This is a public conversation between two intellectual figures, not an interview or press racket. JL hates talking about his book; EW is engaging and discussing the overlap between their work, in the context of forensic research + war, conflict, humanitarian aid.
Littell is great but it's just painful to listen to these pretentious questions for minutes on, it feels like the interviewer just wants to profile himself...
אלוהים אדירים, אייל, אני בדקה 4:44 בסרט ואתה עדיין *שואל* את השאלה הראשונה! מה יהיה? בעשר השניות האחרונות הוא יגיד ""המממ. נראה לי שכן.." וייגמר הראיון?
this interviewer is an embarrasment. So pretentious, full of himself, speaks complete rubbish. He ruins everything, no one is interested in him. We want to hear Littell speak.
The interviewer is bad and ruins the conversation, litell is a huge narrator...his book poses the question of history in a fiction book be more instructive than a history book itself. Is like war and peace, the narrator gives a accurate depiction of facts and a critique...for me that's more honest and in fact more effective to understand the events than a strait linear historical account. I've read recently Ian Keyshawn on the to hell an Back, very good, but it lacks the unity given by a single perspective of a fictional narrator. This feeling is with me since I've read hobsbawm and it remains, history shown from multilateral perspective, in my opinion doesn't work as well, as a historical fiction. You lose many things but you understand better the kind of sociological backgrounds. Sorry for the bad English...
Out of all of these comments, only one doesn't include the word "interview", a word that isn't mentioned anywhere in the title or description, a word which neither of the two men in the video describe their conversation with. people somehow are complaining that EW spoke for 5 minutes before letting JL speak, even though JL then spoke for 7 minutes? It doesn't make any sense. Get a life, and maybe a new brain while you're at it.
This is a public conversation between two intellectual figures, not an interview or press racket. JL hates talking about his book; EW is engaging and discussing the overlap between their work, in the context of forensic research + war, conflict, humanitarian aid.
It's a CONVERSATION, and the "interviewer" is Eyal friggin' Weizman. He's a god-like figure too.
4:49 the interviewer wanted to give the mic to Littell and a was later embarassed becaus Littell already had a mic hahaha
Littell is great but it's just painful to listen to these pretentious questions for minutes on, it feels like the interviewer just wants to profile himself...
well, the interviewer lets the guest speak at 4:50 for the first time. Too early.
אלוהים אדירים, אייל, אני בדקה 4:44 בסרט ואתה עדיין *שואל* את השאלה הראשונה! מה יהיה? בעשר השניות האחרונות הוא יגיד ""המממ. נראה לי שכן.." וייגמר הראיון?
this interviewer is an embarrasment. So pretentious, full of himself, speaks complete rubbish. He ruins everything, no one is interested in him. We want to hear Littell speak.
The interviewer is bad and ruins the conversation, litell is a huge narrator...his book poses the question of history in a fiction book be more instructive than a history book itself. Is like war and peace, the narrator gives a accurate depiction of facts and a critique...for me that's more honest and in fact more effective to understand the events than a strait linear historical account. I've read recently Ian Keyshawn on the to hell an Back, very good, but it lacks the unity given by a single perspective of a fictional narrator. This feeling is with me since I've read hobsbawm and it remains, history shown from multilateral perspective, in my opinion doesn't work as well, as a historical fiction. You lose many things but you understand better the kind of sociological backgrounds. Sorry for the bad English...
Extremely annoying interviewer. Interviewer should work in the background not to play the first fiddles.
Out of all of these comments, only one doesn't include the word "interview", a word that isn't mentioned anywhere in the title or description, a word which neither of the two men in the video describe their conversation with. people somehow are complaining that EW spoke for 5 minutes before letting JL speak, even though JL then spoke for 7 minutes? It doesn't make any sense. Get a life, and maybe a new brain while you're at it.
The interviewer is out of his brain .....JOn you the man!
Everytime the interviewer speaks I feel like barfing. So pompous, so pretentious, jeez.
This is complete horror!! Insult to the book