Question asked

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on August 9th, 2017 at 02:28 pm

Lynn Barber interviews John Malkovich:

He has never explained his hatred of Robert Fisk, the Independent’s Middle East correspondent. At the Cambridge Union in 2002, Malkovich was asked whom he would like to fight to the death. He said George Galloway and Fisk, adding: ‘I’d rather just shoot them.’ It was a throwaway remark but Fisk blew it up into a major story with an article entitled ‘Why does John Malkovich want to kill me?’

The trouble was that nobody answered the question, so I asked it now: why did he want to kill Fisk? ‘I hate somebody who is supposed to be a Middle Eastern expert who thinks Jesus was born in Jerusalem. I hate what I consider his vile anti-semitism.’

Anything else? His sanctimoniousness perhaps? ‘You’re doing well so far! I’m a [Christopher] Hitchens fan myself. But no one has thinner skins than journalists, in my experience, and I come from a family of them [his mother owns the Benton Evening News in Illinois, his brother edits it]. They can dish it out but they can’t take it. But the reason I don’t like the topic, why I don’t really say anything about a whiner like Fisk, is it gives them more oxygen.’

That’s a substance Fisk could do without.

(Via  Hurry Up Harry)

Posted by Tim B. on 07/10/2006 at 12:13 PM
    1. Malkovitch malkovitch? Malkovitch malkovitch malkovitch, malkovitch malkovitch malkovitch malkovitch.

      Posted by trexkilla on 2006 07 10 at 12:30 PM • permalink


    1. What’s really funny is, i managed to misspell Malkovich every single time. Damn.

      Posted by trexkilla on 2006 07 10 at 12:34 PM • permalink


    1. That’s a substance Fisk could do without.

      Keep an eye out now for an article by Fisk asking “Why does Tim Blair want me dead?”.

      Posted by Bashir Gemayel on 2006 07 10 at 12:35 PM • permalink


    1. Unfortunately, Fisk gives every indication of being anaerobic. Probably developed that capability from wearing an English satin bag over his head.

      Posted by paco on 2006 07 10 at 12:45 PM • permalink


    1. At the Cambridge Union in 2002, Malkovich was asked whom he would like to fight to the death. He said George Galloway and Fisk, adding: ‘I’d rather just shoot them.’

      Gotta’ love that Malkovich.

      I assume that if John used a big enough bore weapon and stood them back to back, Mr. Malkovich could do them both at once, huh?

      ‘Why does John Malkovich want to kill me?’

      Is this a trick question Fisk?

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 07 10 at 12:51 PM • permalink


    1. ‘Why does John Malkovich want to kill me?’
      Isn’t that the name of a movie? If not, it should be.

      Posted by lumberjack on 2006 07 10 at 12:56 PM • permalink


    1. I think Fisk would make an ideal goalie for a round of anvil shooting.

      Posted by paco on 2006 07 10 at 12:57 PM • permalink


    1. Goalie, hell!  Make him the anvil, paco.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 10 at 01:01 PM • permalink


    1. #8: Actually, if he conscientiously devotes himself to his duties in the position of goalie, I think it amounts to the same thing.

      Incidentally, what with Muslims hacking blog sites, and flooding chat rooms with blood curdling rants, and burning cars in France and bringin’ up thar babies to be martyrs, and winning sympathetic ears among westeners (“Islam for Dhimmis”), ad infinitum, ad nauseum , I’m curious: in the midst of this 24/7, round-the-clock, ululating Islamorama, where are the voices of Muslim moderation?

      Posted by paco on 2006 07 10 at 01:13 PM • permalink


    1. 9

      in the midst of this 24/7, round-the-clock, ululating Islamorama, where are the voices of Muslim moderation?


      One could answer that with the adage of “Silence means consent”….:).

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 07 10 at 01:28 PM • permalink


    1. John Malkovich as Basie in “Empire of the Sun” with Fisk as some stock Englishman getting beaten up by the Chinese and Galloway as Tokyo Rose.

      Hey-we had a thread here a few months ago about classic war movies and how sorry Hollywood is for not making any good ones, I figured I’d put in a plug for a good guy like Malkovich.

      Posted by 68W40 on 2006 07 10 at 01:47 PM • permalink


    1. #10: That’s what I’m afraid of. It’s one thing to be a Palestinian in Gaza who secretly harbors serious doubts about the wisdom and morality of Islamic terrorism, but is cowed into silence because he’s surrounded by fanatical neighbors who make up the local militia, married to a blood-and-thunder martyr-breeder, and got spotted by his imam at the mosque with a copy of Playboy between the pages of his Koran. What I don’t get are the folks who live in, say, New York or London (or Charlotte, for that matter), who either don’t distance themselves from this kind of thing at all, or worse, respond to any clamp-down on genuine local terrorists (would-be or operational), or to the publication of some particular terrorist enormity, with a lot of whining about “potential backlash”.

      Posted by paco on 2006 07 10 at 01:48 PM • permalink


    1. When word gets out about Malkovich’s wrongthink, there will be a great run on his movies, as the Right strive to stock up before the Left can boycott.

      On your marks, get set…

      Posted by Nightfly on 2006 07 10 at 02:03 PM • permalink


    1. I had no idea about the man. Hollywood isn’t all bad, thank God.

      Posted by Tommy Shanks on 2006 07 10 at 02:07 PM • permalink


    1. Well, yes. Malkovich is (fairly) widely known as a conservative.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 07 10 at 02:20 PM • permalink


    1. My respect for John M. just went up about as high as it can go.

      Posted by Latino on 2006 07 10 at 02:35 PM • permalink


    1. 12

      Dear P.T. Paco of the Ginourmous Big Tent firm of, P.T. Paco Abu-Bu-Hu Bu-Hu There Is One Born Every Minute, Inc.

      The answer to the below posed IS no doubt a two word answer. (see below for answer)

      What I don’t get are the folks who live in, say, New York or London (or Charlotte, for that matter), who either don’t distance themselves from this kind of thing at all, or worse, respond to any clamp-down on genuine local terrorists (would-be or operational), or to the publication of some particular terrorist enormity, with a lot of whining about “potential backlash”.

      The Quran….or if one prefers, The Koran…:).

      Of course it could be genetic. The head lopping, bomb belt making, IED, kill hundreds of children in Beslan, gene. Everyone has that gene, not just the Islamists, right?

      It is does seem that in their silence, the only way to change the hearts and minds of these people is, to take their hearts and minds, from them, physically. In this case it is becoming increasingly clear that brutality must be met with, brutality.

      The Israelis get it, at a cost of over 6 million and counting with today’s happenings. But ‘they’ did get it. Never again, as ‘they’ say.

      Our now friends, but at one time extremely brutal Japanese, learned that lesson so well that they became a pacifist people.

      Fortunately OR UNfortunately, as the case may be, it seems the despised Chinese and Korean could be bringing the Japanese aggression back to reality.

      One must remember, the ‘book’ of the Prophet Mohamed, ‘their’ ‘book’, says everyone not of their ‘book’, is an infidel and those are to be enslaved or killed.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 07 10 at 02:37 PM • permalink


    1. So, let me get this straight – not only is John on the right side, but he’s informed enough to know who Hitchens, Fisk and Galloway are? Cool.

      I’ve had “Being John Malkovich” on my DVR for ages. Definitely have to watch it this weekend.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 07 10 at 02:48 PM • permalink


    1. Malkovich was a great “bad guy” in “Line of Fire”, too.

      Posted by paco on 2006 07 10 at 02:51 PM • permalink


    1. What I don’t get are the folks who live in, say, New York or London (or Charlotte, for that matter), who either don’t distance themselves from this kind of thing at all, or worse, respond to any clamp-down on genuine local terrorists (would-be or operational), or to the publication of some particular terrorist enormity, with a lot of whining about “potential backlash”.

      That’s because the moderates are pro-terror also…just not gutsy enough to do it themselves.

      I work with many high-paid, educated,semi-Americanised Muslims…secular and religious, hard working and here legally, appreciating America as a conservative country.  They ‘deplore’ the ME violence, are ‘embarassed’ by some of the things that are done in the name of Islam in their home countries…but:

      The think George Bush personally piloted a remote plane into the Pentagon, refuse to believe that any of the hijackers on 911 were muslims, barely tolerate Jews, and firmly think that the US is to blame for every freakin’ thing that goes wrong in the world…levees, huricanes, and tsunamis.  In our discussions there is no such thing as Islamic terrorists.  It is all a Jewish conspiracy.  Everything that has happened in the ME since the 20’s is the fault of the US.

      The whole thing is done the CIA with smoke and mirrors.  You never heard such clap coming out of the mouths of educated men in your life…and these are the westernized ones…think about the average guy in the ME.

      The war on terror will end, but ‘hearts and minds’ ain’t gonna do it.  MOABs more likely.  Modern Islam will never change, it will never become more moderate…not without staring extinction in the face.

      I have told them that, to the predictable outrage…but they live here in the west and can see our power and it makes them think.  Other than that, we get along fine and they have no problem debating with me…actually I’m the only one they will debate these issues with.

      But if the choice came down to them living peacefully or fullfilling some requirement of their death cult…you would best stay away.

      Posted by trainer on 2006 07 10 at 03:45 PM • permalink


    1. #20: One is almost tempted to shake one’s head in despair at such madness.

      Posted by paco on 2006 07 10 at 03:54 PM • permalink


    1. #s 9 & 12, paco,

      El Cid said it:  it is the Koran.  It is their fundamental way of thinking about the world, their premise for everything they do.  Islam is as thorough a collectivist philosophy as anything Marx and his spawn ever dreamed, and most practitioners of the religion take its teachings literally.  (If one wishes to see the evil of any idea, take it literally.)

      Islam demands that its followers stay quiet whenever Islam is attacked.  It is the attack itself, not the facts or justice surrounding the attack, that is of paramount importance.  Just as it is imperative for your health for your body to have cells that attack any harmful alien body, it is imperative that every Muslim either attack the “enemy of Islam” or get out of the way.  It is for the greater good of the whole body of Islam, that they stay silent and sacrifice their lives and the lives of their children.  And make no mistake, those Americans who are Muslim and stay silent about what is happening to their country, even if they are counting on America to win, are endangering themselves and their children.  America wins because the people will it.  Ususally.  Until Vietnam.

      We speak a lot about sacrifice, but if you think about it, there is no one in the military that doesn’t have a personal stake in the outcome of the country’s war with Islam (ists).  This isn’t Vietnam where everyone just comes home and everyone gets on with their lives.  If we lose, we face a long descent into the abyss of Sharia, and enslavement as second class citizens, counting as half a person.  In this war, if a soldier dies, he dies, not in sacrifice to the interest of others, but in his own best interst.  The only way to make a martyr out of American military personnel is to force him to fight half a battle, so that we are defeated, or to surrender.  Then they have indeed been sacrificed on the altar of blind evasion and irrationality, and become martyrs for freedom.  But it isn’t a part of the American character (until recently, that is)to be a sacrificial animal.  As Patton said, America loves a winner and won’t abide a loser.  That is because Americans have traditionally made it on their own, each in his own life as he sees fit.  Most know, or used to know, that if you don’t make it, it is usually your own fault.  Collectivists like to hedge their bets, though, because they fear being on their own in any way, shape, or form.  They parasite off of the ideas of others in matters both spiritual and material.  To do that effectively, they must have everybody tied to the same harness and under the same whip.  And make them believe it is the right thing to do.

      We fight to live, the Muslims fight to die.  The sooner we recognize that there can be no compromise between life and death, the sooner we’ll end this war.

      And I can stop qualifying the best of the American character:  The confidence that his life is worth saving, and the moral certainty and courage to fight for it.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 07 10 at 04:45 PM • permalink


    1. Nicely put, Salty. Puts me in mind of one of James Burnham’s maxims: It only takes one side to start a war and define its stakes. Let the blood of the fanatics and their collaborators be on their own heads, then.

      Posted by paco on 2006 07 10 at 05:09 PM • permalink


    1. Notice that Malkovich is from Southern Illinois….not Chicago.

      Don’t mess with Southern Illinoians *he says menacingly*

      Ever hear of the Shelton Gang?

      Posted by rinardman on 2006 07 10 at 05:34 PM • permalink


    1. Agreed, eloquently stated, saltydog.

      The collaborators as paco typed include anything that has the word Left included in name, thought, deed, premise and/or actions.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 07 10 at 06:09 PM • permalink


    1. 24 rinardman

      Shelton, Shelton? Hmmmmm, Did he go by the nick name of Red?…lol.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 07 10 at 06:17 PM • permalink


    1. Damn rinardman, that was SKelton…:).

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 07 10 at 06:19 PM • permalink


    1. I loved his show as Tallyrand in an SBS show on Napolian.
      To paraphrase a line from the shoqw.

      “You are a sack of shit in a silk(satin?) stocking

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 07 10 at 07:33 PM • permalink


    1. #4 Paco thinks Fisk is anaerobic?
      How does he talk endless nonsense under wet cement?
      Truly a more amazing talent than I thought, last time I turned him off..

      Posted by Barrie on 2006 07 10 at 08:30 PM • permalink


    1. #20 Trainer,
      If there is a really mild hurricane season this year, it won’t be Bush’s work, it will be put down to – the Joooss..

      Posted by Barrie on 2006 07 10 at 08:38 PM • permalink


    1. Re Paco: ‘with a lot of whining about “potential backlash”.’

      This paranoia of Western Moslems is explained by their deeply imbedded Moslem revenge ethic, from the intimate family level up..
      They can’t get their heads around Christian notions like ‘live and let live’, forgiveness, real tolerance and genuine moderation.

      They know that where they come from infidels are always under great pressure and persecution, so they can’t accept that we don’t behave the same way.

      Their life is simply one of natural fear wherever they live…
      That’s why a religious answer is needed to this whole thing.

      I was on a US international flight just a few weeks after 9/11.  There was a Moselm sitting ahead of me, and the attendant was polite and solicitous about giving her her correct dietary meal.
      There was no sense of discourtesy anywhere.
      I was very impressed by our culture.

      Posted by Barrie on 2006 07 10 at 08:54 PM • permalink


    1. “Kill, Don’t Capture”

      This morning, Ralph Peters says out loud what many have been thinking about “our prisoner problem” in the wake of Hamdan, Abu Ghraib, etc.:

      Power Line Blog

      Now I know I have posted a similar line of thought and I do believe a few others have as well.

      As a fact I would rewrite the phrase making it Ralph Peters says out loud what many have been thinking about “our prisoner Islamist problem” in the wake of Hamdan, Abu Ghraib, 9/11, U.S.S. Cole, Khobar Towers, Robert Stethem, Marine Barracks Beirut, Leon Klinghoffer, the Bali Bombings, 7/7, 3/11, Daniel Pearl, Tel Aviv Bombings, etc. etc. etc:

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 07 10 at 09:26 PM • permalink


    1. *sigh*  I hate John Malkovich movies.  Are you really gonna make me do this?

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 07 10 at 10:25 PM • permalink


    1. ‘Being John Malkovich’ was weird, really weird. Mind you, that wasn’t a mistake. They deliberately set out to make a weird movie. Don’t see it unless you enjoy being a little “weirded out”.
      But if you do enjoy a strange experience now and then, then crack open the popcorn.

      Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 10 at 11:29 PM • permalink


    1. I hope everyone is properly astonished that a Hollywood star actually grasps the essentials of a thoughtful political position, one that has to be to the right if it is to be considered thoughtful in any meaningful way.

      Most actors are liberals because they don’t think, they only feel. They feel for the Palestinians (even though they should know – and many do – that Israel is fighting for her life on a daily basis and has been since 1948). They feel for the Iraqis (though few of them were feeling for these same people when Saddam was killing them at an average rate of 30,000 a year over a 30-year period), they feel for Mother Earth (though most of them use up enough fossil fuels and own enough of Her for any fifty other ordinary human beings).

      What passes for an intellectual actor in Hollywood is someone like Sean Penn even though, among the members of SAG, actors like Gary Oldman, Kelsey Grammer, Ron Silver, and John Malkovitch are superior thinkers in every way. I cannot imagine for the life of me any of the four above-mentioned conservative actors being caught within 100 miles of the likes of Cindy Sheehan. They know which photo-ops to avoid.

      Posted by ekw on 2006 07 10 at 11:34 PM • permalink


    1. Nicely put, ekw.

      Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2006 07 11 at 12:27 AM • permalink


    1. I love Malkovich’s work, particularly Dangerous Liasons, but could not watch “Being John Malkovich”.

      It doesn’t surprise me that he has a brain and uses it to good effect and he rises in my estimation.

      I concur with the general consensus on the silent Muslims. They will be of no help to us at all and will be an increasing problem, particularly as they are fed more “victimhood” by the Labor Party and MSM.

      Their younger generation are taught nothing but to demand more handouts from society. My wife who is a teacher can attest that they make no attempt to better themselves at school and end their education as unemployable as they started. Their parents blame their teachers of course.

      Posted by Mick Gill on 2006 07 11 at 12:51 AM • permalink


    1. #18 Dave…I’d like to see the digitally remastered director’s cut of “Being John Malkovich” with the Fisk scene.
      Also pleasantly surprised to learn that Malko isn’t another emptyhead from La La.
      Important but somewhat pedantic point re where Jesus was born:  The gospels say Bethlehem.  The scholars point out that the two gospels (Matt and Luke, I believe) with nativity stories agree on this and virtually nothing else, doing backflips in the plot line to get Joseph and Mary into Bethlehem. The thinking is that Jesus was actually born in Nazareth, hence “The Nazarene.” The problem was, prophecy said the messiah was going to be born in Bethlehem, descended from David, and a messiah born in Nazareth is like a messiah born in West Virginia. No can do.

      Posted by crittenden on 2006 07 11 at 01:02 AM • permalink


    1. in the case of islam, America is losing the internal propaganda war, though not as much as the brits of course.
      Melanie Phillips ‘londonistan’ has however huge grassroots support and it is realised generally, that it is the froeign office,left wing politicians, academia and the media that has betrayed the people.
      All is not lost.
      If America hates a loser, it will hate itself more and more until its starts winning the war of idealogy not the war of weapons.
      Because this is a war in which the main weapon is installing cultural self hatred in the psyche of the land of the infidel.
      presently Only the right and the conservatives resist this , knowing that such thoughts are the first steps on the road to perdition.
      The leftists are deeply infected into believing any attack upon them is by definition their own fault and must excise their shame through appeasement of their attackers.
      such moral inversion and cowardice is not seen as cowardly since it comes from the acceptance of the propaganda of shame so clevely dessimated by the masters of victimhood propaganda.

      Posted by davo on 2006 07 11 at 02:49 AM • permalink


    1. Excellent stuff. My esteem for Mr. Malkovich has risen considerably, having already great regard for his films and talent. Jolly good show.

      Posted by Simon Darkshade on 2006 07 11 at 03:00 AM • permalink


    1. #37, Mick Gill,

      Muslims on the dole?  That is merely their method of getting us used to paying their way (and besides, it is due them because they are Muslims and we aren’t); i.e., of slipping quietly into our enslavement, where we are allowed to keep a small amount of the wealth we create, so that we may continue to live and work – and continue being a slave.

      This dhimmitude is how they define tolerance of others.  Remember that the next time that you hear what a tolerant religion Islam is.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 07 11 at 03:01 AM • permalink


    1. I’m ‘Being John Malkovich’
      And I like it.

      Posted by Inurbanus on 2006 07 11 at 04:02 AM • permalink


    1. #33 – You can go with the ones ekw listed, plus Gary Sinise and Bruce Willis.  (Like you, I can’t stand Malkowhatever’s movies—even that Three Musketeers one was bad).

      Posted by Achillea on 2006 07 11 at 03:06 PM • permalink


    1. Yeah, we all hate Fisky. Yeah, Fisky’s a mongrel c*nt. And yay, we all love Malkie coz … coz he hates Fisky? Have i got it right blogsheep?

      Posted by Miranda Divide on 2006 07 11 at 10:22 PM • permalink


    1. I recentlky found my way to a blog called “American Prospect”. Quite an eye-opener as to the depth of warped hatred among the Left today. They appear to live on nothing but their own pathology. I mean, I knew that already, of course, but the extent of it, and the utter lack of self-perception accompanying it, it quite staggering when you see them all together.

      Posted by Susan Norton on 2006 07 11 at 11:34 PM • permalink


    1. Look above you, Susan…one of them followed you here.

      Posted by ekw on 2006 07 12 at 12:37 AM • permalink


    1. love you John Malkovich!

      Posted by Brian on 2006 07 12 at 07:40 AM • permalink


    1. #44: Have i got it right blogsheep?

      Tim Blair is my shepherd, I shall not want. He maketh me laugh ‘til my sides split. He leadeth me in paths of righteousness, because he’s a right bloke. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of trolldom, I fear no leftist nutbucket, for Tim Blair is with me; his rod and his staff, they comfort me, because they leave no parlor Marxist unthwacked. Surely laughter and political wisdom shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of Tim Blair forever (by the way, mate, where’s the bloody remote?).

      Posted by paco on 2006 07 12 at 09:36 AM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.