#regus patoff imagine

[yagirlsanauthor]

Regus Patoff Taking An Interest in You Would Include...

AN: Okay you guys. Everyone knows the drill by now. Once again I have yet to find any x reader content for our zaddy Regus Patoff (even though the show came out like a week ago...shut up). Plus, I saw a few posts complaining about the lack of content. So, I have decided to take it upon myself to see if I can write a little somethin' somethin' for all you mfs out there thirsting for this guy. Enjoy :))

P.S. This is soooo fucking long omg. I'm so sorry.

Word Count: 2,332

Pairing: Regus Patoff x GN!Reader

Warnings: Spoilers for The Consultant!! Slight NSFW 18+ Below the Cut!!

--------------------------------------------------------------

~ You had worked at Compware for a little over 5 months before the untimely death of your boss, and were an intern and somewhat personal assistant for Sang-Woo.

~ When Sang was still alive, your main job was to deal with whatever he needed. Fetching him coffee, lunch, a document he's misplaced, help arrange meetings, and generally do any other necessary things for him and any of the more important guests that met with Mr. Sang. That's how you met him.

~ One day, you were putzing along, cleaning up and organizing a few files that your boss had needed for tomorrows meeting, when you had been called up to his office.

~ He didn't clarify if he needed anything, or what he needed from you, he just sounded tense and it sounded urgent, so you quickly made your way to his office.

~ As you came around to the main door of Sang's office, you could hear an unknown voice with a strange, what sounded to be, vague European accent, speaking with Sang.

~ And as you pushed open the last door, your are met with the sight of a very sharply dressed, and quite handsome, older gentleman.

~ The air seems to shift as you enter the room, and though you struggle to take your eyes off of this intriguing new man, you force your gaze settle back onto the man who called you here in the first place, Sang.

~ He quickly asks you to give the man across from him a brief tour as well as show him his way out. He looked pale and sweaty and sounded extremely shaky, almost like he just ran a marathon and was fighting to catch his breath. His eyes were also shifting all around the room, landing everywhere else except on him.

~ You quickly nodded your head and opened the office door, beckoning this stranger to follow you out.

~ Sang and his guest shook hands before he turned and followed suit.

~ During the tour, he wasn't very chatty. You provided a bit of information about the employees and what everyone did there, but he hardly seemed interested, in fact he didn't seem like he was listening at all. He asked a few simple questions about the building itself but nothing about what you actually did there, or what the company was even about.

~ As the tour came to an end, you eventually walked him out, and assumed you'd never really have to see him or speak with him again, as you never typically have had any reoccurring interactions with any of Sang's collaborators in the past.

~ But, as days pass, and Sang's unfortunate death pops up, your eyes land on a vaguely familiar face in the office.

~ This time, however, he actually introduced himself.

~ For some reason, it's like time had slowed and the world was now running at half speed.

~ He looks up at you as you approach him, and he cracks a growing smile. He stretches out his hand toward you, and with that oh-so-familiar European tone, lets his name fall from his mouth. "Regus Patoff."

~ After exchanging pleasantries, he puts you to work. Something along the lines of "Whatever you did for Mr. Sang, while he was alive, you'll do for me..."

~ You didn't think much of him at first, only that he was a bit of an enigma and very eccentric, but beyond that, all you really had to do for him was bring him a coffee or grab some food if he'd ask. A far less demanding job than when Sang was in charge.

~ It wasn't until about a few weeks or so after he had assumed the role of "boss" that things started to get more intense around the office.

~ With the rise of the new up and coming mobile game, Jungle Odyssey, he had asked you to sit in on a brainstorming meeting and take notes.

~ As the meeting progressed, he had passed around a timer and everyone had a short amount of time to pitch their ideas to him. As it reached the last person, he let out a disgruntled sigh, letting everyone else in the room know that he was not pleased with any of the ideas he heard.

~ Without thinking, you let one of your own ideas slip from your mouth.

~ He slowly turned to you with an unreadable expression, and in that moment you were sure you were either going to be severely told off or fired for your interruption.

~ It wasn't until you saw a mischievous glint in his eyes and a small smirk grace his lips that you realized he was intrigued by what you had said.

~ From then on his behavior toward you became a lot more...friendly?

~ Typically, when you would bring him something, he'd let out a quiet and monotone 'thank you' and would pay no attention to anything else you'd have to say, solely keeping his gaze down and focused on the work in front of him.

~ However, as of late, he's started asking you a bit more personal questions.

~ At first, he had asked you questions like where your favorite place was to eat. Or if there were any good clubs around. You had originally thought that he was asking simply because he was new to the area and was looking for a bite to eat. But then the questions began to shift into something more.

~ Now, whenever you brought him a coffee or a print copy of a file he needed, he would actually stop what he was doing and ask about your day, or what kind of body mist you were wearing, what shampoo and conditioner you use, what was your shoe size, or what did you eat for breakfast that morning.

~ He started initiating physical contact as well.

~ A man such as Regus Patoff seems (and most often is) untouchable. The first and, what you thought would be, only time you had come into physical contact with him was when you had first shook his hand. But now, it seems like you're constantly running into situations where your hands brush as you hand him his tablet, or he lightly grazes your arm as you lean over to place his lunch down in front of him. Once, he even placed his palm on your lower back to gently move you out of the way.

~ Gestures like this would be quite ordinary from anyone else, but from him, it was so out of character that you couldn't help but begin to pick up on it.

~ This continued for days until, one night, around three in the morning, you receive a call from Mr. Patoff himself, asking you to come in to the office.

~ This wasn't anything new really. When you worked for Sang, he would often text you or call you late at night, asking you to pick up something from the office that he forgot to grab, and needed you to then deliver it to his place. So you threw on your most work appropriate sweats and raced back over to the office.

~ Once you arrived at work, you let yourself in and made your way up to his office.

~ As you walk in, you notice he looks a lot less tidy than he did during the day. His blazer was off and resting on the back of his chair, his tie was undone as well, lying loosely around his shoulders, and the first few buttons of his shirt were undone, letting a bit of chest hair peak out from underneath.

~ He doesn't say much other than a gentle 'ah, you made it' and a 'come here' while he quirks his index finger in the air to beckon you closer.

~ As you slowly walk over to his desk, prepared to take a seat in the chair across from him, he lets out a sort of tsk sound and pats the spot on his desk right in front of him.

~ When you move to take a timid seat on the surface of his desk, he quickly reaches for your hands and pulls them toward himself, ultimately pulling you down along with them.

~ Your eyes were still trained on his hands connecting with yours until he began to speak. And it wasn't until you looked up had you noticed just how close your faces had been.

~ "Do you know why I called you here tonight?"

~ You shook your head unsurely. From what you've heard from your coworkers, this man could be ruthless and had been known to strike when they least expected it. So, you braced yourself for the worst.

~ "You've peaked my interest. And I am very hard man to impress."

~ He goes on to commend you for the work that you do for him and the ideas you've shared in the past regarding a few company products.

~ With the close proximity and the seemingly endless words of praise sent your way, you can feel a heat rushing up your neck and to your cheeks.

~ Sang had hardly ever acknowledged your existence if it didn't benefit him, let alone call you into his office, hold your hands in his lap, and compliment you.

~ Too lost in your train of thought, you hardly notice the warm hand that comes up and cups your cheek.

~ Again, you look up and gaze into his hazel eyes.

~ After a long while of just looking at one another, immersed in the quiet of his office, you begin to open your mouth the break the silence, but right before you can do so, he stands up from his seat, now towering over you ask you're still seated on his desk.

~ From this lower angle, he looks menacing, like a predator eyeing down his prey.

~ He remains still, holding your gaze until he, himself breaks the contact and makes his way over to a cabinet in the corner of the room opens it up. He pulls out what looks to be two glasses in his right hand and walks back over with a bottle of dark liquor in his left.

~ He places them down onto the desk beside you and begins to pour a generous amount of alcohol into both of your glasses.

~ Without saying a word, he picks up both glasses, offering one to you, and keeping the other with him as he settles himself back into his chair.

~ You both make a silent gesture of 'cheers' before knocking the mystery liquid back.

~ It burns as it goes down, and it tastes like sweet medicine.

~ While you're busy grimacing, you hear a small chuckle to your left and look over to see your superior giggling at your animated show of disgust.

~ "Not a big whiskey fan I presume?" he says with a grin.

~ You shake your head and let out a lighthearted, "no."

~ After sharing a few more drinks, and loosening up a bit more, you find that you both exchanging laughs and are seemingly lost in meaningless conversations about anything and everything, ranging from work talk to chatting about your biggest pet peeves, or guilty pleasures.

~ The air within the office had changed from a stiff and stale cell to the warmest, coziest place on earth. The right company had aided that too of course ;)

~ Boundaries had lost all sense of meaning that night, as you began to run your hands along his arm and had quickly found your fingers playing with the hair at the nape of his neck as you rested your arm across his shoulders. He too became a lot more touchy and began rubbing circles into your inner thigh with his thumbs, slowly creeping higher and higher causing a very different heat to pool within you.

~ You weren't sure if it was the alcohol throwing you off balance, or if it was just the raw gravitational pull from someone as charming as Regus Patoff, but you were slowly inching your self further and further toward him, almost to the point that you were sharing the same breath.

~ If it wasn't for one of the whiskey glasses, that he had placed beside you earlier, diverting your attention by falling and shattering onto the floor from your movement, you most likely would have ended up in his lap.

~ Soon though, you had to come back down to reality as the affects of the alcohol began to wear off. Plus, the sound of the glass shattering had you far more alert and sobered up than you thought.

~ A little embarrassed and overly apologetic, you slowly started peeling yourself off of him, realizing just how touchy you had been for the past few hours.

~ "I should probably head back home for tonight, if, of course, you don't need anything else that is, sir?" you finally said after a moment of silence.

~ He looked almost...disappointed by what you said. And looked as though he was going to ask you something.

~ His brows knit together in an earnest fashion and he opened his mouth, only to quickly shut it.

~ Across his face appears a light smile that doesn't seem to quite reach his eyes.

~ He helps you gather your things and leads you out of his office.

~ He walks you to the top of the stairs and bids you an adieu. But, before you begin your descent, he reaches for your hand, pulls it to his lips and places a gentle kiss to the back, never breaking his intense gaze.

~ He let out a final "goodnight" as you said your goodbyes as well and made your way down the glass steps.

~ He had watched you the entire way as you left the building, and only when you had finally made it outside and out of his sight did you let out a breath that you didn't even know you were holding in.

~ As you walk to your car, you find the fresh cool air of the night has you sobering up. Though, not from the alcohol you had, but from the hypnotizing aura that is Regus Patoff.

[21secondsofchristoph]

This is probably the longest interview I've ever read.

"Why do you have to be happy all the time?"

Photo: Peter Rigaud/laif

Oscar winner Christoph Waltz in a long interview - about gold and dirt in Hollywood, careful filming, his role as a management consultant in "The Consultant", and the question of what Lufthansa did with his new Rimowa suitcase.

Interview by Alexander Gorkov

February 24, 2023

A long afternoon with coffee, cognac and cake. Christoph Waltz, visiting Berlin from Los Angeles, is always excited and attentive – he pauses between sentences and then always continues to formulate it ready for publication.

SZ : Management consultant Regus Patoff ostentatiously smells the young people who will report to him in the series “The Consultant” upon his arrival. He cuts his fingernails and nose hair in the office, he calls his people at three in the morning, monitors them...

Christoph Waltz: The fact that the young employees line up and I memorize their respective smells is a scene that immediately made sense to me when reading the pilot episode.

SZ: Which made reading fun?

CW: That's the thing about joy. Some things are fun, which then turn out to be rubbish. No, obvious, in the sense of light rising. Incidentally, at first I only knew the script for the pilot episode.

SZ: The books for the eight episodes weren't ready when it started?

CW: No, just the pilot. Then, after the whole production was okay, Tony Basgallop sat down and continued writing. Always in increments of two episodes. So when we were filming episode three, we didn't know what episode six was going to be like.

SZ: What about the Writers' Room, 20 authors, you imagine that would be more complex for a US production with an Oscar winner?

CW: That's already there. But that was not the case with the “Consultant”.

SZ: How much of it was created while shooting, i.e. spontaneously, also with regard to the character Regus Pattof?

CW: I can't say any more. Afterwards it might not matter anyway.

SZ: Jennifer Coolidge recently said she worked with the crew to develop this somnambulist of her character in "White Lotus" while we were shooting. Could these be signals that a certain desire for spontaneity and creativity is returning after rather bleak years in films and series?

CW: It would be nice anyway. Maybe word would slowly get around again that the fixation on algorithms and pie charts, i.e. on this alleged readability of the swarm behavior of viewers, does not tell any stories that could be worth experiencing for the viewer. So if there were no swarm at all. That filmed stories should be produced by film companies, not tech companies. With the unavoidable risks and side effects that always have an effect anyway.

SZ: The character of Regus Patoff, as diabolical as it is, is sometimes reminiscent of the characters of great comedians of yesteryear, whom one could, so to speak, watch while thinking...

CW: Thanks... Is the comparison possibly a bit bold?

SZ: There is a scene in "Sons of the Desert" in which Stan Laurel bites into an apple which he steals from what appears to be a fruit bowl - but it is not a real apple, but a decorative apple made of wax. And he thinks, and you can see it: Oops. So without making a grimace.

CW: Well...he doesn't think, "Oops!" He draws the viewer into his complication of recognition. He doesn't demonstrate clumsily how B follows A because that's what the script says. Rather, he involves himself and the viewer in an extremely complex process.

SZ: Namely?

CW: He bites into what he must think is a real apple because it looks like a real apple. Any normal prankster would now make a number out of the sudden recognition - spit out, suffocate, disgust, whatever the repertoire has to offer. But Stan Laurel sticks to the process: put to use as a real apple, the assumed reality now intensifies. He keeps chewing!

He calmly bites off more pieces, chews, swallows.

Under explainable difficulties. Which he still wonders about.Especially since he always secretly takes the apple from the fruit plate and puts it down again after biting into it. He doesn't want to get caught. And so he gets more and more involved and can't find out anymore. He has to eat the wax apple whether he wants to or not, even though the truth seems to be dawning on him.

SZ: You go nuts while watching...

CW: It's awesome. And to play that, this knowledge behind the lack of understanding - that requires very deep understanding, very deep knowledge. An insane intelligence too. But we're not just talking about a comedian here.

SZ: Rather?

CW: Genius...? Can one know?

SZ: Are we talking about the funniest two minutes in movie history?

CW: What would then be the second funniest and the least fun? I definitely want to avoid ranking, especially with a phenomenon like Stan Laurel. This perpetual ranking...blunt quantification. We thereby lose the ability to discuss the qualities.

SZ: Basically?

CW: Basically, of course. It takes constant attention, practice, and refinement, and it's tedious and tedious at times... I don't give a damn what rhetorical platitude any self-proclaimed expert can squeeze onto the internet about whatever.

SZ: But back to the faint hope of spontaneity and creativity...

CW: All I can say is that filming The Consultant was, of course, also an industrial process as a whole, which, however, miraculously relied largely on the non-industrial contribution of the individual. In this respect, this shooting differed significantly from what the series is about. Talented adults of different ages make their constructive contribution to the whole to the best of their knowledge and ability. It doesn't get much better than that... It's very different than, for example, checking in a suitcase at Lufthansa with childlike trust!

SZ: With the result?

CW: That I'll never see him again. And at Lufthansa, trying to get your suitcase back is a completely depersonalized and utterly industrial process.

SZ: Happens?

Happens.

SZ: Los Angeles – Frankfurt?

CW: Not at all! Munich – Berlin. I checked in the suitcase on December 16, 2022 – in the meantime, in the literal sense, in the box. I never saw the suitcase again. Not until today. A brand new Rimowa with nice things you've come to love inside.

SZ: How is the complaint made?

CW: Industrial. According to quantifiable measures. There has been a Property Irregularity Report, reference number BER-LH-33385, for more than two months. The Rimowa was originally supposed to be delivered to Berlin from Munich on December 30, 2022 with flight LH1934. I know all the numbers by heart. Some of the advisers at Lufthansa's complaints center also look familiar to me.

SZ: At least there's that.

CW: Yes, they are all very friendly, I have to say. They chat very understandingly, are diligent, give advice, and so one slips unnoticed into a labyrinth. You mutate into a process.

SZ: After all, one is a process. Isn't that a form of recognition?

CW: But on the contrary! You are fed into a digital metabolism and digested by the algorithm. The metabolic consequences do not deserve credit.

SZ: It is reminiscent of Kafka's trial. This is also possibly because the suitcase hasn't turned up again for two months.

CW: One is isolated, waiting, wandering around, lost in a digital labyrinth. For weeks, for months you think: where is my suitcase? I checked it in at a modern German airport with a leading airline on December 16th, 2022 to be returned to me at another modern German airport about an hour and a half later the same day.

SZ: With the result?

CW: Why result? It wasn't any of the two. Neither modern nor handed over.

SZ: Part of the fascination here is certainly that you ask yourself: What could be the reason for the apparently complete disappearance of the suitcase?

CW: For example, someone from Lufthansa recently told me that the weather was bad on December 16th. In the winter? In Munich? Snow and ice? For real?! That's why the train that my wife and I had originally booked was already cancelled... So did the suitcase fall out of the plane? It's a kind of conjecture industry, depending on which of the always friendly people at Lufthansa I'm talking to. Everyone suspects something different.

SZ: It may have been stolen.

CW: Even very likely - after all, a very personal and analogous twist of the story. Or it just got lost. Also analogue. If it were a medical emergency, I would have been dead weeks ago.

SZ: How about appearing as a sadist to Lufthansa and becoming unpleasant?

CW: I've thought about it. But nobody cares anyway. Because the friendly Lufthansa people are the biological extensions of the algorithm. It's definitely in the contract of employment.

SZ: Is Regus Patoff a sadist in The Consultant?

CW: I see it more as an attempt at correction. Or an excommunicated Archangel. A Knight of the Grail. He also does a job.

SZ: Which?

CW: He appears in the gaming company "CompWare" and confronts the young programmers with the ruthlessness of his methods with, how to put it...

SZ: ... oneself?

CW: Yourself and each other, yes. You then ask yourself a few essential questions: Am I still capable of making qualitative distinctions or only quantitative ones? So am I doing things for their quality or for their usability? By fixating on the short-term, quantitative usability of my work, am I anticipating obedience, an obedience that no political dictatorship forces me to? Do I still use my brain, which was made for the most complex tasks, or will I become a kind of task-specific artificial intelligence and will therefore soon be replaced by one? So in the end do I subordinate everything to this one and supposedly essential condition – usability, short-term economization?

SZ: A series about conformity?

CW: A hopefully entertaining series about conformity. Our business is entertainment. And yes: about conformity and what it takes to question it.

SZ: What does it take, courage?

CW: Courage is a jargon word. Everyone has courage - or thinks they have it, no? Even the heavily subsidized think they have guts. I can't really hear the talk of courage anymore.

SZ: So what does it require?

CW: Rather, does it require... effort, effort? It requires a brain, an on-going one. Our brain can distinguish between quality and quantity, it doesn't take any courage to do that. The brain can do it just like that - if it is reasonably well fed.

SZ: On the other hand, when since 1968 were some young people noticeably less conform than they are today? They demonstrate for climate protection, are language-sensitive, gender-sensitive, against racism, against ...

CW: So so ...

SZ: Yes, yes.

CW: Yes, yes, yes.

SZ: No?

CW: But. Naturally. And rightly so.However, I cannot understand that these sensibilities would be new apart from their preparation and the jargon. People haven't always thrown mush at paintings and blamed Vincent van Gogh to feed the networks spectacle, that's true. Since the Club of Rome report in the early 1970s, however, people have been demonstrating against environmental destruction, in Wackersdorf they did it in the mid 1980s, since the 1970s at the latest it has been about the rights of gays and lesbians, in the 1980s against discrimination against people infected with HIV , in the early 1980s half a million people ran through Bonn against the retrofitting – in the lead the Greens party, which is particularly active in this context today. Apropos - few figures in Germany fascinate me more than the Panzergrenadier from the Greens ...

SZ: Anton Hofreiter?

CW: Excellent material for a comedy. A transport expert does not become Minister of Agriculture after the election. So he stiffens, turns tomato red with anger – and is an expert on armament issues. boom.

SZ: At the same time, speaking of conformity, young people today are more likely to ask themselves the question of work-life balance, i.e. quality of life rather than pure income quantity .

CW: Can you balance yourself prophylactically? Even before it really starts to wobble? I don't know... In France, 17-year-olds are demonstrating against pension reform, right?

SZ: Well, a man from a leading management consultancy in Munich recently told me that highly qualified people have recently been telling him more often during job interviews: They are more interested in a four-day week than in more money, the competition is offering them that.

CW: This is initially understandable from the point of view of the consumer. The producer certainly has a different perspective because he might sooner or later lose the consumers, right? Which then makes the four-day week absolutely necessary. But then it is no longer a profit. So who is balancing what then? Or who? And could these job interviews be more of a European phenomenon?

SZ: Aren't the mindfulness consultants in the greater California area eager to proclaim this inner pendulum?

CW: Yes, maybe... And why? Voluntarily? The American person has to constantly make money, so does the mindfulness consultant with her web shop. The American man defines himself economically. In my area, with actors for example, especially those who have big plans, is it about work-life balance? They need follow-up contracts, they want to be part of a possible second season, the health insurance has to be paid for, school, kindergarten have to be paid for, life has to be paid for – not to forget the entertainment, i.e. the distraction from all of that also has to be paid for become. Not glamorous. Both parents work, not for reasons of social progress, but like crazy, and because there is no other way. Withoutwork no life , so work is better then – that would be the balance .

SZ: What's wrong with not getting gutted?

CW: Nothing! On the contrary. It is important not to be left out. Among other things, "The Consultant" is about. Of being literally gutted behind that mindful facade of colorful booths and walking around barefoot to feel yourself, and all that horrific, humiliating gibberish. About how the so-called creative people in particular completely subordinate themselves to economic success. And also from letting yourself be gutted. With what I am saying, I am only describing reality as I perceive it: economic success is the quality that constitutes the collective subconscious of the United States par excellence. Ranking makes this measurable. And tangible. I'm not saying that in a haughty manner, but up to a certain point as an equal among equals. In my first 35 years as an actor, I usually said, when someone came up with an offer: “Work? I'll do it! shit work? I do too!“

SZ: So shit movies.

CW: Why shit movies?

SZ: So the movies that...

CW: No! That was my life, with all due respect. Should everything that was good just be dropped now? There was some very good stuff there, thank you very much.

SZ: Forgive me.

CW: Clearly this was also training. Everything is always training. This is where the brain comes into play again. If it's allowed: mine. I always kind of knew why something was "shit". This is an immeasurable treasure, a treasure called experience.

SZ: Tempi passati.

CW: I am deeply grateful that my circumstances have largely changed over the past 15 years. But it doesn't change the fact.

SZ: Especially since one is usually wiser afterwards...

CW: Of course: You don't look forward to it while you're still in it. But you don't spend your life with gold alone. Nobody does that. I've actually worked on stupid films with the greatest colleagues from time to time. Here as there. But it is also about participating in life by doing. And with what? With good reason! For example, because you have a family and earn money, a very, very honorable process.

SZ: But this work does not really make you happy at the time of its creation.

CW: Why do you have to be happy all the time? Who invented the compulsion to be lucky? Everyone must always be happy... No wonder no one is happy. Except for the happiness industry.

SZ: The right to happiness - "the pursuit of happiness" - is one of the "inalienable human rights" in the USA! Since 1776!

CW: But not the right to be happy . The Right to Pursue Happiness ! pursuit ! Logically, this means, especially when it comes to forming a society, that I also allow others to strive for happiness to the same extent, not that I only try to enforce mine by force of arms.

SZ: Like I said, an American...

CW: The right to be happy only exists according to the mindfulness coaches just quoted, and those from 2023, not 1776. Those who make money by looking happy on Instagram. happiness industry. It's gotten tough in America. Hard and unforgiving. Europe is still a bit shy in this regard, but it will catch up.

SZ: Also in Hollywood, does that also affect the film industry there?

CW: yes sure, maybe not? But like I said, one can hope. I at least hope that something is changing for the better right now. If I'm not an optimist, at least I'm naive! But in terms of the years I've been living there now: the fixation on quantity, the fixation on the measurable, on pie charts, tools for reading users - it's not obvious that the parts of the brain where creative people used to be their Quality awareness suspected, meanwhile dry up?

SZ: That means you make everything ready for the user, so to speak?

CW: Do you have users or readers at the Süddeutsche ? If you still have readers: never consider them users... my non-authoritative advice. The technical means of spreading nonsense have never been available on this scale, and a repulsive figure like Donald Trump could only become President of the United States of America because there was fire from all channels, both digital and analog: He won't, will he? Will he?

SZ: Well, he ran for the post. Should you ignore that?

CW: Why should one ignore him - but hysterize for months? Because it sells? Trump as a repulsive figure was very old hat long before his presidency became more likely. He has been an obnoxious, vile phenomenon for decades. That was impossible to miss. But Trump, Brexit, all these dystopias from 2016 and after, they exist because they were spread , no longer communicated, and it's being disseminated for commercial reasons, while not conveying that each and every individual could care to expose Trump as a lie or to expose Brexit as a lie. We can all take a good look at our own noses here, with what we write, send, spread or help spread ... No feuilleton, for example, has to deal with Prince Harry.

SZ: Oh...

CW: Because it clicks? But does it make sense beyond that ? The sensitivities of a prince, apparently not the brightest candle on the candlestick, who publishes a tearful, post-pubertal commissioned work? Because daddy is always so mean? And why is he publishing it? Because you can make a lot of money with it and with a supposed "documentary". And the feuilleton sacrifices its integrity?

SZ: It also depends on how you reflect it.

CW: Reflecting does something quickly. Especially the so-called reflection is always extremely useful commercially and socially. Never looks bad either. The supply creates the demand.

SZ: Often there is also a demand that first ...

CW: Forgiveness! In the meantime, it often has features of self-incapacitation! And from the side of those who should know better! The lesson, by no means only in Hollywood, from the last few years: the so-called people are possibly much smarter than those in the know would like to give them credit for, and people have a flair for jargon and stupidity. They want to be entertained, of course, but not fooled. They often even want to be challenged, but not fooled. You smell the intention and you may not be upset right away, but you're always upset. The intention is always perceptible. For anyone who wants to take a look.

SZ: From this point of view, a fascinating, coherent but long scene like the beginning of “Inglourious Basterds”, in which an Austrian named Christoph Waltz, who was relatively unknown in the USA at the time, drinks milk as SS man Hans Landa and fills a meerschaum pipe, would hardly be seen today more possible, right?

CW: It might not even be attempted by most. Although, of course, there are still a select few who make great attempts. I now embrace every sincere eccentric I meet.

SZ: The scene lasts 20 minutes, an eternity by today's standards.

CW: 18 minutes ... It's all a matter of consciousness, the '68ers were right about that. And if my consciousness as a so-called creative person is solely geared towards the mercantile advantage, then this is communicated unmistakably. Basically, "The Consultant" tells from the guts here. anticipatory obedience,Timothy Snyder taught the right lesson: If you value our values, in a democracy, under no circumstances be hasty obedience. It's by no means all dirt that can be streamed or, rarely enough, seen in the cinema - but the sheer mass of what is produced may have reached a tipping point. The unconditional subordination to economic expectations is perceptible as such. Since the mouse bites from no thread. But is that really reason enough to watch the whole thing?

SZ: The thousand tiles of the streaming services, predictable plots and trigger points everywhere?

CW: And jargon instead of content! Everyone has been busy throwing themselves on the audience's laps over the years. Whatever you want: we do it, it will be delivered - in the desired jargon. Like the drug dealers and pornographers. But it's an unfounded claim. The intention is clear and therefore also clearly recognizable.

SZ: Ten years ago, after “Breaking Bad” and other fantastic, complexly told series, we were still talking about the golden age of television.

CW: And then streaming completely turned the entire film industry inside out. Everyone wants to do the business or at least not leave the business to the competitor alone.

SZ: Why didn't you continue to make series with complex narratives?

CW: Because industry has always embraced the avant-garde and then turned the tide. You then no longer trust the idea, certainly not the eccentric idea or even an intention that goes beyond the economic. But the stitch that you knit from it. This is how the mainstream has evolved for centuries. Today the algorithm works. The core business of the streaming service is the share price. Ergo: The decisive factor is the number of subscribers. But the subscription is not a single film. They are all films that can be squeezed into the offer. Ergo: the algorithm. The algorithm feeds only on the density of the mass. This mass of information only arises if the audience simply gets everythingcan be thrown to the table, the gold like the shit. The carpet bomb principle. Most bombs don't hit, the duds don't matter anyway, and some hit is bound to be there. It has to do enough damage to justify the whole rug though.

SZ: To the chagrin of those involved. So not just the viewer.

CW: Writers, directors, actors, many great people, not just young people with great ideas. And with fantastically functioning brains. Used to make the background look populated - quality swallowed up by quantity.

SZ: A black hole. How do you escape this?

CW: I'm not at the higher decision-making level, I'm just an actor, so I'm offered what's out there and what I'm eligible for...

SZ: ... at least in Hollywood.

CW: After all, why in Hollywood? It's the same everywhere. And certainly not only in film and television. All right, Hollywood, if that sounds better. I always want to go beyond this binary yes or no decision with an inquiry; So is the idea and possible design of a film or a series the rub or the dog buried? Is the idea worthwhile in qualitative, narrative terms, for example to spend a year or two of my life on? Who are the people to spend these two years with?

SZ: What is the reaction then?

CW: I often hear: "We are very interested in your input!" ... a shameless lie.

SZ: Fun.

CW: It's going ok. Little is discussed, little discussed or, God forbid, criticized. For speculating and calculating.

SZ: Movies have always cost money, have they not?

CW: Of course, it's nothing new that film costs money. The director John Boorman wrote a wonderful book about it a number of years ago, which is perhaps more relevant than ever: "Money into Light". No money, no film.

SZ: Which isn't bad per se.

CW: Yes,why? You don't even have to wish for anything else. But should the discussion in advance, when it doesn't cost anything and can be endless fun, only revolve around quantities and not at all about whether it's worth it from a qualitative point of view, i.e. literary, cinematic, artistic? Is there only one single intention? Money without Light ? One does not exclude the other! I don't want to understand how you can miss the really exciting, rewarding part of it all. Well, unfortunately I already understand. Everything is delegated somewhere intangible, where no one needs to answer questions.

SZ: As in the complaint case "Rimowa" and Lufthansa.

CW: In the film industry, when you have an idea, you say: “We could get that done .” Or: “I can’t get that done. That's actually mostly true, especially in the negative case. The result is films or series full of inauthentic stories, inauthentic speech, inauthentic images, underlaid with soapy, inauthentic music. They are films that are made because they are made.

SZ: Plus test screenings?

CW: Depends. I've seen a very, very ugly producer come close to flawless beauty after a successful test screening, simply because he was so happy. Why? Because 98 percent of test-watchers had ticked that they had just seen the best movie of their lives... this test-screening hit turned out to be a flop of historic proportions.

SZ: Now that's funny.

CW: Yes, yes.

SZ: Of course, our curious readers are curious to know which film it is. Will they find out?

CW: No.

SZ: And should we see an apple tree towards the end...

CW: Not necessary at all! Like I said, maybe something is changing. Perhaps the business model is reaching its limits in these excesses. Something has to change in order for it to continue. Streaming was a revolution, for sure, but the revolution can't eat its grandchildren.

SZ: Is Los Angeles still the right place then?

CW: I really, really like living in Los Angeles. Just in case it didn't sound Californian enough by now.

SZ: It wasn't always like this, was it?

CW: Not to that extent, no. But I love living there now more than ever. It's a unique collection of people, ideas, opportunities. Plus this beauty of nature. I don't want to miss that anymore. Incidentally, neither do the manners. I'm from Vienna, I like it when people follow the rules to some extent, even if it's just for reasons of a clearly distanced politeness that makes our everyday life a little easier. I'd rather be politely lied to.

SZ: Certainly interesting to come to Berlin in between.

CW: It's not interesting. It's horrible. Especially in winter.

SZ: Oddly enough, this fixation on making money goes hand in hand with great sensibilities, doesn't it? Fear of assault, wrong choice of words, all of that. Is it true that you have to take part in mandatory seminars before you start shooting?

CW: Yes. I don't do that.

SZ: Can you evade that?

CW: I don't know.I withdraw.

SZ: How?

CW: I don't need coaching to behave properly. I lead by example as I follow good example. I was brought up in such a way that I behave much better towards minorities and, by the way, also majorities, than the consciousness of the seminar leader is even able to assess. I could teach the seminar leader good manners .

SZ: Well, a privileged attitude, because of course, keyword economy, you won't do without Christoph Waltz in the end, does he attend the damn training course or not...

CW: In this sense: heartfelt thanks.