This is essentially a two-parter. It’s borderline celebrity gossip stuff, but who cares? I will post the links. It’s reasonably entertaining.
Anyway, part 1:
Robert Downey Jr. (who I will just call “Jr.”) recently walked out on an interview with Krishnan Guru-Murthy, going on to call him a “‘bottom-feeding muckraker.”
How can this be? What happened? Well, Krishnan repeatedly questioned Jr. on his past drug and alcohol addiction (“the dark periods”), rather than discuss the movie he was there to promote. In fact, Krishnan actually had the nerve to ask him whether he is “free of all of that.” While walking away from this crap, Jr. said, “It’s just getting a little Diane Sawyery… and you’re kind of a schmuck.”
What bothers me most about Krishnan is his phoney-baloney air of sophistication, even though he’s interviewing someone about a superhero movie and trying to whip up controversy needlessly (though some might argue I’m trying to be controversial, to which I will promptly say “STFU”). Some might excuse that air of sophistication as part of his British nature, but I’m not entirely convinced. I’m convinced this guy believes he’s some high powered journalist who people ought to take seriously. In contrast to that image, Jr. asked, “Are we promoting a movie?” That is really what these interviews are about.
Krishnan should perhaps stop and ask himself, “Hmmm, what if someone started dredging up flaws from my past? How might I feel about that?” Being a serious journalist, he should also be an introspective guy.
The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALBwaO-rAsE
And that brings me to Part 2:
Krishnan Guru-Murthy’s interview with Quentin Tarantino. This was conducted when “Django Unchained” was deservedly making a big splash.
In contrast, the only big splash Krishnan Guru-Murthy made at the time was this turd of an interview. At the time, a number of self righteous folks were criticizing this movie, including Spike Lee. Either they felt it employed violence too much, or they objected to white people using the “N Word.” The problem is, slavery was itself a violent institution. Overthrowing it seemed to require violence, and there actually were occasionally violent rebellions against it. Also, every movie that wishes to depict slavery with any accuracy will have slave masters using the word “Nigger.” Some people don’t get that, apparently.
In this interview, Krishnan keeps hammering on the topic of violence in movies, and how it supposedly is linked to real life violence. Tarantino keeps declining to answer this theory, noting that he’s talked about it repeatedly for about 20 years, and his view on the subject is therefore available already. Fascinatingly, Krishnan insists that it is his responsibility as a journalist to keep hammering this point over and over again, ignoring the fact that he has no such responsibility, nor does Tarantino have a responsibility to thoroughly defend his movie for any reason. He has the option.
And again, Krishnan’s air of sophistication blossoms, giving the impression that he is almost totally unflawed. His theory about violence implies that we’d be better off if no conflicts were depicted anywhere. There’s a hint of a micro-crusade, of a moral warrior of sorts, doing his best to sell his journalistic integrity as serious. Being honest, Tarantino says in the interview, “This is a commercial for the movie. Make no mistake.” He shuts Krishnan down on every single point.
Personally, I believe there is a link between Krishnan’s interviews and violence throughout society, and I intend to prove it by repeatedly asking him awkward questions. Give me a job at the BBC, please.
The clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMLno-_erfg