Death Wish film diretcor, Michael Winner, locks horns with journalist, Ann Raeburn, in this TV interview from the early 1980's. Hosted by Derek Hobson.
Wait... did she just criticize Jill Ireland's accent? Claiming it sounded 'fake'? She's... she's ACTUALLY English. What kind of lead paint has this broad been ingesting?
Winner was definitely a confident man. Sitting there calmly, smoking, smiling. I can't see any other director sitting in that chair so calmly and handling the verbal attacks so well
Michael Winner was confident and sounded a lot like Alfred Hitchcock who was also a man who did films his way ,the way this world is going maybe we need more Paul Kersey's on the street,as for the feminist Karen speaking on the footage stick to watching the Sound of Music
Winner took the higher ground here, Ann made herself look very silly especially with her comments towards the end. By the way I thought Death Wish II was great. It's brutal but it's necessary brutality imo
@@GetToDaChoppa-k5r There may be awful aspects to the film, but it's still just a film. Did the film's awful aspects give her good cause to be an awful person?
its odd when he made death wish three in london but set in new york the police commissioner no less took him to task for the totally unrealistic crime figures that a cop lectures on during the film.rubbish! where did he do his research etc! exaggerated! winner confessed he didnt use new yorks figures which were worse but instead the crime figures for the part of london he was shooting in! the head cop didnt know!
the un-cut version is gratuitous, and basically exploitation of raw emotions involving violence drug usage fulling crazed ethnic groups and sexual violence and extreme law and order. but ultimately it was necessary to prevent the reasons and motivation of Kersey becoming 'vanilla'. But I do think he should have spent more time exploring the psychological break down of Kersey and less time on the exploitation. But ultimately it is an exploitation block-buster that has spawned the mainstream genre. The 2020 re-make lost a lot by preventing real emotional turmoil of the character because they left out all of the 'motivation'. some 'bad boy' stealling your skateboard in an otherwise nice neighbourhood isn't (logically) going to cause you to snap and shoot all the criminals....
Not much has changed in 2020. The interviewer acts like judge and jury, and the executioner. I love mr. Winner´s nonchalant attitude throughout the interview.
I used to despise Winner as a film-maker, largely because of "The Sentinel". Altho I always loved the Bronson films...but now, I must say...I wish I had had the privilege of taking brunch w/ this superbly well-spoken man...
Wow, she's disgusting. Whatever sympathy I could have had disappeared when she selfishly threw her shame in his face in an attempt to one up him. This wasn't a debate, it was a public beratement.
I thought Winner handled himself really well during that 'interview' (I'd call it more of a bludgeoning). The interviewer was a total prick, and Raeburn comes across as one of those self-righteous catty types who, once they climb up onto their soapbox, don't know how to get off it again. It's a fun film, and I'm glad it made the money it did, if only to piss these two off more. Rock on, Winner.
I've had discussions about censoring films Films should be left uncut and in their original form Unless the director wants it cut If people are offended just switch it off ❤❤
Yes a total double standard had the roles been reversed of course it would be a different story then winner would have been crucified for the remainder of his life
Michael Winner dir.- Death Wish 1973- The Stone Killer 1973 -Scorpio 1972 - The Mechanic 1972 -Chato's Land 1971- The Nightcomers 1971- Lawman- 1978 - 1977 The Sentinel-The Big Sleep 1978 - Death Wish II 1979 -1979 Firepower These films are some of the best of 1970's This woman should see some of these films too.
You just see Lawman--Starring Burt Lancaster To me one of the last great westerns---And The Nightcomers is a weird film --a kind of horror film Starring Marlon Brando--His only one.Ricardo Cantoral
Scorpio is the best spy double-crossing neo-noir of the 70's too.---It stars Burt Lancaster in a another stellar performance as a C.I.A. Agent who wants out but knows to much.
And History shows: Sir Michael Winner was indeed the "winner" of this debate. His film also went on to become an iconic and influential film that would forge it's own genre of movies.
Actually what I find most disturbing is that Anna Raeburn thought it was acceptable to wish rape on Michael Winner. She completely devalued her point, & created some what of a double standard.
Death Wish 2 is not meant to be taken seriously as a film. It's a Golan/Globus production. Also, these other panel members are freakin' idiots! You can't shoot rape as rape is? So if Winner shot it artistically, they would have looked more kindly on the film as a whole?
It's escapist fare for the most part; more cathartic than harmful in my opinion. Btw, just watched Death Wish 3 and oh dear lordy, it takes the batshit insanity of Death Wish II to a whole other level. LOL
TheVaultMaster In short... "Death Wish" proved that Michael Winner can treat the subject matter seriously. "Death Wish 3" proved that he can poke fun at himself.
If a man said about a woman what she says about Michael Winner (RIP) at the end of the interview, he would probably have ended up in court or jail. Double standards
Yeah, but the point still remains that a man would never be able to go on national television and said "I hope this woman is fucked in the arse because she blatantly wants it" (in laymans's terms, this is basically what she said).
Winner tapped into a individuals need for justice, and when it’s lacking seek revenge... The justice system lets the main character down. The people he killed, no one missed them. Winner tapped into that hate for violent and entitled criminals. Couldn’t make theses films today. Too many cry babies 😭
That's true. Evidenced by that there actually was a Death Wish reboot with Bruce Willis in 2018, pretty decent and entertaining movie too as reboots go, but of course the mainstream media reviews savaged it.
10:11 ok it cost 9 million to make However made 16 million. So it made profit of 7 million, and gave actors and film crew employment. While Miss Angry here did what exactly ???
Michael Winner loved these TV shows with their usual quota of the 'permanently upset'. Publicity like this was priceless and it only attracted more viewers to see the film. I remember back in the 1970s myself and my teenage pals went to see hammer vampire movies because there was always plenty of naked girls running around the place. Winner played the same card and he always included plenty of sex scenes even if some, like the one being discussed here went a bit overboard.
The woman was absolutely wrong in some ways. Winner made the rape scene so disgustingly sickening as to display the crime as it should be in order to allow the viewer to feel the need for justice and to approve of Bronson's actions.
REST IN PEACE! MICHAEL WINNER!!!!!!! THE FILM DIRECTOR ACE! AND THE "INVENTOR" OF THE "VIGILANTE" MOVIE!
9 лет назад
So a feminist rape victim wishes Winner gets ass raped merely because he did something she disagrees with. Please tell me again that feminism hasn't been a hate movement for decades.
God let the man speak! Winner handled this so well. They kept interrupting him and were in love with their own voice rather than attempting To learn anything.
This woman on here said "That's not how rapes happen". WTF!!!!!!!!!! I've been a Police Officer for almost 32 years and have worked MANY rapes. Rapes are not scripted. There is no "Standard" way to commit a rape. Rape is ugly. I don't know about anyone else but when I watch a movie like this, I want to see the most realistic acting possible. Thats what makes a good movie. Censoring it down because you don't want to hurt someones "Feelings" does not make a good movie. I learned over the years that there is a lot of ugly in this world. People have the right to see the ugliness that goes on just down the street from where they live. Bravo to Michael Winner.
Who is this Derek Hobson character? He asks Winner to come onto this show of his, and every time Winner responds to a question in a very polite manner, this Hobson jackhole sarcastically answers back with either a "That's your opinion" or cuts him of halfway to his response. Why did you bother bringing him on this show if you were going to do nothing but chastise him and tear him to the ground?? This wasn't just a simple debate, this was downright rudeness this host showed towards Winner. And don't EVEN get me started with this b--t-ch who comes in at the 4:15 mark....
Tommy Clark This Hobson character seems to be the Basil Fawlty of tonight shows......Yes we are honoured to have our next guest....I've already told him to shut up and that his opinion means nothing.....but I will continue to ask him questions and dismiss him.....
+dojufitz Agreed. He's basically saying "let's have a debate". Winner sticks up for himself and his film & Hobson brushes it off with "that's your opinion" and changes the subject. Then, he jumps in later when she starts up by claiming his opinion as fact "it's just a bad movie". Whatever. Like how she goads Winner into asking her if she was raped too to turn it on him like he's the dick. What a DB.
@@funeralangel8262 thank you for the reply. Hope your coping during the coronavirus. Be glad when it's over to be perfectly honest as it's very boring 😏🙄. Anyway stay safe and all the best to you. 👍 I was going to ask if we could be just friends on here but you might find that weird since you don't know me but I'll leave it up to you to decide and you can say no if you want so that's okay. Just to talk on here, nothing more but as I said it's up to you. Take care.
This woman hates men...period. She insulted everything and everyone except Charles Bronson, for fear that she would get a visit from Bronson...because let's face it, he is extremely brutal in his films...even I was terrified of him when I was a kid. She insulted the director, Jimmy Page, Jill Ireland, Larry Fishburne...She has zero credibility
This is a disgraceful interview. I’m impressed with Winner. The host and the woman are replant virtue signalers. When she lost the debate she devolves into suggesting her traumatic experience should be represented. Then she pulls the gender card. Classless posturing
Interesting though that once it was said, neither of them flinched, and Raeburn doesn't rail or lecture, just gives that look and continues to address the next points, waiting for her revenge with the parting shot. They both knew the unspoken rules of adult debate in an era mercifully free of social media. That's what made it such a great exchange.
She effectively undermined her own argument. She starts off by saying it is a horribly violent scene. They she says it doesn't adequately show the full horror of rape and ins horrific or explicit enough. Well? Which is it?
I thought it was a well done, if belated, follow-up to the original Death Wish. In the first film, Paul Kersey (Bronson) never finds the monsters who brutalized his wife and daughter, which leaves the viewer with a sense of unfulfilled justice. The second film gives viewers a feeling of satisfaction when Kersey tracks down and annihilates the five men who attack his daughter and housekeeper. I remember when DW2 opened in the theaters in early 1982, and the trailers pretty much summed up the film accurately. It was a gritty, hard-hitting action flick that didn't sugar coat anything. Yes, it was violent, but I don't think it glorified rape/sodomy. And I think Michael Winner acquitted himself very well in this ambush of an interview. On a vaguely related note, I often thought about a 'what if...' scenario in which Jeff Goldblum (whose first film appearance was in the first Death Wish as one of the muggers who assault Kersey's wife & daughter) reprises his character in a sequel, having reformed and working to get at-risk youths out of gangs and away from crime. How might a meeting between him and Kersey have gone, especially if both men know who the other one was? We'll never know for certain, of course, but I used to enjoy thinking about that. Anyway, thanks for sharing the interview. Definitely an interesting watch!
Yes I watched it again last night. Its a great movie Paul Kersey hunts down every man who raped his maid and killed his daughter. The police would not have caught them and today they would get home detention. But really Jill Ireland's performance was very wooden and very bad.
8:15 - a lovely moment when he finally shuts her up so he can speak freely. This buys him a few seconds. 8:26 extends the quiet for a few more seconds, until she whines at him again. He got about 15 seconds of time to speak without her nagging him.
I don't even ... Rape is gruesome, no doubt about that. But I don't follow her at all: So because you don't show actual intercourse, which you hardly, if ever, do in a mainstream movie for a number of reasons, it's not how rape is in real life? That's a ridiculous statement and hardly an argument.
I agree - I found 'A Shadow In The City' (used in DW 2 and 3) to be the most fitting and memorable motif in the Winner-directed portion of the series (haven't seen 4 or 5 yet).
The mind boggles when one thinks that same debate nowadays would have caused Winner to be burned at the stake for his movie and Raeburn to be applauded non-stop.
Typical style of interview by people who are hostile towards the guest. I saw the same in Belgium, where I come from. When interviewers don't like you (for whatever reason) they interrupt whenever the guest opens his mouth. It's not a debate, it's censorship. Michael Winner might not be the greatest director who ever made movies, but he was not in the business to make art, he was in the business to make entertainment. He made some good movies (Lawman, Scorpio, The Sentinel)...
Classic british interviewing. Blatant bias by Derek. If he'd have been honest with Winner about his intention to slate him, Winner may not have come on, would anybody
20,30,50 years from now we will remember the films and writings of Michael Winner, a very unique and creative talent....who else on this programme will be as well remembered as Michael Winner at that point ?!
RU-vid would not even allow the rape scene in Death Wish 2 to be shown for many years,. Winner is being quite intelligent & honest Shame they all attacked him like that. Im sure DW 2 would never be released today. He's a pioneer for absolute freedom in film making.
Here's how I feel: Death Wish ONE was quite honestly a masterpiece and REALLY made you feel how a man would act after his wife and daughter were raped and killed. The second film, I agree with the two interviewers.... was total crap. It was nothing more than a cheap, insanely over the top remake. However, this interviewer woman is living in la la land if she honestly wants to quote herself by saying women don't get raped that way. Ummm... you'll living in a fantasy world if you think that.
The DW II rape scene was awful. I am all for bloody violence but a full blown gang rape in every excruciating detail ? Death Wish 3 was a lot more fun.
I have to admit, I find the uncut version too uncomfortable to watch. It's made all the worse after hearing stories of some of Winner's relatively unsavoury behind-the-scenes behaviour.
It's 2:36, and every time Winner opens his mouth, he can't get more than 7 words out without being cut off. Horrible interviewer. I would have walked out then and there.
I don't understand what this woman is complaining about, did she not get the point of the movie. The movie is not about rape, its about the growth of crime in which Paul Kersey has to take things into his control to fight back which is a reflection of the growing urban crime wave at that time. Also, I felt the rape scenes helped build up the plot for Kersey to go out and kill criminals, it showed one of the worst things that could happen to a person, a man's wife, daughter, girlfriend etc.
At the end of the interview[1] she lost any sympathy I might have had for her up until that point. She's truly awful. [1]: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6Ge2Slg56FI.htmlm48s
anna raeburn is trying the malcolm muggeridge line of attack here. being mortally offended by a film that she claims to be unable to take seriously. two lines of argument that cancel each other out.
9:34 I’m confused was the rape scene 15 minutes long or the intro 15 minutes long then the rape? So how long was the actual rape scene. I thought DW2 portrayed these crimes as horrific, it captures that sense of shock, and powerlessness. Fear of being attacked in your own home.. This lady wouldn’t like Diego unchained.😦😦😦
In my personal opinion, I thought the rape scene was the best scene in the movie. It needed to be violent so we, the audience, could feel empathy for this poor woman. She was a young woman, working as a domestic, cooking, enjoying a television program, and we cared about her. If the violece were not there, Kersey's killing spree would not have been the same. Winner did a great job.
