Published on 10 Jan 2013

Quentin and me

Tarantino has made at least two of my all-time favourite movies. I can quote speeches from Pulp Fiction on a good day and watch Kill Bill Vol 2 on a late night anytime. So I have to admit “I’m shutting your butt down!” was (read the transcript here) a slight disappointment from the creator of some of the most exciting dialogue of modern movies.

It doesn’t quite rate with “You gonna bark all day, little doggie, or are you gonna bite?”, “AK-47. The very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every motherf***** in the room, accept no substitutes” or “The price you pay for bringing up either my Chinese or American heritage as a negative is – I collect your f****** head”. But it spoke to me. Together with the quite remarkable : “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.” Nobody has said that to me before.

I’m sure he was tired. He’d flown in the night before. “It’s only television” he said when the PR woman raised a worry about the background noise of air conditioning in the hotel room. I’m sure he’s sick of the criticism and the controversy around Django Unchained. Spike Lee hasn’t even seen it. I doubt the dolls were the director’s idea. And the violence debate sparked because it was released unluckily close to a massacre of schoolchildren in Connecticut. He has mostly batted away the questions so far with statements of his position – that he makes violent movies and thinks there is no link between violent movies and violent behaviour.

The trouble for me is not the minor “tantrumtino” at a movie junket, it is the inconsistency. The director was happy to talk about slavery as an issue, the debate on slavery now going on in America, he says thanks to him. He will even accept that he enjoys what he calls “cathartic violence” in movies. But is there a relationship between enjoying movie violence and enjoying real violence? Cathartic or not? That’s where he stops – or “refuses”. Even though I was effectively leading him to the answer in a pretty sympathetic way. But that is his right. I suppose it was also refreshingly honest of him to say of the interview “I’m here to sell my movie. This is a commercial for the movie – make no mistake……I don’t want to talk about what you want to talk about. I don’t want to talk about the implications of violence.” He claimed he has talked about it endlessly for twenty years, and that anyone interested should “Google” him. I have. There isn’t a whole lot of detail. He states his position and restates it – but doesn’t explain or expand. Even in excellent interviews with Howard Stern and Playboy magazine. If you find more do send it to me.

For those concerned about my “butt” it is just fine. My cycling training for the big London to Paris ride with Jon is causing it more pain than Quentin. And he didn’t storm out at the end, in case you’re wondering. Though we didn’t exchange mobile numbers.

Follow @krishgm on Twitter

Article topics

Tweets by @krishgm

105 reader comments

  1. kim.traynor@virgin.net says:

    You handled Tarantino very well; in fact, far better than he deserved.

    1. jeff hall says:

      Tarantino was a middle aged sociopath having a nervous breakdown.

      1. TJC360 says:

        Don’t like violent movies? Then don’t go watch them.

        I see more violence watching the news. How many weeks did they drag out the Newtown shootings?… 2 weeks to long? These reporters love violence, it helps them to keep their jobs and gives their network high ratings.

        You are going to put some blame on QT for these shootings and not think he is going to get a little defensive?

        How many of these reporters hassled parents of the kids in Newtown for “the story”?

    2. TJC360 says:

      So this reporter, one of the many who instinctively hunted down parents of the massacre in Newtown (I live 20 minutes from there, and knew a lot of people affected by it) to get “the story”, and constantly knocked on their doors and bothered them while they were trying to mourn the deaths of their loved ones, has the right to keep digging at QT to make him lose his cool during an interview? This scumbag was fishing and its pretty F-N obvious…

      These reporters are the same people who hunt for these stories of violence, only to display them on their channels, websites, blogs, FB, Twitter and every other source of media that they can get their stories on to make a name for themselves and end up being a household name like that of nightly POS scumbag Pierce Morgan.

      There is no escape from any type of bad news, and these dirtbags are the ones that spread it everywhere only to try and blame it on the likes of QT.

      When did reporters become the good guys? Because if thousands of people invaded my town after my son or daughter was killed and constantly barraged me with questions like, How do I feel? Whats going through your mind? or What do you think of gun control? I would place a shotgun in their mouth and asked them, How do you feel with a shotgun in your mouth? and make sure I had a video camera, mic and lights flashing in their face the whole time.

      This Kim Traynor guys is an absolute scumbag and an English twit. QT handled himself as he should have, its not his fault that some or most parents out there dont know how to handle their messed up kids, or just dont care to because they are glued in front of this idiot, its not from video games, or movies, or music, no, its from parents that dont know how to do their F-ING JOB! WAKE THE F-CK up…

    3. John Dakin says:

      “I’m closing your butt down” is an unpleasant, abusive thing to say; he is also misguided in his view of an interview on a news program, if he thinks that it is to advertise his film. Joan Smith, in her column in the Independent on Sunday, says that he is “49 going on 14”. Maybe he has got away with such abusiveness in interviews for too long.

      1. nevergivemykidsdrugs says:

        Just like how the media and doctors won’t admit the drugs they are putting kids on are causing the violence. Americans are so ignorant they don’t even understand that to test for long term effects these drugs could not be released for at least 80 years. What infant hung baldy guy waring glasses is going to let real tests be run when he has to get his now? None, they don’t test these drugs for long term effects and if you look at the short term testing, violence and suicide were apparent side effects in just the testing stage. Furthermore there is absolutely no real proof serotonin levels are the cause of depression, but as we can see from drug use changing serotonin results in violently hopeless suicidal people. Dumb parents are to blame they put their kids on untested dope that has been proven to flip people out. I hope there is a special place in hell for parents who destroy their child’s life with needles and pills. Americans are some sick sorry people.

  2. Stephen says:

    Dear Krishnan,

    You handled Tarantino with style and elan. You really have class – I hope you know that.

    Best

    Stephen McBride

  3. dave brunskill says:

    Hi Krishnan,
    I just had to say well done you for an amazing interview with QT. You had the guy fuming and wriggling like I dunno what. He had no way of engaging with you without admitting his own culpability in the violent culture that engulfs his country. Brilliant. :)

    Keep up the good work.

    best wishes
    Dave

  4. Ren Zelen says:

    How very interesting to seen how ultra-defensive Tarrantino became when questioned about his view of the relationship between screen violence and real-life violence. Basically, had nothing with which to back up his viewpoint. Also, didn’t seem to comprehend the purpose of a serious news programme. Not suprising, considering the sycophancy that he usually encounters.

  5. Anna Cummin says:

    Well done. Great television and cool interviewer. The man was very very rattled and that just made the point better than anything.

  6. mainoo says:

    you had it coming – channel 4 news was described quite accurately as a show – that is what it has become – your choice of news item (including the tarantino piece), the format, the light entertainment quality of your asides – all of these things make what used to be a serious news program just another piece of comfort tv – like breakfast tv.

    thank god for tarantino – he put into words what legions of your viewers are thinking each night. ‘whatever happened to channel 4’? Jeremy Isaacs – where are you?

  7. Karen Lindsay says:

    A master class in calm, controlled persistence. Serious discussion but wonderful entertainment.

  8. Betsy says:

    I just had to comment after watching the interview, very unlike me but I thought the interview was brilliant. I am not a Tarantino fan but have found some humour and topical issues in his films, however, whenever I have seen him interviewed he generally never comes across well. Quite frankly I am amazed you did not crack a wry smile at such attitude, I would have expected him to have a much more strategic formula for diverting uncomfortable conversation. If the man wants to make topical movies he surely must expect such questions of interest in his thought process. Personally I shall boycott the movie but thanks for showing us a glimpse of his majesty QT.

  9. Jenny cameron says:

    well done, Krishnan. You did really well up against labyrinthine. You were so polite and he was so aggressively defensive never mind rude. His butt needs shut down big-time.

  10. MAY THORNE says:

    I loved it and thought you were brilliant, I never write on these things but it struck a cord. At last someone to question the great unquestioned. of course there is a connection to violence in our young and what the are subjected to on screen. I participially like that you had his hands shaking, only wish he had been holding a spoon of sugar! Great interviewing and a good point made, big well done, you held your nerve!

  11. Gabrielle HARRINGTON says:

    Well controlled, Krishnan. I understand your disappointment but you came off best in that “conversation”, by a country mile. Personally I never did like his stuff and now I know what a silly wee boy he actually is.

  12. TM says:

    Are people not bored of asking this exact same question and expecting him to give a different answer? Sure, his films are violent. All eight of them. Released over a span of two decades. Something tells one man sporadically releasing a handful of violent movies is not single-handedly responsible for the levels of violence; domestic, gun-related or otherwise, that are prevalent in the United States today.

  13. Linda Prince says:

    Having just watched Channel Four news which i do watch on a regular basis , i am a huge BBC fan but i do rate Channel four news on an equal footing, i am shocked by the outburst of Tarantino, sorry if you are interviewed by a News program you answer the questions, not just use the program to advertise your film, i hope in this country he does not do well, i found him a rude vile man .

  14. Faisal Anderson says:

    Channel 4 news has now published by far the most immature interview in its history: This interview is a prime example of the downfall of channel 4 news! The constant badgering of Tarantino is more of a paparazzi tactic, and as a “news” programme one would assume a level of decency and respect came with interviewing, but not for you Krishnan Guru-Murthy who decides to spark controversy for what seems to be a pointless endeavour. Is it not more adequate to simply move on or do some independant research and mention it after the interview on the programme? Furthermore, a simple look on google, as mentioned by Tarantino, is surely within the grasp of this “professional” news reporter?

    Hypocritical and plainly immature, there is nothing more disappointing to see such a failure from such a great news channel.

    1. cliff thomas says:

      I’ve been a regular viewer of channel 4 news for over 20 years there coverage of politics and international affairs has been of a high standard. After reading some of the negative comments written about the program and asking myself if I felt their news coverage and interviews were becoming rather poor, I feel the need to ask, for news to have legitimise or any real value, does it always have to be negative, bad news? ‘good’ news will only dominate the headlines when a member of the royal family is getting married or pregnant.

  15. pete palumbo says:

    Butts and Sweet Spots
    Thanks for posting the above Krishnangm, it filled out the encounter even more.
    I did wonder what happened just after the ‘cut’ in the interview, I think he had just asked you directly if you thought he was still in his ‘sweet spot’, I don’t think you were in his at that point !
    I think it really highlighted a clash in agendas; under stress he reveals he’s only here to make an advert for his movie, and subsequently you reveal you’re there to ask serious questions as part of the news, particularly with the current gun control/violence debate.
    Well done, i was glad you weren’t deflected off course, and took an opportunity to ask those questions

  16. Tayo Oyeleye says:

    I watched the I interview with Quenton Tarantino and expected you to pull back as soon as you observed Mr Tarantino was getting irritable. Yes, he does produce films with guns and violence but it all comes down to the old question – Does art reflect life or does it influence it? I wonder Why the same violent movies are not affecting other societies like in Japan, Germany or Australia, as it claims to in the Usa.

  17. Philip Edwards says:

    Krish,

    Sometimes I have been critical of your interview method.

    But not on this occasion.

    By your own standards you were quite restrained and patient. Admirable in fact.

    In comparison, Tarantino was exactly like his films: Trashy, disgusting, cheap and lowest-common-denominator. This is one citizen who despises his “product” and the kind of mentality that produces it. If you have seen one, that is enough.

    I have said elsewhere that the awful, murdering tragedy in Connecticut is a product of what passes for US “culture,” and that the default runs marrow-deep. Tarantino is symbolic of that. Typically, he saw the interview as “a commercial,” not an opportunity to explain why graphic murder and violence are intrinsic to everything he does, that exploiting violence is a perfect example of a spiv culture that is both morally and socially bankrupt.

    The idea that his most recent piece of garbage has “promoted discussion on slavery” is flat on its face hypocrisy. Since the USA is intrinsically a deeply racist society, that “discussion” has been taking place for over three hundred and fifty years. Tarantino’s usual film murder rampage will add nothing to it except a few laughs for the Ku Klux Klan and its supporters.

    As for Jon Snow’s little dig at you at the end…..I wouldn’t worry about it. Dear Jon is beginning to sound more like Gerald Ford everyday. Even the ties and socks are looking weary.
    :-)

    I am tempted to say don’t worry about your butt it’s in safe hands. But that might be taken the wrong way. If you see what I mean.
    :-)

    Good luck with the training.

  18. John Webb says:

    Well done Krishnan – you’ve exposed Taratino for what he really is – just a sick male masquerading as a film director (albeit in the eyes of critics worldwide – an accomplished one) seeking to justify extreme violence as art/entertainment. Even more distressing is that sad individuals find the levels of violence so graphically displayed entertaining.

  19. Anthony Posner says:

    I thought Tarantino was going to shoot you.

  20. Jane says:

    A quite extraordinary display by Mt Tarantino – I guess he’s no great thinker…

  21. Gilly says:

    Just watched news and I thought you were fab. Good composure and perseverance!!! Please get lance as your next interviewee….

  22. John Barnes says:

    Well done Krishnan, but you make too many excuses for a boor with dyed red hair who clearly knows there is a link between screen violence and actual violence.
    The fact that he won’t say why he pretends there is no link shows he has no evidence to support his view. Next time link him up with some of the parents of the murdered primary school children in Connecticut,

  23. Paul Johnson says:

    You got exactly what you deserved. You were typically of you goading this creative person and attempting to bring contempt to him just like you did with Michael Jackson. You are so arrogant and look down on others. You interview people who have been good enough to give you their time and let in to their space only to try bring them down. Journalists like you are scum, pure and simple. I’m glad Tarantino didn’t fall in to your trap. He’s smarter than that.

    1. Jackie says:

      Erm, Paul it wasn’t Krishnan who interviewed Michael Jackson. I believe the interview you refer to was with British journalist Martin Bashir over a period of eight months and a documentary made. Glad you are not a journalist.

  24. Jane says:

    A quite extraordinary display by Mr Tarantino – I guess he’s no great thinker…

  25. Ruth Moore says:

    To be honest, I though his outburst outrageous, unnecessary and defensive. Having your film slated by Spike Lee is fairly big in the movie world! His reaction to you question kind of made me question his sincerity around his intention to create dialogue and debate about slavery 0 fi he is so unwilling to enter into debate about impact of movie violence.

    And what was all that master and slave thing???

    Ps I think there is a thing called empathy…. which is what makes films work. but if you have less of a deposition to it it probably makes watching violent movies easier… and it allows you to detach when watching a movie. However I suspect that too carries across into real life.

    Very Interesting Mr Guru and well done for keeping your cool!

  26. Mr. Andrew C. Miller says:

    I thought you were brilliant, but Quentin Tarantino was totally out of order and such an ignorant American, he should be not allowed back in this country, as he was totally avoiding your very informative questions and obviously he is an advocate of guns and violence and people should boycot his films and ban all of his films, ignorant Americans like him should piss off back to the land of violence and ignorant thick Americans, as he is NOT welcome to the UK.

  27. Scott says:

    Mr Tarrentino was a bore in this interview,no room for playfullness or wit.

    His love of exploitation films is let down by his inability to carve a movie that resembles such themes without forcing “this is an exploitation film” down your thraot, is the reason why every film of his since Jackie Brown has been self indulgant in the extreme.

  28. Michael Cope says:

    He was similarly short with Terry Gross on NPR’s Fresh Air when she broached the violence question but I thought he gave it a bit more context. Worth a listen. http://www.npr.org/2013/01/02/168200139/quentin-tarantino-unchained-and-unruly

  29. Bob Reid says:

    You asked via twitter what you should ask – and NRA + Sandy Hook featured in the responses (including mine). And you certainly asked. The response you were given, from a very intelligent man looked more like guilt than frustration. He doesn’t like being asked because he can’t deny there’s a link. All he can do is obfuscate and play the celebrity card. Tarentino has to engage his undoubted intellect at some point to answer this question intelligently and sincerely. Especially when he says “this is a commercial” I.e. about the money. Otherwise this is just feeding the rat. He has a right to make movies, but he has a responsibility too – to explain why it is acceptable to watch this sort of violence without understanding the connections and implications for the public at large. He’s doing that for slavery – and obviously needs to do a serious holocaust movie before he hangs up the gloves (Hiroshima & Nagasaki?). But continuing denial about guns, violence etc is exactly the hypocrisy you speak of. Well done Krish.

  30. Matt H says:

    Krishnan glad to hear that your butt is still functional!

    I thought you were a little unfair to Quentin; “any link” between violence in entertainment and real world violence is an open-ended and loaded question after recent events.

    He said “no” to your first question about a link, but wouldn’t elaborate. A politician would have talked your ear off but revealed nothing, not even an opinion.

    I think you may have probed his opinions more successfully by proposing and discussing specific links instead the implied causal link.

    I’d imagine he prefers to think that films he’s made throughout his directorial career have not and do not encourage or in any other way cause real world violence. Absent any rigorous scientific evidence to the contrary does opinion require justification?

  31. Nigel says:

    It was a good job he wasn’t armed, signs of a not so closet bully I thought, tired or not. But a great interview.

  32. Adrian Price says:

    Thought your interview Krishnan was measured and reasonable. T was moody. Not sure whether learning Tarranto film quotes is such a worthwhile time waster. Try Shakespeare next time. Interview Roger Allam and get him to do a master class in delivery for you. Check out Allam’s Falstaff and the honour speech from Henry IV http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znvZ2WAa3OI

    Kind Regards,

    Adrian.

  33. Polly says:

    We were so impressed by the way you handled that obnoxious man whose ego definitely outweighs his manners and intellect. His comments about the interview being merely a plug for his latest film exposed his ignorance of the quality of British news journalism – although it was refreshing to see the ghastly world of the American film ‘moghols’ so deftly exposed! Quid erat demonstrandum ….bravo Krish !! We are expat fans – keep up the good work!

  34. Slavko Martinov says:

    I think he was so sensitive about being questioned about violence because he’s seen this excerpt about his relationship with it from North Korean film ‘Propaganda’ (2012): http://youtu.be/G4H-5JWyRY4

  35. Liam says:

    QT is possibly one of the greatest writer/directors that ever lived. I never comment on things like this, however I felt compelled to do so here. There is absolutely no evidence that “on screen” violence has an effect on actual violence, but for some reason idiots (like most of the people commenting) feel it is justified to claim there is and then act like they are intellectually superior because they can make stuff up. QT is a genius and those morons describing him as “obnoxious” or “ignorant” are either jealous or Daily mail readers. Go watch a Michael Bay film if you find REAL cinema, about challenging things too difficult to understand. And those claiming they will “boycot” Django… go ahead… It would be wasted on you morons anyway.

    1. Eric says:

      “Absolutely no evidence that “on screen” violence has an effect on actual violence??”…hmmm

      Obviously the guy who wasted those cinema-goers in Aurora last July dressed as and professing to be ‘The Joker’ was another example of Liam’s ‘morons making stuff up”?

      Not sure the families of the victims would see it that way. Looks a lot like connecting evidence to me…

      1. Ted says:

        Having heard about this I thought it was going to be a lot more heated than it was. Really QT just politely but firmly refused to answer the question, albeit in his typical florid style. I think really it’s fair enough that if you’ve agreed to an interview about your new film you refuse to get sidetracked into a general discussion about movie violence. I think once it became clear he wasn’t biting, moving the discussion on to other topics would have made for a more interesting interview overall than flogging the same dead horse.

        In response to some of the comments above, movie violence may or may not have an impact on real life, but even if it does it’s a tiny, tiny factor. Japan has some incredibly violent movies and one of the most peaceful societies on earth. South Africa had very strict censorship and a very violent society. Our own society was no safer before cinema was invented, in fact it was considerably more dangerous. Other factors in a society are obviously are way more important than the movies people watch for entertainment.

    2. sue_m says:

      Reading your ranting and insulting post makes me wonder if you are related to Tarantino.

      If he is the genius you claim, he would be able to make films that didn’t always rely on gratuitous violence to be successful. He is basically a one-trick pony who’s trick of glamourising murder by combining it with dark humour is now rather tired and no longer looks cool.

  36. sammy J says:

    I think you handled it very well. I would ask that Channel 4 bear in mind that if it wants to talk on a serious level about serious issues don’t interview directors when they are publicizing their movies. I watch Channel 4 news for its debate about world and local news/issues not to hear Quentin Tarantino – for that I can go onto youtube or listen to Entertainment Tonight. Quality journalism is a rare commodity these days, it isn’t necessary for news programs to jump on the Hollywood bandwagon. We are fans of Channel 4 news for a reason.

  37. Richard Horgan says:

    I only wish all movie junket interviews were this substantive. You held your ground, Tarantino made some very emphatic points and no publicist (mercifully) stepped in to stop the conversation.

  38. Ross says:

    Krishnan

    The topic of real life shootings is too hot right now, I think it was boring of you to pursue this point.

    Tarantino is really good value in interviews and….well… I kinda think you blew this opportunity here….

    Quentin reminds me of woody Allen and Martin scorcesse being interviewed

    Did you ask him about his own acting, what training he had? How he handles fame. I have read he gets involved in punch ups and is a good brawler himself

    You just seemed to wind the guy up when there so many more questions you could have asked this thoroughly interesting guy

    “if bonnie comes back and sees this, she is gonna wanna get f**king divorced – and I don’t wanna be f**king divorced”

  39. Raffaele Coppola says:

    Not your finest moment, Krishnan. This inane, sound bite interview could have been better handled by Matthew Cain.

    Here is a critique from someone who can speak with authority – http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2013/01/django_unchained.html

  40. k read says:

    This didn’t work as a free commercial for QT as he’d hoped – he came across as inarticulate, aggressive and paranoid, unable to explain his views on film violence, and only concerned with getting people to pay to see his film. Instead it was good publicity for the anti-film violence lobby, since QT could raise no argument against them.

    It was also excellent publicity for the calm professionalism of KGM and Channel 4 news.

    Perhaps QT is more used to the respectful brown-nosing of some US interviewers? What a disappointment, but well done to Krishnan GM.

  41. Vernon Moyse says:

    I have to say you redefined “smug” in your interview with Tarantino. He produces products that are complex and require artistry and skill. You simply fire verbal bullets at any and every target you choose. You WERE seeking sensation and Tarantino answered most of your questions, but effectively said to you “my views on violence have been aired adnauseam – YOU have not done your research”. This is not journalism, it is self-indulgence

  42. Jethro says:

    A brilliant and revealing interview, whatever the fans of QT and the ‘golden age of serious C4 News’ say. As a dual US/UK citizen, I have always enjoyed the way British journalists are able to rattle politicians and celebrities and make them struggle for their hoped for ‘commerical’ – while American newscasters bow and scrape and might as well be selling advertising. QT was completely unprepared, and you handled him with great poise Krishnan, no butts about it!

  43. Daniel says:

    What a fantastic interview. highly impressive how you kept your calm in front of such an unpleasant individual. However ” brilliant” he may be, he also showed himself to be in dire need of a spa holiday

  44. Ken Martin says:

    Upfront, I am not a fan of violent American movies. I also abhor the pervasive hegemony of the American movie industry. It influences too many gullible people.

    Quentin may have been tired/jet lagged, but he was petulant and childish. A practised tantrum thrower of old. The only thing he appears really interested in is selling his wretched movies. And some Americans wonder why nutters there kill defenceless children with machine guns!

  45. matt d says:

    I thought it was crass and bullying behaviour by Tarantino, which is unworthy of his status. Anyhow, if he really didn’t want to be a performing monkey to boost C4 ratings, he chose an odd strategy. Losing his cool got him all over the headlines this morning!

  46. bobby s says:

    a good interview, i agree that T was inconsistent – he can’t own the new debate about slavery (and i think Speilberg might have a better claim there) and not talk in any detail about the violence in his films and the relation to modern american gun-nuttery. it doesn’t add up.

    i wish you’d asked him if he was going to do anything about his stupid comb-over or whether that would make him a past-it director (also where’s the respect for his seniors?)

    also, why does he insist in popping up in his films and ruining cameos proper actors could handle (have you heard his aussie accent in django?)

    also he should stop making it ok for white people to use the N word – it doesn’t help anything

  47. billy bong says:

    you are just not cool in any shape or form krishnan because you are part of the establishment and come the revolution you’ll end up hanging from a lamp post via a sliver of piano wire.

  48. Roger Harvey says:

    Dear Krishnan,
    I thought you maintained your cool very professionally. Tired he may have been, but his behaviour, body language and vocabulary told viewers so much about the man and his attitudes. His statement that the news interview was just a commercial for his film outraged me as a retired radio journalist; I thought you might have challenged that (a la Brian Redhead perhaps?), but maybe there was no point. As a former counsellor I also thought you might have challenged him “in the here and now”, ie ‘look at how you’re reacting Mr Tarantino, what does that tell you about yourself?’, but that would have been to abandon editorial objectivity, so probably best that you weren’t tempted. Congratulations on a polite, calm, very informative interview, which provided a rare ‘wow’ moment in our all-too-often ultra-bland news TV.
    Roger Harvey

  49. David says:

    Tbh, even referring to it as his “inconsistency” seems unduly generous and muted. He was laughably overkeen to put himself quite squarely in the frame when it came to influencing public consciousness about slavery (“I am responsible for people talking about slavery in America in a way that they have not in thirty years”), and insisting that this “dialogue” was way more important than anything so grubby as mere ‘publicity’ generated by the controversy. Then, when the question of other ways his work might influence society came up, he angrily shut the discussion down, and insisted the interview was no more than a “commercial.” I enjoy his films, but I thought he came across as an obnoxious little tit.

    P.S. Nice to see the full interview, but it’s a shame Jon Snow’s not-entirely-thought-through “your butt is shut” quip has gone from the end!

  50. Jackie says:

    Only to add that I believe the American journalistic field is much more sycophantic and many interviewees such as Tarantino proved, are used to being in control of an interview – not a worthy journalistic practice in my book. Well done Krishnan, you did a good job.

  51. juni says:

    that’s what happens when a clever inquisitive person tries to engage in a discussion with a scatty type personality, they might have multi-layers(creative, unconventional etc) but incapable of handling depth. Why waste time/effort/airtime KGM? hehe

  52. Alice says:

    The implications of violence in not just Tarentino’s films, but the media, is such a huge issue and a major theoretical debate, how can you expect him to express his views on the matter in a 10 minute interview when this debate has been developing for decades? He was there to sell his movie. It was like asking Caroline Rush from the British Fashion Council about the issues of anorexia in connection to London Fashion Week influencing young girls and their ‘body image’. Tarentino should not be held responsible for audiences reacting to his violence, he is a film maker, a story teller. What if there wasn’t any violence in this film? Would he be scrutinized for not fairly portraying the violence on slavery in America? Just let him sell his movie.

  53. Meg Howarth says:

    Excellent interview, Krishnan. Tarantino clearly a very angry, and frightened man. Screen violence not cathartic enough for his own demons which, like us all, he’ll have to face if he wishes to continue developing as a human being. His question about his ‘sweet spot’ shows someone who wants to be liked but whose anger overwhelms that gentler urge.

    1. Meg Howarth says:

      Forgot to add – think you’re too generous to him re tiredness etc. The man needn’t have done the interview or could have had the humility to say he was tired. The arrogant, aggressive bluster – because he was cornered re real-life v. cinema violence – is akin to ‘in vino veritas’. This is someone who seems to make violent films to avoid confronting potential violence within himself. A sad character. And telling about ourselves that his movies have been so popular.

      1. Meg Howarth says:

        ‘Potential’ in above comment should have read ‘repressed’. Apologies for error. More haste…

  54. distantobserver says:

    Ah, you’re were trying to trip him up. It’s so obvious.

  55. JohnHhhhh says:

    For anyone saying that the “downfall” of channel four news is upon us, I suggest you take your views and shove them somewhere only you can feel.

    Sorry but what news programme just shed the light on the plebgate scandal? Certainly not BBC…

    Anyway, the interview confirmed that Tarantino is a granny-faced buffoon who is only concerned about himself and can’t bare to think that his film has perhaps had negative impact on the industry. I respect that you like him, Krishnan, but he’s become the idiot’s idol who has diluted great cinema with his tacky authorial signature.

    I strongly recommend you watch a film called “City on Fire”, released prior to “Reservoir Dogs” and see just how badly Quentin rips off its themes, characters, costumes and..errr..plot. Look at his more recent work, they’re just a bunch of polished b-movies which are suddenly really cool because Quentin made it.

    The only reason I feel so bitter towards Tarantino is because he treats himself as some kind of god in the cinema world as feels like he doesn’t need to respect anyone else; including the filmmakers he rips off. I mean, why couldn’t he just answer your questions in a polite, respectful way. They weren’t exactly stupid questions. But there you go, the “genius” of Tarantino cannot be questioned, surely.

    Next time, Krishnan, if you ever have the chance, subtly call out about the things he’s ripped off over the years and given no credit to..

  56. An African-American Male says:

    You demonstrated rare and admirable gumption for a journalist these days, as real critical journalism has been sadly diminishing over the years. Case in point: Tarantino himself had the audacity to refer to your news program as “a commercial for his movie.” That’s how a lot of people feel about news these days, and with good reason. There should be more of you. Please keep up the good work.

    I saw “Django” the other night. I had to go see it, because some of my fellow black folks told me they enjoyed it.

    All I can imagine is that there is a demographic of certain black folks out there that appreciates Tarantino’s offer of a “cathartic” release of watching Django rise up and slay white folks. Which is disappointing. It’s especially disappointing because the film “Django” is such an inauthentic depiction of the slave era.

    Sure there was violence in the slave era, and Tarantino delivered that. He’s good at that. But the dramatic impact of that violence and its potential authenticity is drastically offset by the film’s fallacious depiction of commonplace human empathy between slaves and their owners. In other words, throughout the film, slave owners and slave drivers generally recognize their black slaves as human beings; they’re commonly spoken to as if they’re human beings, and they’re listened to as if they’re human beings. In actuality, slaves were not considered human beings (not even legally), and were rarely addressed as or treated as such. And that’s the most horrifying aspect of the slave trade; that the slaves were not considered human beings. They were considered property, equivalent to horses, cows, dogs, or sheep. That’s what made slave traders, and the government that enabled their industry, monstrous. And that’s what Tarantino failed to depict in “Django.” I wish some journalists would explore this.

    “Django” includes, for example, scenes where black slaves were eating at the table alongside their white master and his guests, listening in on the dinner conversation as if they themselves were his valued friends or even members of his family. As if the majority of slave owners would commonly tolerate the sight of a black slave eating at their dinner tables. My own mother (who is alive today, and who was born far after 1858 in which “Django” was largely set, mind you) wasn’t allowed to eat in the same restaurant with white people when she was a child, much less the same table.

    “Django” includes ridiculous scenes wherein African slaves actually argue heatedly with their masters on the point of whether their master’s bidding should be done. As if such a thing were commonly tolerated by slave owners. Juxtaposed against this is the fact that in 1955, almost 100 years following the year 1858, a quiet young black woman named Rosa Parks was arrested by the police in Alabama when she refused to follow an order to give up her seat on a racially segregated public bus. To put this in perspective, the first human space flight occurred only 6 years later, in 1961.

    Understand this: I am not proposing that the above-mentioned scenes in “Django” never before happened in the history of slavery. More to the point is the fact that the overall depiction of these scenes creates an inference that they were commonplace; and in this regard, Tarantino’s film supports and even promotes the notion that slavery wasn’t so bad, because slaves were at least regarded as human beings.

    The reason this notion bothers me is because if we are to accept that slaves were at least regarded as human beings, then by logical extension we must reject the notion that the era of slave trade actually wasn’t so bad, and has little to do with the fact that—comparatively speaking—many black people today have failed to achieve even a nominal threshold with respect to education, financial sustainability, social equality and a sense of self-worth among their fellow men and women. And that’s just not true.

    In his interview on Channel 4, Tarantino expressly confirmed that the intent of the violence in “Django” is to provide the viewer (presumably the black viewer) with a cathartic release. In other words, through the fictional endeavors of the Django character he hopes to satisfy the sense of vengeance that they believe many black people possess for having suffered the indignity of slavery.

    I don’t have a sense of vengeance to stoke… but if I did, it’s not likely that this film could satisfy it any more than “Inglorious Basterds” sufficed to act as a cathartic balm against the racial injustice that Jewish people went through at the hands of Hitler and which—to a degree—they continue to go through today.

    And in either case, take it from me that Quentin Tarantino doesn’t understand black people as well as he purports to.

    1. Joe says:

      You are correct, slaves were cattle and received worse treatment. I doubt if any cows were whipped to death or hung by their necks to their death. For a slave to eat at the master’s table would be unthinkable. Even in the UK the white, paid kitchen staff of the upper classes would not be allowed to do so, so I can’t imagine a Black slave breaking bread with their ‘owner’ under any circumstances.

  57. Joanne Cook says:

    Well done Krishan. The arrogance of Hollywood is outstanding. You kept your cool and had so much integrity compared to this strangely neurotic individual, coming from America, where he (in true sun god mode) is probably rarely challenged. You shook his throne built on normalising and desensitising a population to the most horrific.Look how that’s turned out for them in the USA with the lethal mix of also selling guns like a pints of milk
    Many films coming out of Hollywood ,increasingly have a diet of extreme violence like Tarantino’s films, subtle degradation of women and elderly. as well as cutesy rubbish masking the sexualisation of children
    He is part of a culture that panders to the lowest common denominator and keeps moving downwards
    Just a shame there aren’t more Krishnans in America to challenge more
    Keep up the great news on Channel 4
    Your the best

  58. Mudplugger says:

    At least you goaded him into admitting his only purpose was to puff up his movie – the only bit of honesty on view – well done for that.

    But that achievement sits uncomfortably with C4 and all the other news media falling for the PR puffery around an irrelevant record released by a faded floosie called David Bowie. Whatever possessed you, and the BBC and ITV’s so-called News units, to allocate even a few seconds of precious screen-time to that shameless advertising ? Or was there some ‘folding-stuff’ involved ? Shame on you all.

  59. Zoe Alexander says:

    Krishnan, hats off to you for keeping so professional and squeezing Tarantino! I thought he was going to lose it at one stage, but the fact your kept so calm I think put him under pressure not to lose it! Now that would have been amusing – especially with his stance on violence off film!
    Also amusing to think a news interview is seen as a commercial for his film!

    Thank you for a great post and superb interview!
    Zoe

  60. John Manoochehri says:

    Your interview was lame.

    You can’t respect the fact he has already spoken about this, and you clearly haven’t done your research (e.g. referring to ‘rape’ in the movie, which is clearly indicates does not exist).

    And what is your point anyway? That he’s responsible? For what?

  61. Rohan says:

    I am sorry about the double posting here, I was typing fast and there are some minor typos in my previous comment.

    This interview is probably the funniest interview, for the questions here are quite juvenile. I am late in commenting here, but I hope that you take your time and read what I am trying to convey here, Mr. Murthy. As a fan of cinema, I am going to answer your derogatory question, if there is link between film violence and real life violence. – Tarantino has clearly stated before, Years ago and he didn’t really had to answer such question. As a journalist, I believe, you should do your homework. You choose questions carefully, and how you tone it in your brain and spit it out. Question after question, such as “Why do you make violent films” – I will be honest, why do you sit and ask questions. And, why are you a journalist?

    You made it sound like Tarantino’s films are inspiring those with twisted minds, to pick up a gun and kill people.

    Let me make it clear: Violence, the very nature of it, is part of man. It’s been here and it forever will be part of its nature. Violence, before film was invented, camera was invented, always existed. So, don’t make your questions sound like FILMS ARE THE REASON BEHIND VIOLENCE. No, it is not. I was truly ashamed, for I wasted my time to view the clip. You wasted not only my time, but Tarantino’s and all his fans as well.

    Film violence and real life violence are two different things. It’s all about common sense, come on! – Film, which I am sure that you have no clue about, is mirror of life. Cinema itself is mirror of life. Every film-maker is like a painter. Some likes to paint gardens with flowers, and some paint violent portraits. It’s all in the nature of art. You have no clue whatsoever, in regards to the very infranarrative of film and its concept.

    Thank you, sir.

  62. Joe says:

    Do violent movies make people violent? Well, I’m a person and I watch violent movies and I’ve never so much as punched someone in my life. If someone has violent tendencies they will come out no matter what films they are watching.

  63. Jason Mill says:

    When Krishnan next interviews some U.S. head of state in a fawning, lightweight interview, he won’t be pressing them and badgering them about the morally and legally dubious drone strikes which may contribute to the culture of violence in American society. Like most journalists, he’ll be fawning and sycophantic.

    If I had the good fortune to be a television journalists, handed the task of interviewing one of the most culturally significant contemporary artists, the very least I would be doing beforehand would be thinking up some refreshing, original questions.

  64. Tim says:

    I hated your goading interview, it smacked of stupidity and conservatism.

    Tarrantino makes films he is not a moral arbiter. Obviously you do not remember the 1990s when republicans railed against film and videogames as a direct cause for inciting violence in people. Here in the U.K we have a censorship board which was set up to make sure people of a lower class saw nothing that would incite them to violence or behaviour of a low moral standard, it still exists today. I would suggest you acquire and watch http://www.amazon.co.uk/Video-Nasties-Definitive-Guide-DVD/dp/B004BDZ0FC/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1357993543&sr=1-1 it will explain how media and politicos like you have sought to scapegoat fantasy violence as a direct link to real violence.

    What causes real violence? Sport such as football causes real violence not to mention racism and a general sense of hatred. War causes violence especially in countries infected with the plague of organized religion. Perhaps you think our country invaded Iraq because Tony Blair watched Reservoir Dogs.

    Greed causes violence look at the richest countries on this planet and the levels of poverty that exist within them, look how the politicos are turning different economic social groups against each other, this will cause violence. Corruption causes violence mankind is corrupt. Ignorance causes violence, Religion causes violence, and I’ve never heard of someone hijacking a plane because they watched a movie or played a videogame. I weep for the stupidity of mankind.

    1. Meg Howarth says:

      Anger – actual or repressed – is surely the underlying cause of violence – and hatred. On a societal scale, this is often exploited by political Establishments for their own ends (‘populism’, war). Re your examples: football doesn’t ’cause’ violence, otherwise why don’t all fans behave violently? Folk can be racist without themselves being violent. And remember: bitter, twisted, racist Hitler, political architect of death camps/final solution is said never to himself to have killed anyone. Others did it on his behalf. Re war: surely this is the ultimate violence?

      Regarding violent films: as Tarantino/Krish agreed – I believe – watching them can be cathartic. Maybe that’s why Tarantino makes them – a conflicted angry man who (hopefully) sublimates personal aggression via movie-making? Watchers of same may do so for same reason. While ridiculous to suggest that everyone who watches violent films for reasons will become violent as a direct result, irresponsible to suggest that some individuals won’t be so affected. Rather than sublimating their pre-existing anger/hatred, the screen violence may encourage real-life action. Rarely, I’m confident, in the case of ‘adults’, but suggest the effect of violent movies on young still-emotionally dependent children is likely to be more pronounced – unless the violence is condemned as unacceptable by parents/guardians etc.

      1. Tim says:

        Meg – I was a pre-teen during the Video Nasties era of the early 1980’s my friends and I watched as many of the banned films as we could get our hands on, our parents never knew we kept it secret until years later when I told mine, to this day none of us have been involved in REAL-LIFE violence.

        The only people who would be affected by such fake screen violence are those unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, the media court sensationalism K Guru has obviously been told to conduct a tendentious interview in order to boost the flagging 4News ratings and it has worked. If you read his preamble to this thread he comes off as utterly disingenuous and this whole debacle is a storm in a cracked teacup.

        I remember when the British media tried to make spurious claims that the Hungerford gun man sat at home watching Rambo and other “violent” movies before going out on his shooting rampage, whilst back in the land of reality he never owned a television let alone a VCR to play the films on. I suggest you follow my link and learn something about the British media, the moral puritan Mary Whitehouse brigade and the general speciousness of this entire non-debate.

        K.Guru should feel ashamed and embarrassed for pushing Tarrantino into a mean-spirited corner of obfuscation. I watched both men’s body language and Guru was the passive aggressor whilst Tarantino was visibly upset. This is the country which gave the world the most violent stage play ever written: Macbeth is it not. If William Shakespeare were to be interviewed by K. Guru would he have met the same fate….?

  65. brenda says:

    Tarantino interview. Thanks for asking the right questions- I despair of living in an increasingly violent world perpetuated and encouraged by Hollywood and media/ film industry in general. In my opinion it erodes and degrades human spirituality and fuels people with a leaning towards violence ,making it socially acceptable / even fashionable,eroding our quality of life. Apparently cinema audiences in the Lebanon have been known to stand up and cheer during violent use of automatic weapons in films.
    Society is not Tarantino’s monkey to be manipulated and lets face it they are into making money at the expense of the rest of us . To me Hollywood has groomed society for decades in a Saville-ite way- the number of films showing gratuitous violence against women for entertainment- thinly veiled as ‘realism’ is horrifying and I feel sure encourages such behaviour in society.Look at how many tv programmes are about women being murdered- to me this shows a great sickness in society.
    Well done Krishna for challenging such things.

  66. ralph says:

    kudos to krishnan for having the balls to question tarantino like that. in orwell’s 1984, there was a scene where folks are entertained by movies featuring mindless violence, and tarantino seems like the realization of that vision. problem is that most of the chattering classes and highbrow critics still seem to think that tarantino represents “art” so we have a hard time seeing the debasement of life and culture that it really represents.

    in my opinion, victims of great tragedies have a moral authority that comes from not seeking revenge in the same manner. for example, the logic of inglorious basterds might also imply that israel should nuke germany. however, the resolution to the holocaust was instead to punish the leaders who perpetrated it, and find a way to create permanent strength for the victims in a new country. someone does a grave injustice; rather than return with an equal grave injustice (another genocide), you find alternate ways to rectify the situation. this is a basic concept found in many of the world’s religions and ethical systems.

  67. Esmeralda says:

    So glad Krishna that you confronted Tarantino about the correlation between violence as entertainment and violence as a psycho-social problem. I liked Pulp Fiction because of the music and the deadpan dialogue but the violence got to me. It wasn’t as graphic as Tarantino’s later movies, I believe. I couldn’t even watch the whole “Inglorious Basterds” it was bestial. Some people I’ve spoken to, tell me they enjoy violence as a bit of recreation, but I have never really understood how and why? The violent scenes torment me for days, and I just cannot enjoy them.
    Still, even if Tarantino unfortunately wasn’t brave enough to explore the notion he introduced: To deal with violence during slavery, his film and this interview raise important questions. How can you deal with the atrocious violent circumstances during slavery or a genocide, holocaust etc without knowing what that violent amounted to exactly. Can we understand better if we see the suffering graphically on screen, thus suffering ourselves or do we become immune and complaisant about violence the more we watch? Does our treshold for enduring violent scenes translate to what we endure in real life? Kudos to you for keeping your cool!

  68. Shaun Griffin says:

    What a fool. He says he is there to publicise his film only and then acuses you of hijacking his interview for promote your programme. Shocking! I’m not doubting your motives, but two can play at his game! Quentin get a grip.

  69. Bob Dugdale says:

    In my opinion, the arrogance displayed by Quentin Tarantino during the interview was an example of a supposedly “intelligent ” person displaying an over inflated opinion of self, when in reality being unable to engage in meaningful dialogue about issues that are relevant to many people. I look forward to his next image crumbling, out of control interview with the “master of cool” Krishnan. Score: Krishnan 1. QT 0.

  70. Jason Kenny says:

    We all have off days when we say something we wished we hadn’t or reacted in a way we will cringe at later, this was QT’s. I love his films, I too can quote word for word paragraphs from my favourite film, pulp fiction and as a stable guy, I love violent films because they take you out of the ordinary into a fantasy land for a few ours. If you are stable there is no link between violent films and real world violence. If you are unstable and watching a violent film makes you want too kill 30 people then it is because you are unstable, not the films fault. We can’t live in a sterile world because of a minority of unstable people, we just need better testing to establish the unstable people.

  71. annie says:

    Krishnan, you were so dignified, and it seemed to highlight just how irrational and downright babyish Tarantino was being. His effort to shout you down reminded me of Conrad Black, Peter Hitchens, and others who are fine about dishing it out, but can’t actually handle a fair question. Maybe he should stick to brain-sapping programs like Jonathan Ross… On this occasion, Channel Four was too good for him.

  72. Anne-Marie says:

    Here’s one study on how movie violence affects people in real life. The answer is simple. It does. http://www.research.vt.edu/resmag/sciencecol/media_violence.html

    1. Mick says:

      You call that evidence? Ha. The first study says nothing about violence, only about deciding whether someone gets financial aid. The second supports what most people believe. If you’re a bit of a psycho a violent movie might give you ideas, which you may act on. What a tiny percentage of people may do can never be a good reason for restricting freedom in the arts. That way lies the Taliban etc

  73. Sam says:

    He was looked and sounded like he was ‘coked’ up to the eye balls and so I don’t think KG stood a chance to be honest. Shame though because I’ve loved some of his movies but the way he appears to be has put me right off him…shame man.

  74. adil says:

    I just saw the interview. It seemed a strange interview. It seemed as if there was a misunderstanding. I must admit I do hope that you don’t lead interviewees to the ‘right’ answer (that would be disturbing as it would suggest a bias). Whether the US wants to continue to allow its citizens carry weapons or not is up to them. There are alternatives and the US citizens are smart enough to figure out the best option for them – speaking as a non-US person.

    Perhaps Mr Tarantino is a supporter of the 2nd amendment. The US is still a young country. I am confident at some point that many will realise that licensing firearms is a good thing.

    I’m not sure that these violent movies make one want to emulate them. For me (I recently saw 7 psychopaths) I more and more am disturbed by what I see. Especially in the current climate. I suspect that I am not alone and more people will start to shy away from such movies. But, maybe that’s just me.

  75. Aequus says:

    “Why do you like making violent movies?”

    “You get a kick out of it or just enjoy it?”

    Seriously? Are these lines of inquiry even allowed in objective reporting?

    Violence in films (it seems) is now synonymously associated with gun violence in meat space and by refusing to answer loaded questions grounded in baseless assumptions, Tarantino is thus rendered unprofessional and perhaps even tacitly guilty of questionable ethics in film making. In my opinion, the accusative tone so implicit in the method of interview was intellectually dishonest and sensationalistic at best.

  76. kwarive says:

    Yes, the artists are always the ones corrupting society, not reflecting it. All throughout history its artists who have been responsible for all sorts of degeneracy. Its called “moral perversion” and how delightful to see channel 4 news badger an artist with a cantankerous manner and potty mouth and implicitly hold him responsible for violence in american society.

    Jolly well done Krishnan, you’re well on your way to that plum job on the BBFC.

  77. Bill Boyle says:

    The lesson of this interview, brilliantly flushed out by Krishnan, is that Tarantino just makes films to make money. Are we surprised? Obviously some of us are!

  78. Chris says:

    I have lost all respect for Quentin Tantrumino after seeng he’s obnoxious display of arrogance and immaturity.

    Quentin is a massive hypocrite because while he doesn’t mind answering the same old scripted questions over and over granted that they further inflate his ego and yet complains about being presented with repetitive questions that are not so much to his liking.

    Kudos to you for being true to yourself instead of being a slave to Quentin’s massive ego.

  79. Mick says:

    Beautifully handled interview. QT came across badly. But a lot of people here praising the interview seem to assume Krishnan believes there is a link between movie violence and real life. I do not know what his views are, but I suspect he may agree 100% with QT that there is no link. Nothing in the interview suggests he believes there is such a link. In fact, I think he was hoping QT would demolish the argument (which wouldn’t be hard as there is no convincing evidence). Instead, QT behaved like someone secretly convinced that there is a strong link. All most amusing.

  80. Steeve Patrick says:

    I can’t help but think that channel 4 news is on a witch hunt. Ironically and timely therefor is the debut of a gritty and violent TV series on its own channel. UTOPIA creators should equally be asked the same questions.

  81. Jo says:

    I don’t think anyone “made” QT lose his temper. It all happened quite suddenly in response to a simple and, I think, understandable question. It made him look really stupid and well done to Krishnan for maintaining his dignity. “I’m here to sell my movie. I’m not responsible.” Says it all.

    My own view is that movies like those he makes have helped to make life pretty cheap and to make violence look glamorous. He promotes not just violence but gratuitous violence. I have never understood why people find movies like that “entertaining”.

  82. Quentin says:

    (Nb. Quentin is my real name, and I ain’t Tarantino)

    The interview left me angry because the moment Tarantino said he was there purely for promotion, and not for a broader discussion, krishnan should have stopped the interview, and told him to naff off and pay for a commercial ad in the ad break, like everyone else has too.

    I watch for c4 news for news, not for film promotions. Stand up for yourself krishnan – this interview should have been on your terms or not at all, even if it meant tantrumino went off in a huff

  83. Jeff Rector says:

    Krishnan,
    Your QT interview was pure genius. Wow. You nailed him. Congratulations and thank you.

  84. Roy says:

    You acted like an asshole and pushed him as far as you can. You just got the kind of answer that you deserved. He is right, reporters always ask him about violence, because is a controversial theme and the most evident signature mark in his work. And you pretend to be an intelectual person making the same questions every subnormal reporter does. Shame on you!

    1. Tim says:

      Yes he did push Tarantino into an ugly negative corner; Mr Guru would never dare to do the same to any number of slimy politicos who trot out their self-serving dogma night in and night out. To read some of these vitriolic yet unknowledgeable opinions you’d be forgiven for thinking Tarantino was solely responsible for all the violence in this crazy world.

  85. Oscar says:

    That interview with Mr. Tarantino, and this piece in the blog, will be used in many journalism schools around the world and will be a classic masterpiece that people will look forever. Thanks for bring back some class in the profession.

  86. Shwartz says:

    You don’t know yet how to interview different people. when he got defensive the you had to move off the subject then you hadn’t gotten yourself trashed.

  87. Exploit:Java/CVE-2011-3521.A says:

    I couldn’t refrain from commenting. Very well written!

Comments are closed.