October 26, 2024 • 56 mins
**Host:** Alex First
**Guest Critics:** Jaqui Hammerton, Peter Krause, Greg King
**Episode Summary:**
In this spirited episode of First on Film and Entertainment, Alex First is joined by Jaqui Hammerton, Peter Krause, and Greg King to explore the intricacies of cinema and critique. The conversation kicks off with a playful debate on the absence of football and its cultural impact, segueing into a discussion about the evolving role of film critics in today's media landscape. The critics then dive into the period drama *The Critic*, with Alex and Jacqui praising Ian McKellen's compelling performance, while Peter offers a more critical perspective on the film's character development. The episode also features a thorough analysis of *The Apprentice*, a provocative portrayal of Donald Trump's rise, which sparks a lively debate about the film's depiction of power and corruption. Finally, the Timms tackles *Joker: Folie à Deux*, discussing its daring musical elements and the performances of Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga. The episode is filled with passionate critiques, humour, and thoughtful insights, making it a must-listen for film enthusiasts.
**Highlights:**
- **The Critic:** Ian McKellen's portrayal of a powerful drama critic in 1930s London is both praised and critiqued, with discussions on the film's exploration of power and manipulation.
- **The Apprentice:** A deep dive into the controversial depiction of Donald Trump's early years, examining the film's balance of fact and fiction and its commentary on power dynamics.
- **Joker: Folie à Deux:** The critics offer mixed reviews on this musical sequel, debating its portrayal of mental illness and the chemistry between its lead actors.
This episode of First on Film and Entertainment offers a rich tapestry of film reviews and cultural commentary. With engaging discussions on the role of critics, the nature of power, and the artistic risks taken in modern cinema, listeners are in for a captivating experience. Tune in 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.
**Guest Critics:** Jaqui Hammerton, Peter Krause, Greg King
**Episode Summary:**
In this spirited episode of First on Film and Entertainment, Alex First is joined by Jaqui Hammerton, Peter Krause, and Greg King to explore the intricacies of cinema and critique. The conversation kicks off with a playful debate on the absence of football and its cultural impact, segueing into a discussion about the evolving role of film critics in today's media landscape. The critics then dive into the period drama *The Critic*, with Alex and Jacqui praising Ian McKellen's compelling performance, while Peter offers a more critical perspective on the film's character development. The episode also features a thorough analysis of *The Apprentice*, a provocative portrayal of Donald Trump's rise, which sparks a lively debate about the film's depiction of power and corruption. Finally, the Timms tackles *Joker: Folie à Deux*, discussing its daring musical elements and the performances of Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga. The episode is filled with passionate critiques, humour, and thoughtful insights, making it a must-listen for film enthusiasts.
**Highlights:**
- **The Critic:** Ian McKellen's portrayal of a powerful drama critic in 1930s London is both praised and critiqued, with discussions on the film's exploration of power and manipulation.
- **The Apprentice:** A deep dive into the controversial depiction of Donald Trump's early years, examining the film's balance of fact and fiction and its commentary on power dynamics.
- **Joker: Folie à Deux:** The critics offer mixed reviews on this musical sequel, debating its portrayal of mental illness and the chemistry between its lead actors.
This episode of First on Film and Entertainment offers a rich tapestry of film reviews and cultural commentary. With engaging discussions on the role of critics, the nature of power, and the artistic risks taken in modern cinema, listeners are in for a captivating experience. Tune in 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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
First on Film and Entertainment. A very good morning, good afternoon,
and good evening to all and sundry. And we've got
the team together. We have got Jackie Hamerton, we have
got Peter Krause, We've got Greg King. So it's a
happy bunch of Vegemites. And got to say to you
that I'm missing my football, Gregory King. I mean, I've
(00:21):
been watching the women's game and I've actually got a
little bit out of it because the Mighty Bombers are winning.
But you know, what do I do for six months? Greg?
You know, I'm watching England sort of trounce what is
it Pakistan in the cricket and stuff like that, and
the spring racing Carnival. But can't we have football two
seasons in the year men's competition? Greg? Can't we?
Speaker 2 (00:44):
I know, I feel know how it field should go
six months out? Well, but there's so many other things
you can do, alic books, thread films to watch, lots
of colorful things to do like that. I actually find
I have more time now to do some things.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Oh no, no, Well, the interesting thing is this week
I spoke to one of the publicists and they said
to me, oh, would you be interested in reviewing a book.
And I said, well, I don't. Traditionally I read a
lot of news, but I don't traditionally have a lot
of time to read a book. What's it about? And
they said AFL football. Suddenly, yes, exactly. I started drooling
(01:20):
at that point. Greg, Now that's how desperate I've become.
Can you relate to that, Jackie Hamerton, because you're a
Melbourne supporter and everything about Melbourne has been toxic in
recent times. Correct, Oh, Alex.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
Welcome to First on Film and Air Taine.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
I'm air. I am being entertained, so it's all right,
it's legitimate. You can answer the question as as a
long suffering Demon supporter.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
It's a question was it about film or was it
about football?
Speaker 1 (01:49):
Well, it could be about film and football. As for
film and football, Peter Krause, I mean, if you're the Douyen,
are you not? You and football are like sliced cheese
and the nuclear.
Speaker 4 (02:01):
I have just spoken to the director of Like My
Brother about four young women aspiring to be in the
af L. W would you believe?
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Really?
Speaker 3 (02:14):
Wow?
Speaker 1 (02:16):
I'm okay. So if that is the case, would you
go along and watch them? If they make it no.
Is that what's called empathy for the cause?
Speaker 4 (02:31):
It's a good film and the story is interesting, but
I still am not interested in football.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
I'm so disappointed out and I wanted to take you along.
I still want to take you along to a game
of football. You might change your mind, may you not?
Could you not? Never?
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Could you?
Speaker 4 (02:50):
On my wildest dreams.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
But you care deeply and passionately about me. So you're
showing your commitment to the cause.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
Doesn't that mean passionately? Oh my goodness, when did that happen?
Speaker 1 (03:02):
I'm making it happen. That's the sort of guy that
I am. Isn't it a good thing?
Speaker 4 (03:07):
How passionate you are. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
Now, I want to start talking about the role of
the critic, because that's what we are. And I've had
quite a few discussions about this over the last couple
of weeks because the film has recently opened, called the Critic,
And my opinion is that we are not as important
as a collective as we were in the past, when,
(03:31):
for example, reading the next day's paper was critically important
to the success of a show or indeed a movie
that with so many influences. Things are changing and I'm
not saying it's for the better or for the worse.
I'm just saying the status quo is, well, somebody else
may have seen it, and if they recommend it, I'll
go along and see it. But otherwise don't worry about it.
(03:54):
What do you think better?
Speaker 4 (03:55):
Well, I think there are two issues here. One is
that people now regard critics mainly only for the bigger pictures,
the tent pole films and so on, and if they
align with their views then they'll go and see it.
But secondly, the role of the critic now, I think
(04:16):
is to promote and push independent, low budget Australian films
and overseas films that the audience needs to pay attention to.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
But hang, I'm that surely that's showing your personal buyers there.
I mean, you can't say that's the role of the critic.
It is a role of a critic if that wants
to be the role of the critic, not critics in general.
I disagree with that because, I mean, ultimately too we
see so many movies. I long to see something vivlid difference,
(04:48):
something that is challenging, etc. But there are a lot
of people out there who won't go and see foreign
language movies who simply want to see the big blockbusters.
So have we not got a role to play? It's
talking about the big blockbusters still.
Speaker 4 (05:02):
Well, yes, to know, I mean, people bet so much
social media and see other people review things that professional
critics like us are not necessarily paid attention to.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
It's interesting. This is the experience I had during this week, Jackie.
This will not surprise you one iota. There is a
person who, believe it or not, unlike your good self,
likes to follow what I say and do and write
and so forth. And I recommended, highly recommended that they
go and see the substance. They were horrified. They actually
(05:37):
said to me, They rang me and said, my husband
says I should not follow you anymore. How does one
respond to that, Jackie?
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Oh well, I totally agree with that person. But I
would say it's not necessarily that anyone in the wider
community with access to social media or anything less or
even can talk about it a film or a book
for that matter, or anything. The word review is a
(06:09):
bit strong. I would say, usually influences promote because you know,
they're not being discretionary about it, they're not being critical
about it.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
As a critic may.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Be it's just more in the realm of promotion rather
than critiquing.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
Well, it's interesting. I don't know whether you saw the
article only in the last twenty four hours about Jessica
Chastain on an aircraft. Did you have you read that
or any of you? No?
Speaker 3 (06:36):
No, okay, now, don't read the gossip columns, columns.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Yep, what about your life, Jackie life about there?
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Yeah, that's it. That's enough going on in my life
without regain.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
So there was there was a she lodged a sort
of an online complaint I think on I think it's
x or one of these platforms whereby the entertainment system
wasn't working on the aircraft and everybody on the aircraft was. Well,
she didn't know this at the time, but she was
offered a fifteen dollars refund. I think this was in
(07:10):
the right and then she still complained about it, and
then people sort of complained about her complaints, saying that
she's entitled and all that sort of stuff, and it
went on and on and on. So it became rather
than a praising, it became a criticism. And somebody who
obviously is seen to be a high profile and in
(07:33):
not so much in need of resourcing as other people. Yeah,
so it's fascinating that which has absolutely nothing to do
with being a critic.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Where did that come from, Alex Well?
Speaker 1 (07:44):
No, Well, I suppose that she assumed the role as
somebody with a public profile of criticism of an airline
because it didn't provide the service.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Look, you're confusing the word criticism with a critic or
critiquing something.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
I'm deliberately doing this to inflame the debate, and I'm
talking true. Well, you're being.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Highly successful once again and in flaighed debates.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
And I've said many times my job is to make
you utterly exasperated. Have I succeeded?
Speaker 3 (08:18):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Yeah, fantastic. Now, Greg, you do you read a lot
of books, but you're a film critic. I've never have
you ever been a book critic. I've written a few
books reviews for the blurb, Right, and do you are
you just as vociferous in your commentary when you're reviewing
(08:42):
a book as you are a film.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Probably only review books that I like, Ah, which looks
I'm not going to waste time reveal your book I
don't like, but maybe like read your book.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
I struggled with I'll sell finish your book, I'll return
into the library. But that's about as far as I'll go.
But if there's a book I really like, you know,
I fly through and I feel, you know, I've enjoyed,
I like to share that with some people.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
And the same thing with sad reviews.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
I've written a few of them in the past as
well with sods of people I like, and I just
want to review the record.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
So yeah, I do bratch you out, Alex. Okay. So
here's here's the question. When you don't like something, and
this is quite frequent for Peter and Jackie, when you
don't like something, is it easier to be critical than
it is to be praiseworthy or is it more enjoyable
(09:39):
to be critical than praiseworthy As a critic, Peter.
Speaker 4 (09:43):
Kraus, neither. I think. I call it as I see it,
and I can just as easily review and criticize a
good film or film that I've really enjoyed, as well
as a film that I didn't enjoy. So I don't
think it makes any difference.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
Jack find you're a little bit you're something you really
enjoy or something you really dislike. You are a bit
more passionate with your writing about it. I think you
are able to express yourself a lot better something you're
just the you know, you struggle a little bit to
write about it as much. I think things you really
enjoy or really dislike you're you're writing this shoulder.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
I totally agree with you agree. I think that that,
oh I've done something wrong.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
You're agreeing in the other I am.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
But because there if it's middle of the road, you
kind of you know it is. It's sort of oh
well it was okay. Uh, and and you sort of
then struggling a bit more to sort of say balance,
put put the balance in there and say you can
still say what you liked and didn't like, but you
you don't walk out of there. Because I remember that
(10:50):
film that I can't remember that name, not ironically, the
one with Dame Judy Dench said in the in the
British Medical System in a hospital that came out of
think it was last year or the year before. I
had some really fine actors in it, and it was
just a pr exercise for the British Health Service. And
I loathed that film. I thought it was absolutely disgraceful,
(11:13):
and whoever cared to listen, I said, for you know,
I was going to use another word, but don't go
along and see it. You're never going to get those
two hours back. And I've felt really strongly about it. Likewise,
we talked about the new Joker movie, or we will
be talking about the new Joker movie. I thought that
the original one was extraordinary and I highly recommended it.
(11:35):
Or you know, there's a number of other movies over
the distance that I really felt strongly about and urged
people see the same thing. About theater. I've seen three
extraordinary performances this year, one by the Way, which is
coming back, which I will see. We're talking about it.
I'll mention it now if any of you can go
along and see Murder for two at the Art Center,
(11:58):
which is coming back in early December. It's one of
the great, great, great shows that I've seen, and it'll
be at the Fairfax at the Art Center. It just
it was amazing how much loved it got and I
knew nothing about it going in. So that's a beautiful thing. Now, Jackie,
what about your views on criticism and whether it's he's.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
It Greig Greg took the words out of my mouth.
Of course, it's much easier to write if you've got
stronger feelings about something.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
Okay, well, so this is where you can be critical
of me at any time. Jackie. It's good, thank you, Yeah, fantastic.
So let's talk about the movie. It's ninety nine minutes.
It's called The Critic and it is rated M and
I suppose it does really ask the question what weight
should want assign to the critic and enormous If there's
any truth to what's contained in what is a searing
(12:54):
period drama, it's period drama, comes thriller, and we're talking
about London in nineteen thirty four and for four decades,
the character played by Ian McKellen, who's known as Jimmy Erskine,
has been the chief drama critic of a newspaper that
doesn't exist called the Daily Chronicle. And he's arrogant, he's entitled,
(13:15):
he's noted for his poisoned pen, and he wields that
pen as a sword of honor. And really the reason
he does this in a sense is that such is
his power that he can make or break careers. So Jimmy, well,
he is gay. He drinks like a fish, and he's
got a young male assistant played by Alfie Enoch. An
(13:38):
actress who's been trying to win his favor for a
decade is Nina Land and she's played by Gemma Artisan.
Yet inevitably she's merely received his vitriol. And yet after
another scathing review of her latest performance, her mother, Anna
Belle played by Leslie Manvel, encourage the actor to confront
(14:02):
Jimmy in person, which she does, and then on the
eve of another show opening in which she's the lead,
Nina is a nervous wreck and decides to ask Jimmy
for advice. Little does she know it, but in time,
he'll use their association to instigate a nefarious plan because
(14:26):
in the background, the Daily Chronicle newspaper is undergoing change.
The former owner who first employed Jimmy has passed away
and his son, David Brooke played by Mark Strong As
assumed control of the paper and brooks out to reinvigorate
the newspaper. And Jimmy's far from safe because of the
(14:49):
venom and is writing and the way that he personally
conducts himself. So when Jimmy appears to be cornered, he
uses Nina who is desperately chasing f and acclamation in
a sordid game that will have dire consequences. And this
is a reimagining of a novel called Curtain Call by
(15:09):
Anthony Quinn. I thought it was really compelling piece of work.
It's written by Patrick Marber who did Notes on a
scandal directed by ann An Tucker, who was responsible for
When Did You See When Did You Last See Your Father?
Very well written, I thought, very well executed. Likewise, strong
sense of exploitation is at stock in trade and it
deals with picking soft spots and turning the screws to
(15:33):
breaking point. Reminded me. I think I'm right in saying
it was a British politician called Lord Acton, a nineteenth
century polly who said that power tends to corrupt and
absolute power corrupts absolutely. That was Lord Acton, was it not, folks, Yes? No,
no recollection of that statement, okay. Well. Ian McKellen delivers
(15:54):
I thought one of the performances of his long and
storied career. He is really expressive, his seemingly with an
answer for everything. In playing the role of Jimmy and
Jimma Arterton is demonstrative as Nina land, she's vulnerable, she's
also driven to succeed at all costs. I thought the
production value is the period detail in the critic was
(16:16):
very good, in which the tangled web of deceit and
blackmail makes for quite thrilling entertainment. So that was my
thought on the critic. Did you did you bear criticism
of the critic, Jacqueline?
Speaker 3 (16:31):
The critic for me is just about the complete package
of a really enjoyable film, enjoyable entertainment. I think it was.
There wasn't really much I didn't like about it. I
just sat there and got involved into that thickening, the
(16:51):
thickening threads of this plot even more tangled, and it's
so theatricals. It's got that vintage flavor right through it.
In the close ups and the lighting, you know, that
kind of dim lighting as you know, nefarious things are
going on. The acting beautiful, led by Ann McAllen.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
As you see it is just like wow.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
He is amazing, and it's.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
Like it's like a Tim Tam biscuit, the best you
could ever have. He was so compelling, Jackie.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
I agree with you only if you like Tim tam biscuits.
It's just great activity.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
He doesn't like Tim Tam biscuits. Do you not like
Tim Dam's controversy here? Do you not like a Tim Tam? Yes?
Speaker 3 (17:40):
But I prefer Ann McCullen.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
Right there was in this role.
Speaker 3 (17:46):
I think I just think he's he's masterful in this
He's memorable and masterful. But it's also because the whole
the whole stage is set for him in that lighting
and the language and the and this quite old fashioned
kind of plotting going on. You know, it's a very
vintage flavor through the film. The critic and and in fact,
(18:10):
all of the cast I think are brilliant. I like
all of the cast and all of the characters that
they portray. And much as he's horrible the critic, much
as he is a horrible person, I couldn't hate him,
because you know, he's manipulative and cruel, and I wouldn't
want him as my friend. I wouldn't want him as
(18:30):
my enemy either. But I just really enjoyed watching him
and saying what he was up to.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
I think that's an interesting juxtaposition because I'm not sure
how many actors could actually pull this off, so that
he is the epitome of evil. In the one hand,
On the other hand, you sort of appreciate the bomb
bast you know, that's.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
It's Alex, it's the twinkle in the eye. I think
that gets you through this because he is playing a
game here, and you know, I guess it's just in
his nature to be manipulative and to be self serving
and pompous and always going for, you know, what's going
to be the best outcome for himself. He's a pretty
(19:13):
horrible person really.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
Now I make a bet here that Peter is going
to be contrere because he's just the recaul strant. Are
you a contrere calcitrant? Yes? Come on, tell me what
didn't you like about the critic?
Speaker 4 (19:26):
Veto I revel when being a recalcitant.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Middle name, isn't it? You know it's Peter R. Kraus correct,
Thank you very much, Yes, of course.
Speaker 4 (19:40):
Okay. Look, Patrick Martha did such a good job on
Notes on a scandal that was an increasingly volatile drama,
very well written, excellent character creation. I think he's dropped
the ball in writing the Critic. He's given a terrific
role or written a true role for Ian McKellen and
(20:03):
for his role as a trenchant theater critic in the
nineteen thirties. But he has underwritten everyone else's part in
the film, and so the focuses is purely on him,
and we don't really see the machinations that the other
characters and other roles have in this increasingly histrionic and
(20:28):
melodramatic film.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
Which, sorry, just pause you for a moment when you
say that, what more would you have liked to have seen?
For the Gemma artid and character Nina Land.
Speaker 4 (20:39):
Well, her character is somewhat undefined. Yes, she's an aspiring
actress and she wants to do well and all that,
But that's a cliche, and I don't think her role
was written in a particularly erudite sort of way, which historic.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
When you say that's a cliche, there'd be a lot
of people out there who want to make it right
and scrap away at it, et cetera, et cetera. Why
is that a cliche in the sense that there are
I mean, if I know people myself who have been
struggling forever to be recognized in their particular craft, where
(21:17):
would you have liked that to have gone? I'm curious.
Speaker 4 (21:20):
Well, because of the way she used as the character
in the film. Yes, I agree. Of course there are
lots of struggling actors and all that, but we know
that we've seen that in countless films. But there's nothing
particularly unusual, different special about her characterization. Same goes with
(21:42):
Mark Strong's newspaper sort of character, which is just underwritten
and Leslie Manville has very little to do.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Yeah, I think, Leslie. I think Leslie Manvil. I agree.
This is, by the way, just to remind people, she
plays Nina Land's mother. Jemma Artiden's character's mother is called
Annabelle in the film, and yeah, I mean she's sort
of exasperated, but she doesn't have a great deal to do,
and she's a very fine actor. I accept that criticism.
I'm not sure about the other, but that, yeah, please
(22:13):
go on.
Speaker 4 (22:13):
Okay, So what happens with this film is that it
becomes a murder mystery. It becomes an issue of being gay,
which of course was illegal at the time, the issue
of emerging politics and fascism, which the film skirts around,
(22:34):
and the whole notion.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
I'm gonna pause you again, isn't that good that there
are a series of subplots that that a good movie
can do that? And I didn't see a problem with that.
Why why do you struggle with that?
Speaker 4 (22:52):
I don't have a problem with a number of issues
that a film deals with. But these were subplots that
were underdeveloped, were just thrown in which without any real
reason or cause. It just seemed to me that Patrick
Marber had developed a screenplay about a critic and thrown
(23:14):
in lots of other things because he was not confident
that the audience would identify and be interested in such
a somewhat malevolent character. So let's have some sympathy areas,
some political and social areas. For me, the film was
not a mess, but underdeveloped in the most part, and
(23:40):
so that's what I found disappointing.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
Greg.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
Yes, well your view me with a lot has been
said before. I thought me mcculluch was having the time
of his life with this role there, playing up to
the nastiness of his character there. He was reveling in
some of the dialogue there. The film also looks good.
There's great production design, I thought, and cinematographer David Higgs
(24:07):
has shot the film in that sort of warm golden
glory gives it that nosalgic feel there. But I agree
that some of the characters will a bit underwritten, like
Mark Strong's newspaper editor. And I agree with lesabieth manvil
as the actress's mother there doing very little to do
and he's wasted there. I liked Alfred is Tom Tuner,
(24:31):
who sort of we sort of the moral compass of
the film in some ways there, sort of resisting some
of jimmy Erskine's what would behavior there? But yeah, he
just raised a few issues about the social on.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
Kiddy, I think Jeed aircraft just laid in your backyard.
I didn't hear what you just said. Then his backyard,
Grand Pro, it's not on these these paper thin walls
of yours. Could you could you get somebody in and
sort of triple or quadruple their size. They're they're there
with what's going on in your place? The Grand pri
(25:11):
isn't there again, is it yet?
Speaker 3 (25:14):
No?
Speaker 4 (25:14):
In fact, there is no noise coming from my area
at the moment, so.
Speaker 1 (25:19):
It's not me not yet. There you go, Greg, planes
landed in your backyard? Is that right?
Speaker 2 (25:24):
They wouldn't land in my backyard. It's nowhere for it's
land on any backyard.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
Okay, well, maybe on the roof of your building.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
I don't think so. Taking someone who's Sully's skilled to
do that, wouldn't it well?
Speaker 1 (25:38):
Good? Yeah, we can give Sally a due credit. I
mean he's quite Sally's Sully's retired, hasn't he. I think
I think he has anyway, Sorry, Greg, we're into criticism.
Keep on going with a critic.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
I cover where I was when that plane landed.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
Yeah, pick it up the left.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Oh yeah, the stuff about the social and political landscape
of nineteen thirties England, where you know Ian McKellen's homosexuality
sort of he runs the risk of being imprisoned because
of his nocturnal firstive encounters with young men in the
park there. Wi his play up there, which comes out
(26:20):
strongly there. But I thought Ian McKellen relished the role.
The camera also works in a lot of close up
at the time, which became a bit uncomfortable at times.
I thought, yes, a close ups on Ian McKellen's face
and Tom's face there, and as I said, Tom is
the sort of moral compass of the film. I think
here as he points out that it resists some of
(26:42):
Jimmy's manipulations.
Speaker 1 (26:45):
Yeah, it's interesting you're talking about looking at the face
of Ian McKellen very expressed. I actually I think it's
an amazing face. It's sort of it's got that lived
in quality to it. Maybe maybe that's that's what happens.
What age is mean McKell on, Now, he'd be in
his late eighties or am I I'm guessing that, But
I don't know it. Does anybody known? I'll all it
(27:06):
up for a while.
Speaker 4 (27:06):
We was taught.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
Oh that sounds good. All right, Well, look, I think
it's time for some scores, and Jackie, you and I
are going to give it good marks and ideas say
that Peter's going to draw down. So okay, let's start
with you, Jackie, the critic, right there you go, So
ninety thirty nine, okay, so hang on.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
I've got many eighty five?
Speaker 1 (27:26):
Yeah, okay, fair enough. And I actually I think I
read that he's had some health issues or you know,
we have only four.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
A couple of months ago.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
Yeah. Yeah, that's terrible. It's shocking.
Speaker 4 (27:39):
All right, a critic did it?
Speaker 3 (27:41):
Shit?
Speaker 1 (27:42):
Thank you? Yes, black humors. There we go, Jackie. What's
your score for the critic?
Speaker 3 (27:49):
All? Okay, yes, hoo, okay, the Cristian is nilence. This
is radio Oh heavens, I'm sticking. I was giving you
a dramatic pause there seeing if you actually stop jabbering away,
so could actually give you my score, which is nine
out of ten. I love the chubsfroit On. We entertained
Bla didn't have any problem with any of the things
(28:10):
Peter said at all. I thought it was fun.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
So are you sticking your middle finger up with Peter?
Are you? You're right? Jackie?
Speaker 3 (28:19):
You becoming?
Speaker 1 (28:20):
You're becoming, don't you? You're become incruding your old old
age jack I think.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
It was you that said that, Alex. What't me?
Speaker 1 (28:28):
That would never have been me? Would it? Okay? So
I'm giving it eight and a half. Greg, you're going
to be next cab off the rank. You're not going
to be as vitriolic as Peter.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
Go for it.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
I'll half seven, okay, Okay, Peter, are you actually firstly,
are you passing it? I think you are? Yeses, So
I think you'll give it about a six. What are
you giving it?
Speaker 4 (28:48):
Your spot on? Ian McKellen carries the film The first
half works well, second half starts to Peter off. So
if you're part in the.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
Actually that's fantastic. You should have a blog, Peter Off.
I think that with suits down to the ground, Peter Kraus,
Peter Off.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
Right, and I can see the signage including a middle finger. Anyway,
I give it six.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
Oh you're an apprentice at this Do you notice the segue?
All right, thank you very much.
Speaker 3 (29:28):
That we just want to ask Peter one last question.
Speaker 1 (29:31):
Did you enjoy?
Speaker 3 (29:32):
Did you enjoy yourself watching it?
Speaker 4 (29:36):
Enjoy isn't the right word, because as it got to
the second half of the film I was starting to
cringe a bit because the melo Jama took open.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
Okay, really okay?
Speaker 2 (29:46):
When you aware that the novel had a serial killer
subwhat there that it's been left out of the door
all together?
Speaker 1 (29:53):
Oh wow? All right? Interesting. So, folks, you're on j
you're listening to this twaddle and this is rest time film.
Then everybody is a critic, and please keep listening regardless.
If you want to become a member of the station,
which I would encourage you to do. I've just paid
stumped up my annual dues. It's only fifty four bucks
(30:17):
and you're supporting a station that hopefully supports the community,
and that's what we are all about. So go to
jdsh Air dot com dot EU, jdsh A dot com
dot au and listen out twenty four hours a day
if you would care to alltht bit of sleep wouldn't
go astray every now and again talking about the segue
(30:37):
to The Apprentice and seeing we are in a in
we're counting down the days to the US presidential election,
and it gets murkier and murkier as time goes on.
And gee, where's the If you think my vitriol is bad,
you go and live in America and get a slice
of politics. Boy, oh boy, just denounce it. The individual
(31:01):
has taken on new almighty steps in this election campaign.
Having said all of that, The Apprentice is a two hour,
two minute movie rated M A. And long before the
Donald was a fixture on US TV as host of
The Apprentice and of course later becoming president, he was
this rather ambitious and young, aspiring real estate mogul. So
(31:25):
this is a film from an Academy Award nominated Iranian
Danish filmmaker called Ali Abassi. And it takes that concept
of well, the young aspiring real estate mogul and runs
with it. So how much of it is actual fact
and how much is fiction, I reckon it's a matter
(31:47):
of interpretation and political affiliation. So this is certainly upping
the drama. So we're in New York in the nineteen
seventies and at that time the Big Apple was down
and out. It was a rather blighted urban center, lots
(32:07):
of violent crime. And Donald Trump, as played by Sebastian
Stan was operating under the thumbnail of his wealthy and
controlling father Fred, a role filled by Martin Donovan. But
Donald Trump wanted to see the city maker comeback, and
that's when he encountered an arrogant, influential right wing lawyer,
(32:30):
a political fixer called Roy Khan played by Jeremy Strong.
He was the one who did this. Is Roy Cohn,
who secured spy convictions against Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and
investigated suspected communists alongside Joe McCarthy. So Console promise in
(32:50):
Donald Trump and taught I'll call him his new acolyte,
taught Trump outdoor mass wealth and power through deception, intimidation,
and media manipulation. Con was fiercely committed to advancing his
own conservative ideology and relentlessly dominating any enemies who dared
(33:11):
challenge him, and in the film he shares three rules
of winning with Trump, and Trump adopted those three rules,
so we may as well share them. Attack, attack, attack,
admit nothing, deny everything, claim victory, and never admit defeat.
And The Apprentice is about the rise and rise and
(33:32):
rise of Donald Trump, who barged his way through life
and through people with the attitude that they were indispensable.
They were dispensable rather than indispensable with a capital D.
It was all about furthering his own cause, be professional
or personal. The primary focus is on his relationship with
Roy Cohn, and a subplot involves his subsequent wooing and
(33:54):
treatment of his wife Ivana played by Maria Bakalova, who
he paints Trump as having his eyes opened wide by Cohn,
and that results in the creation of an egotistical, self
centered monster of sorts. Is deeply attracted to throwing his
(34:14):
weight around and he revels in riding roughshot over everyone.
In other words, if he wants something, he'll get it,
whatever the prize. So Donald Trump himself not the movie,
has already come out and said that he's hardly enamored
by his representation in this film. Surprise surprise not and
I dare say anyone who watches it won't be surprised
(34:37):
either to hear that. All I will say is I'll
comment on The Apprentice as a movie. I'm not going
to talk about the politics. I found it hideously compelling.
What it presents is ugly and exploitative, but I couldn't
turn away. And the writer Gabrielle Sherman has pulled no punches,
and the director Ali Abassi runs with it to the
(35:00):
nth degree. And it's a movie that hits and hits
very very hard. Its authenticity or the authentic feel, comes
down to the production values and the cinematography. It's graty
look effectively portrays the era casp patusanuted the worst person
in the world is the director of photography, Sebastian stan
I think he does a really good job transitioning Trump
(35:22):
from a somewhat naive operative to a megalamodiac. Jeremy Strong
is really strong himself, as Roy Conne matches Stan stride
for stride, except in reverse because the lifeblood is sucked
out of him. And I also like the way that
Maria Baklova pushed back as Ivana. Although one scene involving
(35:43):
her in domestic violence. I just found it just so distressing.
Trump's treatment of his wife in the film once the
gloss wears off is appalling. The Apprentice is a movie. Well,
it's a cautionary tale about power and corruption that I reckon.
You feel like taking a shit hour after watching, right,
and so it's you know, it's a guilty type pleasure
(36:05):
film for me. That was my assessment of The Apprentice.
What about you, Greek King?
Speaker 2 (36:12):
This is this is an American horror story playing out here.
Speaker 1 (36:15):
I think, Look, what do you think.
Speaker 2 (36:17):
Of Donald Trump is one of the most controversial and
divisive figures in contemporary bolshics at the moment, like he
will loathe him, and I can see why him and
his campaign tried to band this film from being released,
especially in America. In the lead apitylicate because it's not
exactly the most flattering portrait of a person. And as
you said, has been written by Gabriel Sherman, who apparently
(36:40):
has interviewed Trump several times in his career. But this
is here that takes its title for that reality TV
show that ran the fifth age season that Trump hosted
for Mastuly. Signed there but ironically here as Trump, who
is the apprentice to Roy Cohen, himself a controversial figure,
pub nacious, unscrupulous lawyer who also had a key role
(37:04):
in that play Ariels in America, which exposed his true
nature there, you know, in the fifties, as you mentioned
the Rosenbergs, but there's also a key player in the
McCarthy which hunt trials of that communist which hunt Era there.
So he's the despicable person here, And as you said,
I think Jeremy Strong from Succession plays him to the
(37:27):
hilt here. He captures him is chilling nature, is predatory
slip nature there who as he observes the Sevengali write
influence over the young, narcissistic Trump. There he captures his
bullying style, his cold persona, and he's quietly menacing nature.
But I think the chemistry between him and Sebastian Standard
(37:50):
plays Trump is quite palpable here and brings the material alive.
And I agree with you about the way the film
you picked, that decaying New York of the seventies and
early eighties. Here as the ukin sleeve he corrupts this brawl.
Great production design there, the use of some archival forties
integrated carefully into there as well, and the cinematographer Cas
(38:12):
Tapson gives the material that nostalgic Addiesvielle with the granny
brownish color palette there. But yeah, thrub here comes across
as narcissistic, selfish. And there's a couple of another scene
that I had looked away from, not that scene away
he reached Ivana, but also that scene when he undergoes
some surgery my production and has part of his scalp
(38:35):
removes open implane head follow was there. I had to
look away that bit, So that was sort of discussing
there as well. And I didn't think there is much
about Ivana here. I thought her role was fairly faintless there.
Martin donnovan did a good job as the unsympathetic and
condescending in the loop ThReD Trump there. Yeah, I thought
(38:59):
this was It wasn't intended to be a hit piece
on Donald Trump, but it does show where he came from,
and you can see a lot of how he's running
his campaign, how he's running politics from this portrait here.
Where As you said, he learned his playbook from Roy Cohne.
Speaker 1 (39:20):
Peter, do you have any conception of how you determine
fact from fiction because you look at this and you think,
surely a lot of this stuff couldn't be true.
Speaker 4 (39:30):
Well, it's an interesting question because this is certainly not
a documentary. It's about the formative years of Trump. But
I know that a lot of it is true because
they had lawyers, They did a lot of checking to
make sure that it was not able to be They
(39:54):
couldn't sue the filmmakers because most of it is based
on on fact, on what Ivana has spoken about about interviews,
and a whole range of things. So, look, this film
surprised me. I didn't think I was going to enjoy this.
I thought this was going to be another exploitative political drama,
(40:18):
and it turned out to be a well written by
Gabriel Sharman and well directed film which gave you an
insight into the character of Donald Trump and the way
he is now. And so let's leave the politics aside.
I actually thought Maria Bakelova did a good job in
(40:42):
her role as Ivanna, because she stands out as being
reasonably strong and independent against a difficult person who she
was attracted to in the first place, which I found
interesting in it. And yes, roy Cone is an amazing
(41:04):
character played by Jeremy Strong, and as you mentioned to
Greg Angels in America showed what a despicable manipulative character
he was and how he was able to influence as
somewhat naive Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (41:20):
But so rising bit, Peter, isn't it. I mean yes,
because I suppose that I'm not sure whether you could
watch The American Apprentice in Australia or whatever. We didn't
really have that history with him. We've only known him
to be this sort of the bully boy tactics that
he employed after losing last election etc. That really put
(41:41):
him on the map and you know, self confidence and
all that sort of stuff. So to see him in
the Infancy, I found that fascinating.
Speaker 4 (41:48):
Yes, absolutely, and that was so well directed and written.
But I also need to give a shout out to
the editor who has put together a range of sequence
is so much information, historical events, archival footage and so on,
but edited it together in such a way that it
(42:09):
is quite compelling. And it could have been quite a
dreary sort of film and just one step after another,
but it actually is really well shot and will edited.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
And even if you thought you knew about Trump. And
again I don't know how much is fact and how
much is fiction. But you thought you knew about Trump.
This sort of opens your eyes, that's what I reckon.
Speaker 4 (42:31):
It does. It does it gives you an idea of
what created the person that he is now and the
role of the father and how he was so dominating
and always hated Trump, but also his brother, Trump's brother,
(42:54):
who is a character that is such a sad depiction
of a poor treatment by a family, especially well by
the father in particular. So there's a lot going on there.
And I really quite liked the film, which surprised me.
I didn't think I was known to now.
Speaker 2 (43:15):
I was just wanting to watch someone like Oliver Stone
would have done with this martial, given his sort of
incendiary style of filmmaking.
Speaker 4 (43:21):
Yes, it would have been much more a melodramatic and
I think much more.
Speaker 1 (43:29):
Yeah, yeah, it could well have been. Jackie. I can
only imagine how you rancted to some of the scenes
in this one.
Speaker 3 (43:37):
Well, you don't need to imagine. I'll tell you if
you like.
Speaker 1 (43:40):
Well, Jackie, the floor is yours. You just go for
the jugular, please.
Speaker 3 (43:47):
I'm possibly unlike you. I did have a little bit
of a feeling for what Trump was like before he
suddenly stepped onto the presidential stage, at least in contention
for it, and started becoming a better known And that
was through the Celebrity Apprentice TV show, which I used
(44:09):
to watch, and that ran from two thousand and eight
to twenty fifteen.
Speaker 1 (44:14):
So will oh Jackie, are you still there? We've suddenly
lost you. Nevertheless, sorry, Jackie, pardon me, Jackie. You actually
cut out for the best part of twenty seconds there,
so we didn't hear you.
Speaker 3 (44:28):
Oh no, my pearls of wisdom have gone off in cyberspace.
Speaker 1 (44:34):
That's presuming you have some thank you Yeah.
Speaker 3 (44:37):
Yes, and you missed them. Never mind, I go on.
I did enjoy the TV show, The Celebrity Apprentice, and
that did give me some of what his character was
like in being a fervent capitalist and bully, even though
it was sanitized probably for the deep. Okay, Peter's off,
(44:58):
Peter's off for the for the team. We just want
to know that you win at the end, Peter. So
I did get an idea of what his character was
like before he became a president, or at least started
going into that race. What I liked about this film
was everything that you have said it was. It was dramatization,
(45:23):
and it wasn't It didn't seem to be trying to
be a hit piece, as I think Peter said, because
so much of it is based on fact, and it
keeps feeding us that with the with the actual archival footage,
and you know, we're seeing Ronald Reagan and we're seeing
how all of that politics and what was going on
in New York was being fed into his character. I think,
(45:46):
you know, I was a polarizing person prominent in the
world today. It's good to see this film and know
how much came from his father and how much from
Rule Cone and and as Peter said, also, it was
thoroughly enjoyable. It's the character development that I really like.
(46:10):
We scout up.
Speaker 1 (46:14):
And you are, and the talking that this has every
machinery I think they're carrying out road works. Why are
you talking to us? We're losing you, Jackie.
Speaker 3 (46:25):
You know it's it's not actually coming from me. I
think it's coming from Peter. Never mind, as I say, yes,
I really enjoyed The Apprentice.
Speaker 1 (46:34):
Peter, are you sure the Grand Prix is a early again?
You know what the's going on here, right, You're drowning
out to Jackie. You know, she's such a timid person
to begin with, you know, and you don't want to
demean her any further. That's not good, Jackie.
Speaker 3 (46:50):
The other thing about the film Apprentice, I think is
that it could potentially potentially have been a lot more controversial.
It could have really gone in hard on a whole
lot of stuff. But don't think it's back through that.
Speaker 1 (47:04):
Don't you think it did? Oh?
Speaker 3 (47:06):
No, I think it pulls back a lot because it
gives us. It gives us explanation for things. We might
not like what we see, but we kind of understand
it in a way. You know.
Speaker 1 (47:18):
It's funny. Again, I call on the quote that I
used before power corrupts, Absolute, power corrupts. Absolutely. Don't you
think there's some truism in that in terms of The
Apprentice as well, Jackie well in.
Speaker 3 (47:32):
Yes, well definitely, in referring to Roy Cone and then
how he passes that on to Donald Trump, the young,
impressionable Donald Trump who finds whose father dominates him and
doesn't give him the praise or support that he actually
wants or you know, the approval that he wants. He
(47:53):
and Roy Cone sees potentially in Donald Trump and encourages
the behavior that gives him an alternative father figure, if
you like and approve alternative approving father figure.
Speaker 1 (48:07):
I found it interesting in the context that he could
obviously see that if he sort of champions him through
and that in the future, he's going to be able
to use that relationship to his advantage, because I mean,
why was con doing it that Initially? I was thinking,
what's he to gain by.
Speaker 3 (48:29):
Exactly that he's manipulative. He says that from the start.
You know, he actually says, don't pay for the whatever
it was the suit, don't pay for the suit. I'll
cover that, he says, I'll get it back from you
later on.
Speaker 1 (48:44):
Yeah, exactly. All right, So we're all going to give
this very good marks. I'm going to kick it off.
This is The Apprentice Rated m A two hours, two
minutes eight out of ten.
Speaker 3 (48:54):
For me Jackie eight out of ten from.
Speaker 4 (48:57):
Me Peter, Yes, good film, seven out of ten.
Speaker 2 (49:01):
Greg only a bit of low balls sixty out of ten,
just growing out like Donald Trump?
Speaker 1 (49:07):
Can you can you?
Speaker 3 (49:09):
He's such an impartial critic?
Speaker 1 (49:12):
Really, oh mate, I love you dearly.
Speaker 3 (49:16):
That's very verd Hey, Greg, Greg, I reckon Donald Trump's
gonna suit you?
Speaker 1 (49:20):
Now, yeah, I was going to.
Speaker 2 (49:22):
I'll leave enough instead of going to prison like Stephen
Colbert Gilli Pimmel that I worry about it. George Clooney,
you're gonna yel there before you this to me.
Speaker 1 (49:31):
Okay, yeah, but but Greg as it can you can
you distance your disdain for him and give me a
mark for a movie rather than for Donald Trump. So
I've oh, that's hilarious. Okay, we're limited in time, but
we I want to talk about Joker. Folly Adieu m
(49:52):
A rated two hours and eighteen minutes second installment of Joker.
Really controversial a musical. Who would have thunk it a
notwithstanding there's Lady Gaga there. Hardly mainstream entertainment. It's got
the feel of a strong and decidedly dark independent movie,
which I actually appreciated because of the layers within it,
(50:15):
and like he did so brilliantly in Joker, Wuck in
Phoenix is quite a revelation. As Arthur Fleck aka Joker,
he's in prison awaiting trial for the murder spree that
Joker went on, slaying five or is that six people
in quick time, including one on live television, and he
appears to be this forlorn character, not responding to the
(50:38):
guard's taunts to tell him a joke. One who does
reward him for good behavior, though, is Jackie Sullivan played
by Brendan Gleeson, who takes him along to a music
therapy session, and that's where he connects with an inmate
by the name of Lee Quinzel aka Harley Quinn. That's
the Lady Garga role, and she claims she's from the
(50:59):
same neighborhood as Arthur Fleck and had a terrible home
life being institutionalized by her mother. She is driven to Joker,
and Joker is driven to her, or Arthur Fleck is
driven to her. The pair starts an intense relationship in
which they fantasize about what might be. Meanwhile, Fleck's legal representative,
(51:20):
Mary Anne Stewart played by Katherine Keener, is trying to
convince him to play along with her defense strategy of
a split personality. In other words, he didn't do it, it
was my alter ego. The court case sees a groundswell
of support for Joker Lee who is Lee Quinzel, who's
(51:41):
increasingly influencing Arthur Fleck's decision making is at odds with
his lawyer, and basically the former, who has adopted the
Harley Quinn makeup and dress sense, tells Arthur Fleck that
he can do anything right. So Lee Quinzel says, you
can do anything you want. Written by Scott Silver and
(52:04):
directed by Todd Phillips, the combination behind Joker Follier Dueu
delves deep into mental illness and psychosis, so dreams and
hallucinations play a large part, and this is often when
Lady Garga and work in Phoenix are seen singing together,
and in one scene Phoenix actually resorts to tap dancing.
(52:24):
I thought there was a potent connection between them. I
thought Gleeson was memorable as the guard who gives Fleck
some latitude, and I also appreciated the cameo of Steve
Coogan as a tabloid television interviewer Patti Myers, who the
legal eagle Stewart lines up to question Arthur Fleck before
the trial. Music is an undoubted feature of the work,
and although I dare say a lot of people, as
(52:45):
they already have, will find that out of place, not me.
I thought the choices were appropriate, so to the period
production values that are associated with this movie. Look, it
is divisive. It's divisive among critics, it's divisive among the
fee paying public, many of whom will find it hard
going and not to their liking, apart from thinking that
it was twenty minutes too long. But I'm in the
(53:08):
positive camp. I mean, I thought what Phoenix Gaga and
the writers and director brought to the table was actually compelling,
dive into the abyss. That's the essence of a troubled
mind or too, as is the case in the representation
of both Joker and Harley Quinn. So yeah, I might
(53:31):
be in the minority, but I appreciated the film. People
who are going along thinking it's going to be a
replica of the first well it's not, and it never
should have been. So you know, what's the problem with
A Jackie.
Speaker 3 (53:44):
I don't have a problem with it at all. I
did struggle with it to start with, because there is
a thought that when you're going into it as a sequel,
that you're going to see something of the same genre
or feel or But I thought, you know, in reflection,
that it actually grew a lot more from the original,
(54:06):
which I really enjoyed. I didn't enjoy this as much,
but I could see why it was like it is,
as John McDonald in the Financial Review calls it possibly
the most depressing.
Speaker 1 (54:16):
Musical of all time.
Speaker 3 (54:19):
The films weren't my favorite thing about it. I didn't
like the choices of songs all the time, and I
didn't like because I didn't feel they drove the narrative.
You know, it was in my mind, did Lady Guard
choose these because she likes them and she sings them well?
And I think a lot of the songs made were
the fault that made the film too long. However, that aside,
(54:40):
I did. I did like the way that it presented
the mental disorder scenario, the fantasy sequences and the mental
madeem if you like, and the influence of others on
him and on the Joker and Joker on the others,
the courtroom scene in you know, it made sense to
(55:01):
me of why it was done this way. And I
think the film The Joker too was brave, and it
was sad and as you say, compelling, you know, partly repulsive,
and had a lot in it that wasn't lovely, but
it made sense to make.
Speaker 1 (55:18):
And now Peter only in forty seconds and Greg as well.
I'm afraid we could talk a bit further next week.
Did you like it or not?
Speaker 4 (55:24):
Peter, I'm on the fence with this one because I
think it was a bit of a mess in terms
of its fusion of music, Some of the songs seemed irrelevant,
and the idea of bipolar not split personality, that term
doesn't exist, which I thought.
Speaker 1 (55:47):
I've just created it y yes, yes, okay, Greg King
in forty seconds.
Speaker 2 (55:53):
This is a bleak mips of prison drama, courtroom drama,
old fashioned musical. But I thought it was a little clunky.
Tony is unneven. Not every element works there, and I
feel it was overly long and one hundred and thirty
eight minutes for what I had to say, and it
lacked the same sense of dramatic tension and uneasy as
the original. But Whichael Phoenis is great in it with
(56:16):
his performance there, but I don't think there's any real
chemistry between him and Lady Gaga.
Speaker 1 (56:20):
Really, okay. Score out of ten Peter, I give it
five out of ten, Greg five out of ten, Jackie
seven out of ten, eight out of ten for mine,
thank you very much for your valuable contribution Jacqueline. Thank you,
Peter Kraus, thank you, Gregory King. You've been listening to
First On Film and Entertainment, and we are going to
(56:41):
be doing it again awfully soon, so listen out. Have
a great week, folks,
First on Film and Entertainment. A very good morning, good afternoon,
and good evening to all and sundry. And we've got
the team together. We have got Jackie Hamerton, we have
got Peter Krause, We've got Greg King. So it's a
happy bunch of Vegemites. And got to say to you
that I'm missing my football, Gregory King. I mean, I've
(00:21):
been watching the women's game and I've actually got a
little bit out of it because the Mighty Bombers are winning.
But you know, what do I do for six months? Greg?
You know, I'm watching England sort of trounce what is
it Pakistan in the cricket and stuff like that, and
the spring racing Carnival. But can't we have football two
seasons in the year men's competition? Greg? Can't we?
Speaker 2 (00:44):
I know, I feel know how it field should go
six months out? Well, but there's so many other things
you can do, alic books, thread films to watch, lots
of colorful things to do like that. I actually find
I have more time now to do some things.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Oh no, no, Well, the interesting thing is this week
I spoke to one of the publicists and they said
to me, oh, would you be interested in reviewing a book.
And I said, well, I don't. Traditionally I read a
lot of news, but I don't traditionally have a lot
of time to read a book. What's it about? And
they said AFL football. Suddenly, yes, exactly. I started drooling
(01:20):
at that point. Greg, Now that's how desperate I've become.
Can you relate to that, Jackie Hamerton, because you're a
Melbourne supporter and everything about Melbourne has been toxic in
recent times. Correct, Oh, Alex.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
Welcome to First on Film and Air Taine.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
I'm air. I am being entertained, so it's all right,
it's legitimate. You can answer the question as as a
long suffering Demon supporter.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
It's a question was it about film or was it
about football?
Speaker 1 (01:49):
Well, it could be about film and football. As for
film and football, Peter Krause, I mean, if you're the Douyen,
are you not? You and football are like sliced cheese
and the nuclear.
Speaker 4 (02:01):
I have just spoken to the director of Like My
Brother about four young women aspiring to be in the
af L. W would you believe?
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Really?
Speaker 3 (02:14):
Wow?
Speaker 1 (02:16):
I'm okay. So if that is the case, would you
go along and watch them? If they make it no.
Is that what's called empathy for the cause?
Speaker 4 (02:31):
It's a good film and the story is interesting, but
I still am not interested in football.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
I'm so disappointed out and I wanted to take you along.
I still want to take you along to a game
of football. You might change your mind, may you not?
Could you not? Never?
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Could you?
Speaker 4 (02:50):
On my wildest dreams.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
But you care deeply and passionately about me. So you're
showing your commitment to the cause.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
Doesn't that mean passionately? Oh my goodness, when did that happen?
Speaker 1 (03:02):
I'm making it happen. That's the sort of guy that
I am. Isn't it a good thing?
Speaker 4 (03:07):
How passionate you are. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
Now, I want to start talking about the role of
the critic, because that's what we are. And I've had
quite a few discussions about this over the last couple
of weeks because the film has recently opened, called the Critic,
And my opinion is that we are not as important
as a collective as we were in the past, when,
(03:31):
for example, reading the next day's paper was critically important
to the success of a show or indeed a movie
that with so many influences. Things are changing and I'm
not saying it's for the better or for the worse.
I'm just saying the status quo is, well, somebody else
may have seen it, and if they recommend it, I'll
go along and see it. But otherwise don't worry about it.
(03:54):
What do you think better?
Speaker 4 (03:55):
Well, I think there are two issues here. One is
that people now regard critics mainly only for the bigger pictures,
the tent pole films and so on, and if they
align with their views then they'll go and see it.
But secondly, the role of the critic now, I think
(04:16):
is to promote and push independent, low budget Australian films
and overseas films that the audience needs to pay attention to.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
But hang, I'm that surely that's showing your personal buyers there.
I mean, you can't say that's the role of the critic.
It is a role of a critic if that wants
to be the role of the critic, not critics in general.
I disagree with that because, I mean, ultimately too we
see so many movies. I long to see something vivlid difference,
(04:48):
something that is challenging, etc. But there are a lot
of people out there who won't go and see foreign
language movies who simply want to see the big blockbusters.
So have we not got a role to play? It's
talking about the big blockbusters still.
Speaker 4 (05:02):
Well, yes, to know, I mean, people bet so much
social media and see other people review things that professional
critics like us are not necessarily paid attention to.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
It's interesting. This is the experience I had during this week, Jackie.
This will not surprise you one iota. There is a
person who, believe it or not, unlike your good self,
likes to follow what I say and do and write
and so forth. And I recommended, highly recommended that they
go and see the substance. They were horrified. They actually
(05:37):
said to me, They rang me and said, my husband
says I should not follow you anymore. How does one
respond to that, Jackie?
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Oh well, I totally agree with that person. But I
would say it's not necessarily that anyone in the wider
community with access to social media or anything less or
even can talk about it a film or a book
for that matter, or anything. The word review is a
(06:09):
bit strong. I would say, usually influences promote because you know,
they're not being discretionary about it, they're not being critical
about it.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
As a critic may.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Be it's just more in the realm of promotion rather
than critiquing.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
Well, it's interesting. I don't know whether you saw the
article only in the last twenty four hours about Jessica
Chastain on an aircraft. Did you have you read that
or any of you? No?
Speaker 3 (06:36):
No, okay, now, don't read the gossip columns, columns.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Yep, what about your life, Jackie life about there?
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Yeah, that's it. That's enough going on in my life
without regain.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
So there was there was a she lodged a sort
of an online complaint I think on I think it's
x or one of these platforms whereby the entertainment system
wasn't working on the aircraft and everybody on the aircraft was. Well,
she didn't know this at the time, but she was
offered a fifteen dollars refund. I think this was in
(07:10):
the right and then she still complained about it, and
then people sort of complained about her complaints, saying that
she's entitled and all that sort of stuff, and it
went on and on and on. So it became rather
than a praising, it became a criticism. And somebody who
obviously is seen to be a high profile and in
(07:33):
not so much in need of resourcing as other people. Yeah,
so it's fascinating that which has absolutely nothing to do
with being a critic.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Where did that come from, Alex Well?
Speaker 1 (07:44):
No, Well, I suppose that she assumed the role as
somebody with a public profile of criticism of an airline
because it didn't provide the service.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Look, you're confusing the word criticism with a critic or
critiquing something.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
I'm deliberately doing this to inflame the debate, and I'm
talking true. Well, you're being.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Highly successful once again and in flaighed debates.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
And I've said many times my job is to make
you utterly exasperated. Have I succeeded?
Speaker 3 (08:18):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Yeah, fantastic. Now, Greg, you do you read a lot
of books, but you're a film critic. I've never have
you ever been a book critic. I've written a few
books reviews for the blurb, Right, and do you are
you just as vociferous in your commentary when you're reviewing
(08:42):
a book as you are a film.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Probably only review books that I like, Ah, which looks
I'm not going to waste time reveal your book I
don't like, but maybe like read your book.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
I struggled with I'll sell finish your book, I'll return
into the library. But that's about as far as I'll go.
But if there's a book I really like, you know,
I fly through and I feel, you know, I've enjoyed,
I like to share that with some people.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
And the same thing with sad reviews.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
I've written a few of them in the past as
well with sods of people I like, and I just
want to review the record.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
So yeah, I do bratch you out, Alex. Okay. So
here's here's the question. When you don't like something, and
this is quite frequent for Peter and Jackie, when you
don't like something, is it easier to be critical than
it is to be praiseworthy or is it more enjoyable
(09:39):
to be critical than praiseworthy As a critic, Peter.
Speaker 4 (09:43):
Kraus, neither. I think. I call it as I see it,
and I can just as easily review and criticize a
good film or film that I've really enjoyed, as well
as a film that I didn't enjoy. So I don't
think it makes any difference.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
Jack find you're a little bit you're something you really
enjoy or something you really dislike. You are a bit
more passionate with your writing about it. I think you
are able to express yourself a lot better something you're
just the you know, you struggle a little bit to
write about it as much. I think things you really
enjoy or really dislike you're you're writing this shoulder.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
I totally agree with you agree. I think that that,
oh I've done something wrong.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
You're agreeing in the other I am.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
But because there if it's middle of the road, you
kind of you know it is. It's sort of oh
well it was okay. Uh, and and you sort of
then struggling a bit more to sort of say balance,
put put the balance in there and say you can
still say what you liked and didn't like, but you
you don't walk out of there. Because I remember that
(10:50):
film that I can't remember that name, not ironically, the
one with Dame Judy Dench said in the in the
British Medical System in a hospital that came out of
think it was last year or the year before. I
had some really fine actors in it, and it was
just a pr exercise for the British Health Service. And
I loathed that film. I thought it was absolutely disgraceful,
(11:13):
and whoever cared to listen, I said, for you know,
I was going to use another word, but don't go
along and see it. You're never going to get those
two hours back. And I've felt really strongly about it. Likewise,
we talked about the new Joker movie, or we will
be talking about the new Joker movie. I thought that
the original one was extraordinary and I highly recommended it.
(11:35):
Or you know, there's a number of other movies over
the distance that I really felt strongly about and urged
people see the same thing. About theater. I've seen three
extraordinary performances this year, one by the Way, which is
coming back, which I will see. We're talking about it.
I'll mention it now if any of you can go
along and see Murder for two at the Art Center,
(11:58):
which is coming back in early December. It's one of
the great, great, great shows that I've seen, and it'll
be at the Fairfax at the Art Center. It just
it was amazing how much loved it got and I
knew nothing about it going in. So that's a beautiful thing. Now, Jackie,
what about your views on criticism and whether it's he's.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
It Greig Greg took the words out of my mouth.
Of course, it's much easier to write if you've got
stronger feelings about something.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
Okay, well, so this is where you can be critical
of me at any time. Jackie. It's good, thank you, Yeah, fantastic.
So let's talk about the movie. It's ninety nine minutes.
It's called The Critic and it is rated M and
I suppose it does really ask the question what weight
should want assign to the critic and enormous If there's
any truth to what's contained in what is a searing
(12:54):
period drama, it's period drama, comes thriller, and we're talking
about London in nineteen thirty four and for four decades,
the character played by Ian McKellen, who's known as Jimmy Erskine,
has been the chief drama critic of a newspaper that
doesn't exist called the Daily Chronicle. And he's arrogant, he's entitled,
(13:15):
he's noted for his poisoned pen, and he wields that
pen as a sword of honor. And really the reason
he does this in a sense is that such is
his power that he can make or break careers. So Jimmy, well,
he is gay. He drinks like a fish, and he's
got a young male assistant played by Alfie Enoch. An
(13:38):
actress who's been trying to win his favor for a
decade is Nina Land and she's played by Gemma Artisan.
Yet inevitably she's merely received his vitriol. And yet after
another scathing review of her latest performance, her mother, Anna
Belle played by Leslie Manvel, encourage the actor to confront
(14:02):
Jimmy in person, which she does, and then on the
eve of another show opening in which she's the lead,
Nina is a nervous wreck and decides to ask Jimmy
for advice. Little does she know it, but in time,
he'll use their association to instigate a nefarious plan because
(14:26):
in the background, the Daily Chronicle newspaper is undergoing change.
The former owner who first employed Jimmy has passed away
and his son, David Brooke played by Mark Strong As
assumed control of the paper and brooks out to reinvigorate
the newspaper. And Jimmy's far from safe because of the
(14:49):
venom and is writing and the way that he personally
conducts himself. So when Jimmy appears to be cornered, he
uses Nina who is desperately chasing f and acclamation in
a sordid game that will have dire consequences. And this
is a reimagining of a novel called Curtain Call by
(15:09):
Anthony Quinn. I thought it was really compelling piece of work.
It's written by Patrick Marber who did Notes on a
scandal directed by ann An Tucker, who was responsible for
When Did You See When Did You Last See Your Father?
Very well written, I thought, very well executed. Likewise, strong
sense of exploitation is at stock in trade and it
deals with picking soft spots and turning the screws to
(15:33):
breaking point. Reminded me. I think I'm right in saying
it was a British politician called Lord Acton, a nineteenth
century polly who said that power tends to corrupt and
absolute power corrupts absolutely. That was Lord Acton, was it not, folks, Yes? No,
no recollection of that statement, okay. Well. Ian McKellen delivers
(15:54):
I thought one of the performances of his long and
storied career. He is really expressive, his seemingly with an
answer for everything. In playing the role of Jimmy and
Jimma Arterton is demonstrative as Nina land, she's vulnerable, she's
also driven to succeed at all costs. I thought the
production value is the period detail in the critic was
(16:16):
very good, in which the tangled web of deceit and
blackmail makes for quite thrilling entertainment. So that was my
thought on the critic. Did you did you bear criticism
of the critic, Jacqueline?
Speaker 3 (16:31):
The critic for me is just about the complete package
of a really enjoyable film, enjoyable entertainment. I think it was.
There wasn't really much I didn't like about it. I
just sat there and got involved into that thickening, the
(16:51):
thickening threads of this plot even more tangled, and it's
so theatricals. It's got that vintage flavor right through it.
In the close ups and the lighting, you know, that
kind of dim lighting as you know, nefarious things are
going on. The acting beautiful, led by Ann McAllen.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
As you see it is just like wow.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
He is amazing, and it's.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
Like it's like a Tim Tam biscuit, the best you
could ever have. He was so compelling, Jackie.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
I agree with you only if you like Tim tam biscuits.
It's just great activity.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
He doesn't like Tim Tam biscuits. Do you not like
Tim Dam's controversy here? Do you not like a Tim Tam? Yes?
Speaker 3 (17:40):
But I prefer Ann McCullen.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
Right there was in this role.
Speaker 3 (17:46):
I think I just think he's he's masterful in this
He's memorable and masterful. But it's also because the whole
the whole stage is set for him in that lighting
and the language and the and this quite old fashioned
kind of plotting going on. You know, it's a very
vintage flavor through the film. The critic and and in fact,
(18:10):
all of the cast I think are brilliant. I like
all of the cast and all of the characters that
they portray. And much as he's horrible the critic, much
as he is a horrible person, I couldn't hate him,
because you know, he's manipulative and cruel, and I wouldn't
want him as my friend. I wouldn't want him as
(18:30):
my enemy either. But I just really enjoyed watching him
and saying what he was up to.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
I think that's an interesting juxtaposition because I'm not sure
how many actors could actually pull this off, so that
he is the epitome of evil. In the one hand,
On the other hand, you sort of appreciate the bomb
bast you know, that's.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
It's Alex, it's the twinkle in the eye. I think
that gets you through this because he is playing a
game here, and you know, I guess it's just in
his nature to be manipulative and to be self serving
and pompous and always going for, you know, what's going
to be the best outcome for himself. He's a pretty
(19:13):
horrible person really.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
Now I make a bet here that Peter is going
to be contrere because he's just the recaul strant. Are
you a contrere calcitrant? Yes? Come on, tell me what
didn't you like about the critic?
Speaker 4 (19:26):
Veto I revel when being a recalcitant.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Middle name, isn't it? You know it's Peter R. Kraus correct,
Thank you very much, Yes, of course.
Speaker 4 (19:40):
Okay. Look, Patrick Martha did such a good job on
Notes on a scandal that was an increasingly volatile drama,
very well written, excellent character creation. I think he's dropped
the ball in writing the Critic. He's given a terrific
role or written a true role for Ian McKellen and
(20:03):
for his role as a trenchant theater critic in the
nineteen thirties. But he has underwritten everyone else's part in
the film, and so the focuses is purely on him,
and we don't really see the machinations that the other
characters and other roles have in this increasingly histrionic and
(20:28):
melodramatic film.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
Which, sorry, just pause you for a moment when you
say that, what more would you have liked to have seen?
For the Gemma artid and character Nina Land.
Speaker 4 (20:39):
Well, her character is somewhat undefined. Yes, she's an aspiring
actress and she wants to do well and all that,
But that's a cliche, and I don't think her role
was written in a particularly erudite sort of way, which historic.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
When you say that's a cliche, there'd be a lot
of people out there who want to make it right
and scrap away at it, et cetera, et cetera. Why
is that a cliche in the sense that there are
I mean, if I know people myself who have been
struggling forever to be recognized in their particular craft, where
(21:17):
would you have liked that to have gone? I'm curious.
Speaker 4 (21:20):
Well, because of the way she used as the character
in the film. Yes, I agree. Of course there are
lots of struggling actors and all that, but we know
that we've seen that in countless films. But there's nothing
particularly unusual, different special about her characterization. Same goes with
(21:42):
Mark Strong's newspaper sort of character, which is just underwritten
and Leslie Manville has very little to do.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Yeah, I think, Leslie. I think Leslie Manvil. I agree.
This is, by the way, just to remind people, she
plays Nina Land's mother. Jemma Artiden's character's mother is called
Annabelle in the film, and yeah, I mean she's sort
of exasperated, but she doesn't have a great deal to do,
and she's a very fine actor. I accept that criticism.
I'm not sure about the other, but that, yeah, please
(22:13):
go on.
Speaker 4 (22:13):
Okay, So what happens with this film is that it
becomes a murder mystery. It becomes an issue of being gay,
which of course was illegal at the time, the issue
of emerging politics and fascism, which the film skirts around,
(22:34):
and the whole notion.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
I'm gonna pause you again, isn't that good that there
are a series of subplots that that a good movie
can do that? And I didn't see a problem with that.
Why why do you struggle with that?
Speaker 4 (22:52):
I don't have a problem with a number of issues
that a film deals with. But these were subplots that
were underdeveloped, were just thrown in which without any real
reason or cause. It just seemed to me that Patrick
Marber had developed a screenplay about a critic and thrown
(23:14):
in lots of other things because he was not confident
that the audience would identify and be interested in such
a somewhat malevolent character. So let's have some sympathy areas,
some political and social areas. For me, the film was
not a mess, but underdeveloped in the most part, and
(23:40):
so that's what I found disappointing.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
Greg.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
Yes, well your view me with a lot has been
said before. I thought me mcculluch was having the time
of his life with this role there, playing up to
the nastiness of his character there. He was reveling in
some of the dialogue there. The film also looks good.
There's great production design, I thought, and cinematographer David Higgs
(24:07):
has shot the film in that sort of warm golden
glory gives it that nosalgic feel there. But I agree
that some of the characters will a bit underwritten, like
Mark Strong's newspaper editor. And I agree with lesabieth manvil
as the actress's mother there doing very little to do
and he's wasted there. I liked Alfred is Tom Tuner,
(24:31):
who sort of we sort of the moral compass of
the film in some ways there, sort of resisting some
of jimmy Erskine's what would behavior there? But yeah, he
just raised a few issues about the social on.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
Kiddy, I think Jeed aircraft just laid in your backyard.
I didn't hear what you just said. Then his backyard,
Grand Pro, it's not on these these paper thin walls
of yours. Could you could you get somebody in and
sort of triple or quadruple their size. They're they're there
with what's going on in your place? The Grand pri
(25:11):
isn't there again, is it yet?
Speaker 3 (25:14):
No?
Speaker 4 (25:14):
In fact, there is no noise coming from my area
at the moment, so.
Speaker 1 (25:19):
It's not me not yet. There you go, Greg, planes
landed in your backyard? Is that right?
Speaker 2 (25:24):
They wouldn't land in my backyard. It's nowhere for it's
land on any backyard.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
Okay, well, maybe on the roof of your building.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
I don't think so. Taking someone who's Sully's skilled to
do that, wouldn't it well?
Speaker 1 (25:38):
Good? Yeah, we can give Sally a due credit. I
mean he's quite Sally's Sully's retired, hasn't he. I think
I think he has anyway, Sorry, Greg, we're into criticism.
Keep on going with a critic.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
I cover where I was when that plane landed.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
Yeah, pick it up the left.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Oh yeah, the stuff about the social and political landscape
of nineteen thirties England, where you know Ian McKellen's homosexuality
sort of he runs the risk of being imprisoned because
of his nocturnal firstive encounters with young men in the
park there. Wi his play up there, which comes out
(26:20):
strongly there. But I thought Ian McKellen relished the role.
The camera also works in a lot of close up
at the time, which became a bit uncomfortable at times.
I thought, yes, a close ups on Ian McKellen's face
and Tom's face there, and as I said, Tom is
the sort of moral compass of the film. I think
here as he points out that it resists some of
(26:42):
Jimmy's manipulations.
Speaker 1 (26:45):
Yeah, it's interesting you're talking about looking at the face
of Ian McKellen very expressed. I actually I think it's
an amazing face. It's sort of it's got that lived
in quality to it. Maybe maybe that's that's what happens.
What age is mean McKell on, Now, he'd be in
his late eighties or am I I'm guessing that, But
I don't know it. Does anybody known? I'll all it
(27:06):
up for a while.
Speaker 4 (27:06):
We was taught.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
Oh that sounds good. All right, Well, look, I think
it's time for some scores, and Jackie, you and I
are going to give it good marks and ideas say
that Peter's going to draw down. So okay, let's start
with you, Jackie, the critic, right there you go, So
ninety thirty nine, okay, so hang on.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
I've got many eighty five?
Speaker 1 (27:26):
Yeah, okay, fair enough. And I actually I think I
read that he's had some health issues or you know,
we have only four.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
A couple of months ago.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
Yeah. Yeah, that's terrible. It's shocking.
Speaker 4 (27:39):
All right, a critic did it?
Speaker 3 (27:41):
Shit?
Speaker 1 (27:42):
Thank you? Yes, black humors. There we go, Jackie. What's
your score for the critic?
Speaker 3 (27:49):
All? Okay, yes, hoo, okay, the Cristian is nilence. This
is radio Oh heavens, I'm sticking. I was giving you
a dramatic pause there seeing if you actually stop jabbering away,
so could actually give you my score, which is nine
out of ten. I love the chubsfroit On. We entertained
Bla didn't have any problem with any of the things
(28:10):
Peter said at all. I thought it was fun.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
So are you sticking your middle finger up with Peter?
Are you? You're right? Jackie?
Speaker 3 (28:19):
You becoming?
Speaker 1 (28:20):
You're becoming, don't you? You're become incruding your old old
age jack I think.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
It was you that said that, Alex. What't me?
Speaker 1 (28:28):
That would never have been me? Would it? Okay? So
I'm giving it eight and a half. Greg, you're going
to be next cab off the rank. You're not going
to be as vitriolic as Peter.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
Go for it.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
I'll half seven, okay, Okay, Peter, are you actually firstly,
are you passing it? I think you are? Yeses, So
I think you'll give it about a six. What are
you giving it?
Speaker 4 (28:48):
Your spot on? Ian McKellen carries the film The first
half works well, second half starts to Peter off. So
if you're part in the.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
Actually that's fantastic. You should have a blog, Peter Off.
I think that with suits down to the ground, Peter Kraus,
Peter Off.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
Right, and I can see the signage including a middle finger. Anyway,
I give it six.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
Oh you're an apprentice at this Do you notice the segue?
All right, thank you very much.
Speaker 3 (29:28):
That we just want to ask Peter one last question.
Speaker 1 (29:31):
Did you enjoy?
Speaker 3 (29:32):
Did you enjoy yourself watching it?
Speaker 4 (29:36):
Enjoy isn't the right word, because as it got to
the second half of the film I was starting to
cringe a bit because the melo Jama took open.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
Okay, really okay?
Speaker 2 (29:46):
When you aware that the novel had a serial killer
subwhat there that it's been left out of the door
all together?
Speaker 1 (29:53):
Oh wow? All right? Interesting. So, folks, you're on j
you're listening to this twaddle and this is rest time film.
Then everybody is a critic, and please keep listening regardless.
If you want to become a member of the station,
which I would encourage you to do. I've just paid
stumped up my annual dues. It's only fifty four bucks
(30:17):
and you're supporting a station that hopefully supports the community,
and that's what we are all about. So go to
jdsh Air dot com dot EU, jdsh A dot com
dot au and listen out twenty four hours a day
if you would care to alltht bit of sleep wouldn't
go astray every now and again talking about the segue
(30:37):
to The Apprentice and seeing we are in a in
we're counting down the days to the US presidential election,
and it gets murkier and murkier as time goes on.
And gee, where's the If you think my vitriol is bad,
you go and live in America and get a slice
of politics. Boy, oh boy, just denounce it. The individual
(31:01):
has taken on new almighty steps in this election campaign.
Having said all of that, The Apprentice is a two hour,
two minute movie rated M A. And long before the
Donald was a fixture on US TV as host of
The Apprentice and of course later becoming president, he was
this rather ambitious and young, aspiring real estate mogul. So
(31:25):
this is a film from an Academy Award nominated Iranian
Danish filmmaker called Ali Abassi. And it takes that concept
of well, the young aspiring real estate mogul and runs
with it. So how much of it is actual fact
and how much is fiction, I reckon it's a matter
(31:47):
of interpretation and political affiliation. So this is certainly upping
the drama. So we're in New York in the nineteen
seventies and at that time the Big Apple was down
and out. It was a rather blighted urban center, lots
(32:07):
of violent crime. And Donald Trump, as played by Sebastian
Stan was operating under the thumbnail of his wealthy and
controlling father Fred, a role filled by Martin Donovan. But
Donald Trump wanted to see the city maker comeback, and
that's when he encountered an arrogant, influential right wing lawyer,
(32:30):
a political fixer called Roy Khan played by Jeremy Strong.
He was the one who did this. Is Roy Cohn,
who secured spy convictions against Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and
investigated suspected communists alongside Joe McCarthy. So Console promise in
(32:50):
Donald Trump and taught I'll call him his new acolyte,
taught Trump outdoor mass wealth and power through deception, intimidation,
and media manipulation. Con was fiercely committed to advancing his
own conservative ideology and relentlessly dominating any enemies who dared
(33:11):
challenge him, and in the film he shares three rules
of winning with Trump, and Trump adopted those three rules,
so we may as well share them. Attack, attack, attack,
admit nothing, deny everything, claim victory, and never admit defeat.
And The Apprentice is about the rise and rise and
(33:32):
rise of Donald Trump, who barged his way through life
and through people with the attitude that they were indispensable.
They were dispensable rather than indispensable with a capital D.
It was all about furthering his own cause, be professional
or personal. The primary focus is on his relationship with
Roy Cohn, and a subplot involves his subsequent wooing and
(33:54):
treatment of his wife Ivana played by Maria Bakalova, who
he paints Trump as having his eyes opened wide by Cohn,
and that results in the creation of an egotistical, self
centered monster of sorts. Is deeply attracted to throwing his
(34:14):
weight around and he revels in riding roughshot over everyone.
In other words, if he wants something, he'll get it,
whatever the prize. So Donald Trump himself not the movie,
has already come out and said that he's hardly enamored
by his representation in this film. Surprise surprise not and
I dare say anyone who watches it won't be surprised
(34:37):
either to hear that. All I will say is I'll
comment on The Apprentice as a movie. I'm not going
to talk about the politics. I found it hideously compelling.
What it presents is ugly and exploitative, but I couldn't
turn away. And the writer Gabrielle Sherman has pulled no punches,
and the director Ali Abassi runs with it to the
(35:00):
nth degree. And it's a movie that hits and hits
very very hard. Its authenticity or the authentic feel, comes
down to the production values and the cinematography. It's graty
look effectively portrays the era casp patusanuted the worst person
in the world is the director of photography, Sebastian stan
I think he does a really good job transitioning Trump
(35:22):
from a somewhat naive operative to a megalamodiac. Jeremy Strong
is really strong himself, as Roy Conne matches Stan stride
for stride, except in reverse because the lifeblood is sucked
out of him. And I also like the way that
Maria Baklova pushed back as Ivana. Although one scene involving
(35:43):
her in domestic violence. I just found it just so distressing.
Trump's treatment of his wife in the film once the
gloss wears off is appalling. The Apprentice is a movie. Well,
it's a cautionary tale about power and corruption that I reckon.
You feel like taking a shit hour after watching, right,
and so it's you know, it's a guilty type pleasure
(36:05):
film for me. That was my assessment of The Apprentice.
What about you, Greek King?
Speaker 2 (36:12):
This is this is an American horror story playing out here.
Speaker 1 (36:15):
I think, Look, what do you think.
Speaker 2 (36:17):
Of Donald Trump is one of the most controversial and
divisive figures in contemporary bolshics at the moment, like he
will loathe him, and I can see why him and
his campaign tried to band this film from being released,
especially in America. In the lead apitylicate because it's not
exactly the most flattering portrait of a person. And as
you said, has been written by Gabriel Sherman, who apparently
(36:40):
has interviewed Trump several times in his career. But this
is here that takes its title for that reality TV
show that ran the fifth age season that Trump hosted
for Mastuly. Signed there but ironically here as Trump, who
is the apprentice to Roy Cohen, himself a controversial figure,
pub nacious, unscrupulous lawyer who also had a key role
(37:04):
in that play Ariels in America, which exposed his true
nature there, you know, in the fifties, as you mentioned
the Rosenbergs, but there's also a key player in the
McCarthy which hunt trials of that communist which hunt Era there.
So he's the despicable person here, And as you said,
I think Jeremy Strong from Succession plays him to the
(37:27):
hilt here. He captures him is chilling nature, is predatory
slip nature there who as he observes the Sevengali write
influence over the young, narcissistic Trump. There he captures his
bullying style, his cold persona, and he's quietly menacing nature.
But I think the chemistry between him and Sebastian Standard
(37:50):
plays Trump is quite palpable here and brings the material alive.
And I agree with you about the way the film
you picked, that decaying New York of the seventies and
early eighties. Here as the ukin sleeve he corrupts this brawl.
Great production design there, the use of some archival forties
integrated carefully into there as well, and the cinematographer Cas
(38:12):
Tapson gives the material that nostalgic Addiesvielle with the granny
brownish color palette there. But yeah, thrub here comes across
as narcissistic, selfish. And there's a couple of another scene
that I had looked away from, not that scene away
he reached Ivana, but also that scene when he undergoes
some surgery my production and has part of his scalp
(38:35):
removes open implane head follow was there. I had to
look away that bit, So that was sort of discussing
there as well. And I didn't think there is much
about Ivana here. I thought her role was fairly faintless there.
Martin donnovan did a good job as the unsympathetic and
condescending in the loop ThReD Trump there. Yeah, I thought
(38:59):
this was It wasn't intended to be a hit piece
on Donald Trump, but it does show where he came from,
and you can see a lot of how he's running
his campaign, how he's running politics from this portrait here.
Where As you said, he learned his playbook from Roy Cohne.
Speaker 1 (39:20):
Peter, do you have any conception of how you determine
fact from fiction because you look at this and you think,
surely a lot of this stuff couldn't be true.
Speaker 4 (39:30):
Well, it's an interesting question because this is certainly not
a documentary. It's about the formative years of Trump. But
I know that a lot of it is true because
they had lawyers, They did a lot of checking to
make sure that it was not able to be They
(39:54):
couldn't sue the filmmakers because most of it is based
on on fact, on what Ivana has spoken about about interviews,
and a whole range of things. So, look, this film
surprised me. I didn't think I was going to enjoy this.
I thought this was going to be another exploitative political drama,
(40:18):
and it turned out to be a well written by
Gabriel Sharman and well directed film which gave you an
insight into the character of Donald Trump and the way
he is now. And so let's leave the politics aside.
I actually thought Maria Bakelova did a good job in
(40:42):
her role as Ivanna, because she stands out as being
reasonably strong and independent against a difficult person who she
was attracted to in the first place, which I found
interesting in it. And yes, roy Cone is an amazing
(41:04):
character played by Jeremy Strong, and as you mentioned to
Greg Angels in America showed what a despicable manipulative character
he was and how he was able to influence as
somewhat naive Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (41:20):
But so rising bit, Peter, isn't it. I mean yes,
because I suppose that I'm not sure whether you could
watch The American Apprentice in Australia or whatever. We didn't
really have that history with him. We've only known him
to be this sort of the bully boy tactics that
he employed after losing last election etc. That really put
(41:41):
him on the map and you know, self confidence and
all that sort of stuff. So to see him in
the Infancy, I found that fascinating.
Speaker 4 (41:48):
Yes, absolutely, and that was so well directed and written.
But I also need to give a shout out to
the editor who has put together a range of sequence
is so much information, historical events, archival footage and so on,
but edited it together in such a way that it
(42:09):
is quite compelling. And it could have been quite a
dreary sort of film and just one step after another,
but it actually is really well shot and will edited.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
And even if you thought you knew about Trump. And
again I don't know how much is fact and how
much is fiction. But you thought you knew about Trump.
This sort of opens your eyes, that's what I reckon.
Speaker 4 (42:31):
It does. It does it gives you an idea of
what created the person that he is now and the
role of the father and how he was so dominating
and always hated Trump, but also his brother, Trump's brother,
(42:54):
who is a character that is such a sad depiction
of a poor treatment by a family, especially well by
the father in particular. So there's a lot going on there.
And I really quite liked the film, which surprised me.
I didn't think I was known to now.
Speaker 2 (43:15):
I was just wanting to watch someone like Oliver Stone
would have done with this martial, given his sort of
incendiary style of filmmaking.
Speaker 4 (43:21):
Yes, it would have been much more a melodramatic and
I think much more.
Speaker 1 (43:29):
Yeah, yeah, it could well have been. Jackie. I can
only imagine how you rancted to some of the scenes
in this one.
Speaker 3 (43:37):
Well, you don't need to imagine. I'll tell you if
you like.
Speaker 1 (43:40):
Well, Jackie, the floor is yours. You just go for
the jugular, please.
Speaker 3 (43:47):
I'm possibly unlike you. I did have a little bit
of a feeling for what Trump was like before he
suddenly stepped onto the presidential stage, at least in contention
for it, and started becoming a better known And that
was through the Celebrity Apprentice TV show, which I used
(44:09):
to watch, and that ran from two thousand and eight
to twenty fifteen.
Speaker 1 (44:14):
So will oh Jackie, are you still there? We've suddenly
lost you. Nevertheless, sorry, Jackie, pardon me, Jackie. You actually
cut out for the best part of twenty seconds there,
so we didn't hear you.
Speaker 3 (44:28):
Oh no, my pearls of wisdom have gone off in cyberspace.
Speaker 1 (44:34):
That's presuming you have some thank you Yeah.
Speaker 3 (44:37):
Yes, and you missed them. Never mind, I go on.
I did enjoy the TV show, The Celebrity Apprentice, and
that did give me some of what his character was
like in being a fervent capitalist and bully, even though
it was sanitized probably for the deep. Okay, Peter's off,
(44:58):
Peter's off for the for the team. We just want
to know that you win at the end, Peter. So
I did get an idea of what his character was
like before he became a president, or at least started
going into that race. What I liked about this film
was everything that you have said it was. It was dramatization,
(45:23):
and it wasn't It didn't seem to be trying to
be a hit piece, as I think Peter said, because
so much of it is based on fact, and it
keeps feeding us that with the with the actual archival footage,
and you know, we're seeing Ronald Reagan and we're seeing
how all of that politics and what was going on
in New York was being fed into his character. I think,
(45:46):
you know, I was a polarizing person prominent in the
world today. It's good to see this film and know
how much came from his father and how much from
Rule Cone and and as Peter said, also, it was
thoroughly enjoyable. It's the character development that I really like.
(46:10):
We scout up.
Speaker 1 (46:14):
And you are, and the talking that this has every
machinery I think they're carrying out road works. Why are
you talking to us? We're losing you, Jackie.
Speaker 3 (46:25):
You know it's it's not actually coming from me. I
think it's coming from Peter. Never mind, as I say, yes,
I really enjoyed The Apprentice.
Speaker 1 (46:34):
Peter, are you sure the Grand Prix is a early again?
You know what the's going on here, right, You're drowning
out to Jackie. You know, she's such a timid person
to begin with, you know, and you don't want to
demean her any further. That's not good, Jackie.
Speaker 3 (46:50):
The other thing about the film Apprentice, I think is
that it could potentially potentially have been a lot more controversial.
It could have really gone in hard on a whole
lot of stuff. But don't think it's back through that.
Speaker 1 (47:04):
Don't you think it did? Oh?
Speaker 3 (47:06):
No, I think it pulls back a lot because it
gives us. It gives us explanation for things. We might
not like what we see, but we kind of understand
it in a way. You know.
Speaker 1 (47:18):
It's funny. Again, I call on the quote that I
used before power corrupts, Absolute, power corrupts. Absolutely. Don't you
think there's some truism in that in terms of The
Apprentice as well, Jackie well in.
Speaker 3 (47:32):
Yes, well definitely, in referring to Roy Cone and then
how he passes that on to Donald Trump, the young,
impressionable Donald Trump who finds whose father dominates him and
doesn't give him the praise or support that he actually
wants or you know, the approval that he wants. He
(47:53):
and Roy Cone sees potentially in Donald Trump and encourages
the behavior that gives him an alternative father figure, if
you like and approve alternative approving father figure.
Speaker 1 (48:07):
I found it interesting in the context that he could
obviously see that if he sort of champions him through
and that in the future, he's going to be able
to use that relationship to his advantage, because I mean,
why was con doing it that Initially? I was thinking,
what's he to gain by.
Speaker 3 (48:29):
Exactly that he's manipulative. He says that from the start.
You know, he actually says, don't pay for the whatever
it was the suit, don't pay for the suit. I'll
cover that, he says, I'll get it back from you
later on.
Speaker 1 (48:44):
Yeah, exactly. All right, So we're all going to give
this very good marks. I'm going to kick it off.
This is The Apprentice Rated m A two hours, two
minutes eight out of ten.
Speaker 3 (48:54):
For me Jackie eight out of ten from.
Speaker 4 (48:57):
Me Peter, Yes, good film, seven out of ten.
Speaker 2 (49:01):
Greg only a bit of low balls sixty out of ten,
just growing out like Donald Trump?
Speaker 1 (49:07):
Can you can you?
Speaker 3 (49:09):
He's such an impartial critic?
Speaker 1 (49:12):
Really, oh mate, I love you dearly.
Speaker 3 (49:16):
That's very verd Hey, Greg, Greg, I reckon Donald Trump's
gonna suit you?
Speaker 1 (49:20):
Now, yeah, I was going to.
Speaker 2 (49:22):
I'll leave enough instead of going to prison like Stephen
Colbert Gilli Pimmel that I worry about it. George Clooney,
you're gonna yel there before you this to me.
Speaker 1 (49:31):
Okay, yeah, but but Greg as it can you can
you distance your disdain for him and give me a
mark for a movie rather than for Donald Trump. So
I've oh, that's hilarious. Okay, we're limited in time, but
we I want to talk about Joker. Folly Adieu m
(49:52):
A rated two hours and eighteen minutes second installment of Joker.
Really controversial a musical. Who would have thunk it a
notwithstanding there's Lady Gaga there. Hardly mainstream entertainment. It's got
the feel of a strong and decidedly dark independent movie,
which I actually appreciated because of the layers within it,
(50:15):
and like he did so brilliantly in Joker, Wuck in
Phoenix is quite a revelation. As Arthur Fleck aka Joker,
he's in prison awaiting trial for the murder spree that
Joker went on, slaying five or is that six people
in quick time, including one on live television, and he
appears to be this forlorn character, not responding to the
(50:38):
guard's taunts to tell him a joke. One who does
reward him for good behavior, though, is Jackie Sullivan played
by Brendan Gleeson, who takes him along to a music
therapy session, and that's where he connects with an inmate
by the name of Lee Quinzel aka Harley Quinn. That's
the Lady Garga role, and she claims she's from the
(50:59):
same neighborhood as Arthur Fleck and had a terrible home
life being institutionalized by her mother. She is driven to Joker,
and Joker is driven to her, or Arthur Fleck is
driven to her. The pair starts an intense relationship in
which they fantasize about what might be. Meanwhile, Fleck's legal representative,
(51:20):
Mary Anne Stewart played by Katherine Keener, is trying to
convince him to play along with her defense strategy of
a split personality. In other words, he didn't do it, it
was my alter ego. The court case sees a groundswell
of support for Joker Lee who is Lee Quinzel, who's
(51:41):
increasingly influencing Arthur Fleck's decision making is at odds with
his lawyer, and basically the former, who has adopted the
Harley Quinn makeup and dress sense, tells Arthur Fleck that
he can do anything right. So Lee Quinzel says, you
can do anything you want. Written by Scott Silver and
(52:04):
directed by Todd Phillips, the combination behind Joker Follier Dueu
delves deep into mental illness and psychosis, so dreams and
hallucinations play a large part, and this is often when
Lady Garga and work in Phoenix are seen singing together,
and in one scene Phoenix actually resorts to tap dancing.
(52:24):
I thought there was a potent connection between them. I
thought Gleeson was memorable as the guard who gives Fleck
some latitude, and I also appreciated the cameo of Steve
Coogan as a tabloid television interviewer Patti Myers, who the
legal eagle Stewart lines up to question Arthur Fleck before
the trial. Music is an undoubted feature of the work,
and although I dare say a lot of people, as
(52:45):
they already have, will find that out of place, not me.
I thought the choices were appropriate, so to the period
production values that are associated with this movie. Look, it
is divisive. It's divisive among critics, it's divisive among the
fee paying public, many of whom will find it hard
going and not to their liking, apart from thinking that
it was twenty minutes too long. But I'm in the
(53:08):
positive camp. I mean, I thought what Phoenix Gaga and
the writers and director brought to the table was actually compelling,
dive into the abyss. That's the essence of a troubled
mind or too, as is the case in the representation
of both Joker and Harley Quinn. So yeah, I might
(53:31):
be in the minority, but I appreciated the film. People
who are going along thinking it's going to be a
replica of the first well it's not, and it never
should have been. So you know, what's the problem with
A Jackie.
Speaker 3 (53:44):
I don't have a problem with it at all. I
did struggle with it to start with, because there is
a thought that when you're going into it as a sequel,
that you're going to see something of the same genre
or feel or But I thought, you know, in reflection,
that it actually grew a lot more from the original,
(54:06):
which I really enjoyed. I didn't enjoy this as much,
but I could see why it was like it is,
as John McDonald in the Financial Review calls it possibly
the most depressing.
Speaker 1 (54:16):
Musical of all time.
Speaker 3 (54:19):
The films weren't my favorite thing about it. I didn't
like the choices of songs all the time, and I
didn't like because I didn't feel they drove the narrative.
You know, it was in my mind, did Lady Guard
choose these because she likes them and she sings them well?
And I think a lot of the songs made were
the fault that made the film too long. However, that aside,
(54:40):
I did. I did like the way that it presented
the mental disorder scenario, the fantasy sequences and the mental
madeem if you like, and the influence of others on
him and on the Joker and Joker on the others,
the courtroom scene in you know, it made sense to
(55:01):
me of why it was done this way. And I
think the film The Joker too was brave, and it
was sad and as you say, compelling, you know, partly repulsive,
and had a lot in it that wasn't lovely, but
it made sense to make.
Speaker 1 (55:18):
And now Peter only in forty seconds and Greg as well.
I'm afraid we could talk a bit further next week.
Did you like it or not?
Speaker 4 (55:24):
Peter, I'm on the fence with this one because I
think it was a bit of a mess in terms
of its fusion of music, Some of the songs seemed irrelevant,
and the idea of bipolar not split personality, that term
doesn't exist, which I thought.
Speaker 1 (55:47):
I've just created it y yes, yes, okay, Greg King
in forty seconds.
Speaker 2 (55:53):
This is a bleak mips of prison drama, courtroom drama,
old fashioned musical. But I thought it was a little clunky.
Tony is unneven. Not every element works there, and I
feel it was overly long and one hundred and thirty
eight minutes for what I had to say, and it
lacked the same sense of dramatic tension and uneasy as
the original. But Whichael Phoenis is great in it with
(56:16):
his performance there, but I don't think there's any real
chemistry between him and Lady Gaga.
Speaker 1 (56:20):
Really, okay. Score out of ten Peter, I give it
five out of ten, Greg five out of ten, Jackie
seven out of ten, eight out of ten for mine,
thank you very much for your valuable contribution Jacqueline. Thank you,
Peter Kraus, thank you, Gregory King. You've been listening to
First On Film and Entertainment, and we are going to
(56:41):
be doing it again awfully soon, so listen out. Have
a great week, folks,
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com