WEBVTT - Wuthering Heights: audacious masterpiece or dog’s breakfast?

0:00:09.000 --> 0:00:11.280
<v Speaker 1>From the Australian. This is the weekend edition of the

0:00:11.280 --> 0:00:17.880
<v Speaker 1>Front Unclaire Harvey. Wuthering Heights is the most polarizing cinema

0:00:17.960 --> 0:00:21.480
<v Speaker 1>event of twenty twenty six. Reviewers have thrown at five

0:00:21.520 --> 0:00:25.600
<v Speaker 1>stars or one, audiences have loved it or walked out

0:00:25.640 --> 0:00:28.520
<v Speaker 1>of the cinema. One thing people agree on is that

0:00:28.560 --> 0:00:32.360
<v Speaker 1>Emerald Fanelle's adaptation of Emily Bronte's story of love and

0:00:32.520 --> 0:00:37.760
<v Speaker 1>Revenge is for women, specifically young women. So joining me

0:00:37.840 --> 0:00:41.239
<v Speaker 1>today is Bianca far Marcus, content director of Culture at

0:00:41.240 --> 0:00:45.320
<v Speaker 1>The Australian and a young woman and spoiler alert, she

0:00:45.440 --> 0:00:55.960
<v Speaker 1>hated it. What should you do here?

0:00:56.760 --> 0:01:01.880
<v Speaker 2>Well, if you were rich supposor and do all Richmond

0:01:03.680 --> 0:01:04.520
<v Speaker 2>live in a big ouse?

0:01:06.240 --> 0:01:07.759
<v Speaker 3>It be cruel to my servants.

0:01:10.080 --> 0:01:14.480
<v Speaker 1>Take a wife, a wife? What wife?

0:01:15.000 --> 0:01:15.160
<v Speaker 4>Hi?

0:01:19.360 --> 0:01:22.199
<v Speaker 1>The Australian's got a new chief film critic, Nikki Gammel,

0:01:22.480 --> 0:01:25.000
<v Speaker 1>and she announced herself in the role with a pretty

0:01:25.040 --> 0:01:27.959
<v Speaker 1>startling review Wuthering Heights.

0:01:28.880 --> 0:01:35.760
<v Speaker 4>Oh my goodness, five stars, my first ever five star review.

0:01:37.000 --> 0:01:40.440
<v Speaker 1>Bianca far Marcus is The Australian's Content director of Culture

0:01:40.520 --> 0:01:43.120
<v Speaker 1>and Bianca, it's safe to say Nicki loved this movie.

0:01:43.440 --> 0:01:46.120
<v Speaker 5>Yes, she absolutely loved the film. I think it's one

0:01:46.160 --> 0:01:50.160
<v Speaker 5>of the most exciting reviews I've read of Wuthering Heights,

0:01:50.240 --> 0:01:54.360
<v Speaker 5>and our audience loved either agreeing with her or getting

0:01:54.360 --> 0:01:57.120
<v Speaker 5>into a debate, which this film seems to be sparking

0:01:57.200 --> 0:01:57.760
<v Speaker 5>a lot of.

0:01:58.880 --> 0:02:04.520
<v Speaker 4>Emerald Fanelle has electrified the franchise. I watched the nineteen

0:02:04.680 --> 0:02:08.600
<v Speaker 4>thirty nine Wathering Heights you know, Lawrence Olivier mil Oberon

0:02:09.040 --> 0:02:12.720
<v Speaker 4>with my heart. I watched the very Door Overly Yearness

0:02:12.800 --> 0:02:17.600
<v Speaker 4>twenty eleven Andrea Arnold version with my head. I watched

0:02:17.600 --> 0:02:18.320
<v Speaker 4>this one.

0:02:18.480 --> 0:02:24.839
<v Speaker 1>With my groin. Bianka, you got Nikki and a few

0:02:24.840 --> 0:02:27.440
<v Speaker 1>of our other experts, Jordi Gray and Melanda rout into

0:02:27.560 --> 0:02:30.959
<v Speaker 1>the State Theater to have a deep dive into who

0:02:31.000 --> 0:02:33.119
<v Speaker 1>loved Wathering Heights and who hated it.

0:02:34.639 --> 0:02:38.720
<v Speaker 4>We are at the glorious State Theater in Sydney. We're

0:02:38.800 --> 0:02:41.959
<v Speaker 4>just a couple of weeks ago. Wathering Heights made its

0:02:42.080 --> 0:02:48.240
<v Speaker 4>Australian premiere quite divisive ever since. I think we should

0:02:48.240 --> 0:02:49.720
<v Speaker 4>turn to bi Anchor.

0:02:50.280 --> 0:02:52.440
<v Speaker 5>Let me just start by saying I don't think Wathering

0:02:52.480 --> 0:02:55.960
<v Speaker 5>Heights is necessarily a bad movie. I would say it's

0:02:55.960 --> 0:02:57.240
<v Speaker 5>the worst film I've ever seen.

0:02:59.040 --> 0:02:59.639
<v Speaker 2>Banker.

0:03:01.360 --> 0:03:03.800
<v Speaker 5>Now, I know I'm surrounded by fans here, and I

0:03:03.800 --> 0:03:06.239
<v Speaker 5>would just like to kick off this conversation by saying,

0:03:06.400 --> 0:03:08.320
<v Speaker 5>what was it that you actually enjoyed?

0:03:09.080 --> 0:03:10.320
<v Speaker 1>I loved It's audacity.

0:03:10.880 --> 0:03:16.560
<v Speaker 6>For me, It's about women being audacious and breaking through

0:03:16.600 --> 0:03:20.920
<v Speaker 6>with boldness and daring, just as Emily Bronte did in

0:03:20.960 --> 0:03:26.160
<v Speaker 6>eighteen forty six eighteen forty seven. Emerald Fanelle has seized

0:03:26.760 --> 0:03:31.360
<v Speaker 6>the ip, the original product and made something electric and

0:03:31.440 --> 0:03:33.480
<v Speaker 6>alive and Dann sexy.

0:03:33.800 --> 0:03:38.240
<v Speaker 4>I just take off my hat to her.

0:03:38.360 --> 0:03:40.160
<v Speaker 1>The ankle. We're gonna look at what some other people

0:03:40.200 --> 0:03:41.640
<v Speaker 1>thought of this movie, but I need to know more

0:03:41.680 --> 0:03:43.880
<v Speaker 1>about why you hated it. Why did you hate this

0:03:43.960 --> 0:03:44.640
<v Speaker 1>movie so much?

0:03:45.120 --> 0:03:50.360
<v Speaker 5>It's three things. Firstly, all style, no substance. Secondly, and

0:03:50.720 --> 0:03:52.640
<v Speaker 5>I really hope I'm not deported for this one, but

0:03:53.000 --> 0:03:56.080
<v Speaker 5>Margot Robbie and Jacob e Loordi cannot act together. They

0:03:56.080 --> 0:03:57.000
<v Speaker 5>were hopeless.

0:03:58.080 --> 0:04:02.640
<v Speaker 2>I have not broken your heart, have broken it, and

0:04:02.760 --> 0:04:17.320
<v Speaker 2>in breaking it, you've broken minds kussas broth Betun.

0:04:19.360 --> 0:04:22.400
<v Speaker 5>Thirdly would be the positioning of this film as a

0:04:22.440 --> 0:04:24.720
<v Speaker 5>great love story, which has caused a lot of drama

0:04:24.720 --> 0:04:27.240
<v Speaker 5>for a lot of different reasons. People are upset that

0:04:27.320 --> 0:04:30.000
<v Speaker 5>it deviated so much from the original text. People are

0:04:30.080 --> 0:04:32.599
<v Speaker 5>upset that it kind of ignores the whole domestic violence

0:04:33.080 --> 0:04:36.400
<v Speaker 5>element to it. My main gripe was that if you're

0:04:36.440 --> 0:04:38.360
<v Speaker 5>going to position something as a love story, you need

0:04:38.400 --> 0:04:40.920
<v Speaker 5>to get actors with the slightest bit of chemistry, and

0:04:41.000 --> 0:04:46.400
<v Speaker 5>the symbolism used was just the most lazy and boring

0:04:46.560 --> 0:04:49.600
<v Speaker 5>kind of hints at subtle sexuality. I think I've ever

0:04:49.680 --> 0:04:52.080
<v Speaker 5>had the misfortune of watching for two and a half

0:04:52.080 --> 0:04:54.240
<v Speaker 5>hours of my life. I cannot tell you how much

0:04:54.279 --> 0:04:55.520
<v Speaker 5>I hated this movie.

0:04:55.600 --> 0:04:57.960
<v Speaker 1>I really don't want to see it because I, as

0:04:58.000 --> 0:05:01.279
<v Speaker 1>a devoted Jane Austen fan fine the Bronte sisters and

0:05:01.320 --> 0:05:04.760
<v Speaker 1>their gothic running around on the moor's kind of ripping

0:05:04.800 --> 0:05:09.440
<v Speaker 1>your clothes often crying novels really tedious. I also found

0:05:09.680 --> 0:05:12.680
<v Speaker 1>really tedious Saltburn, which is the movie that everyone loves

0:05:12.720 --> 0:05:20.400
<v Speaker 1>by Emerald Fanell. Hello Oliver Darning, Oh beautiful eyes, Oh.

0:05:20.640 --> 0:05:23.120
<v Speaker 4>Wonderful No, I told you it wasn't a Minger Oh,

0:05:23.120 --> 0:05:26.200
<v Speaker 4>but Darning your kind about everyone you can't be trusted?

0:05:27.120 --> 0:05:28.040
<v Speaker 1>Did you like Saltburn?

0:05:28.480 --> 0:05:31.120
<v Speaker 5>I found Saltburn fine personally. I thought it was a

0:05:31.120 --> 0:05:35.240
<v Speaker 5>poor man's Tom Ripley and just focused more on the

0:05:35.520 --> 0:05:38.640
<v Speaker 5>depravity than anything else. It had interesting bits, and I

0:05:38.680 --> 0:05:42.040
<v Speaker 5>think visually she is an impeccable filmmaker, and I think

0:05:42.080 --> 0:05:45.719
<v Speaker 5>culturally she is one of the most interesting filmmakers of

0:05:45.800 --> 0:05:48.159
<v Speaker 5>our time and really shows like kind of this new

0:05:48.240 --> 0:05:52.039
<v Speaker 5>generational shift of how we're watching films. My personal favorite

0:05:52.080 --> 0:05:53.680
<v Speaker 5>was her debut promising Young Woman.

0:05:55.160 --> 0:06:01.000
<v Speaker 1>Oh you Hi, I'm back because I think you gave

0:06:01.040 --> 0:06:02.640
<v Speaker 1>me a fake number.

0:06:02.320 --> 0:06:05.160
<v Speaker 2>The other day.

0:06:05.360 --> 0:06:11.040
<v Speaker 7>I'm not really looking to date anyone at the moment, Yeah.

0:06:10.080 --> 0:06:10.520
<v Speaker 2>Me, neither.

0:06:11.120 --> 0:06:11.680
<v Speaker 4>Would you.

0:06:13.360 --> 0:06:17.880
<v Speaker 1>Be interested in a friendship And I'm secretly pining for you.

0:06:17.839 --> 0:06:18.440
<v Speaker 2>The whole time.

0:06:20.560 --> 0:06:24.200
<v Speaker 5>The substance, the nuance of it, every single element of

0:06:24.200 --> 0:06:28.080
<v Speaker 5>that film was just a work of art. I don't

0:06:28.120 --> 0:06:31.440
<v Speaker 5>know what's happened since. I think for anyone wanting to

0:06:31.520 --> 0:06:33.720
<v Speaker 5>know whether they should see whether in Heights or not,

0:06:34.279 --> 0:06:37.040
<v Speaker 5>I'd say read a Vogue, drop a cardon of eggs

0:06:37.080 --> 0:06:41.160
<v Speaker 5>on the floor, and look at someone you find attractive

0:06:41.200 --> 0:06:43.400
<v Speaker 5>from a distance, and think about what it would be

0:06:43.440 --> 0:06:45.160
<v Speaker 5>like to be with them for five minutes. You pretty

0:06:45.240 --> 0:06:46.920
<v Speaker 5>much just saved yourself two and a half hours and

0:06:46.960 --> 0:06:48.240
<v Speaker 5>ten minutes that's what you get.

0:06:48.600 --> 0:06:50.880
<v Speaker 1>Throw a bucket of cold water on yourself and pretend

0:06:50.880 --> 0:06:53.520
<v Speaker 1>you're on the Yorkshire Wars. Let's read a review by

0:06:53.560 --> 0:06:57.800
<v Speaker 1>The Independence Clarice Lowry. She gave it one star. She said,

0:06:57.880 --> 0:07:01.960
<v Speaker 1>adaptation or not, it's an astonishingly hollow work. Some of this,

0:07:02.080 --> 0:07:04.840
<v Speaker 1>it can be argued, was already signaled by the film's

0:07:04.880 --> 0:07:08.159
<v Speaker 1>casting and the choice to obliterate any mention of race,

0:07:08.200 --> 0:07:12.880
<v Speaker 1>colonialism or ostracization in the telling of Pseudo Siblings Kafyine

0:07:12.880 --> 0:07:18.920
<v Speaker 1>Heathcliff's destructive codependence. Heathcliff, who's ethnically ambiguous appearance is of

0:07:19.000 --> 0:07:21.840
<v Speaker 1>great concern to every other character in the book, is

0:07:21.880 --> 0:07:25.920
<v Speaker 1>played by white Australian actor Jacob Alaudie. Now this has

0:07:25.960 --> 0:07:28.800
<v Speaker 1>been a thread of the commentary about Jacob Elordie's performance.

0:07:28.920 --> 0:07:31.240
<v Speaker 1>Whether you like it or not, there's a critique that

0:07:31.280 --> 0:07:34.080
<v Speaker 1>he's too basically. I think that might be a little

0:07:34.080 --> 0:07:38.200
<v Speaker 1>bit unfair. I mean, yes, he is not a gypsy

0:07:38.560 --> 0:07:43.680
<v Speaker 1>as Heathcliff is described in the original text, but he's

0:07:43.720 --> 0:07:45.200
<v Speaker 1>also not blonde with blue eyes.

0:07:45.560 --> 0:07:47.360
<v Speaker 5>I think people getting hung up on the fact that

0:07:47.360 --> 0:07:50.640
<v Speaker 5>it's not directly a representation of the book are missing

0:07:50.640 --> 0:07:54.120
<v Speaker 5>the point that Emerald Fanell intentionally put it in inverted commons.

0:07:54.320 --> 0:07:57.880
<v Speaker 5>We know it's wuthering heights in her interpretation, and I

0:07:57.920 --> 0:08:01.600
<v Speaker 5>also just think it riscins the ability to move on

0:08:01.800 --> 0:08:04.960
<v Speaker 5>from the text, Like there are versions of the book

0:08:05.000 --> 0:08:07.120
<v Speaker 5>that's turned into a film that is very loyal to that,

0:08:07.200 --> 0:08:09.760
<v Speaker 5>and I think it's important, But I also don't know

0:08:09.800 --> 0:08:12.440
<v Speaker 5>why that's become such a sticking point when there's plenty

0:08:12.440 --> 0:08:14.400
<v Speaker 5>of other things to hate about this movie.

0:08:15.000 --> 0:08:17.600
<v Speaker 1>There are certainly ways to adapt iconic novels without being

0:08:17.600 --> 0:08:20.360
<v Speaker 1>faithful to the text. Clueless is a great example of that,

0:08:20.440 --> 0:08:25.280
<v Speaker 1>the nineteen nineties movie that's an adaptation of Jane Austen's Emma.

0:08:25.440 --> 0:08:28.160
<v Speaker 7>You're like, I go out like that are share?

0:08:28.160 --> 0:08:28.800
<v Speaker 2>I get in here?

0:08:29.000 --> 0:08:29.760
<v Speaker 4>What's that? Daddy?

0:08:29.920 --> 0:08:30.720
<v Speaker 1>What the hell is that?

0:08:31.400 --> 0:08:31.960
<v Speaker 3>Address?

0:08:32.480 --> 0:08:34.160
<v Speaker 1>Says who Calvin Klein.

0:08:34.480 --> 0:08:35.559
<v Speaker 2>It looks like underwear.

0:08:36.000 --> 0:08:37.920
<v Speaker 1>Go upstairs and put something over it.

0:08:38.000 --> 0:08:39.319
<v Speaker 4>So I was just going to.

0:08:41.520 --> 0:08:45.920
<v Speaker 1>It managed to be funny and incisive and different, but

0:08:45.960 --> 0:08:49.240
<v Speaker 1>it didn't get itself into the same jam that Emerald

0:08:49.280 --> 0:08:52.800
<v Speaker 1>Fanell's now in, And maybe inverted commason on enough to

0:08:52.840 --> 0:08:54.840
<v Speaker 1>distance you from the original text.

0:08:55.120 --> 0:08:57.960
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, absolutely, I mean, my personal favorites ten things I

0:08:57.960 --> 0:08:59.959
<v Speaker 5>Hate about you The Taming of the Shrew.

0:09:01.679 --> 0:09:04.240
<v Speaker 4>All right, anyone braving up to read theirs aloud?

0:09:05.800 --> 0:09:14.240
<v Speaker 7>I will lord, here we go. I hate the way

0:09:14.280 --> 0:09:16.400
<v Speaker 7>you talk to me and the way you cut your hair.

0:09:17.120 --> 0:09:19.319
<v Speaker 7>I hate the way you drive my car. I hate

0:09:19.360 --> 0:09:23.040
<v Speaker 7>it when you stare. I hate your big, dumb combat

0:09:23.040 --> 0:09:25.880
<v Speaker 7>boots and the way you read my mind. I hate

0:09:25.880 --> 0:09:28.240
<v Speaker 7>you so much it makes me sick. It even makes

0:09:28.280 --> 0:09:28.680
<v Speaker 7>me rhyme.

0:09:31.000 --> 0:09:33.840
<v Speaker 5>I guess what those achieved was taking it completely out

0:09:33.920 --> 0:09:35.880
<v Speaker 5>of the world that it was said in, whereas Emerald

0:09:35.880 --> 0:09:39.680
<v Speaker 5>Fanel kind of does this sort of lazy flirtation with

0:09:39.720 --> 0:09:43.200
<v Speaker 5>it and then just ignores everything else. So it's a

0:09:43.240 --> 0:09:45.520
<v Speaker 5>balance of which parts that she ignored that you really

0:09:45.520 --> 0:09:46.320
<v Speaker 5>take an issue with.

0:09:49.880 --> 0:09:52.480
<v Speaker 1>Now, Emerald Fanil is a millennial, but only just she's

0:09:52.559 --> 0:09:55.240
<v Speaker 1>forty years old. Yes, she's getting much closer to my

0:09:55.400 --> 0:09:58.319
<v Speaker 1>end of the spectrum then to yours. But there's a

0:09:58.360 --> 0:10:01.480
<v Speaker 1>lot of talk about how she's reinventing cinema for a

0:10:01.480 --> 0:10:04.000
<v Speaker 1>new generation, and she's making this relevant for young women.

0:10:04.240 --> 0:10:07.720
<v Speaker 1>You're a young woman. Why did that not connect with you?

0:10:08.720 --> 0:10:10.719
<v Speaker 5>Other than the fact that it was beautiful to look at.

0:10:10.800 --> 0:10:14.120
<v Speaker 5>I think it had absolutely nothing to really hook into,

0:10:14.200 --> 0:10:16.600
<v Speaker 5>And I think this one was kind of a failure

0:10:17.360 --> 0:10:20.839
<v Speaker 5>in ways to make a film for young people because

0:10:20.880 --> 0:10:24.280
<v Speaker 5>it did have those sexy celebrities editing that makes the

0:10:24.320 --> 0:10:26.280
<v Speaker 5>whole thing kind of look like a TikTok. At the

0:10:26.360 --> 0:10:28.720
<v Speaker 5>end of the day, it just felt really shallow and

0:10:28.760 --> 0:10:32.400
<v Speaker 5>hollow and overtly reliant on things that appeal to young people,

0:10:33.080 --> 0:10:36.880
<v Speaker 5>rather than in the past, where she's genuinely made films

0:10:36.880 --> 0:10:39.160
<v Speaker 5>that really connect to younger audiences.

0:10:39.760 --> 0:10:43.360
<v Speaker 1>The New Yorkers Justin Chang wrote this in his review.

0:10:43.440 --> 0:10:46.600
<v Speaker 1>The actors generate sparks of passion, but no deeper air

0:10:46.720 --> 0:10:50.360
<v Speaker 1>of tragic or romantic inevitability, no sense of a bond

0:10:50.559 --> 0:10:54.360
<v Speaker 1>forged between souls, and only a smidgen of the corrosive

0:10:54.520 --> 0:10:57.440
<v Speaker 1>rage that makes Wuthering Heights as much of a hate

0:10:57.480 --> 0:11:01.240
<v Speaker 1>story as it is a love story. You hated it,

0:11:01.280 --> 0:11:04.200
<v Speaker 1>obviously that you're bringing the hate. What about the sex?

0:11:04.640 --> 0:11:06.720
<v Speaker 1>Was it sexy? Ah?

0:11:06.920 --> 0:11:07.600
<v Speaker 4>Not? Really?

0:11:09.640 --> 0:11:10.680
<v Speaker 2>Do you want me to stop?

0:11:14.960 --> 0:11:17.800
<v Speaker 5>It was just lazy. It was like, let's rely on

0:11:17.880 --> 0:11:20.560
<v Speaker 5>two attractive people to sell a sex scene. It's like, well,

0:11:20.600 --> 0:11:23.400
<v Speaker 5>they have to actually do something and it can't just

0:11:23.440 --> 0:11:27.280
<v Speaker 5>be random staring across the yard sticking your fingers into

0:11:27.360 --> 0:11:29.680
<v Speaker 5>a fish. Also, the thing that I find quite interesting

0:11:29.720 --> 0:11:33.240
<v Speaker 5>about this is she didn't change the historical context of it. Right.

0:11:33.400 --> 0:11:37.280
<v Speaker 5>This is in the eighteenth century, a pre refrigeration period,

0:11:37.320 --> 0:11:39.280
<v Speaker 5>might I add, So the kind of the idea that

0:11:39.440 --> 0:11:42.920
<v Speaker 5>everyone's getting off by smash dairy and rotting fish is

0:11:43.000 --> 0:11:44.199
<v Speaker 5>just ridiculous to me.

0:11:44.640 --> 0:11:48.120
<v Speaker 1>What was the thing about the eggs? Behind the eggs? Please,

0:11:48.160 --> 0:11:51.000
<v Speaker 1>you gotta tell me these eggs. Everyone's talking about eggs.

0:11:50.800 --> 0:11:52.880
<v Speaker 5>These eggs in this economy is what bothers me the

0:11:52.880 --> 0:11:55.920
<v Speaker 5>most about this film. It's just like it's a symbol

0:11:56.240 --> 0:11:59.520
<v Speaker 5>that Heathcliff keeps leaving her smashed eggs in her bed

0:11:59.600 --> 0:12:02.920
<v Speaker 5>on the floor, or there's eggs smashing everywhere, and apparently

0:12:02.960 --> 0:12:05.000
<v Speaker 5>no one in this village is starving because they just

0:12:05.040 --> 0:12:06.439
<v Speaker 5>get to smash eggs all the time.

0:12:06.800 --> 0:12:09.640
<v Speaker 1>The eggs could be about fertility, about sort of smashing

0:12:09.679 --> 0:12:13.840
<v Speaker 1>her fertility. There could be about you know, bodily.

0:12:13.440 --> 0:12:18.120
<v Speaker 5>Fluids, honestly, and I'm like, I'm meant to believe that

0:12:18.120 --> 0:12:21.120
<v Speaker 5>that's sexy. Really, I mean, don't get me wrong, I

0:12:21.160 --> 0:12:25.240
<v Speaker 5>love and implied sort of sexual reference in everything. I

0:12:25.280 --> 0:12:27.240
<v Speaker 5>think It is very appealing and it does kind of,

0:12:27.360 --> 0:12:29.480
<v Speaker 5>particularly for women, tap into that whole thing of like

0:12:29.520 --> 0:12:32.079
<v Speaker 5>we want to think about it rather than just see,

0:12:32.120 --> 0:12:36.559
<v Speaker 5>like you know, full on sex scenes. But also, I

0:12:36.760 --> 0:12:39.920
<v Speaker 5>just did nothing for me. I just cannot fathom that

0:12:39.960 --> 0:12:44.280
<v Speaker 5>these two people had any chemistry whatsoever. It's like confirms

0:12:44.280 --> 0:12:46.480
<v Speaker 5>my firm belief that there should always be one ugly

0:12:46.520 --> 0:12:49.960
<v Speaker 5>person in a relationship, because then you know they've got

0:12:50.000 --> 0:12:53.760
<v Speaker 5>something else driving you there to stay with them. These

0:12:53.840 --> 0:12:57.320
<v Speaker 5>are two gorgeous and might I add, very talented actors

0:12:57.640 --> 0:13:00.000
<v Speaker 5>that should never again be in a film together.

0:13:00.880 --> 0:13:04.400
<v Speaker 1>They've taken the chemistry or unfortunately not the eggs to

0:13:04.520 --> 0:13:06.600
<v Speaker 1>the red carpet as well. Every time I see them

0:13:06.640 --> 0:13:08.600
<v Speaker 1>on a red carpet, they're kind of all over each other.

0:13:08.880 --> 0:13:13.480
<v Speaker 1>They're posting social media videos with matching rings. That is

0:13:14.160 --> 0:13:16.560
<v Speaker 1>sort of breaking the fourth wall in a quite old way.

0:13:16.600 --> 0:13:18.760
<v Speaker 1>I mean, we meant to believe that Margot and Jacob

0:13:18.800 --> 0:13:20.800
<v Speaker 1>are actually obsessed with each other in real life.

0:13:21.080 --> 0:13:23.600
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, look, I think this is a masterclass in marketing.

0:13:25.120 --> 0:13:29.120
<v Speaker 3>Alison told me about Alex Cameron, who I know know

0:13:29.160 --> 0:13:37.760
<v Speaker 3>Alex Cameron loves modern day meet Look, why have we

0:13:37.840 --> 0:13:39.000
<v Speaker 3>never spoken about.

0:13:44.480 --> 0:13:44.719
<v Speaker 2>The way.

0:13:45.640 --> 0:13:48.120
<v Speaker 5>They clearly did all these things just to build the

0:13:48.200 --> 0:13:50.840
<v Speaker 5>hype around it, and now we have things like Jacob

0:13:50.840 --> 0:13:53.959
<v Speaker 5>Elordie wearing his silver tooth with the initials of the

0:13:54.040 --> 0:13:56.760
<v Speaker 5>characters engraved on it. It's just a marketing ploy, and

0:13:56.760 --> 0:13:59.079
<v Speaker 5>it's a very good one, but it doesn't do anything

0:13:59.120 --> 0:14:01.760
<v Speaker 5>for the film other than build hype around it and

0:14:01.800 --> 0:14:05.440
<v Speaker 5>then spurn a thousand think pieces talking about how bad

0:14:05.480 --> 0:14:05.920
<v Speaker 5>it was.

0:14:06.800 --> 0:14:08.840
<v Speaker 1>Is it going to win any awards? Is this an

0:14:08.880 --> 0:14:09.760
<v Speaker 1>all school worthy film?

0:14:09.760 --> 0:14:12.240
<v Speaker 5>Do you think I think it's a Razzie worthy film

0:14:13.840 --> 0:14:15.880
<v Speaker 5>if you're not on the judging fannel, no, I know

0:14:16.280 --> 0:14:20.680
<v Speaker 5>not yet, but look, I think there are definitely accolades

0:14:20.680 --> 0:14:22.520
<v Speaker 5>to be paid for the costuming and the set design

0:14:22.720 --> 0:14:25.360
<v Speaker 5>is incredible. But yeah, I'm going to give it a

0:14:25.360 --> 0:14:28.120
<v Speaker 5>solid note for the Oscars. Also makes sense for why

0:14:28.160 --> 0:14:31.160
<v Speaker 5>they released in February, because they completely missed the season

0:14:31.240 --> 0:14:35.160
<v Speaker 5>and they will most certainly not be making it the

0:14:35.200 --> 0:14:35.680
<v Speaker 5>next year.

0:14:38.040 --> 0:14:39.760
<v Speaker 1>Bianko far Marcus, I think you've made up my mind.

0:14:39.760 --> 0:14:41.480
<v Speaker 1>I'm not going to see it, and I'm really happy

0:14:41.520 --> 0:14:41.920
<v Speaker 1>about that.

0:14:42.360 --> 0:14:43.280
<v Speaker 5>Wait till streaming.

0:14:43.400 --> 0:14:44.040
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for coming.

0:14:44.160 --> 0:14:44.640
<v Speaker 5>Thank you.

0:14:52.000 --> 0:14:55.200
<v Speaker 1>Biancher far Marcus is Content director of Culture at The Australian.

0:14:55.520 --> 0:14:58.600
<v Speaker 1>Every day you can read the best of arts, entertainment, music,

0:14:58.760 --> 0:15:02.080
<v Speaker 1>dance and more with our culture experts at the Australian

0:15:02.160 --> 0:15:05.680
<v Speaker 1>dot com dot a U slash culture. This episode of

0:15:05.720 --> 0:15:08.440
<v Speaker 1>the Front was hosted by me Claire Harvey and co

0:15:08.560 --> 0:15:12.080
<v Speaker 1>produced with Jasper League, who edited the episode and also

0:15:12.200 --> 0:15:15.200
<v Speaker 1>wrote our theme. Thanks for joining us on the Front

0:15:15.240 --> 0:15:19.080
<v Speaker 1>this week. Our team includes Kristin Amiot Leat Sammaglue, Tiffany

0:15:19.120 --> 0:15:20.680
<v Speaker 1>Dimac and Joshua Burton.