Recently I saw a bit of news popup while traversing through social networking sites. It was Robert Downey Jr walking out of an interview he was doing to promote the upcoming Age of Ultron film. The interviewer seemed to want to turn the interview into a very personal insight piece on the actor and his past, focusing it seemed much less on the purpose of the interview itself.

The whole situation hit a chord deep within me that resonates with many other returning veterans, I believe. There are just some things that you don't ask, because no verbal comment will appropriately answer the question. Only after you know someone, share in some experience, taste something of their soul, may some answers awkwardly conveyed in this inadequate communication we refer to as dialog begin to be received.

I know very little of Mr Downey, but I do know he spends an substantial amount of time helping children's causes, and has rushed to the aid of others in dire situations. Like many Vets who have given so much of themselves for others, I would hope we don't focus on their darker moments, but allow those brighter parts to shine. Further, I would hope that we can all remember that each of us is more three dimensional than we are presented, so flatly on these two dimensional surfaces perceive as dispensing ultimate knowledge and insight.

Thanks,
Joshua

manniefresh

United States74 Posts

April 24 2015 01:43 GMT

that's super good, nice work! That could make it in a magazine or something

Raihn

United States216 Posts

April 24 2015 03:16 GMT

manniefresh - Thanks! :D

Motlu

Australia884 Posts

April 24 2015 07:42 GMT

Wow I had no idea you could draw! Thats awesome!

bITt.mAN

Switzerland3689 Posts

April 28 2015 15:09 GMT

The broadcaster goes on to argue that, as Downey Jr had spoken about his drug use in the past, it was fair game to ask him about it while he was promoting the latest Avengers film. "There were two things from past interviews that seemed interesting for a Channel 4 News audience: Downey had told the New York Times he couldn’t go from a $2,000-a-night hotel suite to prison and come out a liberal, and he’d suggested to Vanity Fair that drug abuse had an inherited element,"

Because that particular interviewer (Krishnan Guru-Murthy) doesn't appreciate the content and purpose of "promotional interviews": A big-name actor/director is invited to be "interviewed", but rather than serving to actually talk about their life, getting to know the person, their history, their inspirations, their intent ... it is a deliberate promotional ploy. They artificially humanize the film by fabricating a personal connection between the viewers, and the real-life actor/director, who is behind the newest movie ~~they want you to go and pay to see~~ *aherm* they just happened to have made recently.
Promotional interviews are effectively extended commercials justified under a guise of 'current affairs' or 'human interest stories', where actors/directors exchange a bit of face-time and some personal details, for 5-15min segments on prime-time TV to advertise for their most recent film. Let's put it this way: they don't do the interviews for fun, or just because the network was interested. They get paid to do the interviews, it's part of their job.

Guru-Murthy doesn't believe it appropriate for media to be used as a financial puppet. It's awfully unfair to tiptoe around million-dollar questions, when you have the person right there in your interviewee chair ... simply because they're a celebrity, and you're expected to be playing their promotional game. The precedent for this is Quentin Tarantino having a tantrum and refusing to address Guru-Murthy's questions about possible links between cinematographic glorification of violence, and real-life endorsement→perpetration of violence. I suggest you watch this short clip, where Guru-Murthy critiques and parodies the practice of "promotional interviews", discussing the 'tantrumtino' when interviewing Richard Ayoade.

In conclusion, Guru-Murthy is the only presenter deliberately asking the hard questions, and most celebrities can't handle it. The Tarantino questions were very calm, which made the blow-up all the more unusual. For the most recent incident, I do think he could have been more tactful in how he raised the question, principally by justifying his daring to address those topics within the confines of a promotional interview. Unlike the Tarantino case, where he is deliberately the leader in the field of violent cinema, Downey Jr is plagued by this content and could arguably be less responsible for it. So, should we do celebrities a favor and never ask them tough questions about their messed up past simply because they are big-name celebrities? The argument you're making is "dude's got issues, it's not fair to summon his demons every time he steps outside, plus he's done good things since then so it seems like he's a good person. Therefore, we shouldn't touch taboo topics".

We should have consideration when we broach tough issues. But to altogether avoid these topics, for fear of triggering past trauma, runs the risk of preventing interviewers from actually doing their job, simply out of consideration for the emotional well-being of the interviewee. This is an emerging phenomenon where people are forced into constraining their own expression (even while doing their job), for fear of insensitivity to those who feel entitled to veto certain topics due to past trauma. i.e. Law courses being asked to not teach about sexual assault, for fear of 'triggering' a small subset of their students who can't handle it - preventing them from doing their job, stifling the societal benefit from daring to discuss those 'tough conversation topics'.

Personally I have no grasp of the horrors of war which veterans carry with them, and certainly, it's understandable if they wouldn't feel comfortable (or able) to discuss them, and certainly not so on-the-spot. I think the interviewer should have been more tactful. But I also think Downey Jr could potentially have been more helpful, by not boycotting the interview. Maybe he could veto the topic, but when you kill the conversation altogether, people on the other side will have no window into your past, and so have no possibility to ever learn to empathize.

Raihn

United States216 Posts

April 30 2015 03:45 GMT

Very interesting comments, I think you've laid out some very appropriate and well thought out points. There is a larger intellectual question at play in which I think we as a global society are still dealing with as part of our integration with technology. I think the subject is along the lines of how much of ourselves are we willing to put on the global public forum that is the internet.

Does RDJ masturbate? Probably, but is that appropriate for a press person to ask of RDJ when they've gained access based on an interview that is suppose to be about his work on a certain film? Where is the line drawn for you? What do you perceive you are owed from an actor's personal life when you purchase a ticket to their movie. Perhaps, 'how good is your wife in bed?' There are some questions that would be inappropriate for your closest friends to ask of you, let alone a stranger recording your responses for the rest of the world.

I think this is a personal question that can only be answered by uniquely by individuals. I think that the culture of 'we are the public and we deserve to know because we watch your movies' is a false assumption. If RJD draws his line of comfort at a certain point, than the interviewer should respect that line. The rest of us can then decide for ourselves if this individual is someone we want to continue to support the work of as a response to that line.

As you said of RDJ, "Maybe he could veto the topic". I think he was trying to tip toe around a line of privacy he wasn't even sure he had, we was trying to figure out where the interview was going. It's like you've agreed to meet someone to sale a computer. The person is let in your house to look at it, but then starts wondering around your house, then starts to look in your bedroom, next they are motioning to your drawers. And your finding yourself going, 'what does this have to do with the computer?' and 'what is this guy trying to find in my bedroom?'. Also, sometimes you're not aware of your own emotions on a topic until you're experiencing them.

As another example, say you go into a job interview, you want to be professional and confident, you're expecting a certain type of questions. after a few of those questions the person says, "So your mother died when you were very young, how does that make you feel? Do you suppose that effects your job performance?" It might take you a moment to emotionally process and categorize what is going on. Maybe that does effect your job performance, maybe it is relevant to who you've become and how you've built yourself, but why on the other had, why does this person need to even delve so deep, and is that the kind of person you want to work for anyway?

The bottom line for me is that people are just that, and they have emotions and feelings we should all respect. Yes, even the rich massively successful ones. It is fine if you disagree with a person's public conduct. And if someone isn't willing to open up their deepest of experiences to you, it is fine for you to feel a bit smitten, but I personally believe you should at least respect their choice. Make the decision to not give your time to them if you feel they weren't reciprocating with their own, but at least respect their boundaries.