S03E18: Speak No Evil: James McAvoy's Sinister Transformation

**Host:** Alex First
**Guest Critics:** Greg King, Peter Krause, Jaqui Hammerton
**Episode Summary:**
In this engaging episode, Alex First is joined by Greg King, Peter Krause, and Jaqui Hammerton to delve into the latest film releases. Greg King begins with a detailed analysis of the psychological horror thriller *Speak No Evil*, starring James McAvoy. The conversation touches on McAvoy's performance, the film's tension, and comparisons with the original Danish version. The episode also features a review of the family film *Harold and the Purple Crayon*, where the critics discuss its appeal to different age groups and the effectiveness of its blend of animation and live-action. Finally, Greg King reflects on the French biopic *Bonard, Pierre and Marta*, exploring the complex relationship between the post-impressionist painter and his wife.
00:00:00 " Alex says he went to see speak no evil just because James McAvoy starred
00:00:58 " Peter says James McAvoy is capable of playing charming but also nasty
00:01:28 " American family befriend British family while on holiday in Italy
00:06:53 " I thought the children were particularly good. Both the boy and the girl. Really, really good
00:07:56 " Gregory King: The ending of this film is much darker than the original
00:10:03 " Alex: Why do the Americans have a predilection for remakes
00:15:12 " Are you conscious of reading when you're watching foreign language film
00:20:06 " Peter says english language version of speak no evil conforms to Hollywood stereotypes
00:23:16 " What's your favourite colour? Peter, what colour do you like
00:26:39 " Jackie: I like black and red. And I also like orange. You can guess, Jackie
00:27:29 " Harold and the purple crayon is a charming family comedy
00:32:01 " Jacqueline: The combination of animation and live action works really effectively
00:33:56 " It's got a PG rating. What do you read into it, Greg
00:38:19 " Peter Canada says the film was pitched as a young audience to develop imagination
00:42:26 " Peter McCain was intrigued by the biopic about French painter Pierre Bonhard
00:48:14 " Peter Martin reviews French film about impressionist painter Pierre Bonard
00:51:09 " The film is largely based on a true story and not on a delusional ranting
**Highlights:** 
- **Speak No Evil:** The critics explore the psychological horror thriller featuring James McAvoy. Jaqui appreciates McAvoy's performance but finds the film more comedic than scary. Peter and Greg discuss the differences between the Hollywood remake and the original Danish film, noting the diluted ending in the remake. 
- **Harold and the Purple Crayon:** Greg King reviews this family film, debating its appeal to various age groups. Greg enjoys the fantasy elements, while Peter and Jaqui feel the film fails to capture the simplicity and charm of the original picture book. 
- **Bonard, Pierre and Marta:** The critics delve into this French biopic, examining the complex relationship between the painter and his wife. Alex praises the film's intelligent narrative and beautiful cinematography, while Peter appreciates its portrayal of the artistic lifestyle. 
This episode of First on Film and Entertainment offers a rich mix of film reviews and thoughtful discussions. From the psychological tension in *Speak No Evil* to the imaginative world of *Harold and the Purple Crayon* and the historical depth of *Bonard, Pierre and Marta*, the critics provide nuanced insights into these diverse films. Join us next week for more in-depth analysis and lively conversations.
https://www.bitesz.com/show/first-on-film-entertainment/
www.bitesz.com
Sponsor:
www.bitesz.com/nordvpn


Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/first-on-film-entertainment--5645288/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
First on Still and Entertainment, A very Good day to
All with Peter Grouse, Greg King, Jackie Hamerton with me
Alex first and we are going to start off straight
away with a movie that has a demomic looking James
McAvoy in it. Tell you what, He's a mighty fine actor,
isn't he, Jackie? Tell you he's a wonderful, wonderful He's

(00:20):
a character actor that gets into character pretty quickly and
didn't speak no evil. He is evil personified, correct is?

Speaker 2 (00:31):
I've liked Jim ever since he was the fawn in
the Nannia film and speak no Evil. Listen to film
I would normally go to because it's you know, it's
promoted as a scary horror film, but I went to
see it just because he's in it. So yes, I
love James McAvoy.

Speaker 1 (00:48):
Yeah, psychological horror thriller and in a good of you
just for the sake of this program, you've gone along
to see it. So we'll get your views at a moment. Well,
let's get your views, Peter. James McAvoy as an actor,
where does he rate?

Speaker 3 (01:04):
He's pretty good, Who's been in a few m night
Shime Marlin films, but he tends to eat the scenery
a little bit.

Speaker 1 (01:11):
Ah okay, Greg, your views.

Speaker 4 (01:14):
He's quite capable. Actually, he's capable of playing charming but
also nasty. And he's also in the roommakes of The
X Men, you know, playing the young direct male savior.

Speaker 1 (01:29):
Well here he is the manipulative husband and father character.
And you've got the basis here of an American family
meeting and befriending a British family while they're holidaying in Italy,
and soon thereafter, the Americans are invited to spend a
weekend at the seemingly idyllic country estate of the Brits.

(01:51):
But what starts out with promise ends up as a
twisted nightmare. So let me go into a little bit
of detail. Ben Dalton played by Scoop McNairy and his
wife Louise Mackenzie Davis, along with their eleven year old
daughter Agnes played by Alex West, moved to London for
a job opportunity and unfortunately that did not work out.

(02:14):
They still decided to stay on. There's tension in the relationship,
but Louise thinks a weekend away might be just the ticket,
and when they arrive at the isolated rustic home of
the Brits. They're warmly greeted by Paddy played by James McAvoy,
his wife Kiara Aisling Franciosi. They have a mute son

(02:37):
called Aunt, played by Dan Hoff. Paddy Well, he's got
this larger than life persona. He's loud, his effusive. He's
an alpha male, let's face it, who dominates Kiara Well,
she appears to be subjugated by him. An ant, tentative
and scared. Separate incidents make Louise feel uncomfortable and she's

(03:02):
keen to leave early. Bear in mind, though running again
for the weekend. Only a failed attempt at doing so
sees the stakes ratted it up, and it's just a
matter of time before the American family is subjected to
a vortex of evil in which their lives are in peril.

(03:23):
It's been written and directed by James Watkins, who did
The Woman in Black, and it's based on a Danish
film that came out a couple of years ago. So
an air of unease permeates the movie is the tension
builds leading up to an edge of your seat final
half hour. That's when it really comes to bite, and

(03:43):
in fact, the plot takes some time to develop, although
it's clear no good can come of the outbursts that
infuse the storyline. It's a cleverly, cleverly woven tale of
a twisted mind. Macavoy's demented facial expressions of what really
stand out to me. They're the killer, pun fully intended,
and there's a disingenuousness about his persona that is horribly attractive,

(04:09):
again deliberately used to pun there the secondary plot line
concerning the tensions in American family add a bit of heft,
and then there's the predicament of the English family's son,
but Ckenzie Davis. While paints Louise as a competent but
wary individual, Scoot McNerney gives voice to a man with

(04:30):
issues to work through. And I also appreciated the understanding
developed between the children, well realized by Alex West and
Dan Hoff. I thought syl was really well shot, often
with a claustrophobic feel by Tim Morris Jones, and he
worked with the director Watkins on The Woman in Black.
It's quite a wild and intense ride. As I say,

(04:52):
it takes a bit of time to develop. It has
sting and bite, and it leaves an imprint. That's what
you want of a psychologis horror thriller? What do you reckon? Jagie?

Speaker 2 (05:04):
Oh? So like a category of psychological thriller. But towards
the end, I found it more comedic than scar I
never I mean, I didn't even find it scary. I
might say. I think maybe the characters were just that
little bit too exaggerated. And I thought the towards the end,

(05:28):
where the oh shall we say, the real action happens,
where the real physical threats come out, tended to be funny.
And I thought it was deliberately funny to kind of
break the tension, because I certainly laughed.

Speaker 1 (05:45):
Yeah, I found totally opposite to you. I'm not surprised
by that, because you are racalci from individual like better
grouse is so to be Alex.

Speaker 2 (05:55):
So it's good that I achieved that.

Speaker 1 (05:58):
You play it at all. You weren't saying I want
to get clear, No, sirits at.

Speaker 2 (06:03):
All, No, not at all, because I knew you could
tell straight off who was the bad character. Well, I
mean you knew that before you arrived at the sinnight,
so you knew that that was going to ramp up.
I thought the one it ramped up was actually quite good.

Speaker 1 (06:20):
You know, there was.

Speaker 2 (06:20):
This excruciating, creepy awkwardness with the inappropriate comments and the
way his personality started to just just sort of drift
out and then and then he'd pull back, and everything
he said had had quite a logical explanation for why
he'd say it, So of course you start doubting yourself. Well,

(06:41):
the characters started doubting themselves that, oh no, actually he's fine.
It's me who's seen things where there's not a problem, until,
of course we know that there is a problem. I
thought the children were particularly good, yeah, nearly really good
in it, both the boy and the girl and and
the girl. And I also thought the secondary the couple

(07:08):
Mackenzie Davison Scoop mcnery that that couple, their characters were
really well drawn, a little bit unusual. She was she
she had a good strength to her, and he was
a bit of a how do you say? It was
absolutely which which worked really well with the theme of

(07:31):
the story of the.

Speaker 1 (07:33):
Are you saying that in real life that would work
well as well, Jacqueline, I'm.

Speaker 2 (07:38):
Not saying that real life in a film.

Speaker 1 (07:42):
I just want to know you being a strong willed
woman yourself. So there you go. I wondered whether you
basked in the glory of that, those dual characters that
was all oh whatever, all right, Gregory King. Have you
seen Speak No Evil?

Speaker 4 (08:00):
And I've also seen the original Danish version, But you well,
and the ending of this film, the ending the original
film was much darker and bleaker without a happy ending.

Speaker 1 (08:12):
To this film.

Speaker 4 (08:13):
This one, it's fine, but the ending here is more
u typical Hollywood thriller, keeps pushing the boundaries and putting
in that claustrophobic accent as you said there, but there's
a bit of a change there. But James McAvoy made
for a preepy character there who would go from charming
one minute, switching to sort of a bit more malevolent,
bit more menacing, outrageous other moments. I do agree with

(08:37):
Jackie and what she said, and you said the two
kids there were fantastic. They were really good and believable.
The scene where is nice to the farmhouse had that
claustrophobic in that sphere, but the murder of film was
able to change and keep you off balance all the
way through it. But as I said, the ending here
went for a typical cathartic Hollywood ending rather than you

(08:58):
bleep original left a bit of a nasty ass to
taste in the.

Speaker 1 (09:03):
Mouth, which I must admit I'm not wishing ill, but yeah,
I kind of wish that the Hollywood ending wouldn't necessarily
play out in most films that we see I think
real life. Unfortunately, you know, horrible. There have been some
horrible stories this week, and we don't need to go
into too much detail about it, but where things don't

(09:24):
work out. So yeah, interesting observation. Greek. So the name
in case anybody wants to sort of check out the
Danish film if you can see it somewhere, it's called
stern g A E s T E r n E.

Speaker 4 (09:40):
Peter Craft ex green at MYFF under the name of
Speak Evil though Oh okay, terrific.

Speaker 1 (09:47):
All right, well it's good to note. So sorry, what
do you say it's screening? It's screen do you mean?

Speaker 2 (09:52):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (09:53):
I screened at my a few couple of years ago.

Speaker 1 (09:55):
Ah, I see, I'm not sure we'd see it today, Peter,
any ideas.

Speaker 3 (10:00):
No, but it probably will turn up on World Movies.
So this Danish film, as Greg has said, was much
darker and it's only a couple of years old. And
why the Americans have this predilection for remaking films not
in the English language in English and then also watering

(10:24):
them down so that they lose the original impact is
beyond me, because I was really quite bored by this film,
partly because the original Serial Killer, notion of James McAvoy

(10:45):
and his family's characters and the abuse of children, which
are all suggested in the original Danish film, very much
absent from this English language remake.

Speaker 1 (11:02):
What was the Golly? There was a film a number
of years ago which I think in both English or
maybe they didn't, about children and children unfortunately, perishing et cetera,
et cetera in a remote farmhouse. It's so frustrating. It
really chilled me to the core. I think they did

(11:23):
make an English language film out of it as well.
It's not I mean what you were saying, Peter, though
there are examples where they I know, it doesn't work
all the time, but the Girl with the dragon tattoo,
they did that in both European version and American. I
thought both of them were strong. Did you not think that?

Speaker 3 (11:42):
I thought the original was still superior. The American version
again was slightly watered down and lost some of its
original impetus from.

Speaker 1 (11:55):
The really what about You? Greg? I mean that to
me is a good example where both films were good.

Speaker 4 (12:01):
Yeah a few times. There is that femin the tea
to the Luke Besson film that John Banham remade. It
was actually framed for frame remake, but still like something
of the original. But on the down side, one of
my favorite French films was The Intouchables.

Speaker 5 (12:18):
That that was a lovely Yet the Americans remate with
Brian Cranston and one of my least favorite actors, Kevin Hart.

Speaker 4 (12:25):
When they started up beyond belief there, it's just what's
whatever made the visual work? Now, I'm with Peter, I
don't know why sometimes with a marathons steel, I have
to remake a foreign language film, even frame by frame,
rather than just release the original with sub flodels and
hope for the best.

Speaker 1 (12:43):
But there's when you say hope for the best, that's
the reason Green and and Peter that you know.

Speaker 4 (12:47):
The original the original film worked for a reason, and
by softening the ending or changing the inning, or going
for a more cathartic ending, it doesn't work. Softens what
made the first film World.

Speaker 1 (13:02):
I don't disagree with what your collective thoughts are on this.
The concern that I've got is that unfortunately, so many
people will just refuse to go and see a foreign
language film. They want to hear it in English.

Speaker 2 (13:15):
And there's nothing wrong with giving it a go, you know,
and if they have a reason, maybe times have changed
in twenty years or whatever. Maybe times have changed and
there's a good reason to adapt what the originals. But
I think Alex, you're right in The Girl with the
Dragon Tattoo, and you mentioned that because it stands out

(13:35):
as being one of the very rare cessens in translation
if you like, you know, so to speak to an
American version.

Speaker 1 (13:47):
But I mean, you know, Jackie, I don't know whether
you've got friends like this, but I've got friends who
simply say we're not going to see a foreign language film.
I think it's It frustrates me because at time I'm
really going to recommend things to people, especially you know,
friends of yours. You want to sort of say, we'll
go along and see this film. It's amazing, and Alex.

Speaker 2 (14:06):
You know, we're not all the same people in this world,
and some people simply see reading the subtitles as actually
hard work. They just want to sit back and have
the film roll over them. So they're just I mean,
you know, I'm not interested in going.

Speaker 1 (14:20):
On stick that up. I don't disagree with what you're saying,
but let me pick it up as a as a
talking point. What I find And it's only me and
I wonder whether, well, because we're all reviewers, we think
similarly or not. I find that if you're into a movie,
whether you're reading or not, you don't even realize you're
reading after a period of time, and it doesn't take

(14:42):
a lot if you're if you get into something, you're
you're so involved, you're enveloped by the plot, by the narrative,
then you're not even conscious of it. Do you find
the same thing?

Speaker 2 (14:52):
Well, yes, yet I'm going to the film because I'm
going to talk about it with you on the radio.
My friend who maybe finds the reading of the hard work.
He's gone to a film because she wants to sit
back and have a chill night with the boyfriend. Okay,
different motivation for gold.

Speaker 1 (15:10):
But sorry, that wasn't the question. The question was if
you are reading a movie you Jackie Hamilton, are you
conscious if you're into the plot, that you're reading it
anymore or not?

Speaker 2 (15:22):
Probably not sure? Well, actually yes, it depends if I
can say it depends.

Speaker 1 (15:28):
If it's give me three possible answers here, right, yes, yes,
make double wine.

Speaker 2 (15:35):
I'm thinking on the flight here, I'm thinking if it's
French or German, because I'd studied those as languages. I
actually quite enjoy testing myself as to the vocabulary. It's
in the subtitles as to whether I'm understanding the French
at the same time as I'm reading it, So I

(15:56):
have to put my hand up and say, yes, I do.
I am conscious of reading it, and so I'm watching
it on another level. If you like testing my own
language skills.

Speaker 1 (16:07):
What about you, Peter?

Speaker 2 (16:09):
You who see Russian and I don't tend to do that.

Speaker 1 (16:14):
Peter, what's your thoughts about reading?

Speaker 2 (16:17):
Like?

Speaker 1 (16:18):
Do you are you conscious that you are reading to me?
I just just think well of ducks back. You certainly
notice it in the first few seconds, but once you're
indo it, you don't anythink it's about.

Speaker 3 (16:31):
I agree with you, it's I think people have moved
on and with the rise of world movies, with a
number of foreign language films, that have achieved Oscar's, etcetera.
Just thinking of the Korean and Japanese cinema that's doing
very well. Indeed, with the English subtitles, I don't think

(16:53):
that's an impediment anymore. For most people. It's about the story,
it's about characters. So it doesn't bother me at all.

Speaker 1 (17:06):
I'm just I've got to sell to you a story.
But my father was a translator and interpreter, and it
was quite amazing. He spoke, readen, whatever whatever, five languages,
and I saw him in a work environment. He was
an accountant. I saw him change without blinking an eyelid

(17:27):
from one language to another, to a third to a fourth.
I mean, that's a real skill set. I wish that,
you know, I struggle with English. I wish that I
had art of that. And that's that's part of the
European mentality because so many Europeans, and my father was
born in Austria, so many people have many languages. My
mother had three as well, so it's yeah, I mean,

(17:48):
I don't imagine, I've got no idea, but I imagine
if you're living in Europe, you don't think twice about it.

Speaker 3 (17:54):
Exactly, And it's so interesting. You said that because my
father was also born in Austria.

Speaker 1 (18:00):
Okay, so in he spoke a number of languages. No,
it was really only German, okay, and Greek? What about
you were your thoughts about? You know, do you are
you conscious of reading when you're seeing a foreign language film?

Speaker 2 (18:12):
Not so much.

Speaker 4 (18:13):
No, I know I'm reading subtle and everything. But I'm
all show letting you feel wash over me as well.
So yeah, and you pick up a bit of the language,
you should go along.

Speaker 1 (18:24):
Well, yes, I suppose, I mean. But the funny thing
is the only thing that bothers me is when there's
a spelling mistake, Jackie, like the wrong letter is used
or whatever. Can't they get that right? It's sort of
it's very funny. In fact, I've got to tell you,
folks it a story that you sent me a It

(18:48):
was just brilliant. The Hugh Jackman at the Oscars. What
year was it, Jackie, yesterday?

Speaker 2 (18:53):
A little two thousand and nine, I think, Aleck, yeah, two.

Speaker 1 (18:56):
Thousand and nine. And did you notice how it had
the subtitle? I don't know why it's subtitles on it. Golly,
there was a lot wrong with the subtitles. Did you
notice that when you were.

Speaker 2 (19:06):
Some of them are automatically generated, so so I you
can soon tell when subtitles are automatically generated on a
like a you know, a tictok or a you know,
just on a clip. But it's obviously I shouldn't be
for a film that going to a movie.

Speaker 1 (19:25):
It's funny in a film, there shouldn't be. But another story,
another war story here. Somebody sent me said to me,
I'm going to send you an AI generated story, and
I was a bit wary about it. They sent it
to me and it definitely read like I generated story.
So we're still some way away from being, you know,

(19:45):
seamless in terms of I'm not saying AI can't generate
some decent yarns. But firstly, factually they're offering correct and secondly,
the writing leaves a lot to be desired. But about
twenty minutes ago, you were talking about Speak No Evil.
Please give me some further thoughts.

Speaker 3 (20:06):
All right, well, just to conclude my review, the English
language version of Speak No Evil goes off the rails
in the last half hour and conforms to the typical
Hollywood stereotypes, and then we can see where the movie
is heading. Whereas the original was darker and had a

(20:28):
lot more to say about evil in families, and I
wish I could speak more evil of that original film
because that was such a superior film, so very disappointing
this English language remake.

Speaker 1 (20:46):
That's interesting. I hadn't seen the original Shtern, and having
heard you both speak about it, Greg and you, I
would really much like to see it. I also read,
I don't know whether the Jackie you read a pretty
distressing piece in the yesterday or the day before about
Grace Tame, the former Australian of the Year, and she
talked about having to leave her small hometown because of

(21:09):
the evil that was perpetrated upon her, which I found
extremely distressing reading. Did you you see that piece or not?
Got a left lengthy piece yesterday? Okay, So look, I
think I'm going to give it the high mark because
even though you know, I found I waited too long.
I was sort of thinking, well, when's it going to
ramp up a little bit? I'm going to give to

(21:30):
Speak No Evil an eight out of ten. It's rate
at em. It runs for one hundred and ten minutes,
and I didn't have anything to compare it to, so Jackie,
what are you giving it?

Speaker 2 (21:41):
I actually think a lot of people will like it.
We're quite critical of us, but a lot of people
who just want to go for an entertainment. I mean,
you know, they'll have fun. Not quite for me, I
gave it a six.

Speaker 1 (21:50):
And a half to seven, six and a half to seven.
All right, Well, I presume both of you the rest
are going to give it a lower score. So Greg,
what about you? What what are you going to give?
Speak No Evil?

Speaker 4 (22:02):
Even though it's the inning, he's a bit compromised from
the original. If you're going to do it six to
six and a half?

Speaker 1 (22:09):
Oh, okay, that's good, sir. So come on, mister raclcon trant,
what do you give Beta? It's not a movie anybody
should ever there's three of mankind things like that.

Speaker 3 (22:19):
Yes, not quite, but I give it a racalcitrant five
out of ten, a bear pass.

Speaker 1 (22:26):
You can't be a little bit more generous? No, okay,
five out of ten. Wow? But but do you take
Checkie's point that there will be people who will enjoy
this who haven't seen Because there'll be a lot of
people out there who won't have seen the original.

Speaker 3 (22:41):
There will be people who'll enjoy anything. It doesn't matter
what the film is, You'll always get her.

Speaker 1 (22:48):
But it wasn't the kind of response I was hoping for.
Thank you very much. A eight FM. You are listening
to first on Film and entertainment programming twenty four to seven,
great music, good stories being told and some interesting topics.
And if you want to become a member, fifty four
bucks will do that. As a community radio station, we

(23:10):
need your support, so just go do jdashair dot com
dot a. Now, Harold and the Purple Crayon. Now, Jackie,
this is a family film, the child's film. You usually
give children's films a ten out of ten. Don't you
no comment? Jackie hang on as she disappeared altogether. Probably

(23:34):
I didn't even realize that.

Speaker 2 (23:35):
Well, you can't hear me, but I'm still here.

Speaker 1 (23:38):
Oh. I don't know whether you were speaking or whether
you will you make and you're making hand signals?

Speaker 3 (23:44):
Were you?

Speaker 2 (23:47):
I was actually speaking, but for some reason I just
didn't never mind. I was saying that that jokers warm
thin and no, I'm quite happy to judge a film.

Speaker 1 (23:58):
You know how it book by its yeah, yeah, yeah,
all of that stuff. Uh, okay, this is based on
a book. So I see you donulge book brides cover?
Thank you nice?

Speaker 2 (24:10):
Yes, this has gone crazy yep.

Speaker 1 (24:12):
Yeah, well hang on, it's a crazy film, you know.
Like wouldn't be great to be able to draw something
and draw yourself out of difficulty when you get into strive.
That's exactly what the key character does. And with the
purple crayon, no less? Why purple? But in fact, I've
got to say that I have a member of my
family who whose favorite color is purple. That's a nice

(24:34):
starting point. What do you think of purple as a color? Jackie? Fine,
that's not acceptable? Fine? Okay? Oh gee, you know excite?

Speaker 2 (24:47):
Hey, why not purple? Well?

Speaker 1 (24:51):
I would have thought enticing, intoxicating, something a little bit
different left of center. There'd be expressions you use. What
expression would you use? Pse for purple?

Speaker 2 (25:01):
Oh?

Speaker 3 (25:02):
Look, I think it's quite acceptable. But just like any
other color, we all have our Well.

Speaker 1 (25:07):
Where if you want, what's your preference, Peter? What color
do you like? I like blue right, as in navy
or as in electric But I don't.

Speaker 3 (25:17):
Know, I haven't plugged one in, but but probably electric.

Speaker 1 (25:24):
Electric blue for Peter? Who would have thunk it? This
is Peter without walls in the home, right and unless
it blue a song boy icehouse, thank you very much,
very nice and too so. I like it Greek. What's
your favorite color?

Speaker 2 (25:39):
Blue?

Speaker 1 (25:40):
Really? And what blue? Electric? Or the sky? Blue or navy?

Speaker 4 (25:46):
I don't have any preference on the spectrum.

Speaker 1 (25:49):
Okay, as long as it's on the spectrum, you're happy
to have blue. I like it. At Jackie, what color?
Come on? Pick up one? Jackie disappeared? What is going
on with you?

Speaker 5 (26:04):
She's out of plugged Jackie's Yes, this is Jackie unplugged.
She really has disappeared. I think we've offended her sense
of color.

Speaker 2 (26:17):
No, no, I just I literally dropped out, literally dropped out.
But I'm here. And blue is the color?

Speaker 1 (26:25):
Is it now? Which which sort of blue for you?
We've had electric, neutral, blue, and say, I don't mind.

Speaker 2 (26:32):
I like baby blue, powdered blue, cornflower blue, navy blue,
electric blue?

Speaker 1 (26:39):
Okay? All right?

Speaker 2 (26:40):
And can you you can like and I also like orange.

Speaker 1 (26:44):
You like red and orange? Okay? Red, orange and blue? Okay?
Can you get you can guess Jackie my favorite color red,
black and red. Absolutely they go well that they're like
the perfect dinner, the perfect you're.

Speaker 2 (27:00):
Seeing them on Grand Final day.

Speaker 1 (27:01):
Will you thank you very much? I'm being hurt and
offended at the present time. Yes, that we're on the
way up. This is what I spoke to Richmond supporter
during the week who said there's only one way for
us to go up, and I said, no, there's also out.
He had the nineteenth team is coming into the competition.
What he was at Grege twenty twenty eight or something
with Tasmaia and nineteen is not a good number for

(27:24):
a number of football teams, so Richmond can go out.
I don't think they liked my response anyway. Harold and
the Purple Crayon PG rated ninety minutes. Isaaid, so what
if a cartoon world turned into real life? And that's
the premise at the heart of this movie, because Harold's
a manifestation of this vivid imagination of a writer called
Crockett Johnson who wrote the book, and he's the character

(27:48):
who well, he along with his buddies, Harold and his
buddies Moose and Porcupine. They they're the two friends who
are obviously a moose and a porcupine. They live their
lives in this delightful, adventurous bubble and they can effortlessly
get out of any predicament courtesy of Harald's magic purple crayon.

(28:10):
In other words, when they are in strife, he literally
draws them out of trouble. Very nice, indeed. And when
Harold grows up, he speaks with the narrator of the book,
you know, the or the narrator of the film being
the book's author, expressing a desire to experience the real world,
so to transpose from cartoon characters into a physical reality.

(28:34):
But then the narrator, who describes himself as an old man, disappears,
and Harold draws a door into the real world to
try to find him, and soon enough he's joined by
Mouse and Porcupine and they undertake this grand adventure with
their animated manifestations being turned into flesh and blood. And

(28:58):
involved in that are Harry, who's the mother of a
boy named Mel who has an imaginary friend. You know
how kids have imasury friends, so does Melt. And there's
also involved in this plot a devious librarian called Gary Natwick.
And it all starts when, having drawn an imaginary purple

(29:19):
bicycle in the physical world and with Moose as his passenger,
Harold is hit by Terry's car, and in no time
Terry and her son Mel are drawn into the chaotic
world of Harold etl as he tries to find his
old man right, he tries to find the person who

(29:42):
is the narrator. So it's a creative work of writers
David Guron and Michael Handelman, and the pair found success
with Dinner for Schmucks and Knight at the Museum, Secret
of the Tomb, And the question is how far does
one go with imagine a in a family film like this.

(30:02):
It's good humor, no question about that. I really enjoyed
most of it. My slight reservation came though, because I
thought some sequences landed better than others, and I suppose
that's the case with a lot of comedy. I thought
the ending kind of went a little bit too far,
but a sort of a dream sequence at the end there.

(30:22):
I appreciated the naivete I appreciated many of the site gags.
The actors. I thought they did a good job with
the material with which they have to work, and they
play their parts as kind of wide eyed innocence. Zachary
Levi or Levy? Is it Levy or Levi? Peter you know,
is it okay? Zachary Levi, Well, he plays Harold. He's
the glue that bones the production together. Tanya Reynolds is

(30:44):
a hoot as Paul Cupine really enjoyed her and Lil
Lil rel Howery is a lot of fun as Moose
enjoys that role. I really liked Zuey de Chan as
the mum Derry and Benjamin. But Tani is really impressive
as her Son. I thought he did a really good job.
The tone in the voiceover, wasn't that pitch perfect? A

(31:08):
great voice of Alfred Molina. And we should remember the
passing of James Earl Jones, one of the great voices,
one of the great actors, and isn't he one of
the only ones is one? What is it to Tony
and Emmy an Oscar dadi dadi dao. Yes, yes, he

(31:28):
got a lot, No I know, so what does he
got stand for?

Speaker 3 (31:32):
Emmy, Grammy, Remi and Tony thank you very much, well done?

Speaker 1 (31:38):
But what very sad? But he lived ninety three to
ninety three years of age. And you know that he
sold he sold his voice talent I think a year ago.
So his voice is going to live on in a
sort of an AI creation the world, the future world.
I think that's brilliant. I think that because I loved

(32:00):
his voice. It was terrific. But Alfred Molina is pitch
perfect the tone in his voice over for Harold and
the Purple Crayon. So by and large, the combination I
thought of animation and live action works really effectively, especially
when purple crayon sketches become real and it's sort of
fish out of water story. The director is Carlos Saldana,

(32:20):
and Carlos adds a bit of flair and frivolity to
the movie. What do you think, Jacqueline, Harold and the
Purple Carraon.

Speaker 2 (32:29):
I'm so sorry it didn't do it for me. I
know the book and once I read the book to
my children when they were young. But we went through
the picture book together and it was absolutely delightful and
it had a lot to say, but it was a
very simple picture book and it had a simple theme
to it. Whereas this film talk about films going to

(32:53):
the Hollywood edge, this really did. Just it's a shame
that it's got the same name as the book because
it really isn't anything.

Speaker 1 (33:02):
Well, but isn't it the starting wone for the film
hist your premise, Yes, yeah, you.

Speaker 2 (33:08):
Know, way off with you know, villains and dragons and anyway,
there's some clever things in it. I quite like that
wild West scene where they have to shall we say,
draw their weapons, and their weapons are everything from the
you know, the lasso and the acts and the slinky
and that sort of thing, and they had the wild

(33:29):
West music going, and there were quite a few little
cute things going on there. The boy in the film
was particularly good, but I didn't really take to the characters,
and I didn't really get the age group. This was
full because there were a couple of very scary things
in Harold and the Purple Crayon, specifically that Spye the

(33:53):
fly creature that was scary.

Speaker 1 (33:55):
I agree, But but anyhow, it's got a PG rating. So
what is parental guide mean to you?

Speaker 2 (34:00):
Jack?

Speaker 1 (34:01):
About ten year old, nine year old something like that?
I would have thought, oh no, no, no PG.

Speaker 2 (34:08):
You'd want it to be for five and up, six
and up PG.

Speaker 1 (34:12):
That's parental guidance. I mean, well, that's interesting. I don't know,
what what do you read and do it? Greg? If
you see PG, what have you seen Harold and purple
grown or not yet?

Speaker 4 (34:22):
I had I was there last Saturday when you were there, Alex.

Speaker 1 (34:25):
I'm sorry, did I ignore you totally? I'm sorry about that. So,
but I'm talking PG as a rating. When you when
you see that, I think older than five?

Speaker 2 (34:35):
Do you?

Speaker 1 (34:36):
Or do you not?

Speaker 2 (34:37):
Oh?

Speaker 4 (34:37):
Look up to said twelve. I think he's five because
the m raty is next and it's fifteen. So yeah, anyway, sorry,
from five or fifteen?

Speaker 1 (34:50):
Do you think five as well as a starting point?
Do you? Wow? That's interesting? And Peter, what about your.

Speaker 4 (34:54):
Well, A lot of a lot of some of the
animated films recently have been PG, so that they still
are armed the kids.

Speaker 1 (35:02):
Yeah, but I mean when you say kids, so.

Speaker 2 (35:04):
I think parental guidance means exactly that. It means you
judge the maturity of your child and whether they're a
nervous child or they've had a lot of experience with
movies and they know what you expect and they've got
an imagination or not. And also parental guidance is the
parents can speak with them about whatever the themes or
issues might be afterwards, so it's not so much an

(35:26):
age then as you make the parent makes a judgment
on their child's ability to handle whatever.

Speaker 1 (35:31):
That. I fully understand that, and I respect what you've
just said, but I kind of Peter, have you seen
Harold in a purple crayon? What age group do you
think it's aimed at? Yes?

Speaker 3 (35:41):
I have. You also need to look at the advisories
that go with the rating, so sometimes it says language
or mild violence or whatever. So I agree with Jackie,
it's not necessarily a minimum age, although I would suspect
at least five or six for a film like this.

Speaker 2 (36:04):
Well, it's the picture, the picture book, but you know
that Johnson was actually for age two. It's a little
picture book and it's to teaching children about the value of,
you know, using your imagination. So it's a simple thing,
whereas this film takes a simple young picture book theme
and turns it into quite an adventure with some scary

(36:26):
things going on.

Speaker 1 (36:28):
So you were really disappointed in it, basically, Oh yes, hmm, okay,
that that is just money.

Speaker 2 (36:35):
The characters weren't great, but the.

Speaker 1 (36:38):
Wit a second, I wanted to pick you up on
that porkip wasn't fortypine terrific. You didn't think.

Speaker 2 (36:43):
Bot she I didn't find any any energy in her
at all.

Speaker 1 (36:49):
Wow, totally the opposite. I reckon you saw a different movie.
What about you, Greg, Did you like Porcupie and Moose?
You thought quite enjoyed the film.

Speaker 4 (36:58):
I thought it was a lot of fun, and I
agree with some of the stuff.

Speaker 1 (37:01):
She actually said. They're the kids.

Speaker 4 (37:02):
The kid who was great, I thought, And I liked
e zactly Lee. But he had a sort of sense
of sarcasm and innocence about He's got a sort of
toild like innocence about the role he played here. But
I like the flights of fantasy, fantasy when he drew
all these different things to help them get out of trouble,
like the little health planes and all sorts of cars,

(37:23):
putting spares tires on cars and all that sort of stuff.
It's just a wonderful fantasy there. But it's also got
some great scenes to explore, like the importance of family,
importance of imagination, trust, all that kind of thing. At
well shot and did well. I liked Jermaine Clement as
the nasty librarian there.

Speaker 1 (37:42):
With a bit driven by Gary that character. Yeah, I
thought he was a great character as well.

Speaker 4 (37:51):
And I thought that showdown between the two towards the
end there was well played for laughs, lots of space
overdotioning in special effects as usual with Hollyoo films there.
But you know, I quite enjoyed this, I thought, and
it's kind of appealed to a fairly broad audience.

Speaker 1 (38:06):
I would have thought, did you like the fantasy thing
at the end? I didn't. I thought that that wasn't
necessary en wory me. Okay, So what about you, Pete?
You like your purple grounds?

Speaker 3 (38:18):
Not particularly, I prefer electric blue. But anyway, I was
disappointed by this film because it doesn't know its audience.
I was unsure as to whether the film was pitched
as a young audience to develop imagination and fantasy, or
whether it was meant to be for adults which look

(38:42):
at the whole notion of family and putting together the
notion of being creative.

Speaker 1 (38:51):
And pay the contada builder both. I didn't.

Speaker 3 (38:55):
I don't think it did because there was a There
are a lot of scenes that were very derivative, were
very Hollywood, and didn't quite nail it in so far
as the whole notion of imagination, which is what the
original picture books were all about. I felt that Jermaine

(39:18):
Clement's character as the villain was an unnecessary Lord of
the Rings type of character, even though the film was
shot in New Zealand. But I was disappointed by Zoey
Deschanel's character.

Speaker 1 (39:36):
Very good actress, Yeah way, what did you want to?
I thought you was terrific.

Speaker 3 (39:41):
I thought she was just so laid back and had
very little to do, and was given a poor dialogue
in many respects, just the reactionary dialogue that didn't really
advance Zachary Levi's character and their interactions. It look it
was directed by Carlos Sealandana, who originally directed animations, and

(40:10):
this is his first live action combo animation direction, and
it shows because he is a bit lost as to
what he is trying to do or to say. And
I must admit I was disappointed by the whole creation
because I would have liked the film to be more imaginative,

(40:32):
more family friendly, and to really talk more about being creative,
and the film failed to do that for me.

Speaker 1 (40:45):
You and Jackie agree with one another on this, and
Greg and I are much more inclined the other way.
So it's one of these divisional type films. Greg, I
presume I'm going to give her a six and a
half to a seven. It's Harold and the Purple Grayond
and it runs an hour and a half PG rated.
What would you give it? I'd do it, Si sou
send Okay, so a little bit lower. So Peter, are

(41:07):
you going to pass it?

Speaker 3 (41:10):
I can only give it four out of ten on
the three.

Speaker 1 (41:12):
Right, goalie, So it fails to attract even a younger
audience here Egon wouldn't like it. No, I think they'd
be bored, Okay, Jackie.

Speaker 2 (41:24):
Yes, I just gave it a five. I agree with
everything Peter said. It didn't go to oneer words. I
would have loved it if it had been an animation
along the lines of the start of the film, but
maybe a little more sophisticated than that, rather than being
an entirely you know what we know is a Hollywood
animation film. But just keep it really simple and true

(41:46):
to the book and develop just the imagination idea of it.
Without all the extras. It would have been quite a
different film, and I think it could have been quite special.

Speaker 1 (41:55):
And so you don't think it works to sort of
have both, because I thought it was the cleverness in
the film.

Speaker 2 (42:01):
So Dad, if it had been clever, it would have worked.
But I didn't think it was clever at all. I
thought it was quite lame in those the characters. And
as Peter Riggs I said, the dialogue was lame.

Speaker 1 (42:15):
Well, that is the crayon's been written off Bonnard, Pierre
and Marta rated him A runs for two hours and
three minutes. Now here we go. This is a foreign
language picture that I thought was quite interesting, because I
mean I was, well, firstly, let me start there, were

(42:35):
you aware, Peter of the painter Pierre Bonard before you
saw this movie?

Speaker 3 (42:42):
No, I was not.

Speaker 1 (42:43):
Ah, Okay, I was, but I didn't know a lot
about him. I wasn't aware of Marta Bonard, his wife.
But look the truth behind the complicated relationship between the Peter,
who was a French post impressionist Pierre Bonnard lived from
eighteen sixty seven to nineteen forty seven and his wife Marta. Well,

(43:07):
it may forever be illusory because there are different representations
of it, but as it is, it remains subject to interpretation.
Now that doesn't prevent the co writer with Mark Abdulnaw,
and it doesn't prevent Martin provoss who's the person I'm
talking about from Penning, quite a fascinating biopic focusing upon

(43:30):
this relationship. So Pierre was an up and coming painter
when he putner Me chanced upon Marta in Paris in
eighteen ninety three. So let's do a bit of arithmetic,
that would have meant that he was about twenty six
years of age and asked her to model for him.
So quite a striking woman. She presented herself as a

(43:50):
seamstress for an artificial flower maker. But the truth was
something different, wasn't it, Peter. The sparks between them flew immediately.
They were besotted with one another, and they were sort
of hopping into the cot constantly, and as you are
when you sort of start out a relationship. She actually
became his muse, but what she didn't care for was

(44:14):
his aristocratic French living in the Paris friends and the
couple ended up settling in to a remote country life
because that's what she preferred. He was dedicated to his art,
and it was also an unmistakable womanizer, something that caused

(44:35):
her a great deal of angst. Still, she stood by him,
even when he took a special interest in one young
lover called Renee Watch chatty led by Stacy Martin, who
basically this was interesting too. She for a time moved
in with the pair, So you had the wife and
the lover in the same house. Now, among those with

(45:00):
whom they kept company, I'm talking about Pierre and his wife.
Marta was one of the big fellow artists of the time,
Claude Money. Money was older than Pierre Bonard. But yeah,
good friend, and it appears that this sort of libertarian
lifestyle was not just the domain of Pierre Bonard. Now

(45:22):
I'm not sure how much of that's true, although I
have heard and read that it was true, So you know,
maybe they stretched a bit in this movie. But nevertheless,
that sort of became a mainstay of this in terms
of the narrative. So notably, regardless of the affairs that
he had, Pierre was inevitably drawn back to his wife

(45:45):
and clearly cared for her deeply. At times. She struggled
though with this is the wife with asthma, and later
in life her mental health deteriorated. Martin Provostroil has painted
a picture of an intriguing couple and the company that
they kept a lot of jealousy and jealousy abounds with

(46:06):
the wife, and you know, it's understandable. I'm not just
talking about martydo in terms of jealousy. And I actually
found the film, which takes the form of this turbulent
love story, quite intelligent. It was engaging, it was quite compelling,
and for Pierre subterfuge appears to be the order of
the day, because I mean, he was juggling things whilst
he was really committed to his craft, namely his art,

(46:29):
he's still found time for a bit of hanky panky
and otherwise. The questions posed what could he get away
with and how much was Marta prepared to take? And
the answer to the latter was a great deal little.
And not to be a bit too churlish about it,
I reckon the reason for the lifestyle, the reason that
she did sort of stay around. Part of it was

(46:52):
the lifestyle that afforded her given her own history, which
I won't go into detail with here, but there's no
question that she loved him as well. I really appreciated
the representation of her by Cecil de France, who I
like as an actor. She brings this sort of buoyancy
and zest and feistiness and also a sense of being
worn down to the role. Then Vincent McCain is more

(47:15):
secretive and aloof as Pierre, although he starts out with
a great deal of vigor, I might say, reflective of
a twenty six year old Stacy Martin makes a good
fist of her persona as the engine you who has
her eyes well and truly opened. Really beautiful cinematography, really
lovely lush surrounds. Another feature of Bonnard Pierre and Marta

(47:37):
Golam Schiffman, who was the cinematographer of the Artist. He
is responsible great movie, The Artist, by the way, the
black and white film that won the Oscar and he's
the one as a cinematographer that transports us into a
world rich with natural and man made beauty in a
movie that very clearly deals with the wandering eye as

(47:58):
well as art. So yeah, I enjoyed Bonnard Pierre and Arta.
I'm not sure that it needed to go on for
two hours and three minutes, but I know that doesn't
trouble you. If the movie was twenty hours, it wouldn't
trouble you better, would it?

Speaker 3 (48:11):
No?

Speaker 1 (48:11):
Very artistic? Yes, thank you? So what did you think
of it?

Speaker 3 (48:17):
I liked it. It's one of a slew of French
films that have been made over the last fifteen twenty
years which look at the artistic temperament and in particular painters, artists, sculptors, etc.
And this one deals with Pierre Bonard, who was an
Impressionist painter who obviously had his affairs and dalliances, but

(48:42):
it was devoted to his wife and he encouraged her
to also become a painter, which the film also reveals.
It's welve shot in surroundings which mimic the villa that
they lived in for fifty plus years, and it just

(49:06):
has that glow and feel to it about the artistic life,
good business of art and relationships, and also the whole
notion of being loyal or devoted to a partner.

Speaker 1 (49:25):
I liked it.

Speaker 3 (49:26):
It's a well made film. I read up about the
original story and yes, it is largely based on fact, and.

Speaker 1 (49:39):
Mind you I read I read alternate version. I did
read alternative versions better that there's some question marks about
exactly what went on and why, which I kind of
It's interesting when you see a movie you haven't read
much about it, you can'd of believe that the movie
is unt to present, truthful and of course that's a
dangerous thing to do. Of course history is off rewritten,

(50:00):
isn't it in the eyes of the beholder? And it
sort of reminded me. And there's a strange sort of
deviation for me to take here. But my wife had
some friends over, well not over, but who she hadn't
seen for about forty years, and we were talking about

(50:21):
their perceptions of the US presidential election and boys that divisive.
You know, the talk during the week about eating cats
and dogs and basically stealing geese. That was the latest version.
Now you know, you can take that literally or you
can take it as a poetic license in a big way.

(50:44):
And it's interesting how different people, depending upon your political persuasion,
choose to believe one way or the other. So, yeah,
I just but I mean, it is a good movie.
It's quite compelling. Did you not think it could have been.

Speaker 3 (50:56):
A chuter No. I've seen much longer films that deal
with the artist's life, and I felt this one was
quite adequate with its time frame.

Speaker 1 (51:09):
Okay, well, let's get a score from you. Bonard Pierre
and Marta am I rated undred and twenty three? What
are you giving it? Yeah?

Speaker 3 (51:16):
No, it is largely based on a first story and
not on a delusional ranting of a potential president. But anyway, Bonard,
I like very much, and I gave it seven out
of ten, and I gave it seven and a half.

Speaker 1 (51:34):
Greg you're catching up with it. Yeah, I haven't seen
it yet. No, that's fair enough. We're over and done
with and unfortunately Jackie had to leave us, so farewell
Jackie in her absence, Peter, thanks very much. Indeed, Gregory,
a pleasure to have you with me as well, and
we will do it all again very very soon. First
on film and entertainment. Enjoy your week, folks. Have fun,