I think the movie should have further explored his detachment from reality and morality. Up until that point, the character had snapped under the weight of trauma. He created a fantasy world in his mind where life/society was one big joke and therefore nothing could hurt him. The character should have been operating under that frame. Instead he snaps out of his mental breakdown, delivers an *angry* speech, and murders the host in a fit of rage. It felt more like a revolutionary assassinating a dictator, or an anarchist statement, than the random act of violence of a man with one foot out the door of reality. I don't want to go through the trouble of re-writing a movie ending that will never be used, but IMO the interview scene was really out of character and poorly fleshed out, like they were out of ideas and said "fuck it, let's go with the laziest, least subtle conclusion possible."