come from a desert where we take rpgs ith us to school
There weren't any real Native-Americans in movies like The Searchers either...it's about people's characters and the overall story.
Rolling Ormond The Searchers is a racist movie made by the racist John Ford and John Wayne.
what in the world is a "protected minority"?
Henry Smith
The legal term I think is "protected class" so yes that would be Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, etc., etc.
@@PurushaDesa you could have just said "anyone who isn't a white, heterosexual male"
@@pavedarker8484
No a ton of them are still covered under religion. (Which means if they’re atheist they’re probably fucked.)
@@pavedarker8484 yeah tell the Palestinians how hard your life is as a white male lmao
are there any subtitle?
Who is this Washington Post nutty interviewer?
What a stupid question. People jump to narratives like this because it’s easy. No decent person would so casually label a complete stranger as racist a racist like this.
Conservatives always misunderstand this. It's not about labeling a person as racist. You think that anyone who engages in cancel culture are just bloodthirsty irrational leftists. It's not about removing opponents. That's just collateral damage. It's about changing behaviors that are outdated and barbaric. This is about improving society. Racism isn't overt or intentional often times. It's a subtle naivety that's inherited. People don't realize how their innate ethnocentrism is racist. And they're so afraid of the word "racism" that they refuse to acknowledge their own mentality, and so perpetuate discrimination subconsciously.
I have seen this movie is good
good movie to watch
Just watch the movie. Otherwise, make a movie set nowhere featuring a threat that doesn't happen played by nobody and it's not entertaining. Otherwise watch this film before criticizing it. People are stupid.
Or maybe they can make a movie that portrays the country accurately...just remotely accurately? Just a thought. It might be too big of a thought for your pea size brain...I saw the movie...it's top to bottom rubbish in its the depiction of the country and people
I am interested in seeing this film.... but in this interview he didn't' do himself any favors.
Thank you for asking the right questions.. It showed what a duchebag he is
Actually, this just shows what a poor speller you are
I like Tony Gilroy but he comes extremely out of touch and just reeks of privilege in here. Disappointing to say the least.
I agree. I like Gilroy too. But, considering he should have pre-empted questions like this, his response is very weak, and his body language seems to imply he is insecure and defensive about this line of questioning. Very surprising from a filmmaker who is usually so articulate about his choices.
You're way off -- Gilroy gives perfectly sound, logical, rational responses to this racial-bean-counting, white-savior harpie (who, it should be said, literally wrote a book called "We Need Snowflakes: In Defense of the Sensitive, the Angry and the Offended.” Amongst whom she clearly counts her own number.
@@ZeroFilmClips Perhaps so, but perhaps it isn't easy to convey the importance of story as paramount without demeaning the criticism in question. Gilroy paid it mind and was anything but dismissive. Fair rebuffs and I see zero contributions from anyone on suggestions how exactly elements should have changed in context for the time and era of the story.
@@cervantesmusic1 It was his choice of story which was being challenged in the first place, and I don’t see how it’s anyone else’s job to write the script for him.
That story could have been told in any number of ways, and the interviewer simply asked why he’d made the choices he made. His answer was to ridiculously claim that it couldn’t have been done any other way. It’s an incredibly weak and defensible answer
What a nutty thing to say.
This reporter is a clown. Where you born after the events depicted?
I concur!