Judd Apatow, John Krasinski and more Writers on THR's Roundtable | Oscars 2013
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 11. 2012
- Full uncensored interview with Judd Apatow, Mark Boal, David Magee, Chris Terrio, Michael Haneke and John Krasinski.
Roundtables are back! The Hollywood Reporter’s 2016 Emmy Roundtable season has premiered. Subscribe to stay up to date with new Roundtable videos publishing everyday this awards season! Who do you want to see on this season’s Roundtables? Tell us in the comments below!
Tune-in for the full Drama Actress Roundtable on Monday, June 28th!
Stay tuned to everything you need for this season of Roundtables:
www.hollywoodreporter.com/roun...
Subscribe to our channel: / hollywoodreporter
Like us on Facebook: / hollywoodreporter
Follow us on Twitter: / thr
Follow us on Instagram: / hollywoodreporter
Watch more videos on THR.com www.hollywoodreporter.com/video - Zábava
Haneke: 8:03; 44:24; 53:00; 57:39
Thanks a lot
That's why I'm here, thanks
tes
Bless you
You are a good person,thank you.
The difference between Haneke and all the others gathered around him is that Haneke is an artist. He sounds like an alien there.
The Difference between Haneke and the other guys there is the same as Godzilla and the Smurfs.
Michael Haneke should've been given more questions. So much wisdom and experience right there. And from a totally different filmmaking environment from Hollywood.
We can clearly see how annoyed Haneke is. He represents the other side of Cinema, the quality, the thought provoking and the artistry. Hollywood is non of that whatsoever.
Now I am starting to understand why his movie "Amour" was treated so coldly during the Oscar ceremony. Michael Haneke must have pissed off a few people by being so outspoken about his disdain of "Schindler's List".
Pedro Gonçalves Well said Pedro. Hollywood has never, never being able to handle artists and intellectuals. It's a business and if they can make a profit from tragedy, they will. Just watch or google Terry Gilliam's anecdote about Kubrick slashing Spielberg.
The thing about Hollywood that pisses me off is how it celebrates the "human experience" while still expecting a kind of happy ending. The human experience is a plethora of feelings. Not to mention some/a lot of Americans' not really enjoying films with subtitles.
Everyone in that room should sit in front of Haneke and listen to him without making any sound, not even coffee sipping sound.
And stfu specially that interviewer, the difference on level is beyond figures...
Ramalekshman S stfu
Judd Apatow and Michael Haneke in the same room?!?!? Now I've seen everything!
Man... I love the hell out of Schindler's List and I've never really been opposed to being manipulated by film in that way, but Haneke's comment on it completely floored me. I never even thought of looking at a film like that with anything other than complete reverence, but he was really spot on with that first comment. I'm really going to have to delve into his filmography.
stallone and Schwarzenegger presenting him with best foreign film was surreal as fuck
he's a really great filmmaker, very artistic in his style and very deep.
beyondcinema funny games is a masterpiece Hitchcock would have loved it
Saying that we shouldn't portray historical events like that out of "reverence", when in fact the people telling the story and most of the extras in the film are either survivors of the Holocaust or their direct descendants, seems to be calling to censor their experience. Film provides a way to empathize with people in situations audiences might not be aware of, and suggesting that it's more "morally pure" to hide history rather than honor its sufferers seems horrific to me and I'm actually depressed at the amount of comments glorifying and not questioning Haneke here.
His films aren't without "manipulation" either, all films are literally fabrications (that's not inherently negative), and claiming that they're not and he's morally superior as a result is absurd. All of his films are written, directed and edited to provoke specific reactions and oftentimes deal with historic eras, just because they're slower and less specific than Hollywood films doesn't mean he's not in control of what happens.
His opinion is: all film is manipulation, the question is how you manipulate and how much freedom of feeling do you leave to your viewer and how much are you aware of the manipulation as a viewer.
Poor Haneke had to sit there with boys half his age and IQ
love the 'most-viewed' graph... we only wanna hear what Haneke has to say.
The interviewer constantly interrupts those he is interviewing, that makes it practically unbearable to watch.
Yes I thought when John K was speaking so elequently about his process he had such patience for the interruptions
Michael Haneke destroyed everybody in the room with 1 minute of speech, huh? Lol. Long live European Cinema, Auteur Film and Art House!
Michael Haneke is one of the most underrated directors of the past 20 years. If you haven't researched his catalog of work, you should. You won't be disappointed.
I'm at 6 minutes and have to stop. Can't watch the panel that uncomfortable anymore.
"Do you show Osama bin Laden in the film?"
"I don't want to get ahead of the marketing" [chuckles nervously]
"I understand, but do you show Osama bin Laden in the film?"
Wow. Who the hell is this interviewer?
watch his roundtable with clooney oldman nolte and albert brooks
when he cuts off brooks,, he is seething
Anybody noticed, how Haneke sits in a different black coloured chair. How symbolic. Such a master!
When Haneke says he thought the film was "repulsive and dumb" I at first thought he was referring to Zero Dark Thirty, which was hysterical given that he's sitting next to Mark Boal. I now realize he was actually referring to Downfall.
Haneke is in a league of his own.
I feel like the interviewer doesn't make his guests comfortable, actually i think he's really annoying. He really likes asking long question and listening to himself kind of...
i think Haneke won't be directing for Marvel anytime soon
+BRAD PITT Beilieve me, he probably doesn't even consider them filmmakers, much less serious filmmakers.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
This feels more like an interrogation than an interview
THANK YOU so much Hollywood Reporter and the 'threnetwork' for this 58 minute treat with some of 2012's great screenwriters.
Crazy how much the production value of these roundtables has increased since 2012. It's good though, having the interviewees actually at a table, sitting in proper seats (couches are always unflattering) looking and engaging each other creates a much more interesting interview.
So much tension at the beginning of this interview lol
It would have been good to have the names of the participants mentioned below this video. For those who need to know, here is that information: Chris Terrio (Argo), John Krasinksi (Promised Land), David Magee (Life of Pi), Mark Boal (Zero Dark Thirty), Judd Apatow (This Is 40), and Michael Hanneke (L'Amour). But, it is great to have this discussion.
Galloway is such a horrid interviewer. This is a conversation that should be fluid and comfortable and natural, but this feels like an interrogation.
true but i think he had to pressure these guys to give serious answers
just here for haneke
I hate the double standard shown in this interview towards Mark Boal and Zero Dark Thirty as opposed to Michael Haneke and Amour. Boal did a movie that has a heavy focus on TORTURE, and yet because it was done in the "Hollywood way of being entertaining first and foremost" as Galloway approvingly says, it's content is not sited as 'horrific', which is what he then calls Haneke's Alzheimer's drama Amour.
This bias towards constantly feeling the need to see everything portrayed in an "entertaining" way that North American audiences have is very dangerous, and it is sharply contrasted in our cinema when you compare it to European directors like Michael Haneke and how they, above all, strive for truthfulness, which means that if they're doing a film about a horrible subject that that film will reflect some of that horror. I'd much rather have that, and truly be affected by a film like Amour, which is about one of the most painful experiences we go through in life, than leave the theatre after Zero Dark Thirty hardly affected, as most people were, by the TORTURE shown on screen, because the film's goal was constantly to be entertaining and so in pursuing that they lost sight of real truth. Criticizing Haneke for that truthfulness, as Galloway did, seems so utterly biased and hypocritical, like he is basically saying, "Come on man, these are ~movies~, they're supposed to be entertaining, not honest!''
[The second paragraph was from my longer comment below, but I included it since most people wouldn't read to the end of a comment, and I thought the point should be made. Sorry for the repeat.]
+oldmoviemusic Agreed. Not all cinema should be entertainment. The only reason why this is a standing belief is because it created an industry and killed an art form. When they invite artists like Haneke with a strong dramatic vision and a thought provoking career which i personally adore, these product makers have NO leg to stand on. They cant even begin to understand how little they are in front such a master.
+oldmoviemusic Mark Boal is a bystander. His writing has been deeply criticized by operators and those who have really lived in those experiences. No one outside of the general public and biassed media take him seriously as a writer.
These babies need to learn from Haneke. Period.
+Kino Cineasta i mean he seems like he´s on other planet with these little creatures who say: "we can write". Absolutely preposterious! he´s a whole league on his own.
+steve lombardo Agreed Steve! The fact that they think a film is ONLY about the way its written is pure poison. Haneke is truly the new drama imo. Haneke is saying clearly to them, you are a bunch of idiots. The other thing that is clearly in the air and much to their so called "advantage" is that theyre kinda shocked that an international figure like Haneke doesnt speak English. Big deal! They should appreciate the bloody free cinema class that they are getting! But these babies are pressured to make money first something that Haneke cant be bothered by and these babies have zero artistry at all, they have the emotional range of a mayo sandwich!
Kino Cineasta i can agree on that, i was more surprised that "he" appeared in a program like this, i mean i would accept him besides, PTA, Von Trier or The Coens but these guys are just pimps compared to Haneke, good artists never think of sucess or money, they give you questions to think and crack in home when you have left the cinema...
+steve lombardo 100 Agreed!
found this boring except the parts where haneke talks. That guy is a genius. THe Directors interview was much better
Why you gotta hate BC? Was still interesting. I do agree that Haneke made some very insightful points (letting the audience make a choice). The directors roundtable with Ang Lee, Tarantino and friends was great.
lol yeah just sayin, the other intvs were more interesting
Judd Apatow is having an anxiety attack through this whole video lmao he knows he's insanely out of his league with Haneke there
Not 'out of his league' persay, but definitely a different league. Haneke is participating in a triathlon and Apatow is in the three-legged race. Lol
Probably because a conversation between Haneke and Tarantino alone would be three hours long.
my drama teacher went to school with Chris Terrio! glad he won the oscar!
Not really "uncut" but still good interviews, i like it!
Is more missing than just the translation parts?
totally agree. the one he did with the round table of directors (weir, cianfrance, russell, etc.) was probably the best only cause they were so, so intelligent and eloquent. And the one with the actresses (portman, adams, kidman, etc.) was good because their general friendly chattiness over came his method of doing these. Plus helena bonham carter was just so awesome...she helped a lot with that one.
I’m disappointed that nobody really followed up on Schindler’s List. I’ve always viewed it as an exploitation movie, and have even had people shout me down for saying so. My main issue with it is ‘Redcap’. I had read the book years before seeing the movie, and couldn’t recall her dying. Then I realised the reason she’s in colour is when we see her first, she escapes from the Nazis, and we’re on her side, and it brings up all these wonderful emotions, and this increases the impact later when we see her body on a pile of other corpses. I know Spielberg said she was in colour because he wanted to put the bloodstain on the Nazis, but that only brings up the question: As opposed to whom?
I put my views into a very dark screenplay once, and that was what people had an issue with, despite there being much darker stuff in the script. I can’t be sure, but I think the reason people don’t like critiquing Schindler’s List is it’s because it’s such a gut-wrenching experience that people think I’m attacking them when I call it an exploitation movie. For what it’s worth, here’s my argument: When a film director decides in advance what they want an audience to feel, and then put the necessary stimulus on screen, then the feelings don’t really count. This doesn’t mean the audience is lacking in humanity, but that the director has no faith in the audience’s humanity.
As for my screenplay, I ended up publishing it as a book, The Barbarians, that nobody wants to read!
I'm only here for Haneke
Now I know how the Nuremberg trials must have felt...JEEZ!...I'm home, watching this nearly three years after it was filmed and I'M uncomfortable!
I wish the interviewer's ego stopped getting in the way. He makes me cringe every time he asks a question and this wouldn't be the first interview he's irritated me in. If he could learn to listen and let the writers talk then the 'chat' would work a lot better. Instead every interview feels like he's presenting his CV to the camera and trying to list his qualifications.
Haneke should never have to sit in the same room as these fart joke merchants.
Dreadful, dreadful interview, and what a question to start off with. The writers would have had so much more to say than they were given the chance to.
The moment you realize Haneke gave the finger to Boal and Terrio
how?
michael haneke's stepfather that he talked about is actually christoph waltz's stepfather
The interviewer NEVER asks the guy on Judd Apatow's left [David Magee] ANY FRICKING QUESTIONS! I feel so bad for him, he's there to be interviewed, and I'd like to hear what he has to say, and he seems nice, but the interviewer is CONTINUOUSLY snubbing him!
I think the setting for this roundtable was not as effective at having the interviewees participate.....the topics brought up were also way too specific to each script, rather than asking some questions that everyone could answer and interact with each other about, like they do at most of the roundtables. You have the benefit of having numerous, interesting, smart writers all together, so why not take advantage of that and have them all interact, rather than basically interviewing them individually, which he could've done normally.
This stylistic choice made for a very frustrating interview in which numerous people were overlooked [Haneke, guy on Apatow's left David Magee), whilst the more famous, less interesting, not as significant writers like Apatow and Krasinski were peppered with questions.
+oldmoviemusic totally agreed. His personal questions should have been dealt with via independent interviews. He spent the entire opening part just questioning Boal and kept cutting Magee. Stephan Galloway is always like this. Odd guy.
Haneke was nominated for best director along with Spilberg. I wish they were together. Now that would be something I would love to see.
Haneke make more movies
Also, I find it kind of.....well, offensive is too strong of a word, but I guess I'll go with it - offensive the way the interviewer Galloway took his own personal experience of seeing Haneke's Amour with an eighty-six year old woman who had experienced the same kind of loss portrayed by the film and who in turn was profoundly wounded by the film's subject matter, and twisted that into asking Haneke "Is it ok for entertainment to make people feel terrible?" prefacing it with "In the world of Hollywood, entertainment is first and foremost..." What a ludicrously biased thing to say!
First of all, the subject matter of Amour is pretty obvious, and being a film journalist and knowing Haneke as a filmmaker, putting the older woman's miserable experience on Haneke is totally unfair. If anything, the interviewer should've had the foresight that to see such a film would hurt her and either warned her of it or not gone to see it with her, so I don't think her reaction is on Haneke in this scenario. In any case, his job as a story-teller is to be truthful - he himself was coming from a very painful place in his own life to tell the story, so of course him succeeding as a filmmaker at being truthful would make the film difficult, particularly to a viewer who has had someone die of Alzheimer's.
If Haneke had turned a miserable, horrific experience like Alzheimer's into something entertaining then that would've have not only been offensive and dishonest but also totally irresponsible! It seems that Galloway's experience totally clouded his perception of the film.
He seemed to have no problem with torture being displayed in Zero Dark Thirty, and I think that is a far more horrible thing to witness on film, particularly when it is untruthfully skewed to be perceived as having WORKED and finally brought about the intelligence that caught Bin Laden, when in fact the very opposite was true and it was when they STOPPED torturing the guy that they got the information out of him. However, since all of that was done in the 'entertaining' way that Galloway saw as 'Hollywood approved', and not in the truthful way that someone like Haneke would have done it, showing how pointless and horrifically violent torture is and how it degrades the humanity of both sides, as well as not leading to anything productive, Galloway saw no reason to criticize Mark Boal and say what he wrote was a 'horrible experience', when of all of the subject matters there if Boal had been successful at being as truthful with Zero Dark Thirty as Haneke was with Amour then it would have been the most horrific and devastating experience there!
However, since the rest of the movies at the table are all Hollywood films and as such, as Galloway says so tritely, all fit the box of being "entertaining first and foremost", then a realistic film by a European director about an aging couple going through one of them slowly dying of Alzheimer's is far more of a difficult experience than one about catching a terrorist who killed thousands of people, a film in which severe torture is depicted!
This bias towards constantly feeling the need to see everything portrayed in an "entertaining" way that North American audiences have is very dangerous, and it is sharply contrasted in our cinema when you compare it to European directors like Michael Haneke and how they, above all, strive for truthfulness, which means that if they're doing a film about a horrible subject that that film will reflect some of that horror. I'd much rather have that, and truly be affected by a film like Amour, which is about one of the most painful experiences we go through in life, than leave the theatre after Zero Dark Thirty hardly affected, as most people were, by the TORTURE shown on screen, because the film's goal was constantly to be entertaining and so in pursuing that they lost sight of real truth. Criticizing Haneke for that truthfulness, as Galloway did, seems so utterly biased and hypocritical, like he is basically saying, "Come on man, these are ~movies~, they're supposed to be entertaining, not honest!''
I'm currently 35min into this interview and Galloway has asked Haneke (arguably the greatest and most interesting talent among this lot) only ONE question. But hey, we got some insight into Judd Apatow's writing routine so that's OK.
when will the directors and actresses ones be up?
whar watch is haneke wearing?
Supported Video, Great Work Guys.
TQradio
count dooku has aged well
Any one know the name of the music at the beginning and end?
The moderator is the same every year and I think every year his questions are relevant and educational... If you want more entertainment go to the actors or directors roundtable... Those are pretty fun
A slave to his written questions. It's a great way to tell a good interviewer from a bad one: the good one will continue a thread off of the discussion, while the bad one will completely break the flow and jump into another topic.
Why is Haneke not with the directors...?
Michael Haneke, you are my hero!
It wasn't my intention to say that other writers are not good or that he is the best.Just wanted to say that speaking of last decade or decade and half he is in top tier
"Is it okay to use Cinema to make people feel terrible?" That wasn't a question. That was the interviewer telling Haneke off for giving his opinion on Spielberg's aproach to Holocaust.
Your role as Moderator in this discussion should be to try and get a free flowing dialogue between all of these brilliant people. If a topic feels like its pulling teeth maybe try something else. Also starting out with that deep and kind of a downer of a topic sets the tone for the rest of the interview. You can go there but not first. It makes them all tense and on guard the rest of the time.
the moderators "technique" actually worked pretty well this time. it's true, this could've been more entertaining with other sorts of questions, but this was more educational
12:01 - the gulp you make when Haneke has just intellectually destroyed your movie.
What Chris is saying about Argo is that he had to 'dumb it down' for the U.S. market
Mark Boal Is A Brilliant Writer.
My thoughts exactly, where is Mindy Kailing? B.J Novak? Paul Lieberstein?
It's uncomfortable but a lot more interesting than if wasn't.
is there anybody else besides Haneke? and the guy asking about entertainment, is like a bunch of boy scouts and then the force of nature Michael Haneke ABOUT TO DEVOUR them.
Maybe because this was apparently taped before the 15th of November 2012 and the release date of ZDT was the 13th of January 2013? Didn't you hear Mark say that he thought a December release was still ambitious? The movie wasn't done yet, no one had seen it!
came here to hear insights about screenplay writing and creative process, ended up with only talk about american government, I could feel Haneke's boredom from here. I wish Haneke talked more!!
yeah, maybe I will.
you re right
Who the fuck says Film=Entertaiment?
i feel film like books or any art is to touch and move to give someone uhhh.
..film is so many wonderdul things i love it
How so? Just wondering
The interviewer: Full Uncensored Question Asking
Opening question... Nobody wants to answer...Judd asks if it's even a film because it was meant to start a riot. My $0.02 is a film is a film. To what ends? It doesn't make it any less than a film. Some writers write strictly for entertainment others as a diatribe others as a cautionary etc. And yes, in my opinion, storytellers have a responsibility make no mistake about it. Just because it's entertainment, storytellers have to be aware of what values they're commending and what values they're condemning.
michael haneke refuses to be bullied
Totally inappropriate to invite haneke to this roundtable
I dont believe the interviewer opened the questions very well.
When the Imposter is sus
I wonder if Kushner turned this down. I assume so, which is more than a bit pompous. I'd like to have seen Lucy Alibar or Wes Anderson here instead of Boal. I'd love to hear Wes Anderson give an interview on how he decided on the tone for "Moonrise Kingdom," bc while interesting, I feel it would have been a better film in he had done things differently.
why not?
Just waiting for Haneke to speak...
Judd Apatow and I have the EXACT same system for writing stuff. One hour writing, one episode of The Wire, repeat.
He and Matt Damon wrote 'Promised Land' with Damon starring in it.
BrokenSicario and also John
INTERVIEWER DOES THE SAME THING ON THE DIRECTORS VIDEO!
or where's Aaron Sorkin?
I agree that the moderator definitely blew it.
I think I'm gonna switch to Getting Doug With High!:) #LaterGator
Chris Terrio seems so intelligent.
what? how? what are you talking about?
Mark Boal, I didn't know who he was before this but I am so impressed with the way he's dealing with this kind of cringe-worthy moderating... absolutely fantastic (of course I'm not even 10 minutes in, so we shall see?)
and it is set months in advance
QT and DOR did the directors one
These are writers from 2012 films people!
I know, its so frustrating
2012 wasnt so much his year for film. he worked mainly in tele this year. why is it whenever somebody brings up screenwriting, the only name people throw out and can think of , is freakin sorkin. there were and are other great writers. great writer, but other guys like logan, zailan, black, etc are all and have been stars longer and perhaps brighter in film.
that modertors harshin the vibes man. this is the wort thing to watch high
Where's Tarantino?
Wow. What universe do you live in?
What did John write?
His name on someone else's script.
wow this interviewer was so very direspectful to micheal to put something like that on him he acted as if it was a satire on the subject. thats like asking if. lue valentine is bad for potraying how a relationship can be destroyed.
normally these interviews are more like discussion i like that this was terrible the interviewer was like a headmaster asking people questions individually
talk about writing and your methods, not this skeptical bull crap!!
How long have you been writing?
20:25 “It’s tricky, because I don’t want my wife and kids to be sympathetic.” Killer line from Apatow.