WEBVTT - At the movies with David Stratton 0:00:08.200 --> 0:00:11.280 Hello, and welcome to Something to Talk About for Stella Podcast. 0:00:11.360 --> 0:00:14.319 I'm Sarah Lamarquin, your host, and every week I sit 0:00:14.360 --> 0:00:16.320 down with some of the biggest names in the country 0:00:16.680 --> 0:00:18.840 because when Australia's celebrities are ready to. 0:00:18.800 --> 0:00:21.280 Talk, they come to Something to talk about. 0:00:22.560 --> 0:00:26.680 In the thirty years between nineteen ninety and twenty twenty, 0:00:26.720 --> 0:00:30.120 seven hundred and eighty three films were made in Australia 0:00:30.520 --> 0:00:33.680 and David Stratton has seen every single one of them. 0:00:34.360 --> 0:00:38.440 Before retiring late last year. David spent nearly six decades 0:00:38.520 --> 0:00:42.200 reviewing movies, including an on air partnership with fellow critic 0:00:42.240 --> 0:00:45.080 Margaret Pomerantz that made them one of the most beloved 0:00:45.080 --> 0:00:46.080 double acts. 0:00:45.840 --> 0:00:46.559 In the country. 0:00:46.760 --> 0:00:50.120 To me, it was a winner, David, well, I'm afraid 0:00:50.159 --> 0:00:50.720 it wasn't for me. 0:00:50.840 --> 0:00:53.920 Margaret. I really didn't get onto the wavelength of this 0:00:54.000 --> 0:00:57.440 film at all. I thought it was patronizing towards its characters. 0:00:57.480 --> 0:00:58.760 I didn't find it funny. 0:00:58.880 --> 0:01:01.800 On today's episode, David joins me from his home in 0:01:01.840 --> 0:01:05.720 the Blue Mountains to discuss his new book, He's Enduring 0:01:05.760 --> 0:01:09.920 Friendship with Margaret, his thoughts on some of his most infamous, 0:01:10.440 --> 0:01:14.320 maybe even notorious reviews, including one that landed him in 0:01:14.360 --> 0:01:17.679 hot water with Julie Andrews, and the one film he 0:01:17.720 --> 0:01:20.360 thought was so bad he walked out of the cinema. 0:01:21.319 --> 0:01:24.080 David Stratton, Welcome to the Stellar Podcast. 0:01:24.480 --> 0:01:25.720 It's a pleasure to be here. 0:01:25.880 --> 0:01:29.480 It's almost been a year since you retired. How is 0:01:29.720 --> 0:01:30.960 retirement treating you? 0:01:31.520 --> 0:01:33.600 Not too bad? I haven't been very well. One of 0:01:33.640 --> 0:01:37.240 the reasons I retired was that I lost much of 0:01:37.319 --> 0:01:41.319 my eyesight. So for a film critic, losing your eyesight 0:01:41.480 --> 0:01:46.280 is a pretty glum thing. I'm still coping. I can 0:01:46.319 --> 0:01:49.480 still watch movies, although they're a bit fuzzy these days. 0:01:50.120 --> 0:01:54.320 That I can still watch television. I can still read kindle, 0:01:55.000 --> 0:01:57.200 but I have to be very careful when I walk 0:01:57.320 --> 0:02:01.560 because in case I trip over things on which I'm 0:02:02.080 --> 0:02:06.200 avoiding doing. My other problem was that I fractured my spine, 0:02:06.520 --> 0:02:11.760 and so I had to learn how to walk again. 0:02:11.880 --> 0:02:14.959 Really so, but I've managed to do that pretty much, 0:02:15.040 --> 0:02:18.240 so I'm going well. My wife was looking after me wonderfully. Well, 0:02:18.919 --> 0:02:22.720 I couldn't do it without her. I've dedicated the book 0:02:22.760 --> 0:02:29.880 to her, and yeah, I'm look, I'm fine, really, David. 0:02:29.880 --> 0:02:32.600 I imagine over the course of your career, you have 0:02:32.960 --> 0:02:36.919 constantly been asked by punters what's your favorite film. It's 0:02:36.960 --> 0:02:40.919 a very obvious question for a film critic, and you've 0:02:41.000 --> 0:02:45.079 often cited Singing in the Rain as your all time favorite. 0:02:45.400 --> 0:02:48.440 Does that still stand today, especially since you clearly have 0:02:48.680 --> 0:02:51.680 seen a lot of films that you hadn't previously seen 0:02:51.840 --> 0:02:54.079 since you presumably last answered that question. 0:02:54.880 --> 0:02:58.360 No, I still love Singing in the Rain, and it's 0:03:00.000 --> 0:03:02.959 always loved musicals growing up, because you were. When you 0:03:03.360 --> 0:03:07.880 grew up in the late forties and early fifties, there 0:03:07.919 --> 0:03:12.560 was a new musical film almost every week, and most 0:03:12.600 --> 0:03:16.080 of the popular songs of the time were from movies. 0:03:18.800 --> 0:03:23.480 But the best of the musicals for me was Singing 0:03:23.480 --> 0:03:26.919 in the Rain. And again, I had a wonderful day 0:03:26.960 --> 0:03:29.799 with Jim Kelly. He invited me to his home in 0:03:31.080 --> 0:03:38.120 Beverly Hills and I was doing some radio for two 0:03:38.160 --> 0:03:40.280 GB in Sydney at the time, and I recorded a 0:03:40.280 --> 0:03:45.120 long interview with him, which was a wonderful experience. Was 0:03:45.520 --> 0:03:47.240 again he was a lovely, lovely man. 0:03:47.800 --> 0:03:52.400 So many people, of course remember you so fondly from 0:03:52.720 --> 0:03:56.480 your time on Australian screens, where your partnership with Margaret 0:03:56.480 --> 0:03:59.680 Pomeranz was one of the most famous double acts in 0:04:00.160 --> 0:04:06.080 Australian television. You are broadcast on the ABC from two 0:04:06.160 --> 0:04:10.080 thousand and four on the final episode on twenty fourteen. 0:04:10.160 --> 0:04:13.120 Of course, he'd been presenting together on SBS the Movie 0:04:13.160 --> 0:04:17.039 Show since nineteen eighty six. Again, this is not a 0:04:17.120 --> 0:04:21.120 question that you have not been asked countless times before, 0:04:21.839 --> 0:04:27.240 but nothing if not predictable. What was it do you think, 0:04:27.320 --> 0:04:30.320 David about that double ac that struck such a chord 0:04:30.360 --> 0:04:33.799 and I imagine still does continue to this day. 0:04:34.760 --> 0:04:37.880 Look, I honestly don't know the answer to that question. 0:04:38.920 --> 0:04:42.360 It came as a surprise to us. I think. I 0:04:42.480 --> 0:04:45.360 don't want to speak for Margaret, but I don't think 0:04:45.400 --> 0:04:49.360 we expected anything like that. And the fact that some 0:04:49.440 --> 0:04:54.120 of the SBS movie shows are still screening today on 0:04:54.320 --> 0:05:03.000 SBS during the day just stupefies me sometimes. Look, we 0:05:03.000 --> 0:05:08.440 we came from different, a different background. I had always 0:05:09.200 --> 0:05:11.920 I was a film nerd, I guess you would say. 0:05:11.960 --> 0:05:16.479 And I'd always been since I was a kid. I'd 0:05:16.480 --> 0:05:18.880 gone to every single film that I could, no matter 0:05:18.880 --> 0:05:21.839 what it was, I just wanted to see everything. Margaret 0:05:21.880 --> 0:05:25.640 was much more like a regular film goer. She had 0:05:25.680 --> 0:05:28.680 always gone to see the film she thought sounded interesting 0:05:28.720 --> 0:05:30.880 and wanted to see. I don't think she'd ever seen 0:05:30.920 --> 0:05:34.200 a horror film, for example, but suddenly she had to 0:05:35.480 --> 0:05:40.440 see those. So I had some sort of historical background 0:05:41.640 --> 0:05:49.320 of cinema and Margaret didn't. The combination of those two 0:05:49.920 --> 0:05:53.360 approaches seemed to work quite well, and people seem to 0:05:53.400 --> 0:05:55.560 like the banter between us. 0:05:56.000 --> 0:05:58.920 Have the two of you kept in touch very much, so. 0:05:59.040 --> 0:06:04.200 We talk probably once a week on the phone. Margaret's 0:06:04.360 --> 0:06:07.440 been to visit me in the Blue Mountains a couple 0:06:07.520 --> 0:06:13.080 of times. I can't get out about much anymore. But no, no, 0:06:13.120 --> 0:06:16.640 we're in very close touch and it's always a pleasure 0:06:16.680 --> 0:06:19.159 to chat to Margaret. We get on very well. 0:06:19.240 --> 0:06:19.560 David. 0:06:19.600 --> 0:06:23.640 I'd love to ask you specifically about some of the 0:06:23.640 --> 0:06:27.880 things that talked about in your new book, Australia at 0:06:27.920 --> 0:06:32.719 the Movies. You have broken it down into categories. One 0:06:32.760 --> 0:06:34.680 I'd like to talk to you about, I suppose is 0:06:35.000 --> 0:06:39.320 Australian comedy. For a country that really prides itself on 0:06:39.360 --> 0:06:42.920 our sense of humor, not as many classic comedies as 0:06:42.920 --> 0:06:43.840 we would expect. 0:06:43.960 --> 0:06:47.960 I think comedy is the most difficult genre to do well, 0:06:48.279 --> 0:06:52.360 because comedy means different things to different people. What I 0:06:52.400 --> 0:06:56.320 think is funny, you may not think is funny. I 0:06:56.360 --> 0:06:59.279 love Lauren Hardy and the Marx blothers, and you may not. 0:06:59.480 --> 0:07:04.320 You know, that's the difference. So I think it's hard 0:07:04.360 --> 0:07:07.919 to do well, or hard to get across to a 0:07:07.960 --> 0:07:12.000 wide audience. When I first saw The Castle, it didn't 0:07:12.000 --> 0:07:18.560 impress me terribly much. The humor wasn't on my wavelength. 0:07:18.800 --> 0:07:22.840 I've seen it since and I've appreciated it much much more. 0:07:24.200 --> 0:07:30.320 But it's really hard to do I think. And there 0:07:30.320 --> 0:07:33.200 have been some very disappointing comedies and have been some 0:07:33.280 --> 0:07:39.160 wonderful comedies, So I think that's the reason. 0:07:40.080 --> 0:07:44.720 What about romantic comedies, David. That is obviously a genre 0:07:44.800 --> 0:07:48.440 that is traditionally much maligned, and it sort of went 0:07:48.480 --> 0:07:50.960 away for a little bit from Hollywood, and it's having 0:07:50.960 --> 0:07:54.280 a little bit of a resurgence lately, I think, especially 0:07:54.320 --> 0:07:59.200 to streaming possibly, But again Australia, we haven't produced an 0:07:59.240 --> 0:08:03.240 awful lot of rom coms. I remember when there was 0:08:03.240 --> 0:08:07.440 a Claudia Carvin Hugh Jackman one in the late nineties. 0:08:07.480 --> 0:08:09.640 It felt like the first time in a long time 0:08:09.680 --> 0:08:13.200 that we tackled that. What do you think about romantic 0:08:13.240 --> 0:08:15.200 comedy as a genre and do you think that's been 0:08:15.240 --> 0:08:18.480 a bit of a missed opportunity for Australian filmmakers. 0:08:19.200 --> 0:08:24.480 Yes, maybe, Again, I don't think it's You've got to 0:08:24.520 --> 0:08:30.480 get absolutely the right actors to do rom com well. 0:08:30.520 --> 0:08:35.360 And Claudia Carwan is peerless in that respect. She could 0:08:35.400 --> 0:08:37.880 have done a lot more. She's a wonderful comedian and 0:08:37.920 --> 0:08:42.240 a wonderful actor. And Hugh Jackman, of course, is also 0:08:43.040 --> 0:08:47.839 very good. That early film The Big Steal with Claudia 0:08:47.880 --> 0:08:55.280 and Ben Mendelssohn is a very very nice rom com, 0:08:55.640 --> 0:09:02.839 sort of teenage rom com. But yeah, it's not easy 0:09:02.880 --> 0:09:06.080 to do. We haven't we haven't always just found just 0:09:06.200 --> 0:09:13.000 the right tone for the romantic comedies that have been 0:09:13.320 --> 0:09:15.800 the kind of romantic comedies that have been so successful 0:09:16.320 --> 0:09:17.640 in Hollywood. 0:09:18.400 --> 0:09:21.720 Another film that you revisit in this era, of course, 0:09:21.920 --> 0:09:26.480 is Lantana, which was a big hit with audiences and 0:09:26.640 --> 0:09:29.280 also critically acclaimed film. 0:09:29.640 --> 0:09:30.720 I wanted to ask. 0:09:30.520 --> 0:09:34.240 You, David a little bit about your thoughts on class 0:09:34.240 --> 0:09:39.360 in Australian cinema, because from my observation, there's quite a 0:09:39.480 --> 0:09:44.000 lot of working class films. We've got quite an affiliation 0:09:44.320 --> 0:09:49.520 towards quite gritty. Obviously a soft spot in this country 0:09:49.600 --> 0:09:53.280 for the crime genre, whether it's on television or in film. 0:09:53.960 --> 0:09:56.880 I remember thinking at the time that Lantana had, you know, 0:09:56.880 --> 0:09:59.000 a little bit of shades of American beauty and some 0:09:59.080 --> 0:10:02.360 of those other class suburban films in that it was 0:10:02.440 --> 0:10:05.240 about middle class Australians, and of course. 0:10:05.800 --> 0:10:08.000 A lot most Australians actually. 0:10:07.760 --> 0:10:10.920 Are middle class. What do you think about the notion 0:10:11.040 --> 0:10:14.079 of class and what role, if any, that might have 0:10:14.200 --> 0:10:16.680 played in modern Australian cinema. 0:10:17.400 --> 0:10:20.240 We're supposed to be a classless society, aren't we. It's 0:10:20.280 --> 0:10:27.920 not really true, but I agree with you the characters 0:10:27.960 --> 0:10:31.320 in Lantana, which is one of the great Australian films, 0:10:31.360 --> 0:10:34.079 I think we're mostly from middle class. 0:10:34.280 --> 0:10:38.720 So many films are revisited in your book. My deputy 0:10:38.800 --> 0:10:43.760 editor Nicholas Vonseca counted, and I believe he thought there 0:10:43.800 --> 0:10:47.920 were seven hundred and eighty three films that were referenced 0:10:48.080 --> 0:10:51.280 in the book. David. A lot of people would be 0:10:51.320 --> 0:10:54.320 surprised to hear that that between this thirty year period 0:10:54.360 --> 0:10:57.679 in Australia there have been that many locally made films. 0:10:57.960 --> 0:10:59.280 What do you think about that? 0:10:59.480 --> 0:11:01.719 Yeah, Look, I think the first thing to say is 0:11:01.760 --> 0:11:04.760 that a lot of the films in the book never 0:11:04.840 --> 0:11:09.320 saw the light of a cinema screen or even screaming. 0:11:10.600 --> 0:11:14.079 So in order to write the book, I wanted to 0:11:14.160 --> 0:11:17.560 be as comprehensive as I possibly could and cover every 0:11:17.600 --> 0:11:21.840 Australian feature film, not documentaries, not short films, but feature 0:11:21.840 --> 0:11:26.920 films that had been made between nineteen ninety and twenty twenty. 0:11:27.720 --> 0:11:34.400 And to do that I had seen most of them, 0:11:34.400 --> 0:11:37.280 but there were quite a few that I hadn't seen 0:11:37.280 --> 0:11:40.920 because they were never screamed. So I had to contact 0:11:40.920 --> 0:11:44.280 the filmmakers, track them down, which was not always easy, 0:11:46.679 --> 0:11:49.160 and get them to send me a link to their 0:11:49.200 --> 0:11:51.920 films so that I could see it and write about it. 0:11:52.520 --> 0:11:58.080 So that's probably why there were so many, because there 0:11:58.120 --> 0:12:00.920 were a lot that were never never scene. 0:12:01.920 --> 0:12:04.400 Would I be putting you on the spot if I 0:12:04.480 --> 0:12:09.400 asked you to recommend one Australian film for somebody to watch. 0:12:09.720 --> 0:12:13.640 Look, I think there are a handful of really great 0:12:13.640 --> 0:12:16.800 Australian films. High on the list would be Samson and 0:12:16.840 --> 0:12:23.560 Delilah by Warwick Thornton, which is about two indigenous kids 0:12:23.840 --> 0:12:28.160 living in the outback near Alla Springs, and it's a 0:12:28.160 --> 0:12:32.840 love story in which no words have spoken. It's a wonderful, 0:12:32.960 --> 0:12:37.320 wonderful film. I also love Charlie's Country, which is after 0:12:37.440 --> 0:12:40.160 Hears film, which was the last film with David Golferlo 0:12:40.559 --> 0:12:47.240 and it's really almost biographical about David golfs towards the 0:12:47.320 --> 0:12:53.600 end of his life. It's another wonderful film. And then 0:12:53.600 --> 0:12:56.000 there'll be films like Muriel's Wedding, which I think is 0:12:56.240 --> 0:13:02.280 just terrific Adventures of Priscilla. I like Enormously Animal Kingdom, 0:13:02.400 --> 0:13:06.240 a terrific thriller, Lion. Do you remember Lion? 0:13:06.400 --> 0:13:11.080 Yeah, Yeah, that was a lovely film twenty seventeen. I think, yes, that. 0:13:11.000 --> 0:13:13.559 Was very good. And there's a little film again that 0:13:13.679 --> 0:13:18.439 nobody has seen called a Lion Returns, which was made 0:13:18.480 --> 0:13:23.320 at the height of the Islamic State dramas in the 0:13:23.320 --> 0:13:29.720 Middle East and it was set in a Muslim community 0:13:30.400 --> 0:13:35.640 in a Sydney suburb and it was about one of 0:13:35.679 --> 0:13:39.120 the members of the family who has just returned from 0:13:40.080 --> 0:13:44.559 Syria where he may have been involved with Islamic State. 0:13:45.280 --> 0:13:49.119 And it's a very tense film. It's a very impressive 0:13:49.160 --> 0:13:53.200 film in every way, but again very few people saw it. 0:13:53.400 --> 0:13:55.560 One of the films that you touch upon in the 0:13:55.600 --> 0:13:59.120 course of this book, of course, is Rompa Stomper, which 0:14:00.280 --> 0:14:03.520 is notable for many reasons. That film, for a start, 0:14:03.600 --> 0:14:07.280 it was a launching pad for little known actor for 0:14:07.400 --> 0:14:09.240 some of our listeners might have heard of by the 0:14:09.320 --> 0:14:12.560 name of Russell Crowe. But of course, David, you also 0:14:12.760 --> 0:14:17.400 quite infamously didn't like the film, and in fact wouldn't 0:14:17.720 --> 0:14:19.040 rate it at the time. 0:14:19.320 --> 0:14:21.440 I know that people see it as a racist film. 0:14:21.840 --> 0:14:27.280 I profoundly disagree. Unlike Margaret, I was troubled by rom 0:14:27.320 --> 0:14:32.520 Pa Stompa's extreme violence and promotion of racial supremacy. But 0:14:32.600 --> 0:14:35.600 the filmmaking was excellent, so I couldn't give it a 0:14:35.640 --> 0:14:40.640 poor rating. Yet I had to convey my concerns. Somehow, 0:14:42.600 --> 0:14:43.800 I can't score it at all. 0:14:43.640 --> 0:14:44.080 I'm afraid. 0:14:44.360 --> 0:14:46.600 So I'd like to ask you about a few different 0:14:46.640 --> 0:14:50.320 things about that. First of all, I suppose the feedback 0:14:50.600 --> 0:14:54.800 that you get when you take a position on a 0:14:54.800 --> 0:14:57.480 film like that that then really becomes a story in 0:14:57.520 --> 0:15:00.760 and of itself. And then I'd like to ask you 0:15:00.840 --> 0:15:03.880 also about any of the moments that really stand out 0:15:03.880 --> 0:15:05.960 for you when you and Margaret with that on screen 0:15:06.080 --> 0:15:11.040 dynamic did have a very newsworthy difference of opinion. 0:15:11.720 --> 0:15:18.720 Well with Ronvstomper. It wasn't that I trying to sort 0:15:18.720 --> 0:15:23.440 of step back a bit. As a film. It wasn't 0:15:23.440 --> 0:15:26.280 at all bad and Russell Crowe was extraordinary in it, 0:15:26.320 --> 0:15:30.800 I thought. So. It wasn't that I didn't like the film. 0:15:30.880 --> 0:15:33.520 I just didn't like what it was saying, or rather 0:15:33.560 --> 0:15:37.240 what it wasn't saying, because it was a film that 0:15:37.280 --> 0:15:43.800 where the protagonists were Neo Nazis, skinheads, vicious, violent ones, 0:15:44.760 --> 0:15:47.920 and it seemed to me and I still believe it, 0:15:48.560 --> 0:15:57.680 that it could have stirred up violence in it was 0:15:57.680 --> 0:16:02.360 the Vietnamese community in those days today be the Islamic 0:16:02.400 --> 0:16:08.000 community probably, and I think anything like that. There was 0:16:08.040 --> 0:16:13.600 no sense at all that that to me anyway, that 0:16:13.680 --> 0:16:20.040 the Russell Crowe character Handa was doing was not was 0:16:20.080 --> 0:16:24.200 not doing what he believed was right and and and 0:16:25.800 --> 0:16:29.440 it was it was. I just found that side of 0:16:29.480 --> 0:16:34.480 it repulsive. Now I made a big mistake. I acknowledge 0:16:34.520 --> 0:16:36.920 now I made a big mistake by not giving it 0:16:36.960 --> 0:16:40.960 a score on the movies. No, it was the movie 0:16:41.000 --> 0:16:47.360 show in those days. I I felt wrongly as it 0:16:47.360 --> 0:16:50.560 turned out, but I felt that I just didn't want 0:16:50.600 --> 0:16:55.800 to because I thought the film had some qualities, so 0:16:55.840 --> 0:16:58.600 I couldn't give it two stars or something like that. 0:16:58.760 --> 0:17:02.160 But at the same time, I couldn't four stars because 0:17:02.520 --> 0:17:06.360 I just felt it was a dangerous film. I guess 0:17:06.440 --> 0:17:08.639 I would say, I think that's what I felt at 0:17:08.640 --> 0:17:12.520 the time, a dangerous one. So I decided not to 0:17:12.560 --> 0:17:14.240 give it a score at all. That, of course, was 0:17:14.400 --> 0:17:19.480 used very skillfully by the distributor of the film to 0:17:20.200 --> 0:17:25.480 publicize and as a result, more people probably went to 0:17:25.480 --> 0:17:29.320 see the film. I did have some contact with people afterwards. 0:17:29.359 --> 0:17:33.760 You thank me for my stand on it. Of course, 0:17:33.760 --> 0:17:36.800 I also had contact from people who who hated my 0:17:36.920 --> 0:17:41.400 standard it. But anyway, there we are, and. 0:17:41.400 --> 0:17:44.720 Up next, what happened when Julie Andrews complained about one 0:17:44.720 --> 0:17:49.280 of David's reviews and David's thought on cancel culture and censorship. 0:17:51.680 --> 0:17:55.119 You've mentioned, obviously some of the most famous actors in 0:17:55.200 --> 0:17:57.919 the world that you have met throughout the course of 0:17:57.960 --> 0:18:02.359 your career, and you really have interviewed some of the 0:18:02.359 --> 0:18:09.080 most prolific and successful filmmakers, screenwriters, actors, creators of the 0:18:09.160 --> 0:18:14.240 last forty fifty sixty years, when you do review something 0:18:14.720 --> 0:18:18.919 that is negative or has constructive feedback that may not 0:18:19.040 --> 0:18:23.639 be received in the constructive spirit in which it was intended. 0:18:23.960 --> 0:18:27.159 Have there been any awkward moments or memorable moments that 0:18:27.240 --> 0:18:31.560 stand out for you where you were receiving that feedback 0:18:31.560 --> 0:18:34.080 in person about a review? 0:18:35.400 --> 0:18:40.800 That was not so much reviewing films with Margaret, but 0:18:40.920 --> 0:18:44.800 I was also for twenty years reviewing films for the 0:18:44.840 --> 0:18:50.399 American newspaper Variety, and Variety is of paper that is 0:18:50.480 --> 0:18:55.240 read by everybody in the film industry. And there was 0:18:55.280 --> 0:18:59.400 one occasion when for some reason, they had a preview 0:18:59.520 --> 0:19:02.959 of a new film by Blake Edwards, a director I 0:19:03.000 --> 0:19:05.080 liked very much. I loved the Pink Panther films and 0:19:05.160 --> 0:19:09.800 so on. But this was called a fine mess, and 0:19:09.840 --> 0:19:13.720 it was a mess. And they had a preview in Sydney, 0:19:14.880 --> 0:19:19.119 which I went to before they had a preview in America. 0:19:19.520 --> 0:19:23.440 And just as a matter of course, I just I 0:19:23.480 --> 0:19:27.480 send a note to my editor at Variety and said 0:19:27.800 --> 0:19:29.760 I've seen a fine mess. If you want a review, 0:19:29.800 --> 0:19:33.640 I can do it. And they came back and said, oh, yes, 0:19:33.720 --> 0:19:37.880 please do it. So I wrote this not very well, 0:19:38.080 --> 0:19:40.679 very negative review of I mean, it really was a 0:19:40.760 --> 0:19:47.840 terrible film. And I heard afterwards that Julie Andrews rang 0:19:47.960 --> 0:19:51.640 Variety to complain and asked, who was this David Stratton 0:19:52.320 --> 0:19:57.679 in Sydney who saw this film? Because Blake was not happy. 0:19:58.760 --> 0:20:02.520 So that was with the most prominent piece of nay 0:20:02.640 --> 0:20:06.639 saying apparently he was reading it over breakfast and he 0:20:06.760 --> 0:20:10.359 choked on his cereal or something. I don't know, but 0:20:10.760 --> 0:20:14.960 it's interesting because my colleague Paul Burns, who used to 0:20:15.000 --> 0:20:19.960 write for the Sidney Morning Herald when he retired, he 0:20:20.040 --> 0:20:22.919 said that one thing a film critic cannot be is 0:20:23.040 --> 0:20:26.199 friendly with a filmmaker. And I found that not to 0:20:26.200 --> 0:20:30.720 be true. I think you can be friendly with a filmmaker. 0:20:30.800 --> 0:20:34.280 I was friendly with a lot of filmmakers, but you 0:20:34.400 --> 0:20:38.960 have to still be honest about their film. And it 0:20:39.040 --> 0:20:44.800 was you know, when you're writing a review or when 0:20:44.800 --> 0:20:50.439 you're televising a review, your first duties to the reader 0:20:50.600 --> 0:20:57.400 or the audience, not to the filmmaker, and so sometimes 0:20:57.960 --> 0:21:00.720 I had to. I mean, I'll give you one example. 0:21:01.240 --> 0:21:08.360 Paul Cox, the Melbourne based filmmaker, was a very very 0:21:08.359 --> 0:21:12.600 good friend of mine and I liked his early films enormously, 0:21:13.400 --> 0:21:17.600 and then later in his career he seemed to lose 0:21:17.640 --> 0:21:23.440 it a bit and he had a new film. We 0:21:23.480 --> 0:21:26.320 reviewed it on the show. I gave it a pretty 0:21:26.320 --> 0:21:28.639 bad review, and I thought, well, I better g just 0:21:28.800 --> 0:21:36.040 Ringpaul and tell him warn him, and I did, and 0:21:36.920 --> 0:21:40.720 he said, oh, that's all right, you need to say 0:21:40.760 --> 0:21:44.000 it how you feel if you're a critic. And then 0:21:44.040 --> 0:21:46.000 the next day, after the show went to air, he 0:21:46.080 --> 0:21:49.359 rang me and said, you really didn't like it. 0:21:49.760 --> 0:21:51.600 But I would like to ask in about the more 0:21:51.640 --> 0:21:56.120 general question about censorship in film. You've always been very 0:21:56.119 --> 0:22:01.159 passionate opponent of censorship, and of course, as you and 0:22:01.200 --> 0:22:04.000 I are speaking in twenty twenty four, part of the 0:22:04.080 --> 0:22:07.679 new era of censorship is this notion of well, what 0:22:07.720 --> 0:22:10.440 we call cancel culture, which I think is a bit 0:22:10.440 --> 0:22:13.439 of a simplistic term, but obviously does speak to the 0:22:13.480 --> 0:22:16.200 fact that we're living in a time we're really policing 0:22:16.680 --> 0:22:20.080 opinions and the role of culture. But also this notion 0:22:20.320 --> 0:22:27.119 of criticizing a piece of work that was made five, fifteen, 0:22:27.560 --> 0:22:32.439 fifty five years ago through the prism of our current values. 0:22:34.280 --> 0:22:36.119 Can I ask you how you feel about that? 0:22:37.520 --> 0:22:43.520 I don't approve of it at all. I don't like 0:22:46.440 --> 0:22:51.160 this whole notion of cancel culture. I mean, for example, 0:22:51.680 --> 0:22:54.320 Roman Polanski may have done some bad things in his 0:22:54.440 --> 0:23:00.920 private life. I don't know, but Chinatown is a masterpiece 0:23:01.600 --> 0:23:06.880 and nothing will nothing will alter that. Woody Allen, who's 0:23:06.920 --> 0:23:10.199 been accused of things, never been charged, but now his 0:23:10.280 --> 0:23:15.159 films aren't shown in America at all, and that's to me, 0:23:15.440 --> 0:23:21.679 I mean, I think that's wrong. If you want to 0:23:21.720 --> 0:23:28.520 start accusing people who've done bad things and getting their 0:23:28.600 --> 0:23:34.119 films banned, you would never look at a Charlie Chaplin 0:23:34.160 --> 0:23:37.960 film because Charlie Chaplin did some pretty bad things. Errol 0:23:38.040 --> 0:23:40.119 Flinn did some pretty bad things. You know, you would 0:23:40.400 --> 0:23:44.520 you would not look at any of those film Those 0:23:45.280 --> 0:23:52.400 classic films are not condoning the actions of the filmmakers, 0:23:52.680 --> 0:23:55.959 But I'm just saying that the art that they created 0:23:56.320 --> 0:24:00.000 should not be confused with the character of the film 0:24:00.080 --> 0:24:01.879 maker or the artist. 0:24:02.600 --> 0:24:07.080 What it has absolutely been a conversation, this struggle, I think, 0:24:07.160 --> 0:24:11.480 with separating the artist from their work. And another conversation 0:24:12.000 --> 0:24:15.159 that has been happening of course a lot, particularly in 0:24:15.240 --> 0:24:18.239 film in the last few years, is whether it is 0:24:18.320 --> 0:24:23.480 okay for like an able bodied actor to play a 0:24:23.600 --> 0:24:27.520 character with the disability, or whether it is okay for 0:24:27.920 --> 0:24:33.959 a heterosexual actor to play a queer character. And obviously 0:24:34.080 --> 0:24:36.840 this has been something there's been a lot of discussion about. 0:24:37.000 --> 0:24:41.359 We've discussed it on this podcast with various people, where 0:24:41.400 --> 0:24:43.720 I think it's a real shame because apart from anything, 0:24:43.800 --> 0:24:46.360 I think we're shutting down our empathy, because we're sort 0:24:46.359 --> 0:24:50.639 of saying to people, you couldn't possibly have any empathy 0:24:50.760 --> 0:24:54.800 or capacity to imagine or inhabit the experience of anyone 0:24:55.119 --> 0:24:58.840 who isn't exactly on a parallel identity to your own. 0:24:59.440 --> 0:25:03.479 But you're opinion on that, well, again, my opinion on 0:25:03.560 --> 0:25:07.080 that is that actors are actors. They're meant to act. 0:25:07.760 --> 0:25:16.480 And I think where I would disagree take issue would 0:25:16.520 --> 0:25:22.480 be when, in let's say a Passage to India, Alec 0:25:22.560 --> 0:25:27.399 Guinness played an Indian. There were plenty of Indian actors 0:25:27.440 --> 0:25:32.040 who could have played that part at that time. Prior 0:25:32.080 --> 0:25:36.240 to that, when there were performances of Othello, you could 0:25:36.240 --> 0:25:41.920 say maybe that we're not the black actors who could 0:25:42.000 --> 0:25:46.240 take that role. Now there are, so I think now 0:25:46.440 --> 0:25:50.639 I would expect a black actor to play Othello. But 0:25:50.720 --> 0:25:53.359 I would never expect a gay actor to play a 0:25:53.400 --> 0:26:00.720 gay character, or that sort of thing is just taking 0:26:00.720 --> 0:26:04.639 it too far. What I do really object to strongly 0:26:05.359 --> 0:26:09.760 is what they call colorblind casting. And I'll give you 0:26:09.840 --> 0:26:13.480 an example. There was a film last year I think 0:26:13.480 --> 0:26:15.360 it was, or maybe the year before, called See How 0:26:15.359 --> 0:26:18.720 They Run a British Film, and it was set around 0:26:19.040 --> 0:26:24.480 the performance of The Mousetrap, Agatha Christie's play The Mousetrap, 0:26:24.520 --> 0:26:26.680 and there was supposed to be a murder of the 0:26:26.680 --> 0:26:31.560 theater where the play was taking place, and in one scene, 0:26:32.560 --> 0:26:36.040 the characters in the film visit the home of Agatha Christie. 0:26:36.160 --> 0:26:41.439 Now Agatha Christie was married to a famous archaeologist, white 0:26:41.640 --> 0:26:45.600 archaeologist called Max Malloween. In the film, he was played 0:26:45.600 --> 0:26:48.560 by a black actor. Now I find that reprehensible. I 0:26:48.600 --> 0:26:51.080 don't care what the motives are for it. I find 0:26:51.119 --> 0:26:55.080 it completely wrong. And you know, you see films like 0:26:55.119 --> 0:26:57.600 Wicked Little Letters in which supposed to be said in 0:26:57.680 --> 0:27:01.600 nineteen twenty and the judge is played by a black actor. Wrong, 0:27:01.800 --> 0:27:05.800 they wouldn't be, and that is wrong. I think it's 0:27:05.920 --> 0:27:10.479 just as wrong to give a role to a black actor, 0:27:11.040 --> 0:27:11.920 just as token is. 0:27:12.640 --> 0:27:15.720 There has been discussion that Gone with the Wind shouldn't 0:27:15.720 --> 0:27:18.720 be played anymore because it is the way that it 0:27:18.840 --> 0:27:23.320 is depicting people of color. And of course that's not 0:27:23.359 --> 0:27:27.479 to say that Margaret Mitchell probably should be doing a 0:27:27.480 --> 0:27:30.280 better job of some of that if she was writing 0:27:30.320 --> 0:27:33.679 that in twenty twenty four, but it is obviously was 0:27:33.720 --> 0:27:38.000 a really our famous novel and an amazing film, I 0:27:38.040 --> 0:27:41.640