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.
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.
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
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 ❤❤
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
Brilliant..Winner tales all the criticism with a huge grin and puff of his Cuban cigar!
9 років тому+49
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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!
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?!
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.
UA-cam 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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)...
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.
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.
Michael Winner is calm. He is strong and knows that he is a creator and that those two are just people who respond to his work and are irrelevant for creative process. He chose to go to TV studio and why bother with those ''intellectuals.'' They are just as flatus vocis.
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.
Now I can understand the rape scene was bad, but the all the other parts of the movie were great especially how Paul Kersey was killing muggers, she needs to leave Mr.Michael Winner alone & let him do his job
The point is surely rape is wrong and the law does very little to combat it or bring muggers etc. to justice. how does Ann Raeburn know that a gang rape would not happen as portrayed it could happen in a infinite number of ways.she talks total nonsense. i think most of the comments here show the film has a resonance with the general public.
The rape scenes were rough. Especially with the child & her death. I saw this as a kid. This was made strictly because of the success of the first film. But the excess of brutally of her being raped twice is hard to swallow.
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
William Friedkin is the same way!
So she wanted him to forcibly rape a woman on film for accuracy?
He was also a horrible director as 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
How awesome was Michael Winner? Seriously though, completely unflappable! What a legend!
Winner gives absolutely zero fucks and I love it
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
She was horrible to Winner but she did make some good points about some of the awful aspects of the film.
Agreed winner was a class act here she is just a attention seeker and made herself look ridiculous
@@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.
It got much worst actually
How he laughs at her comment at the very end is brilliant!
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.
"10 past 1 is a very flattering time to be on your schedule."
I love how Winner casually puffs his cigar with a grin on his face. Good on him for responding to this whiny criticism with some class. RIP
Wow that wasn't a debate, that was a witch hunt.
It was an attempted ambush.
However, they tried to ambush a verbal hitman as effective as Paul Kersey himself.
Wow, what that woman said at the end was appalling. Michael came off with a lot of class in this interview
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
if you don't like what you see in the cinema you can always walk out
you are not captive audience.
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.
@Pierre Magnan "proto"? how?
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 ❤❤
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?
The Rageaholic came from the honey badger interview, now I know what's eating my next weekend.
No, she was saying that the dialogue sounded less believable coming from an English woman than it would from an American one.
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 is such a badass
winner is a brilliant director! and handles this whole arguement like a boss
Not to the people he abused on set.
@@4_vaccuum_salesman_of_marr944 funny how they waited until after he was deceased and unable to defend himself from outlandish accusations isn't it
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.
Winner's films are laughably bad and no one with any taste would praise them.
@@Mustanaamio7 Calm down madam...it's just a comm-ent!
@@Mustanaamio7 I didn't see Death Wish 2 but I seem to remember enjoying the first one, although I was a teenager. What did you make of the first one?
For someone who has pretensions to some intellectual superiority Anna Raeburn entire argument entails ad hominem attacks on Winner.
His laugh at the end LOLs...leaves the interview and drives away in his Ferrari!
What a classy guy Winner is. The other two came off horribly close-minded. Their arguments were pathetic.
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.
Do tell ..So why don't add it smart guy.. Instead of this writing this unless comment.duke earl
I haven't seen all the films listed by Winner but I noticed his best years were behind him after the first Death Wish.
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
I heard they were good. I will check them out.
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.
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.
very funny, Winner keeps puffing on his cigar and blows the smoke at the woman and the pansy host
It was 1980 so smoking was like drinking water everyone did it everywhere. I remember smoking in hospitals.
Winner = Winner
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 is as cool as a cucumber here.
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.
Death Wish 2 always delivers. Great film, very violent and never gets boring.
You could smoke as you were interviewed in those days. Great times.
She's pretty hot.
Winner.....not one Fuck given.
RIP to one of my favourite film directors.
Should be re-titled "Michael Winner destroys retro-80s SJW".
The best comment so far
that's the most retarded thing i've ever heard
I saw the uncut version, it wasn't THAT bad. Plus it was a great B movie. She really is out to make a buck like Michael said.
There's a reason why the first 3 Death Wish films were the best. Michael Winner directed the first three.
Exactly ...👌
@@funeralangel8262 🙂😊 💕
@@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.
@@funeralangel8262 I understand you don't want to be friends and it's okay. 👍
Death Wish 2 is the best of all 5
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.
Piers Morgan probably took his interviewer lessons from this guy
"Well ten past one is a very flattering time to be on your schedule Anne!", Brilliant.
Michael Winner was a man with class.
Brilliant..Winner tales all the criticism with a huge grin and puff of his Cuban cigar!
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.
+Dubious
And then Winner laughs it off and takes another puff off his cigar. Like a boss.
It was and is a hate movement. Always has been.
Ashley White oooh dear boy go get that nice guy instead 👌🏿💕
Dubious See Deliverance!
She was essentially criticising him because the rape scene wasn't graphic enough. WTF?
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.
She's saying the exact opposite. The host isn't, I'll give you that.
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.....
***** I have to agree, Michael seems to have summed her up pretty well.
+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.
He's one of the worst interviewers I've ever seen. Smug, condescending and generally just an arsehole.
He was behind the most watchable trash ever "Scream for Help" 1984 - this man is a genius....
Godspeed Michael Winner!!
REST IN PEACE! MICHAEL WINNER!!!!!!! THE FILM DIRECTOR ACE! AND THE "INVENTOR" OF THE "VIGILANTE" MOVIE!
Don't like the movie? Don't watch it.
How do you know if you're going to like the movie or not, if you don't watch it?
@@MrBooBeeDoo Please, please!
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.
A early SJW.
geez, they're so mad about death wish 2... imagine what they'd say about death wish 3!!!
Razorfist was right, this guy was a complete badass
Down to even puffing smoke in the middle of the bitch's rant. Truely, he must have lived the movies he directed!
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?
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
I like the way Winner laughs at her......
I don't like the way no one has uploaded Death Wish for me to enjoy.......I want the full movie!!!!
Buy it then
dojufitz ... Death Wish 2 can be purchased on DVD
Michael Winner = Classy Badass.
poor Michael Winner - the interviewer and the lady act very unprofessionally and surprisingly the argument looks one sided. The movie is a classic.
F*cks given by Michael Winner: 0.
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!
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.
This woman needs to calm down it's a film! Any way MR Winner didn't care he made a good film and some nice money.
What a horrible cow saying that at the end was not called for!
How can she say Jimmy Page's soundtrack was bad? It was great
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).
Kaiter Enliss let us know what you think of part 4, if you watch it.
there is clearly something wrong with her we shouldn't judge her too harshly
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 know which one of this lot I'd have preferred to spend time with.
'Your here to make a buck too that's why your here'.
OWNED.
Calm down dear its a drama
Winner sure could hold his own. Classy guy.
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.
Death Wish 2 is such a great movie.
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.
Oh Michael Winner rules!
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.
Montevideo There was violence here huh! Ever see the 1972 film Deliverance?
"Calm down dear it's only a rape scene!"
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 ?!
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.
UA-cam 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.
Winner : top. Raeburn : flop
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.
She just wanted to make a buck
Can't take her seriously, keeps smirking her face off when supposed to be indignant.
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
Oh God, she’s one of those people.
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.
I have heard 2 is 1 but less slow, but I have only seen 1 and 3.
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.
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)...
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 LIKE Ann Raeburn... her arguments are intelligent and High-Class
😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
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.
Micheal winner wished me happy birthday once.. Always thought he was a good egg!
If you're feeling down, and need a good chuckle, then this interview is for you: it's a magic pill, and strongly recommended!
Michael Winner is calm. He is strong and knows that he is a creator and that those two are just people who respond to his work and are irrelevant for creative process. He chose to go to TV studio and why bother with those ''intellectuals.'' They are just as flatus vocis.
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.
Now I can understand the rape scene was bad, but the all the other parts of the movie were great especially how Paul Kersey was killing muggers, she needs to leave Mr.Michael Winner alone & let him do his job
I don't think she understood that the message of the movie is that *rapists and murderers die because they deserve it.*
The point is surely rape is wrong and the law does very little to combat it or bring muggers etc. to justice. how does Ann Raeburn know that a gang rape would not happen as portrayed it could happen in a infinite number of ways.she talks total nonsense. i think most of the comments here show the film has a resonance with the general public.
The general public are fucking morons though.
Very interesting video. I've never seen this before. I think they both made great points and I can understand both of their perspectives....
Absolute Chad just smoking his cigar while that broad rages on.
It's why he had COPD.
I take it she's not a fan of Irreversible then...
The rape scenes were rough. Especially with the child & her death. I saw this as a kid. This was made strictly because of the success of the first film. But the excess of brutally of her being raped twice is hard to swallow.