WEBVTT - The 2024 Oscars deep dive (Plus, Shogun, Fred Again... and more Dune) 0:00:07.410 --> 0:00:10.289 Hey, I'm Osman Farooqi and this is the drop a 0:00:10.289 --> 0:00:13.020 culture show from the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, 0:00:13.020 --> 0:00:15.120 where we dive into the latest in the world of 0:00:15.120 --> 0:00:18.900 pop culture and entertainment. I'm here with Thomas Mitchell and 0:00:18.900 --> 0:00:21.419 Mel Kambouris. What's up team? How are you doing? 0:00:21.570 --> 0:00:24.690 Pretty good. Yeah. Good week. Big week coming up. Lots 0:00:24.690 --> 0:00:27.060 on the horizon in the pop culture world. Yeah. 0:00:27.090 --> 0:00:29.010 Big, uh, one of our favorite weeks of the year, 0:00:29.010 --> 0:00:29.670 I think. 0:00:29.670 --> 0:00:32.040 Yeah, it's it's a big, big, big week. We're going 0:00:32.040 --> 0:00:35.520 to be talking primarily on today's show about the Oscars, 0:00:35.520 --> 0:00:38.849 which are on next Monday. But as you alluded to, Thomas, 0:00:38.850 --> 0:00:41.430 it's been it's been a big one for cultural consumption 0:00:41.430 --> 0:00:44.790 and and conversation. There's a lot happening and a lot 0:00:44.790 --> 0:00:47.130 to talk about. So there's a few things I wanted 0:00:47.130 --> 0:00:48.900 to run through with you guys before we get stuck 0:00:48.900 --> 0:00:52.620 into our Oscars deep dive. Last month, it was Taylor 0:00:52.620 --> 0:00:56.730 Swift causing a gigantic collective freakout in Australia. This time 0:00:56.730 --> 0:01:01.620 it's the UK house musician Fred again. Dot dot dot uh. 0:01:01.620 --> 0:01:04.890 He announced a pop up show at the Sydney Opera 0:01:04.890 --> 0:01:08.550 House that sold, I think, thousands of tickets in like 0:01:08.550 --> 0:01:12.090 15 minutes. There was 200,000 people on the waiting list 0:01:12.090 --> 0:01:14.459 at peak time. He went on to announce a run 0:01:14.459 --> 0:01:17.700 of arena shows in Melbourne and Sydney. I hear from 0:01:17.700 --> 0:01:21.120 insiders that nearly a million people tried to buy tickets 0:01:21.120 --> 0:01:24.330 to his arena shows, so not quite the Taylor Swift 0:01:24.330 --> 0:01:27.600 level of hype, but still an enormous amount of interest 0:01:27.600 --> 0:01:29.069 in Fred. Again, I don't know if you've seen clips 0:01:29.069 --> 0:01:32.040 from his shows at Rod Laver Arena the last couple 0:01:32.040 --> 0:01:32.580 of nights. 0:01:32.580 --> 0:01:49.760 Everyone is very into this young guy. Don't make some 0:01:49.760 --> 0:01:56.120 fucking noise. Okay. 0:01:56.480 --> 0:01:58.490 How do you guys feel about Fred again? Dot dot dot. 0:01:59.550 --> 0:02:02.850 Look, I don't really get it. I don't really get 0:02:02.850 --> 0:02:05.070 the interest, and I. 0:02:05.520 --> 0:02:07.590 I have you been a big Fred head. I think 0:02:07.590 --> 0:02:09.990 something could have been wrong with the cosmic universe. 0:02:10.710 --> 0:02:12.480 Like, I know you guys think you're all kind of 0:02:12.480 --> 0:02:14.430 cool and in on things, but I don't think he's 0:02:14.430 --> 0:02:17.940 that cool. And I'm gonna quote Rob Moran here, who 0:02:17.940 --> 0:02:19.740 has been on this pod and is one of the 0:02:19.740 --> 0:02:22.050 best music writers in the country, who says he's just 0:02:22.050 --> 0:02:25.169 the Ed Sheeran of dance music. And I think that's perfect. 0:02:25.169 --> 0:02:27.780 I think that's a very apt description of what he is. 0:02:27.780 --> 0:02:30.060 And there's a whole lot of excitement, which I think 0:02:30.060 --> 0:02:33.270 is probably tied to kind of people feeling like they're 0:02:33.270 --> 0:02:36.030 part of something to this musician that I don't really 0:02:36.030 --> 0:02:41.070 think is warranted. Um, yeah. Thomas, I mean, you think 0:02:41.070 --> 0:02:42.959 you're all indie. Is that why you like Fred again? 0:02:42.960 --> 0:02:43.530 Thank you. Cool. 0:02:43.800 --> 0:02:45.630 When you talk about being cool, it's like talking to 0:02:45.630 --> 0:02:47.910 my mom. Honestly. No, I know you think you're a 0:02:47.910 --> 0:02:51.360 pretty cool dude. Um, no, I think you're actually kind 0:02:51.360 --> 0:02:53.130 of right. Like, I think his music is good, but 0:02:53.130 --> 0:02:55.530 I think the hype around Fred again has become like 0:02:55.530 --> 0:02:59.160 its own really funny beast to watch. Um, and especially, 0:02:59.160 --> 0:03:02.010 you know, I think in what's really important these days 0:03:02.010 --> 0:03:04.019 as well, is that he's a bit of a marketing genius, 0:03:04.020 --> 0:03:06.900 like doing the surprise show at the Sydney Opera House 0:03:06.900 --> 0:03:09.480 to like, you know, whip everyone up into a frenzy 0:03:09.480 --> 0:03:11.460 was a really smart idea because then everyone who missed 0:03:11.460 --> 0:03:13.620 out was like, well, I'm 100% buying tickets to the 0:03:13.620 --> 0:03:16.290 six arena shows. I think he's just become he's slot 0:03:16.290 --> 0:03:19.830 into this weird, like kind of trend, you know, like 0:03:19.919 --> 0:03:22.320 almost like post triple J, but love dance music, but 0:03:22.320 --> 0:03:25.679 still a bit accessible. And he's really captured a big 0:03:25.680 --> 0:03:28.560 kind of aging millennial audience, um, that have just, like, 0:03:28.560 --> 0:03:31.470 eaten his shit up big time. But I do think 0:03:31.470 --> 0:03:33.360 his music is fun. He makes fun dance music. He's 0:03:33.360 --> 0:03:36.060 a good producer. And, you know, I thought particularly and 0:03:36.060 --> 0:03:39.690 I think you'll appreciate this, seeing some vision of him 0:03:39.690 --> 0:03:44.040 at Revolver in Melbourne at like 9 a.m., like simultaneously 0:03:44.040 --> 0:03:47.430 made me envious. And I had like, PTSD. Uh, so yeah, 0:03:47.430 --> 0:03:50.550 it he's definitely made a mark in his short time here. 0:03:50.970 --> 0:03:53.130 I'm glad you brought up the marketing element of it, 0:03:53.130 --> 0:03:56.070 because to me, this is where the Taylor Swift comparison 0:03:56.070 --> 0:03:59.070 is really interesting. Not just because they both are very 0:03:59.070 --> 0:04:01.680 popular and selling a lot of tickets in Australia. I 0:04:01.680 --> 0:04:05.040 think they both have found a very smart way to 0:04:05.040 --> 0:04:08.460 create a, I guess, a mystique or an aura around 0:04:08.460 --> 0:04:11.850 them that feels very relatable and very honest and very 0:04:11.850 --> 0:04:16.140 earnest and very real when it is kind of anything but. 0:04:16.140 --> 0:04:18.300 And by that I mean that both Taylor Swift and 0:04:18.300 --> 0:04:21.900 Fred again have got, I would assume, giant marketing team 0:04:21.900 --> 0:04:24.690 not even assume I know this giant marketing teams that 0:04:24.690 --> 0:04:28.589 are working overtime to both do interesting things, like surprise 0:04:28.589 --> 0:04:32.550 shows at revolver, keep a stadium show under wraps, post 0:04:32.550 --> 0:04:35.670 in WhatsApp groups and discord chats like he's just a 0:04:35.670 --> 0:04:38.099 regular person keeping you in the loop with his life. 0:04:38.100 --> 0:04:41.010 It's a really interesting way to use a huge amount 0:04:41.010 --> 0:04:43.229 of resources and a huge amount of buzz to feel 0:04:43.230 --> 0:04:46.229 like just a regular person, and that certainly so much 0:04:46.230 --> 0:04:49.470 of his aura. You mentioned elder millennials, Thomas. I think 0:04:49.470 --> 0:04:50.760 there's a bit of that because I think maybe it 0:04:50.760 --> 0:04:53.400 reminds people of a kind of electronic music that is 0:04:53.400 --> 0:04:54.839 a little bit out of vogue or has been for 0:04:54.839 --> 0:04:57.990 a while, but particularly younger people like Gen Z's in 0:04:57.990 --> 0:05:01.950 the pandemic. Fred went ballistic on TikTok, making a kind 0:05:01.950 --> 0:05:04.589 of music that I think that generation probably never really 0:05:04.589 --> 0:05:07.739 heard commercially. And then when he came out of the 0:05:07.740 --> 0:05:11.190 pandemic and started doing live shows for a lot of 0:05:11.190 --> 0:05:13.530 people aged, I guess like 18 to 21, it was 0:05:13.529 --> 0:05:17.099 probably the first live music they'd seen. And electronic music, 0:05:17.100 --> 0:05:21.360 house music is so good for that collective, joyous experience 0:05:21.360 --> 0:05:24.359 of dancing and partying. So they're like reasons why it 0:05:24.360 --> 0:05:27.120 makes sense to me. But I think what I find 0:05:27.120 --> 0:05:29.219 interesting about Fred again, and I think this is why 0:05:29.220 --> 0:05:32.219 it's in conversation with Taylor, is being a good musician 0:05:32.220 --> 0:05:35.280 is only, like I would say, not even 50%, maybe 0:05:35.279 --> 0:05:37.650 like 20% of what it takes to succeed. The rest 0:05:37.650 --> 0:05:39.390 of it is how do you market yourself? How do 0:05:39.390 --> 0:05:42.240 you brand yourself, and how do you become part of 0:05:42.240 --> 0:05:44.580 a cultural conversation? And I think he's done that in 0:05:44.580 --> 0:05:47.580 a very interesting way, in a way that I think 0:05:47.670 --> 0:05:50.729 overstates how good the music is. Like, I don't totally 0:05:50.730 --> 0:05:52.890 love the music, I don't really hate it, but for 0:05:52.890 --> 0:05:56.190 me it is more about how he's created a wave 0:05:56.190 --> 0:06:00.030 around him. Then he's this like incredible musician that's never 0:06:00.029 --> 0:06:02.250 done anything like this before, because ultimately, Mel, I got 0:06:02.250 --> 0:06:05.190 to say, Rob's comp is spot on, like Ed Sheeran, 0:06:05.190 --> 0:06:08.100 Tash Sultana like when Fred does these shows, he's in 0:06:08.100 --> 0:06:11.250 the round, he's in the middle. He's like recreating the stuff, 0:06:11.250 --> 0:06:14.910 using his MPC and loops. It's very like busking in 0:06:14.940 --> 0:06:17.760 that Ed Sheeran way. Australians seem obsessed with that kind 0:06:17.760 --> 0:06:21.300 of music in particular. It's a really funny little moment, 0:06:21.300 --> 0:06:21.930 I think. 0:06:21.930 --> 0:06:24.090 Yeah, and I agree, like there are good kind of 0:06:24.089 --> 0:06:27.000 catchy songs that Billie song I quite like. What are 0:06:27.000 --> 0:06:30.359 some of your other things? Well, Melanie, Melanie's doing the 0:06:30.360 --> 0:06:31.980 part in brackets. There you go. 0:06:32.400 --> 0:06:34.620 Um, Rumble is also a really good song. Like there's 0:06:34.620 --> 0:06:35.670 a couple of great tracks. 0:06:35.670 --> 0:06:39.120 Yeah, I think you're completely right that it's just. And 0:06:39.120 --> 0:06:42.240 you say 20% talent, the rest marketing I think like 0:06:42.240 --> 0:06:47.220 it's 5% talent, really. And the rest is marketing. And 0:06:47.220 --> 0:06:49.229 I do think that he's managed to hit that sweet 0:06:49.230 --> 0:06:52.289 spot where, you know, it's supply versus demand of who 0:06:52.290 --> 0:06:54.089 can get to see the show, but then it becomes 0:06:54.089 --> 0:06:56.700 just a tool of social currency. You know, I went 0:06:56.700 --> 0:06:58.620 to the show and I'm going to the show and 0:06:58.620 --> 0:07:01.729 I like. Again, like I'm in the know without realizing. Like, 0:07:01.730 --> 0:07:04.310 I guess the bigger picture is that, you know, you're 0:07:04.310 --> 0:07:06.469 just being played in a way. So I do think 0:07:06.470 --> 0:07:08.810 it's just become like a tool of social currency to 0:07:08.810 --> 0:07:11.090 be like, I'm attending this gig. In the same way 0:07:11.090 --> 0:07:14.570 any exclusivity, you know, becomes a marker of your taste 0:07:14.570 --> 0:07:17.330 and class and who you are, like a performance of 0:07:17.330 --> 0:07:19.700 your own identity. So I yeah, I think you're spot 0:07:19.700 --> 0:07:20.210 on us. 0:07:20.210 --> 0:07:22.070 That being said, if the team is listening to this pod, 0:07:22.070 --> 0:07:25.070 we would love six tickets to some of the shows. 0:07:25.670 --> 0:07:27.650 I would happily miss, so I'm not that fussed, but 0:07:27.650 --> 0:07:29.870 I hope you guys managed to get tickets to the show. 0:07:29.870 --> 0:07:32.480 I think the other the other reason why I wanted 0:07:32.480 --> 0:07:34.700 to talk to you guys about it, because to me, 0:07:34.700 --> 0:07:38.000 it raises this other question of, okay, well, he makes 0:07:38.000 --> 0:07:40.070 decent music and he's very smart at marketing where the 0:07:40.070 --> 0:07:42.500 people around him are. Should that be a knock on him? 0:07:42.500 --> 0:07:45.200 And I think the answer is obviously like, no, not necessarily. 0:07:45.200 --> 0:07:48.680 But to me what it raises is who gets to 0:07:48.680 --> 0:07:51.260 be Fred again and who gets to be Taylor Swift. 0:07:51.260 --> 0:07:53.240 And I think we've talked about this over the last 0:07:53.240 --> 0:07:56.750 couple of weeks, thinking about the Australian music industry, the 0:07:56.750 --> 0:08:00.830 live music space in particular, crumbling around us. So many acts, 0:08:00.830 --> 0:08:03.770 so many artists that I know was talking, uh, to 0:08:03.800 --> 0:08:06.080 to a friend last night who I won't name the band, 0:08:06.080 --> 0:08:08.720 but they're in like a very prominent Australian band that 0:08:08.720 --> 0:08:11.690 that perform all over the country, all over the world. 0:08:11.690 --> 0:08:14.510 And you would think that they would be like multi-millionaires 0:08:14.510 --> 0:08:16.520 who own dozens of houses all over the country. And 0:08:16.520 --> 0:08:19.130 probably in another era they would have been. But they're 0:08:19.130 --> 0:08:21.679 like struggling financially because of the way the economics of 0:08:21.680 --> 0:08:23.690 music works right now. And then, on the other hand, 0:08:23.690 --> 0:08:25.970 you've got someone like Fred again who just comes in, 0:08:26.060 --> 0:08:28.190 who've is up all this demand and is in is 0:08:28.190 --> 0:08:32.180 going ballistic. And there is this conversation around Fred again. 0:08:32.179 --> 0:08:35.090 You guys aware of his family background at all? 0:08:35.090 --> 0:08:37.400 Yeah. Isn't he like a rich private school kid? I am. 0:08:37.400 --> 0:08:40.220 I have to say, the opening paragraph on like Wikipedia. 0:08:40.220 --> 0:08:43.070 When you look, look him up like we've got words 0:08:43.070 --> 0:08:48.350 like aristocrat jukes, viscounts. Like, I've never seen someone with 0:08:48.350 --> 0:08:51.110 such a background with so many kind of high class 0:08:51.110 --> 0:08:53.120 words involved in its description. 0:08:53.210 --> 0:08:54.860 I don't even know what half these words mean. It's 0:08:54.860 --> 0:08:58.189 on his Wikipedia. It says, descended from the Huntingdonshire gentry 0:08:58.190 --> 0:09:01.490 on his father's side through his mother's side. Fred's ancestry 0:09:01.490 --> 0:09:07.190 comprises earls Marcus Jukes as well as many other peerage 0:09:07.190 --> 0:09:11.420 and baronet families. That's like Thomas. He sort of understated 0:09:11.420 --> 0:09:13.610 it by saying, private school rich kid, these guys like 0:09:13.610 --> 0:09:14.960 a baron. That's crazy. 0:09:15.260 --> 0:09:16.310 Play that shit, Fred. 0:09:17.780 --> 0:09:21.559 And I think his godfather is by Brian Eno, the, the, 0:09:21.559 --> 0:09:24.890 the very well known producer and and this is what 0:09:24.890 --> 0:09:26.900 I think is so interesting and I think it's deliberate 0:09:26.900 --> 0:09:30.740 part of why he's constructed this persona around himself. Because 0:09:31.010 --> 0:09:33.800 you can't really lean into that too much. Like it's 0:09:33.800 --> 0:09:35.810 okay to be a bit rich, but it's hard to 0:09:35.809 --> 0:09:38.930 be the literal baron who was raised and taught everything 0:09:38.929 --> 0:09:41.780 he knew by Brian Eno. And I think it seems 0:09:41.780 --> 0:09:44.870 like he's working overtime to be. I'm just a normal person. 0:09:44.870 --> 0:09:47.599 This guy got his start writing songs like shotgun with 0:09:47.600 --> 0:09:50.720 George Ezra, solo by Clean Bandit, writing for Rita Ora, 0:09:50.720 --> 0:09:54.140 writing for producing for Ed Sheeran. Like he's born into 0:09:54.140 --> 0:09:57.080 music royalty, but it is interesting to see how he 0:09:57.080 --> 0:09:59.599 counteracts that because he does these shows at Rev's. He's 0:09:59.600 --> 0:10:03.110 been so supportive of Australian artists on this tour. He, 0:10:03.110 --> 0:10:05.690 you know, he's done pop up shows with club Angel. 0:10:05.690 --> 0:10:08.900 On Tuesday night at Rod Laver Arena, he brought out 0:10:08.900 --> 0:10:12.800 Angie McMahon, a you know, young Australian artist who's got 0:10:12.800 --> 0:10:14.929 an album and doing a tour right now and brought 0:10:14.929 --> 0:10:16.730 her on stage to perform, made. 0:10:16.730 --> 0:10:18.380 Some noise for Angie McMahon. 0:10:34.370 --> 0:10:36.740 And that's one of the things we knocked Taylor Swift for, 0:10:36.770 --> 0:10:39.140 was not engaging with the local music scene and not 0:10:39.140 --> 0:10:41.600 boosting that. So on that front, like, kudos to him. 0:10:41.600 --> 0:10:43.490 I think it's smart, but I also kind of think 0:10:43.490 --> 0:10:45.230 you kind of have to do that stuff because it's 0:10:45.230 --> 0:10:47.300 so easy to make fun of this guy as just 0:10:47.300 --> 0:10:50.059 being like a nepo baby making electronic music. And I 0:10:50.059 --> 0:10:52.520 guess that's that big a point of good on him 0:10:52.520 --> 0:10:55.189 for giving back a bit. I'd still remain worried that 0:10:55.190 --> 0:10:58.729 it's literally just Taylor Swift and a Baron that can 0:10:58.730 --> 0:11:01.849 make and perform live music in this, in this current 0:11:01.850 --> 0:11:02.780 era of pop. 0:11:02.809 --> 0:11:04.580 Yeah, I mean, it's definitely an issue. I wish my 0:11:04.580 --> 0:11:06.559 biggest issue in life, though, was like trying to seem 0:11:06.559 --> 0:11:08.449 more regular because I was so rich. Like, if that 0:11:08.450 --> 0:11:10.670 was my only problem in life, I think I'd be 0:11:10.670 --> 0:11:13.370 doing okay. But I mean, we talked about before, you know, 0:11:13.370 --> 0:11:16.520 that the marketing is maybe like 80% of it and then, 0:11:16.520 --> 0:11:18.740 you know, the talent or the good bit, it's only 20%. 0:11:18.740 --> 0:11:20.330 But I mean, like, I know you're wanting to speak 0:11:20.330 --> 0:11:22.070 about this, that just kind of reminds me of the 0:11:22.070 --> 0:11:26.750 maths on June. Like the marketing tells you, it's so good. 0:11:26.750 --> 0:11:28.640 And then you sit there for seven hours and you're 0:11:28.640 --> 0:11:30.410 just like, this is a letdown. 0:11:30.530 --> 0:11:32.420 All right. Well, I'm glad you brought up. Let's pivot 0:11:32.420 --> 0:11:35.240 to that. Let's pivot to that. I, I watched this 0:11:35.240 --> 0:11:37.580 movie again after we spoke about it last year. 0:11:37.910 --> 0:11:38.630 Of course. 0:11:39.170 --> 0:11:41.870 I had some time to reflect on on what I 0:11:41.870 --> 0:11:44.330 said and what you guys said. And I've got to say, 0:11:44.330 --> 0:11:47.240 you I mean, like Thomas in particular, you're so wrong 0:11:47.240 --> 0:11:49.489 on this movie, man. Like, like, I feel like I 0:11:49.490 --> 0:11:51.500 was made out to be some sort of, like, sci 0:11:51.500 --> 0:11:53.930 fi freak who was like, this weird movie that no 0:11:53.929 --> 0:11:56.060 one will like is pretty cool. And then Tommy still 0:11:56.059 --> 0:11:58.730 sending me text messages from your friends who are like, 0:11:58.730 --> 0:12:00.680 you know, I was just making this movie sound so dumb. 0:12:00.679 --> 0:12:02.870 You're right, Thomas, you're a man of the people. This 0:12:02.870 --> 0:12:06.830 movie is not only objectively very good, it has been 0:12:06.830 --> 0:12:10.730 critically acclaimed. It has been watched by millions of people. 0:12:10.730 --> 0:12:14.750 It's breaking box office records. It's genuinely very good. Interesting. 0:12:14.750 --> 0:12:16.849 I just wanted to ask you guys whether you had 0:12:16.850 --> 0:12:19.970 had time to reflect on your thoughts, and if you 0:12:19.970 --> 0:12:22.040 had any other things you wanted to say about the 0:12:22.040 --> 0:12:24.050 state of the discourse around June part two? 0:12:24.080 --> 0:12:26.600 Yeah, I'll, I'll start off given the only one, I 0:12:26.600 --> 0:12:28.160 am probably the only one out of the two of 0:12:28.160 --> 0:12:33.350 us that does reflect on their thoughts. Um, yeah. I was, 0:12:33.350 --> 0:12:35.959 you know, I took a more middle ground approach, I 0:12:35.960 --> 0:12:37.760 would probably say, but I was blown away by the 0:12:37.760 --> 0:12:40.400 box office results over the weekend. And I really did 0:12:40.400 --> 0:12:43.940 see that this film is incredibly popular, and the box 0:12:43.940 --> 0:12:47.210 office results for part two have been well and truly outdone. 0:12:47.210 --> 0:12:49.580 Part one as well. So not only has it kind 0:12:49.580 --> 0:12:51.740 of got a lot of fans, it's got heaps of 0:12:51.740 --> 0:12:54.710 new fans as well since the first one. So, um, yeah, 0:12:54.710 --> 0:12:58.190 I'm sorry, Oz, that we made you seem like an obscure. 0:12:58.220 --> 0:12:59.240 I have to apologize. 0:12:59.720 --> 0:13:01.010 I don't apologize on my behalf. 0:13:01.910 --> 0:13:04.520 But you are the man of the people. 0:13:05.660 --> 0:13:05.959 The man. 0:13:06.800 --> 0:13:07.699 Of cinema. You could. 0:13:07.700 --> 0:13:08.480 Say the man of the people. 0:13:08.480 --> 0:13:11.840 Who's never flown economy. I did reflect on it, and 0:13:11.840 --> 0:13:14.030 I reflected on it with friends. Allow me to share 0:13:14.030 --> 0:13:16.370 some of my reflections. So this is a friend of 0:13:16.370 --> 0:13:18.980 mine who texted me every moment Oseman talks about June 0:13:18.980 --> 0:13:20.900 confirms more and more that I absolutely do not want 0:13:20.900 --> 0:13:24.390 to see it. And this is a separate friend. June 0:13:24.390 --> 0:13:27.319 2nd sounds boring as fuck lol. What are you doing? 0:13:28.010 --> 0:13:29.030 I mean these maybe. 0:13:29.030 --> 0:13:30.410 Reflect more on you and your friendship. 0:13:30.410 --> 0:13:32.030 I agree you have completely. 0:13:32.030 --> 0:13:34.250 Moronic friends who are not interested. I do have. 0:13:34.250 --> 0:13:36.830 Some some really moronic friends. Uh, one of them is 0:13:36.830 --> 0:13:38.929 included in that group, but I just think, look, it's 0:13:38.929 --> 0:13:42.290 important that we show both sides of the debate. And, 0:13:42.290 --> 0:13:44.990 you know, as we've discussed at length this week, I mean, 0:13:44.990 --> 0:13:47.390 some people see June as this masterpiece, and other people 0:13:47.390 --> 0:13:50.840 see it as a 2.5 hour movie about worms. So 0:13:50.840 --> 0:13:52.370 that's the world that we live in. 0:13:53.000 --> 0:13:55.309 It is it is interesting, I think even and like Thomas, 0:13:55.309 --> 0:13:56.810 even though you didn't love the movie, like you and 0:13:56.809 --> 0:13:59.809 I were exchanging kind of Dune memes over the weekend 0:13:59.809 --> 0:14:02.900 and stuff, it certainly you can acknowledge, has become like 0:14:02.900 --> 0:14:06.620 a significant cultural moment. Probably not to the scale of Barbie, 0:14:06.620 --> 0:14:09.469 but probably the next biggest in the last 12 months. 0:14:09.830 --> 0:14:13.250 Yeah, 100%. And like it is funny because like we're 0:14:13.250 --> 0:14:16.010 just saying it more and more now, like both before 0:14:16.010 --> 0:14:18.410 and after a movie comes out. Just like the like 0:14:18.410 --> 0:14:21.140 ecosystem of the internet around films is so crazy now. 0:14:21.140 --> 0:14:23.000 Like we have joked about, you know, the June popcorn 0:14:23.000 --> 0:14:26.120 bucket or whatever, but like, yeah, like I've had people 0:14:26.120 --> 0:14:28.310 exchanging memes to me about June who I know haven't 0:14:28.310 --> 0:14:30.590 actually even seen the movie yet. So yeah, it's really 0:14:30.590 --> 0:14:32.630 weird that we live in this world now. That's a thing. 0:14:33.290 --> 0:14:36.080 While we're talking about marketing, there is actually one bit 0:14:36.080 --> 0:14:39.470 of the Dune Part two phenomenon that has left me 0:14:39.470 --> 0:14:42.109 feeling like a little bit weird. I almost spent too 0:14:42.110 --> 0:14:43.790 much time on this because I want to get to 0:14:43.790 --> 0:14:45.980 the big stuff. The Oscars we're going to talk about today. 0:14:45.980 --> 0:14:51.140 But the way that movie studios, distributors, marketing firms are 0:14:51.140 --> 0:14:55.010 controlling the conversation about a movie in this day and 0:14:55.010 --> 0:14:58.040 age is really fascinating to me and frankly, a little 0:14:58.040 --> 0:15:00.710 bit depressing. So in the olden days, you know, the 0:15:00.710 --> 0:15:03.739 first you generally hear about a movie and whether it 0:15:03.740 --> 0:15:05.330 was good or bad, it was critics would go to 0:15:05.330 --> 0:15:07.910 screenings early and they would write their reviews in the newspaper, 0:15:07.910 --> 0:15:10.640 and great reviews would get you hyped. And you'd be like, 0:15:10.640 --> 0:15:12.200 I guess that's the picture I want to go see 0:15:12.200 --> 0:15:14.330 this weekend, and a bad review would like a movie 0:15:14.330 --> 0:15:16.790 would be dead on arrival, right? So it's not surprising 0:15:16.790 --> 0:15:20.420 that studios want to take some control back and set 0:15:20.420 --> 0:15:23.690 the set the narrative on their terms. And so what 0:15:23.690 --> 0:15:28.520 you've seen increasingly, is early screenings filled with influences more 0:15:28.520 --> 0:15:32.090 than critics, even interview panels, which generally used to be 0:15:32.090 --> 0:15:36.580 reserved for. Film journalists have now become about getting an influencer, 0:15:36.580 --> 0:15:39.729 a TikToker, to ask someone involved in the movie what 0:15:39.730 --> 0:15:42.160 their favorite like food is right to send that clip viral, 0:15:42.160 --> 0:15:45.130 rather than an interesting conversation about what the movie is 0:15:45.130 --> 0:15:48.070 about and what their process was. The new thing that 0:15:48.070 --> 0:15:49.840 I've seen, and I think June Part two was, was 0:15:49.840 --> 0:15:53.140 a really interesting example of this. You fill your early 0:15:53.140 --> 0:15:58.060 release cinemas with fans of this franchise so that social media, 0:15:58.060 --> 0:16:03.310 IMDb Letterboxd reviews are overwhelmingly positive because it's crazy spicy 0:16:03.310 --> 0:16:05.500 to say it's great. That creates a narrative that this 0:16:05.500 --> 0:16:08.890 movie is amazing, it's perfect, it's great, and no one 0:16:08.890 --> 0:16:10.840 really wants to be the first person to say it 0:16:10.840 --> 0:16:13.870 isn't quite that good. So everyone jumps on the hype train. 0:16:13.870 --> 0:16:16.270 They watch it. The box office numbers are big. You 0:16:16.270 --> 0:16:18.160 have that effect that you're talking about with Fred again 0:16:18.160 --> 0:16:19.450 when no one wants to miss that. So they go 0:16:19.450 --> 0:16:22.140 and see it. I think that's really interesting. It's really 0:16:22.140 --> 0:16:25.230 smart marketing. The only bit of that that really annoys 0:16:25.230 --> 0:16:29.010 me is those opportunities and that space that used to 0:16:29.010 --> 0:16:33.720 be about writing about movies or asking interesting questions about 0:16:33.720 --> 0:16:38.670 the choices directors and actors and editors make, going to 0:16:38.670 --> 0:16:41.790 the kinds of people who and like. Obviously there are smart, 0:16:41.790 --> 0:16:44.910 interesting film TikTokers and YouTubers. I'm not knocking those, but 0:16:44.910 --> 0:16:46.500 a lot of it now is just how do we 0:16:46.500 --> 0:16:48.660 get the most engagements to get this in people's feeds, 0:16:48.660 --> 0:16:50.460 to get people to watch the movie? And I think 0:16:50.460 --> 0:16:52.560 that's a little bit sad if that's the way it goes. 0:16:52.590 --> 0:16:54.330 Do you guys have any any thoughts about this? Am 0:16:54.330 --> 0:16:55.530 I just being curmudgeonly? 0:16:55.830 --> 0:16:58.800 You are being a bit curmudgeonly because I do think 0:16:58.800 --> 0:17:01.710 that there is. I think what they're doing is trying 0:17:01.710 --> 0:17:06.600 to appeal to a demographic that traditional critics aren't appealing 0:17:06.630 --> 0:17:10.320 to or aren't reaching, and that's exactly what they're trying 0:17:10.320 --> 0:17:12.240 to do. And I think there is room for both. 0:17:12.240 --> 0:17:14.700 I mean, I don't think at the June premiere, our 0:17:14.700 --> 0:17:19.800 movie reviewers weren't invited because someone from an influencer was 0:17:19.800 --> 0:17:21.660 invited to take photos in front of, like, a wall 0:17:21.660 --> 0:17:24.210 of sand. Like, I think they both can exist. And 0:17:24.210 --> 0:17:28.590 I think a more positive frame on it is to say, look, 0:17:28.590 --> 0:17:31.260 if this is how we're getting a new generation into 0:17:31.260 --> 0:17:34.770 cinema and into films like that's a really good thing. 0:17:34.770 --> 0:17:37.139 Like if this is a lot of people's first introduction 0:17:37.140 --> 0:17:40.859 to cinematic culture, like, that's wonderful, why wouldn't we celebrate 0:17:40.859 --> 0:17:43.379 the fact that we're reaching a younger audience? And I 0:17:43.380 --> 0:17:45.900 do understand what you're saying, like, obviously we don't want 0:17:45.900 --> 0:17:48.960 a dumbing down of the critical industry that we have, 0:17:48.960 --> 0:17:51.209 but I just I really do think it's a way 0:17:51.210 --> 0:17:54.119 of getting people into cinema more than kind of trying 0:17:54.119 --> 0:17:57.240 to remove the critical culture around it. And they can 0:17:57.240 --> 0:17:59.520 both exist because there will always be. And we had 0:17:59.520 --> 0:18:01.770 serious reviews of Dune at the same time as there 0:18:01.770 --> 0:18:05.790 is this kind of separate world going on for younger people. 0:18:05.790 --> 0:18:07.620 And I will say it's not every film like it's 0:18:07.619 --> 0:18:10.740 not like an Oppenheimer, although obviously that because of its 0:18:10.740 --> 0:18:12.600 release with Barbie, we did see kind of a lot 0:18:12.600 --> 0:18:15.179 of social stuff around it. But not every film is 0:18:15.180 --> 0:18:18.540 treated the way Dune has been. Like Oppenheimer wasn't killers, 0:18:18.540 --> 0:18:20.970 wasn't a lot of anatomy of a fall. These are 0:18:20.970 --> 0:18:25.080 really big, critically glorious films, but they're not being treated 0:18:25.080 --> 0:18:27.420 this way. So it is these kind of blockbuster films 0:18:27.420 --> 0:18:30.180 that are getting this treatment particularly. Yeah. 0:18:30.180 --> 0:18:32.430 And I think there will always be, um, a few 0:18:32.430 --> 0:18:34.889 of us brave people who go on the pods and say, 0:18:34.890 --> 0:18:38.250 June 2nd, June 2nd sucks. No, I think I think 0:18:38.250 --> 0:18:40.560 it's a very valid argument. I think you guys, um, 0:18:40.560 --> 0:18:42.660 kind of covered both sides. I do think, yeah, it 0:18:42.660 --> 0:18:44.580 ultimately should be about the balance. Like, you know, I 0:18:44.580 --> 0:18:47.159 remember when I went to the Saltburn screening and I 0:18:47.160 --> 0:18:48.840 was like, oh, this is really weird. Like, this is 0:18:48.840 --> 0:18:51.570 it was such a like, almost like party like atmosphere 0:18:51.570 --> 0:18:53.100 in the cinema. And this was like two weeks before 0:18:53.100 --> 0:18:56.580 it came out. And then like when it was lights up, um, 0:18:56.580 --> 0:19:00.540 I saw like several I would say like 60% of 0:19:00.540 --> 0:19:03.840 the crowd was like influences who I knew and not recognized. 0:19:03.840 --> 0:19:05.940 And then, like, would, you know, a day later saw 0:19:05.940 --> 0:19:08.970 their content on online. And I guess it'll be about 0:19:08.970 --> 0:19:10.680 the balance that you don't want to kind of like 0:19:10.680 --> 0:19:13.050 flood it with that, you know, very I know it's 0:19:13.050 --> 0:19:15.300 like so tempting for these movie companies to get the 0:19:15.300 --> 0:19:17.129 influencers in to be like, oh, they'll, you know, you 0:19:17.130 --> 0:19:19.320 do three posts to your 200,000 followers about how great 0:19:19.320 --> 0:19:21.510 Saltburn is and blah, blah, blah. But, um, I don't 0:19:21.510 --> 0:19:23.400 ever think we'll see, you know, the full watering down 0:19:23.400 --> 0:19:25.830 of the critical, you know, uh, culture. 0:19:25.830 --> 0:19:27.540 Yeah, I hope, I hope so. And you guys are right. 0:19:27.540 --> 0:19:29.250 I mean, we are very lucky to get great access 0:19:29.250 --> 0:19:31.200 to these movies. We get to watch them earlier, as 0:19:31.200 --> 0:19:33.780 do critics. And we often get great access to stars 0:19:33.780 --> 0:19:36.240 and talent. So I'm not saying that this is the 0:19:36.240 --> 0:19:38.790 end of good film criticism, but something about the way 0:19:38.790 --> 0:19:41.910 that the Dune stuff operated, on one hand super smart 0:19:41.910 --> 0:19:44.250 from the studio and is clearly paid off. But I 0:19:44.250 --> 0:19:47.580 just can see like like Paul Atreides with his with his, 0:19:47.580 --> 0:19:50.790 you know, spice vision, a darker path ahead if we 0:19:50.790 --> 0:19:52.830 follow this one too far down the track, but one 0:19:52.830 --> 0:19:53.820 to watch, I reckon. 0:19:53.820 --> 0:19:55.169 I mean, I don't know what that metaphor means. 0:19:55.170 --> 0:19:58.649 So something about talking about a worm, I think. Yeah. 0:19:59.100 --> 0:19:59.760 Blue liquid. 0:20:00.150 --> 0:20:03.510 Um, look, one other thing we wanted to, to touch on, um, 0:20:03.510 --> 0:20:06.390 was a show that I mentioned in the Impress Your 0:20:06.390 --> 0:20:10.020 Friends segment last week, uh, called Shogun. It's had a 0:20:10.020 --> 0:20:14.130 pretty big response internationally, making a lot of comparisons to 0:20:14.130 --> 0:20:17.729 Game of Thrones and even succession. The ringer called it 0:20:17.730 --> 0:20:21.060 high stakes event TV at its finest. The Washington Post 0:20:21.060 --> 0:20:24.300 says that Shogun is what thrillers or wish they were. 0:20:24.300 --> 0:20:26.400 It's a show made by FX in the in the US. 0:20:26.400 --> 0:20:29.160 It's the home of shows like Atlanta Legion, It's Always Sunny, 0:20:29.160 --> 0:20:32.010 but this feels like that leveling up. It's one of 0:20:32.010 --> 0:20:36.270 their most epic, intense shows yet, airing on Disney+ in Australia. 0:20:36.270 --> 0:20:38.160 And if you didn't catch me talking about it last week, 0:20:38.160 --> 0:20:41.490 very quick summary. It's set in Japan in the 1600s. 0:20:41.490 --> 0:20:44.490 It follows an Englishman who ends up shipwrecked in the 0:20:44.490 --> 0:20:48.060 country and quickly becomes ensnared in political intrigue as this 0:20:48.060 --> 0:20:51.119 group of five Japanese regents who rule over the country 0:20:51.119 --> 0:20:55.230 trying to politically outdo and backstab each other. Thomas, you've 0:20:55.230 --> 0:20:57.840 since watched Shogun. What did you think? 0:20:57.840 --> 0:21:01.050 Yeah, I am really into it. Um, it feels, I guess, 0:21:01.050 --> 0:21:04.860 like the closest thing we have to prestige TV right now. Um, 0:21:05.160 --> 0:21:06.449 it just it just does such a good job of 0:21:06.450 --> 0:21:09.330 setting up this world. It's not really like an easily 0:21:09.330 --> 0:21:12.930 accessible world at, like, on paper, but you so quickly get, like, 0:21:12.930 --> 0:21:15.210 drawn into the power struggles of these five different kind 0:21:15.210 --> 0:21:18.000 of like families or regions. And, you know, it is 0:21:18.000 --> 0:21:21.270 those themes that we love consistently. From the shows that 0:21:21.270 --> 0:21:23.070 we love. And, you know, we talked about comparisons to 0:21:23.070 --> 0:21:25.320 succession and, you know, whether or not that's accurate, I 0:21:25.320 --> 0:21:28.080 don't know. But like this power vacuum that is suddenly, 0:21:28.080 --> 0:21:31.770 you know, has this ripple effect is so intoxicating, I think. 0:21:31.770 --> 0:21:33.060 And on top of that, I also think like the 0:21:33.060 --> 0:21:35.670 way they do the era is really great. And yeah, 0:21:35.670 --> 0:21:39.150 I the first two episodes are actually pretty dense as well. 0:21:39.150 --> 0:21:41.310 Like in terms of trying to figure out exactly what's 0:21:41.310 --> 0:21:43.770 going on. And there is so many different characters. But yeah, I, 0:21:43.770 --> 0:21:46.500 I'm very into this. I'm on the Shogun train now. 0:21:46.530 --> 0:21:48.390 Oh my gosh, it is so graphic too. 0:21:48.390 --> 0:21:51.930 This is like video game level violence. 0:21:51.930 --> 0:21:54.180 And it did remind me of our Murray Scorsese episode. 0:21:54.180 --> 0:21:57.210 We talked about his film silence, which is also set 0:21:57.210 --> 0:22:00.180 in a similar period. And if you liked that film, 0:22:00.270 --> 0:22:02.520 you will love Shogun, because it actually picks up on 0:22:02.520 --> 0:22:05.129 a lot of those themes and the exact same kind 0:22:05.130 --> 0:22:08.100 of rough and ready landscape, the kind of collapse and 0:22:08.100 --> 0:22:12.300 building of civilizations. It's, uh, it's pretty gripping viewing. 0:22:12.480 --> 0:22:14.610 Yeah, I get I get the Game of Thrones comparisons, 0:22:14.609 --> 0:22:17.760 particularly the violence, the unexpected violence, this sort of sex 0:22:17.760 --> 0:22:20.850 and stuff. But the creators have said, look, we want 0:22:20.850 --> 0:22:24.030 this to be considered along shows like succession and House 0:22:24.030 --> 0:22:26.220 of cards as well. And I get that too, because 0:22:26.220 --> 0:22:28.859 while there is, you know, there like some really great 0:22:28.859 --> 0:22:31.770 action sequences, so much of it is like conversations and 0:22:31.770 --> 0:22:35.130 rooms and this, this web that continues to grow of 0:22:35.130 --> 0:22:39.090 double dealing and like Catholic missionaries playing both sides. There's 0:22:39.090 --> 0:22:42.810 so much complexity and denseness to this story, but I 0:22:42.810 --> 0:22:45.390 think it's done in a way that's more, uh, I guess, 0:22:45.390 --> 0:22:48.240 welcoming to outsiders and something like June, like they really 0:22:48.240 --> 0:22:50.670 explained things to you, which really helps, particularly the first 0:22:50.670 --> 0:22:53.280 couple of episodes. I feel like I get this world 0:22:53.280 --> 0:22:56.670 and the stakes and I'm really in, uh, I, I 0:22:56.670 --> 0:22:58.830 also think the way it's shot is really interesting that 0:22:58.830 --> 0:23:01.860 you said it's, you know, one of the few prestige 0:23:01.859 --> 0:23:04.260 shows out right now. Thomas, I kind of agree, even 0:23:04.260 --> 0:23:06.630 though there are like other hyped shows, you know, there's 0:23:06.630 --> 0:23:09.630 the regime with Kate Winslet that's out on, um, out 0:23:09.630 --> 0:23:11.670 on binge, the HBO show. But the way that this 0:23:11.670 --> 0:23:15.929 show is filmed, the lighting, the directing, the sequences, the performances, 0:23:15.930 --> 0:23:20.040 it feels like this last kind of we're making a 0:23:20.040 --> 0:23:23.189 movie into a TV show over eight parts and come 0:23:23.190 --> 0:23:24.270 along for the ride. 0:23:24.270 --> 0:23:26.760 Yeah, you're like totally in that environment with them, with 0:23:26.760 --> 0:23:29.189 the rough waters and the jungle and the kind of 0:23:29.190 --> 0:23:32.310 you're they do such a good job at making you 0:23:32.310 --> 0:23:33.750 feel like you're in that moment. 0:23:33.750 --> 0:23:36.000 Yeah, it feels expensive. And also I, I've had like 0:23:36.000 --> 0:23:39.090 a lot of people, um, like texting me about it, 0:23:39.090 --> 0:23:41.100 like I can the word of mouth on this show is, like, 0:23:41.100 --> 0:23:42.780 really kicking off over the last couple of weeks. Like 0:23:42.780 --> 0:23:46.010 it it feels like it could be in 5 or 0:23:46.010 --> 0:23:48.090 6 episodes. People are like, oh, fuck. Shogun. This is 0:23:48.090 --> 0:23:49.050 like the show for the year. 0:23:49.050 --> 0:23:51.330 So the esteemed friends you quoted before who didn't like. 0:23:51.330 --> 0:23:53.100 June, are they into Shogun? 0:23:53.100 --> 0:23:55.050 Correct? Yeah. They've given Shogun the tick of approval. 0:23:55.109 --> 0:23:55.919 Interesting. 0:23:55.920 --> 0:23:57.390 Well, let's keep an eye on it, because I do 0:23:57.390 --> 0:23:59.310 think you're right. I think more people will jump on, 0:23:59.310 --> 0:24:01.320 and it may be worth doing, like a deeper dive 0:24:01.320 --> 0:24:04.859 and some character analyses and and that sort of fun thing. 0:24:04.859 --> 0:24:07.050 So yeah, we're all going to send the Shogun train, 0:24:07.050 --> 0:24:18.990 it sounds like. All right, folks, the 96th Academy Awards 0:24:18.990 --> 0:24:22.440 are nearly here. They are airing during the day on Monday, 0:24:22.440 --> 0:24:25.770 the 11th Australian time. All three of us are fans 0:24:25.770 --> 0:24:28.800 of the Oscars. We love cinema. We love award shows. 0:24:28.800 --> 0:24:31.740 We love the celebration of film culture and everything to 0:24:31.740 --> 0:24:35.280 do with the moving image with some sound attached to it. 0:24:35.280 --> 0:24:37.860 We love it when the Oscars get it right. We 0:24:37.859 --> 0:24:39.149 love it when they get it wrong. We love it 0:24:39.150 --> 0:24:40.770 when they do both on the same night, which they 0:24:40.770 --> 0:24:44.310 basically always do. Today we're going to do a deep 0:24:44.310 --> 0:24:47.129 dive on this year's awards. We're going to take a 0:24:47.130 --> 0:24:49.619 look at the state of the race, how the campaigns 0:24:49.619 --> 0:24:53.700 for each film playing out, and we'll unpack exactly how 0:24:53.700 --> 0:24:57.450 the awards work. And we'll also make some predictions that 0:24:57.450 --> 0:24:59.700 you can hold us to next week when we do 0:24:59.700 --> 0:25:03.119 a special Oscars reaction podcast, dropping in your feeds on 0:25:03.119 --> 0:25:06.990 Monday evening. I actually thought, before we start talking about 0:25:06.990 --> 0:25:09.510 this year's awards, it'd be fun to read out this 0:25:09.510 --> 0:25:13.679 passage from a book. Mel Michael Shulman's Oscar was the 0:25:13.680 --> 0:25:14.909 one that you and I both enjoy. 0:25:14.910 --> 0:25:15.870 Favorite book? 0:25:15.869 --> 0:25:18.330 It's about the history of the Oscars, and early on 0:25:18.330 --> 0:25:20.760 in the book he asks, like, what are the Academy 0:25:20.760 --> 0:25:25.320 Awards anyway? And he says that the closest thing America 0:25:25.320 --> 0:25:28.620 has to royalty, they're the only thing forcing Hollywood to 0:25:28.619 --> 0:25:32.040 factor art into commerce. They're a marketing ploy, propping up 0:25:32.040 --> 0:25:35.760 a multi-billion dollar business there, a method, however dubious, of 0:25:35.760 --> 0:25:39.119 organizing movies into canon. They're a game. They're a relic. 0:25:39.150 --> 0:25:42.000 They're a fashion show. They're a horse race. They're an 0:25:42.000 --> 0:25:45.480 orgy of self-congratulation by rich and famous people who think 0:25:45.480 --> 0:25:48.690 too highly of themselves. They're the gay Super Bowl. I 0:25:48.690 --> 0:25:51.390 thought that is like, awesome, because all of those statements 0:25:51.390 --> 0:25:54.690 are right. And I think they explain why these awards 0:25:54.690 --> 0:25:57.090 are so fascinating to watch and to talk about, both 0:25:57.090 --> 0:26:00.630 as a spectacle, but both as a statement on this 0:26:00.630 --> 0:26:02.910 big question that we talk about every show, how culture 0:26:02.910 --> 0:26:05.070 is made and received in the world right now. 0:26:06.230 --> 0:26:08.030 Yeah, just hearing that made me excited. 0:26:08.030 --> 0:26:08.330 Yeah. 0:26:09.050 --> 0:26:10.939 So. So now we've got that kind of summary out 0:26:10.940 --> 0:26:12.800 of the way. I thought it'd be fun if the 0:26:12.800 --> 0:26:15.920 three of us started with sharing some of our favorite 0:26:15.920 --> 0:26:18.320 Oscar moments from recent years. What are the bits that 0:26:18.320 --> 0:26:20.690 stand out that you still think about that make you think, 0:26:20.690 --> 0:26:23.359 God damn, I love this insane group of people and 0:26:23.359 --> 0:26:25.310 what they get up to? Mel. Jonah, do you want 0:26:25.310 --> 0:26:26.030 to go first? 0:26:26.060 --> 0:26:28.040 Well, I have to say one of them that I 0:26:28.040 --> 0:26:31.580 think still the influence still continues to loom large on 0:26:31.580 --> 0:26:36.859 our culture was Ellen's selfie, which turns ten this year? 0:26:37.160 --> 0:26:39.380 Um, this week, I believe. Two days ago. Yeah. 0:26:39.410 --> 0:26:41.090 Of course. Yeah. So, um. 0:26:41.240 --> 0:26:41.780 Remind us. 0:26:41.780 --> 0:26:42.470 Of the selfie. 0:26:42.470 --> 0:26:45.050 No, I mean, it's a bit. Ellen. Probably. Now, we 0:26:45.050 --> 0:26:47.750 know she probably bullied everyone into doing it and smiled 0:26:47.750 --> 0:26:50.780 the whole way. So it's kind of a bit tinged now, but, um, 0:26:50.960 --> 0:26:55.100 Ellen just happened to take that, you know, seemingly random selfie. 0:26:55.100 --> 0:26:58.220 Probably ten years ago. We were all just discovering selfies, right? 0:26:58.490 --> 0:27:00.590 And it had the who's who of Hollywood in it. 0:27:00.590 --> 0:27:03.860 Everyone from Meryl Streep to Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence was 0:27:03.859 --> 0:27:06.500 in it, Brad Pitt all like in a kind of 0:27:06.500 --> 0:27:10.340 Renaissance style, scattered composition. And it was just kind of 0:27:10.340 --> 0:27:14.120 captured a moment in time in Hollywood so perfectly. And 0:27:14.119 --> 0:27:17.600 since then it's obviously been ripped off multiple times. Everyone's 0:27:17.600 --> 0:27:19.580 kind of done their own version of the Ellen self, 0:27:19.580 --> 0:27:22.040 and it became a trend at other events as well. 0:27:22.040 --> 0:27:24.020 It's so funny that selfie, because you're right, it had 0:27:24.020 --> 0:27:26.389 this chokehold on the on the world. But now you 0:27:26.390 --> 0:27:29.240 look back, you're like that is so cringe. Like who cares? 0:27:29.240 --> 0:27:33.920 The photo looks like depressing Kevin Spacey. There's a few 0:27:33.920 --> 0:27:36.139 people there that have not aged well, but now it's 0:27:36.140 --> 0:27:38.720 like you just couldn't see that going ballistic the way 0:27:38.720 --> 0:27:39.619 that that did. 0:27:39.619 --> 0:27:41.660 No, I feel like if you saw it, you'd probably 0:27:41.660 --> 0:27:44.840 mock them and criticize them for the ostentatious ness of 0:27:44.840 --> 0:27:47.630 it all. Um, of course, at the moment that I 0:27:47.630 --> 0:27:50.960 think we'll never get past from the Oscars is the slap. Um, 0:27:50.960 --> 0:27:53.480 not the Crystal talkers book, though we can talk about 0:27:53.480 --> 0:27:58.850 that later. The 2022, um, Will Smith, Chris Rock, I'm 0:27:58.850 --> 0:27:59.450 out here. 0:27:59.600 --> 0:28:07.699 Oh, Richard. Oh, wow. Wow. 0:28:09.619 --> 0:28:11.600 Will Smith just smack the shit out of me. 0:28:14.900 --> 0:28:17.210 Name out your mouth. 0:28:18.080 --> 0:28:22.460 Wow, dude. Yes, it was a G.I. Joe. 0:28:22.970 --> 0:28:26.090 My wife's name. I remember we were all in the office, 0:28:26.090 --> 0:28:29.060 I think, when it happened. And it was. The response was. 0:28:29.060 --> 0:28:31.310 So no one really understood what was going on. 0:28:31.310 --> 0:28:33.439 I was famously not in the office. I'd been helping 0:28:33.440 --> 0:28:35.210 live blog at all day and went to get a 0:28:35.210 --> 0:28:36.470 sandwich and was like. 0:28:37.220 --> 0:28:37.520 What could. 0:28:37.520 --> 0:28:39.410 Happen here? And I got my phone starts blowing up. 0:28:39.410 --> 0:28:41.690 It's like, you know, Will Smith just slap Chris Rock. 0:28:41.690 --> 0:28:43.610 I'm like, ah, I was like George Clooney at the 0:28:43.610 --> 0:28:45.800 opening of Ocean's 12. And Julia Roberts calls and he 0:28:45.800 --> 0:28:48.979 throws the flowers away and just gets back, runs back in. 0:28:48.980 --> 0:28:52.130 It was like a BLT. Yeah, yeah, just enjoying himself. 0:28:52.400 --> 0:28:54.590 It was so funny. You mentioned Crystal Soakers because I 0:28:54.590 --> 0:28:56.270 can remember who it was. Someone in our team had 0:28:56.270 --> 0:28:59.870 an idea to message Crystal and see if he would 0:28:59.870 --> 0:29:03.620 comment on the slap, and and I did. He decided 0:29:03.620 --> 0:29:04.820 to not buy it. Actually. 0:29:05.480 --> 0:29:07.550 That is such a good idea and I think we 0:29:07.550 --> 0:29:08.870 should ask him again. 0:29:08.870 --> 0:29:11.150 I actually, I actually just found the message. He said, 0:29:11.150 --> 0:29:13.460 Hi Osman, I think the wisest thing for me to 0:29:13.460 --> 0:29:16.160 do is let the memes take care of themselves. Hope 0:29:16.160 --> 0:29:19.850 that's okay. Don't hesitate to ask me anything. My best Christmas. 0:29:20.900 --> 0:29:21.710 That's a great message. 0:29:22.070 --> 0:29:24.110 Speaking of the time, I asked Helen Garner to write 0:29:24.110 --> 0:29:25.700 about the Kardashians and. 0:29:26.840 --> 0:29:27.500 Which I still. 0:29:27.500 --> 0:29:29.060 Believe would have been a remarkable. 0:29:29.060 --> 0:29:30.590 Can you bring this up often? 0:29:30.590 --> 0:29:35.210 She just replied one line. No, not for me. Um, yeah, 0:29:35.210 --> 0:29:36.710 but do you remember? We were all very confused about 0:29:36.710 --> 0:29:38.990 whether it was a joke at first or like whether 0:29:38.990 --> 0:29:41.330 it was staged. There was at least a kind of 0:29:41.330 --> 0:29:43.940 a few minutes where everyone was kind of confused about 0:29:43.940 --> 0:29:46.010 whether it was set up, one of those kind of interactive. 0:29:46.010 --> 0:29:47.510 Yeah. It just seemed so outrageous that. 0:29:47.720 --> 0:29:48.590 It actually happened. 0:29:48.590 --> 0:29:50.900 I remember shortly after that Osbourne was like, you have 0:29:50.900 --> 0:29:53.060 to write this anatomy of the slap piece, where I 0:29:53.060 --> 0:29:54.920 broke it down into like, it was like, you know, 0:29:54.920 --> 0:29:56.990 it was like a replay of a of a football 0:29:56.990 --> 0:29:59.030 game or something and like, broke it down piece by piece. 0:29:59.030 --> 0:30:00.890 And we got like vision made up. And that was 0:30:00.890 --> 0:30:02.930 another one of those times where I'm like, I used 0:30:02.930 --> 0:30:04.850 to be somebody. And now here's one of those. 0:30:04.850 --> 0:30:06.590 Times where you said, oh, do I have to? And 0:30:06.590 --> 0:30:09.170 then it became one of the most beautiful and best read. 0:30:09.500 --> 0:30:11.450 It actually did absolutely pop up. What would have been like, 0:30:11.450 --> 0:30:11.720 is this. 0:30:11.720 --> 0:30:12.620 Even a story? 0:30:13.640 --> 0:30:14.090 Um, funnily. 0:30:14.090 --> 0:30:16.880 Enough, my Oscars moment comes from the same year I 0:30:16.880 --> 0:30:19.880 present to you two words. Ladies and gentlemen, Adele. 0:30:19.880 --> 0:30:25.640 Naseem, please welcome the wickedly talented one and only a dozen. 0:30:26.450 --> 0:30:28.880 Aside from the fact I love Travolta, I also love 0:30:28.880 --> 0:30:32.210 late era Travolta because he's just, like, fucking careening out 0:30:32.210 --> 0:30:34.459 of control. He's a pilot whose face doesn't move. Um, 0:30:34.460 --> 0:30:37.730 everything he does is hilarious. But the fact that, you know, 0:30:37.730 --> 0:30:40.430 we can still have something like the Oscars, which is 0:30:40.430 --> 0:30:44.390 the most heavily coordinated, one of the most watched black 0:30:44.570 --> 0:30:47.150 cultural events in the world, and you can still have 0:30:47.150 --> 0:30:49.580 these hilarious slip ups. It's very funny. Obviously, it was 0:30:49.580 --> 0:30:53.270 when John Travolta went up on stage to introduce, um, 0:30:53.270 --> 0:30:55.910 actor and songstress Idina menzel. Um, who was going to, 0:30:55.940 --> 0:30:58.760 you know, perform Let It Go from frozen. And he 0:30:58.760 --> 0:31:02.810 obviously he's I guess his logic is that he misread 0:31:02.810 --> 0:31:04.910 the phonetic spelling of her name on the teleprompter, and 0:31:04.910 --> 0:31:09.950 he said, Adele, dizzy. And I was just like, what 0:31:09.950 --> 0:31:13.250 the fuck, Travolta? Um, and, you know, funnily enough, it was. Yeah, 0:31:13.460 --> 0:31:16.190 it was ten years ago. Two days ago, I think. Um, 0:31:16.190 --> 0:31:18.950 so Idina menzel went on Instagram to wish Adele regime 0:31:18.950 --> 0:31:19.400 a happy. 0:31:19.700 --> 0:31:21.740 Happy 10th birthday, which was very funny. 0:31:21.830 --> 0:31:24.020 Um, so yeah, that's my one that stands out. 0:31:24.020 --> 0:31:25.880 It's funny that all of ours are kind of fuckups, 0:31:25.880 --> 0:31:28.700 like no moments, just like, wow, the first so-and-so to 0:31:28.700 --> 0:31:31.220 win an Oscar because mine is my favorite moment of 0:31:31.220 --> 0:31:36.080 all time. The 2017 Moonlight La La Land clusterfuck, which which, 0:31:36.080 --> 0:31:39.050 if you don't remember, Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty were 0:31:39.050 --> 0:31:41.900 announcing the winner of Best Picture. Everyone knew it was 0:31:41.900 --> 0:31:44.810 down to La La Land and Moonlight. That was like 0:31:44.810 --> 0:31:48.530 shades of the 2009 VMAs. It's kind of like clash 0:31:48.530 --> 0:31:51.980 of of race and culture and films and what stories matters, 0:31:51.980 --> 0:31:57.260 this beautiful, queer black story that just looked stunning compared 0:31:57.260 --> 0:32:00.080 to this movie about Hollywood. You know, I'm not a 0:32:00.080 --> 0:32:02.780 big La La Land guy, you guys know that. And 0:32:02.780 --> 0:32:05.989 then they announced that it's La La Land. All the 0:32:05.990 --> 0:32:10.580 producers jump up, everyone's celebrating. It's pretty exciting. Then Jordan Horowitz, 0:32:10.580 --> 0:32:13.310 the producer, looks at the envelope and says, there's been 0:32:13.310 --> 0:32:16.190 a mistake. Moonlight, you guys won Best Picture. 0:32:16.640 --> 0:32:18.050 We lost, by the way. But, you know. 0:32:18.740 --> 0:32:22.460 I'm sorry. No, there's a mistake. There's a mistake. Moonlight. 0:32:22.460 --> 0:32:24.950 You guys won best picture. Moonlight won. 0:32:26.420 --> 0:32:28.700 This is not a joke. This is not a joke. 0:32:28.700 --> 0:32:31.040 I'm afraid they read the wrong thing. This is. 0:32:31.970 --> 0:32:34.730 This is not a joke. Moonlight has won Best picture. 0:32:37.120 --> 0:32:39.160 Moonlight Best Picture. 0:32:45.740 --> 0:32:48.350 I watched that clip multiple times a week. It gives 0:32:48.350 --> 0:32:51.140 me chills. No one knows what's going on. It is insane. 0:32:51.140 --> 0:32:53.900 How do they get it wrong? I was liveblogging those 0:32:53.900 --> 0:32:55.880 awards for a different company I was working for at 0:32:55.880 --> 0:32:58.940 the time. I did the same thing I made you do, Thomas. 0:32:58.940 --> 0:33:01.910 I did like an anatomy of it screenshots, time frames, 0:33:01.910 --> 0:33:04.700 where it all went wrong. It was just so good 0:33:04.700 --> 0:33:07.610 and I love that it lives on in Oscars history. 0:33:07.610 --> 0:33:09.980 And again, it's just like, how does this happen? Not 0:33:09.980 --> 0:33:12.380 since the winner of Australia's Next Top model has. 0:33:12.380 --> 0:33:15.170 Such a disaster, but like, yeah. 0:33:15.590 --> 0:33:18.980 I mean, it just was like that heart in the 0:33:18.980 --> 0:33:22.370 mouth moment. Similar, I guess, to to the Will Smith thing. 0:33:22.370 --> 0:33:26.450 Like everything in our world really is often so like 0:33:26.450 --> 0:33:28.940 scripted and expected and there's not much room for chaos. 0:33:28.940 --> 0:33:31.520 And so when stuff like that happens, especially at these 0:33:31.520 --> 0:33:33.980 moments where, you know, like much of the world is watching, 0:33:34.280 --> 0:33:35.870 it's just it's kind of beautiful. 0:33:35.870 --> 0:33:36.350 Yeah. 0:33:36.350 --> 0:33:38.660 I like the, you know, there's no chaos until there 0:33:38.660 --> 0:33:41.000 is chaos and then it's absolute chaos. 0:33:41.420 --> 0:33:44.090 And because this involves like people who make the best 0:33:44.090 --> 0:33:47.630 films in the world, you think they can get a broadcast, right? 0:33:47.630 --> 0:33:50.090 They can produce a ceremony. So I think you're spot on. 0:33:50.090 --> 0:33:52.430 I think that element of chaos is why we love 0:33:52.430 --> 0:33:55.670 the alive award ceremony as much as, like, who actually 0:33:55.670 --> 0:33:56.690 wins and loses. 0:33:56.840 --> 0:33:58.400 Yeah. Gosh, it would be good to have a like 0:33:58.400 --> 0:34:00.770 a kind of documentary of what went on behind the 0:34:00.770 --> 0:34:02.540 scenes after that kind of is. 0:34:02.540 --> 0:34:03.290 It Warren Beatty is that. 0:34:03.290 --> 0:34:04.040 Really old and can't. 0:34:04.040 --> 0:34:05.930 Fucking say anything anymore? Yeah, yeah it is. 0:34:05.930 --> 0:34:07.970 He did, I think I think from memory, like he 0:34:07.970 --> 0:34:11.930 took the wrong envelope. He took it Emma Stone's envelope 0:34:11.930 --> 0:34:16.279 for Best Actress, and he was confused and it had 0:34:16.280 --> 0:34:17.810 La La Land on it. And he's like, well, I 0:34:17.810 --> 0:34:20.720 guess that's the best picture. And so that's what happened. 0:34:20.810 --> 0:34:21.260 If I. 0:34:21.260 --> 0:34:22.280 Say it with confidence. 0:34:22.280 --> 0:34:23.480 They'll believe me. 0:34:24.260 --> 0:34:26.719 Now. Warren Beatty rules like good on him. And it 0:34:26.719 --> 0:34:29.540 led to a very funny moment. So very happy for 0:34:29.540 --> 0:34:32.900 everyone involved. Except, anyway, moonlight got the award. That's what matters. 0:34:33.230 --> 0:34:33.440 Um. 0:34:34.190 --> 0:34:37.880 Speaking of awards, I thought it'd be interesting to do 0:34:37.880 --> 0:34:42.080 a bit of a reflection on last year's awards. Uh, 0:34:42.080 --> 0:34:45.320 I think they're actually an interesting case study into how 0:34:45.320 --> 0:34:49.819 the Oscars work and why some movies and actors and 0:34:49.820 --> 0:34:54.140 directors win, when it might not necessarily seem super obvious. 0:34:54.140 --> 0:34:56.660 It's a good way to kind of ground ourselves before 0:34:56.660 --> 0:35:00.230 we talk about what could happen this year on Monday. 0:35:00.230 --> 0:35:05.779 So last year, 2023 was basically a sweep for everything everywhere, 0:35:05.780 --> 0:35:08.960 all at once. It won Best Picture, Best Director for 0:35:08.960 --> 0:35:12.950 the two, Daniels, Best Original Screenplay for the Daniels Best Editing, 0:35:12.950 --> 0:35:16.610 Best Actress for Michelle Yeoh, Best Supporting Actor for Kwan, 0:35:16.610 --> 0:35:20.300 and Best Supporting Actress for Jamie Lee Curtis. It was 0:35:20.300 --> 0:35:23.300 ultimately just one shy of what we call in the 0:35:23.300 --> 0:35:26.390 business the Big five. When a film wins Best Picture, 0:35:26.390 --> 0:35:30.290 best director, best screenplay, actor and actress, that's only happened 0:35:30.290 --> 0:35:33.230 three times in history. Uh, it happened One Night, One 0:35:33.230 --> 0:35:35.870 Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and The Silence of the lambs. 0:35:35.870 --> 0:35:39.379 Last one was 1991. So I watched this movie again, 0:35:39.380 --> 0:35:42.560 like late last year after all the awards. And honestly, 0:35:42.560 --> 0:35:44.480 I found it like a bit harder to sit through 0:35:44.480 --> 0:35:46.640 than the first time I remember thinking the first one. 0:35:46.640 --> 0:35:49.520 This is pretty wacky and fun. It's kind of interesting, 0:35:49.520 --> 0:35:52.730 but do you guys think a year on that? It 0:35:52.730 --> 0:35:55.490 kind of stacks up that this movie won so many 0:35:55.489 --> 0:35:56.509 Academy Awards? 0:35:56.690 --> 0:35:59.330 I haven't gone back and watched it, and I have 0:35:59.330 --> 0:36:00.859 to say I enjoyed it at the time and same 0:36:00.860 --> 0:36:02.840 as you. I found it kooky and different, and it 0:36:02.840 --> 0:36:04.820 wasn't like anything else that was out at that time 0:36:04.820 --> 0:36:07.280 of the year, and it had an interesting cast. Um, 0:36:07.430 --> 0:36:10.700 but it really did seem that that year it was 0:36:10.700 --> 0:36:12.920 kind of just on point. And I think we do 0:36:12.920 --> 0:36:15.740 see this with the Oscars often. One film kind of 0:36:15.739 --> 0:36:17.930 steals a lot of the oxygen, and it gets all 0:36:17.930 --> 0:36:20.450 the hype in the build up to the Oscars campaign 0:36:20.450 --> 0:36:23.060 and the kind of vibe is on its side, and 0:36:23.060 --> 0:36:25.910 then it sweeps a lot of them. And then, you know, 0:36:25.910 --> 0:36:28.760 it doesn't particularly always age well. I still think this 0:36:28.760 --> 0:36:30.740 film is really good. Do I think it would have 0:36:30.739 --> 0:36:33.799 won all those Oscars this year? Probably not, because I 0:36:33.800 --> 0:36:36.200 think the mood is different that we're in right now, 0:36:36.200 --> 0:36:38.930 and I think its success was a direct reflection of 0:36:38.930 --> 0:36:41.900 kind of the world that was voting for it and 0:36:41.900 --> 0:36:44.030 created it at the time. So no, I think it 0:36:44.030 --> 0:36:46.490 was like pretty limited to that year. And that moment 0:36:46.489 --> 0:36:49.910 and wouldn't necessarily have the same success at another time. 0:36:49.910 --> 0:36:50.750 What do you think, Thomas? 0:36:50.750 --> 0:36:52.730 I think Top Gun Maverick was robbed, which I think 0:36:52.730 --> 0:36:56.510 was like obvious. No, like I yeah, I don't really 0:36:56.510 --> 0:36:58.850 love everything everywhere all at once. Like, not as much 0:36:58.850 --> 0:37:02.029 as everyone else seems to. I do like in my 0:37:02.030 --> 0:37:04.129 most cynical part, I think, oh God, was the Oscars. 0:37:04.130 --> 0:37:06.200 Just like, did they see a big opportunity to, like, 0:37:06.200 --> 0:37:09.260 write some maybe historical wrongs and just kind of like 0:37:09.260 --> 0:37:12.500 hand out, you know, in this one year, like, make 0:37:12.500 --> 0:37:15.469 themselves feel better about their checkered history. I do think 0:37:15.469 --> 0:37:17.780 there were better films. Um, and I especially think Jamie 0:37:17.780 --> 0:37:19.250 Lee Curtis, which I know will get on to. But 0:37:19.250 --> 0:37:20.989 that was like a fucking stitch up of a win. 0:37:20.989 --> 0:37:24.410 I think that was them playing catch up. Uh, and 0:37:24.410 --> 0:37:27.470 also I think similarly, Cate Blanchett sadly, was the best 0:37:27.469 --> 0:37:30.080 actress that year and she was robbed. So that's my 0:37:30.080 --> 0:37:32.000 thoughts on it. But this is this is a problem 0:37:32.000 --> 0:37:34.910 that the Oscars faces. It's a vicious cycle they're stuck in. 0:37:34.910 --> 0:37:39.590 And and yeah, I mean time will tell if Oppenheimer 0:37:39.590 --> 0:37:41.630 basically does the same thing this year, I think it 0:37:41.630 --> 0:37:45.589 will go even further. Um. Yeah, it's a funny thing. 0:37:45.590 --> 0:37:47.750 And I think what you said is right, Mel, sometimes 0:37:47.750 --> 0:37:50.330 we go into this season and the way, you know, 0:37:50.330 --> 0:37:52.700 the major kind of critic awards go and the Globes 0:37:52.700 --> 0:37:54.589 and stuff, and by the time we get to Oscars, 0:37:54.590 --> 0:37:57.319 it's like, well, this is the way that everyone like, 0:37:57.320 --> 0:37:58.670 this is the way the wind is blowing. So it's 0:37:58.670 --> 0:37:59.660 like an inevitable. 0:37:59.690 --> 0:38:02.150 Yeah. I'm glad you brought up those kind of make 0:38:02.150 --> 0:38:04.670 good Oscars, as I call them, where someone gets rewarded 0:38:04.670 --> 0:38:08.450 because the Oscars want to rectify a historical either injustice 0:38:08.450 --> 0:38:11.060 or someone's turn. Right. They've been this big part of 0:38:11.060 --> 0:38:12.830 Hollywood for so long, they haven't gotten an Oscar, and 0:38:12.830 --> 0:38:14.390 so they give it to them. But what that really 0:38:14.390 --> 0:38:16.970 does is it then creates another example of someone who 0:38:16.969 --> 0:38:19.310 probably deserved it, didn't get it, that they have to, like, 0:38:19.310 --> 0:38:21.529 make good down the track. And I think there were 0:38:21.530 --> 0:38:24.320 a few of those examples with with everything everywhere. I 0:38:24.320 --> 0:38:27.650 thought like the acting categories is so interesting because they 0:38:27.650 --> 0:38:30.680 give you a bit of a snapshot of how different 0:38:30.680 --> 0:38:33.560 narratives can can lead to a performance that you might 0:38:33.560 --> 0:38:36.080 not think as being the best performance. Winning Michelle Yeoh 0:38:36.080 --> 0:38:40.490 is an interesting example. Was she better than Cate Blanchett 0:38:40.489 --> 0:38:43.100 in Tar like? I don't think so. I think Tarr 0:38:43.100 --> 0:38:45.800 was an astonishing movie, and I thought Cate Blanchett did 0:38:45.800 --> 0:38:49.460 an extraordinary job. But the Oscars aren't just like a 0:38:49.460 --> 0:38:51.710 liberal who was the best in a movie. There's all 0:38:51.710 --> 0:38:56.989 these questions and and conversations and in historical threads, like Blanchett, 0:38:56.989 --> 0:39:00.470 for example, has an Oscar, Michelle Yeoh hasn't won an Oscar, 0:39:00.469 --> 0:39:02.660 and if she was to win, which she did, she 0:39:02.660 --> 0:39:05.660 would have become and did become the first East Asian 0:39:05.660 --> 0:39:08.299 woman to do so. Right. So that's like a big 0:39:08.600 --> 0:39:11.060 a big factor in that. And I think everything everywhere 0:39:11.060 --> 0:39:13.940 was was really wrapped up with the identity politics of 0:39:13.940 --> 0:39:16.940 that movie and the story it told. Then. Kwan, who 0:39:16.940 --> 0:39:19.580 won Best Supporting Actor, it was sort of similar, like 0:39:19.580 --> 0:39:22.820 you could argue, and I probably would, that both Barry 0:39:22.820 --> 0:39:26.689 Kuhn and Brendan Gleeson gave more compelling performances in Banshees 0:39:26.690 --> 0:39:29.990 of Inisherin like Kwan was fine, but he had this 0:39:29.989 --> 0:39:32.570 amazing comeback narrative, right? He was basically written out of 0:39:32.570 --> 0:39:36.440 Hollywood because of racism for decades and decades. He gave 0:39:36.440 --> 0:39:39.530 powerful speeches when he won at other awards, and it 0:39:39.530 --> 0:39:42.470 just became a story of like, we've got to rectify 0:39:42.469 --> 0:39:46.160 the injustice we did to win. Sorry, Barry and Brendan, 0:39:46.160 --> 0:39:48.680 and you mentioned Jamie Lee Curtis Thomas like that feels 0:39:48.680 --> 0:39:51.770 like a total just like Jamie Lee Curtis. Thank you 0:39:51.770 --> 0:39:54.200 for everything you've done for Hollywood. Take this award because 0:39:54.200 --> 0:39:57.350 she's like, that role is fine. I don't think she 0:39:57.350 --> 0:39:59.090 thought when she was doing it she was going to 0:39:59.090 --> 0:40:00.200 be up for an Oscar, right? 0:40:00.890 --> 0:40:01.730 Definitely not. 0:40:01.730 --> 0:40:03.560 Yeah. But I do think we have to be careful 0:40:03.560 --> 0:40:06.260 in a way, because you're speaking about like the Oscars 0:40:06.260 --> 0:40:09.739 decided and it is like a member voted award. You know. 0:40:10.040 --> 0:40:10.850 We'll get into all of that. 0:40:11.060 --> 0:40:12.590 Yeah. All right. Yeah. 0:40:12.860 --> 0:40:16.490 Because I think that that yeah. It's not like the 0:40:16.489 --> 0:40:20.359 an institution is necessarily being like, you deserve this. It's 0:40:20.360 --> 0:40:23.570 like people voting. Not that there can't be campaigns and 0:40:23.570 --> 0:40:26.600 there's not like kind of groupthink in that, but maybe we'll, uh, 0:40:26.600 --> 0:40:28.310 I can maybe we'll pin that. I feel like there's 0:40:28.310 --> 0:40:29.180 more to be said. 0:40:29.360 --> 0:40:31.490 I just for the second time, this podcast wanted to 0:40:31.489 --> 0:40:33.890 quote the ever wise Rob Moran because he wrote about 0:40:33.890 --> 0:40:37.100 this recently about award ceremonies playing catch up. And he said, 0:40:37.100 --> 0:40:39.859 call it the who are effect the West. Sorry, Mr. Pacino, 0:40:39.860 --> 0:40:42.110 we didn't watch Dog Day afternoon in the 70s because 0:40:42.110 --> 0:40:44.660 of cocaine. Here, take this for scent of a woman. 0:40:44.900 --> 0:40:47.870 And it's very true. And yeah, and, you. 0:40:47.870 --> 0:40:51.259 Know, it's funny, I was watching DiCaprio's acceptance speech for 0:40:51.260 --> 0:40:53.569 winning for The Revenant, which is not his best film. 0:40:53.570 --> 0:40:55.610 He was a six time nominee. He probably should have 0:40:55.610 --> 0:40:58.400 won for The Departed. And, you know, he got the 0:40:58.400 --> 0:41:01.100 the Oscar for The Revenant. Same thing with Scorsese winning 0:41:01.100 --> 0:41:05.750 for The Departed instead of Goodfellas. Like, the list is endless. Uh, and, 0:41:05.750 --> 0:41:08.480 you know, again, I'll quote Rob here, who actually recalled 0:41:08.480 --> 0:41:11.089 the very recent and very wise words of Jay-Z, who 0:41:11.090 --> 0:41:14.600 said these organizations at least have to get it close to. Right. 0:41:15.200 --> 0:41:17.660 Yeah, yeah. And I think it's good to have that history. 0:41:17.660 --> 0:41:19.730 And I think that's why Michael Shulman's book is so interesting, 0:41:19.730 --> 0:41:22.310 because for people who have just like, jumped on the 0:41:22.310 --> 0:41:24.710 Oscars train and are really excited about what it says, 0:41:24.710 --> 0:41:27.770 they always do weird things like, do not look to 0:41:27.770 --> 0:41:31.790 them to be an objective, you know, decider of what 0:41:31.790 --> 0:41:34.250 the best film or the best performance are, that they're 0:41:34.250 --> 0:41:36.920 a political organization in the sense that. And you're right, Mel, 0:41:36.920 --> 0:41:39.020 we're about to get into how they're deciding things. But 0:41:39.020 --> 0:41:41.839 everyone in the academy, the near 10,000 members, have their 0:41:41.840 --> 0:41:44.570 own personal views and biases. A lot of them don't 0:41:44.570 --> 0:41:47.090 watch every movie. And yes, there are campaigns and narratives 0:41:47.090 --> 0:41:50.029 that push people in certain directions, but they're very fallible. 0:41:50.030 --> 0:41:53.060 They'll be the first to admit that they've made outrageous. 0:41:53.060 --> 0:41:56.630 Troy Green Book won an Oscar, Driving Miss Daisy beat 0:41:56.630 --> 0:41:58.940 Do the Right Thing, and it's almost because they get 0:41:58.940 --> 0:42:00.980 things wrong a lot that I think it's so interesting 0:42:01.010 --> 0:42:03.020 to talk about, because it'd be kind of boring if 0:42:03.020 --> 0:42:04.250 they just nailed it all the time. 0:42:04.250 --> 0:42:07.250 I do think, too, that, like, really good stuff is 0:42:07.250 --> 0:42:10.040 often not appreciated in its time, which speaks to some 0:42:10.040 --> 0:42:13.190 of what we're saying about people being recognized well after 0:42:13.190 --> 0:42:16.610 the moment of their art. Like great art, doesn't necessarily 0:42:16.610 --> 0:42:19.940 shine in the moment. What's the kind of the marry 0:42:19.940 --> 0:42:22.370 the age widow in the next, which I always talk about, like, 0:42:22.370 --> 0:42:26.600 you know, if you're so on point as an artist, 0:42:26.600 --> 0:42:29.810 I don't know, sometimes you don't necessarily last the test 0:42:29.810 --> 0:42:32.720 of time. And I guess some of these historical revisions 0:42:32.719 --> 0:42:35.960 are people being recognized later on for the influence and 0:42:35.960 --> 0:42:38.870 significance they had then, but it wasn't appreciated. 0:42:39.580 --> 0:42:41.230 Yeah, I think that's a really good point. All right, 0:42:41.230 --> 0:42:44.770 let's let's, um, let's break down how these awards are 0:42:44.770 --> 0:42:47.740 actually decided. What do you guys know about how the 0:42:47.739 --> 0:42:51.910 Academy decides who is nominated and who wins? 0:42:52.690 --> 0:42:54.340 They don't just ask Warren Beatty. 0:42:56.110 --> 0:43:01.060 And I know the very respectable PricewaterhouseCoopers is doing the auditing. 0:43:01.060 --> 0:43:02.950 So that's are not always to be found. 0:43:03.100 --> 0:43:05.170 I don't have I don't know if I know I 0:43:05.170 --> 0:43:07.570 don't like I'm sure when you inevitably tell me in 0:43:07.570 --> 0:43:09.220 about two minutes I'll be like, oh yeah, I did 0:43:09.219 --> 0:43:10.990 know that, but I don't think I know exactly how 0:43:10.989 --> 0:43:11.290 it works. 0:43:11.770 --> 0:43:14.140 I do know, but it's very complicated. So I'm going 0:43:14.140 --> 0:43:16.600 to hand over to Osmond. He's read this book called 0:43:16.600 --> 0:43:17.380 Oscar Wars. 0:43:17.500 --> 0:43:17.980 I might. 0:43:17.980 --> 0:43:19.360 Be able to, uh, he might be able to. 0:43:19.360 --> 0:43:20.230 Shine. Let me tell you. 0:43:20.230 --> 0:43:21.970 I've gone super deep. And even if you go in 0:43:21.969 --> 0:43:24.879 the Academy's website when they explain voting and stuff, it's 0:43:24.880 --> 0:43:29.050 very superficial. And me being like a kind of, I guess, 0:43:29.050 --> 0:43:32.290 election numbers nerd as well, was really fascinated in the 0:43:32.290 --> 0:43:34.359 specific mechanics of all of this. So. So I've gone 0:43:34.360 --> 0:43:37.660 pretty deep and it turns out it is super fascinating. Uh, 0:43:37.660 --> 0:43:39.550 believe it or not. But I think the first thing 0:43:39.550 --> 0:43:41.049 we should say and this this is to your point, 0:43:41.110 --> 0:43:43.960 all these awards are like are not judged. They are 0:43:43.960 --> 0:43:46.030 voted on. And by that I mean no one gets 0:43:46.030 --> 0:43:48.279 together and says, okay, so we've all watched these movies. 0:43:48.280 --> 0:43:49.600 Now let's sit down in a room for a couple 0:43:49.600 --> 0:43:52.810 of hours and debate what deserves a nomination. And and 0:43:52.810 --> 0:43:55.540 a win like this is an anonymous ballot. Obviously, people 0:43:55.540 --> 0:43:57.670 talk to each other about what they think is good, 0:43:57.670 --> 0:44:00.730 and we'll get into campaigning later on. But the nominations 0:44:00.730 --> 0:44:03.160 and the winners are the result of like thousands of 0:44:03.160 --> 0:44:05.950 discreet votes. It's more like an election than like a 0:44:05.950 --> 0:44:09.520 literary awards judging panel where you just debate and decide 0:44:09.520 --> 0:44:12.609 these things. And so who, who, who votes? The Academy 0:44:12.610 --> 0:44:16.060 is made up of just under 10,000 people from all 0:44:16.060 --> 0:44:19.210 around the world. It's actually a 60% increase from around 0:44:19.210 --> 0:44:22.180 a decade ago. And that big increase happened because the 0:44:22.180 --> 0:44:25.270 academy was trying to diversify its membership in terms of gender, 0:44:25.270 --> 0:44:29.200 race and nationality. Each of those members is divided into 0:44:29.200 --> 0:44:32.739 different branches. It's like actors and the acting branch directors 0:44:32.739 --> 0:44:36.070 are in the directing branch, etc. and when you get 0:44:36.070 --> 0:44:39.250 to voting, this is where it gets really interesting. There 0:44:39.250 --> 0:44:41.770 are two rounds of voting. First is deciding who the 0:44:41.770 --> 0:44:45.880 nominees are. Each branch gets to vote on the eligible 0:44:45.880 --> 0:44:48.969 movies to decide who's nominated, and every category has got 0:44:48.969 --> 0:44:51.850 five nominees except for Best Picture, which is ten, and 0:44:51.850 --> 0:44:54.130 everyone gets to vote on that. So basically, if you're 0:44:54.130 --> 0:44:56.710 a director, you get to decide who the nominees for 0:44:56.710 --> 0:45:00.460 Best Director are. If you're a writer, you decide on 0:45:00.460 --> 0:45:05.260 Best screenplay. The method used this is where, like Nerdy 0:45:05.260 --> 0:45:09.730 Brain is. And if you're an Australian political science fan, 0:45:09.730 --> 0:45:11.440 you're definitely going to want to turn the volume up 0:45:11.440 --> 0:45:14.620 on this one. The method used to vote and decide 0:45:14.620 --> 0:45:19.660 on the nominees is a system called proportional preferential voting. 0:45:19.750 --> 0:45:21.850 Where have you heard that before, Thomas? 0:45:22.690 --> 0:45:27.880 Succession? No. Like when we vote in the federal election. 0:45:28.060 --> 0:45:31.330 Yes. That is the system used to elect the Senate 0:45:31.330 --> 0:45:32.290 in Australia. 0:45:32.320 --> 0:45:34.840 You're going to Canberra. You always wanted to go. You're going. 0:45:34.840 --> 0:45:36.100 It was always my next posting. 0:45:36.100 --> 0:45:39.160 Every federal election, we elect six senators from every state 0:45:39.160 --> 0:45:43.150 using proportional preferential voting. And that is the same system 0:45:43.150 --> 0:45:46.600 the Academy uses to decide the nominees. How cool is that? 0:45:47.310 --> 0:45:48.420 Pretty cool. 0:45:49.110 --> 0:45:50.910 I think it's really cool. I think it's really cool 0:45:50.940 --> 0:45:52.620 because Australia is it's. 0:45:52.620 --> 0:45:55.650 Really Senate electoral system is like kind of. It's pretty 0:45:55.650 --> 0:45:59.549 rare in the Anglosphere and America doesn't use it famously 0:45:59.550 --> 0:46:01.740 for its federal elections. And I think it's kind of 0:46:01.739 --> 0:46:04.200 wacky that the Oscars are like, cool, let's use the 0:46:04.200 --> 0:46:06.960 insane Senate system to decide our nominees. So that's a 0:46:06.960 --> 0:46:07.530 fun one. 0:46:07.530 --> 0:46:08.250 That is a fun one. 0:46:09.540 --> 0:46:12.509 Thank you for encouraging me on this. Um, okay. So 0:46:12.510 --> 0:46:14.730 then when you have your nominees, it's time for the 0:46:14.730 --> 0:46:16.799 second round of voting. And I think a lot of 0:46:16.800 --> 0:46:18.930 people don't know that the second round where you decide 0:46:18.930 --> 0:46:21.540 who actually wins takes place in late February, and it 0:46:21.540 --> 0:46:24.000 only goes for like about a week. People lodged their 0:46:24.000 --> 0:46:27.239 ballots online. And this time everyone is allowed to vote 0:46:27.239 --> 0:46:29.520 in every category. So doesn't matter if you're an actor, 0:46:29.520 --> 0:46:31.830 director and editor or writer, you can vote on every 0:46:31.830 --> 0:46:35.520 single award. The voting system this time is much more straightforward. 0:46:35.520 --> 0:46:38.370 It's just first past the post, which is the system 0:46:38.370 --> 0:46:40.950 they use in the US presidential election. Whoever gets the 0:46:40.950 --> 0:46:44.370 most votes wins, even if they don't get over 50%. 0:46:44.489 --> 0:46:48.420 You're following me on that one? Yep, yep. The exception, however, 0:46:48.420 --> 0:46:51.870 is Best Picture, where they use preferential voting so you 0:46:51.870 --> 0:46:54.509 can number your ballots from 1 to 10, which is 0:46:54.510 --> 0:46:58.529 just like the system we use for the House of Representatives. 0:46:58.530 --> 0:47:02.840 So basically the Oscar system. Is pretty akin to the 0:47:02.840 --> 0:47:04.969 system we use to elect Australian Parliament. 0:47:04.969 --> 0:47:08.420 And what do you take? What is. 0:47:08.960 --> 0:47:10.399 So meaningful. 0:47:10.400 --> 0:47:11.150 To you? 0:47:11.660 --> 0:47:13.760 What isn't it cool like? I mean, maybe it's not cool. 0:47:13.760 --> 0:47:15.920 Maybe I'm the only person the Venn diagram of the 0:47:15.920 --> 0:47:19.040 Oscars and the Australian political system. But I just found 0:47:19.040 --> 0:47:21.110 that out, like in the last few weeks, that specifics 0:47:21.110 --> 0:47:23.180 of how the voting works and the fact that it 0:47:23.180 --> 0:47:25.730 mirrors something that we are so familiar with, but most 0:47:25.730 --> 0:47:28.730 Americans have no idea about is really interesting. And when 0:47:28.730 --> 0:47:32.150 you when you hear Academy like employees talk about this, 0:47:32.150 --> 0:47:34.430 they're like, most voters have no idea how any of 0:47:34.430 --> 0:47:37.069 this works that's so unfamiliar, even though they can put 0:47:37.070 --> 0:47:40.310 preferences down. They don't, because I just don't understand how 0:47:40.310 --> 0:47:43.250 preferences work. But why? Why, I guess it's relevant is 0:47:43.430 --> 0:47:45.680 up until a few years ago, the Academy only had 0:47:45.680 --> 0:47:49.280 five Best Picture nominees, and when they expanded it to ten, 0:47:49.310 --> 0:47:52.700 they realized they had to include preferences because you could 0:47:52.700 --> 0:47:55.400 end up with a situation where one film gets 12% 0:47:55.400 --> 0:47:58.820 of the vote and becomes Best picture, even though 88% 0:47:58.820 --> 0:48:00.860 of people didn't think it was the best one. So 0:48:00.860 --> 0:48:03.800 they had to change the mechanism to make sure that 0:48:03.800 --> 0:48:09.560 the actual best picture is reflective of what most people 0:48:09.560 --> 0:48:11.150 think is the best picture, if that makes sense. 0:48:11.150 --> 0:48:11.989 Yeah. That does. 0:48:11.989 --> 0:48:13.820 That actually is surprisingly interesting. 0:48:14.270 --> 0:48:16.040 I'm so glad you said so. I was worried I 0:48:16.040 --> 0:48:19.190 was losing you guys, but I think understanding these things 0:48:19.190 --> 0:48:22.550 helps you understand why sometimes you get divergences right between 0:48:22.550 --> 0:48:25.250 best picture and actors and actresses, and also makes me 0:48:25.250 --> 0:48:28.190 really fascinated to look at what I would love them 0:48:28.190 --> 0:48:30.799 if they somehow someday decided to release the raw votes 0:48:30.800 --> 0:48:33.140 for these movies. Like how many votes did a certain 0:48:33.140 --> 0:48:36.650 movie a certain actress get to get the award? It's 0:48:36.650 --> 0:48:37.700 super interesting. 0:48:37.969 --> 0:48:41.149 The podcast is just increasingly becoming like Osborne's fringe interest 0:48:41.150 --> 0:48:41.719 each week. 0:48:44.270 --> 0:48:45.980 I feel like we, both you and the awards. 0:48:45.980 --> 0:48:47.240 Are not a fringe interest, my. 0:48:47.239 --> 0:48:48.560 Friend. No, no no no. 0:48:48.560 --> 0:48:50.690 But frankly, that's what it's always been. So yeah. 0:48:51.110 --> 0:48:51.529 Yeah, yeah. 0:48:51.530 --> 0:48:53.810 Because you didn't do history and I'm at uni. Right. 0:48:53.810 --> 0:48:54.770 So now we're kind. 0:48:54.770 --> 0:48:55.280 Of yeah. 0:48:55.700 --> 0:48:56.570 We're up to date. 0:48:56.780 --> 0:48:58.640 Okay. So that's like the system. That's how it works. 0:48:58.640 --> 0:49:02.930 But in reality the actual process or I guess the campaigning, 0:49:02.930 --> 0:49:05.330 the way that this plays out behind the scenes and 0:49:05.330 --> 0:49:07.580 in front of the screens is way more interesting than 0:49:07.580 --> 0:49:11.150 just like how votes are tabulated by PricewaterhouseCoopers. I want 0:49:11.150 --> 0:49:15.080 to ask you guys about campaigning. Like we see this happen. 0:49:15.080 --> 0:49:17.480 We are kind of sometimes part of it, right? Where 0:49:17.480 --> 0:49:20.300 you get a PR person saying, hey, can you do 0:49:20.300 --> 0:49:23.930 an interview with this actor or actress or director? They 0:49:23.930 --> 0:49:26.299 want that person part of the narrative. They want that 0:49:26.300 --> 0:49:29.450 person talking about all the specific things they did to 0:49:29.450 --> 0:49:33.110 make this movie so good. Because Oscar voters and there 0:49:33.110 --> 0:49:36.140 are lots of Australian Oscar voters in the Academy might 0:49:36.140 --> 0:49:38.960 be swayed by that and might vote for that person. 0:49:38.960 --> 0:49:43.069 How do you guys feel about campaigning more generally? And also, 0:49:43.070 --> 0:49:46.670 any interesting highlights from the campaign for this year's Oscars 0:49:46.670 --> 0:49:47.750 that are stood out to you? 0:49:47.960 --> 0:49:50.690 Yeah, I do think it's a little less for the 0:49:50.690 --> 0:49:53.029 Oscars than it has been previously for the Golden Globes, 0:49:53.030 --> 0:49:54.410 because for the Golden Globes, you have to be a 0:49:54.410 --> 0:49:57.770 member of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. And then they 0:49:57.770 --> 0:50:02.660 really do sometimes only give access to actors, to people 0:50:02.660 --> 0:50:05.989 who are part of that association, um, knowing that they 0:50:05.989 --> 0:50:08.509 will be voting. So the Oscars is slightly different just 0:50:08.510 --> 0:50:11.180 because of the sheer number of people who can vote. 0:50:11.180 --> 0:50:13.819 But I mean, yeah, you do see the momentum and 0:50:13.820 --> 0:50:18.170 the push that develops behind these films, and none of 0:50:18.170 --> 0:50:20.960 it just kind of rarely does it grow authentically, as 0:50:20.960 --> 0:50:23.870 we were obviously talking about earlier in the pod. So 0:50:23.870 --> 0:50:26.900 like I would say, like in some ways Saltburn isn't 0:50:26.900 --> 0:50:29.720 on the list for, um, nominated for best films, but 0:50:29.719 --> 0:50:32.210 I reckon that was kind of quite a momentous push 0:50:32.210 --> 0:50:33.980 to try to get that to be part of the 0:50:33.980 --> 0:50:37.160 Oscar conversation, the way that that films kind of suddenly 0:50:37.160 --> 0:50:39.620 took off at the box office speaks to like, a 0:50:39.620 --> 0:50:42.410 marketing campaign that was rolled out and kind of capitalised 0:50:42.410 --> 0:50:44.000 on what was going on in the conversation to push 0:50:44.000 --> 0:50:46.880 it back to the forefront. So I do feel I 0:50:46.880 --> 0:50:48.739 do think you see some of those smaller films and 0:50:48.739 --> 0:50:52.340 then in the bigger films like, you know, with Scorsese, 0:50:52.370 --> 0:50:56.750 Christopher Nolan, Yorgos Lanthimos, you know, the huge stars are 0:50:56.750 --> 0:50:59.930 everywhere in the lead up to the releases of these films. Um, 0:50:59.930 --> 0:51:02.089 the releases are kind of tied to the start of 0:51:02.090 --> 0:51:04.460 the Oscar voting. Often, though, in Australia we get them 0:51:04.460 --> 0:51:06.920 at a different time. Um, so yeah, I mean, I 0:51:06.920 --> 0:51:09.650 think you can see that the campaigns do push certain 0:51:09.650 --> 0:51:11.930 films to the forefront of public discussion, and then they're 0:51:11.930 --> 0:51:14.600 often the films that are then reflected in the Oscars. 0:51:14.840 --> 0:51:17.450 Yeah, I think it's funny. Like I remember last year, um, 0:51:17.450 --> 0:51:20.030 our colleague Meg, who is currently on maternity leave, but 0:51:20.030 --> 0:51:22.069 like just a week before the Oscars, they just, like, 0:51:22.070 --> 0:51:24.110 made Austin Butler available to her. Do you remember that 0:51:24.110 --> 0:51:25.759 she did a really long sit down with Austin Butler 0:51:25.760 --> 0:51:27.560 like he was? He was in the middle of a 0:51:27.560 --> 0:51:31.009 very intense campaign, uh, to win Best actor for Elvis. 0:51:31.010 --> 0:51:33.230 He was probably the best shot that film had at 0:51:33.230 --> 0:51:36.290 a big award. And yeah, like I remember even saying 0:51:36.290 --> 0:51:38.450 to yours, like, it's so weird that Austin Butler is just, like, 0:51:38.450 --> 0:51:40.640 got like 45 minutes the week before the Oscars because 0:51:40.760 --> 0:51:43.520 they were just, like, really putting him out there to like, 0:51:43.520 --> 0:51:46.190 push hard. And, you know, he kind of was it 0:51:46.190 --> 0:51:47.299 was a great interview. You should go back and check 0:51:47.300 --> 0:51:50.270 it out. But yeah, it is interesting that, you know, 0:51:50.270 --> 0:51:52.010 even though we kind of look at these awards and 0:51:52.010 --> 0:51:54.380 think everything's maybe like preordained or it all feels so 0:51:54.380 --> 0:51:56.930 far away, like it is still such a big campaigning 0:51:56.930 --> 0:52:00.380 thing and you've ever spent time in especially like in the. 0:52:00.830 --> 0:52:03.469 Around any kind of, like, awards season. Like, we don't 0:52:03.469 --> 0:52:05.150 get it as much over here because we're not like, 0:52:05.150 --> 0:52:09.380 obviously in the ecosystem, but like over there, it's like 0:52:09.380 --> 0:52:11.660 the full billboards, like for your consideration. And, you know, 0:52:11.660 --> 0:52:14.420 on TV the ads are like relentless, like it's the, 0:52:14.420 --> 0:52:17.359 the constant pushing down your throat of the message of 0:52:17.360 --> 0:52:20.810 like vote and like it's just like pushing the awareness. 0:52:20.810 --> 0:52:22.250 And we don't really get it here as much. It's 0:52:22.250 --> 0:52:23.690 a very strange thing to say. 0:52:24.110 --> 0:52:27.200 Yeah. And, and all these studios have got big budgets 0:52:27.200 --> 0:52:30.110 for not just marketing movies, but for the Oscars specifically. 0:52:30.110 --> 0:52:32.899 Like for those ads, they also more often in the 0:52:32.900 --> 0:52:35.330 States than elsewhere, but also elsewhere, particularly as the Academy 0:52:35.330 --> 0:52:38.060 has become more internationalized. We'll host events and they'll get 0:52:38.060 --> 0:52:41.000 the actors and the directors there, and they'll it's like 0:52:41.000 --> 0:52:43.940 a political campaign. There are rules around campaign finance, like 0:52:43.940 --> 0:52:46.070 what you can and can't spend money on, and people 0:52:46.070 --> 0:52:49.430 will shake hands. There was, uh, someone telling a story 0:52:49.430 --> 0:52:50.989 on a podcast I was listening to where they're like, 0:52:50.989 --> 0:52:53.930 I'm voting for. I think it was Robert De Niro. No, 0:52:53.930 --> 0:52:56.210 it was Robert Downey Jr, because he just came up 0:52:56.210 --> 0:52:57.980 to me and said, hey, I'm Robert Downey Jr. How's 0:52:57.980 --> 0:53:00.080 your day going? He's like, great, I'm voting for him. 0:53:00.080 --> 0:53:02.720 So I think this goes to the point of like, 0:53:02.719 --> 0:53:06.020 it is just like 10,000 weird film nerds or people 0:53:06.020 --> 0:53:08.540 that used to make films, in some cases, voting on 0:53:08.540 --> 0:53:10.730 these things based on sometimes what they think is good, 0:53:10.730 --> 0:53:13.940 sometimes like an interview that they read that really compelled them, 0:53:13.940 --> 0:53:16.759 and sometimes who was nice to them, like a la, 0:53:16.790 --> 0:53:20.150 you know, luncheon event. That is a really interesting campaign 0:53:20.150 --> 0:53:23.690 move by, I think, neon, who distributed anatomy of a fall. 0:53:23.690 --> 0:53:25.310 And I don't want to give too much away, but 0:53:25.310 --> 0:53:29.060 the dog in that movie plays a few crucial roles. Uh, 0:53:29.060 --> 0:53:31.910 the dog's real name is messy. They brought that dog 0:53:31.910 --> 0:53:34.760 to the Oscars luncheon, and so every actor wanted to 0:53:34.760 --> 0:53:37.100 take a selfie with it. All the media, like, took 0:53:37.100 --> 0:53:39.200 photos of it. And so all of a sudden, for 0:53:39.200 --> 0:53:41.930 a week in the key voting period, everyone is talking 0:53:41.930 --> 0:53:44.420 about anatomy of a fall, like those kinds of tricks 0:53:44.420 --> 0:53:46.969 are used just to get your film in front of people. 0:53:46.969 --> 0:53:49.069 And it would be interesting to see actually, how many 0:53:49.070 --> 0:53:53.450 voting Australians we have in in the Oscars, because it 0:53:53.450 --> 0:53:56.990 could speak to how much access we get to these people, 0:53:56.989 --> 0:53:59.779 and also to the release dates of films here. Because 0:53:59.780 --> 0:54:02.450 if they're looking at Australia as a smaller or larger 0:54:02.450 --> 0:54:05.390 voting bloc, I think it would kind of determine how 0:54:05.390 --> 0:54:07.400 films are rolled out here. I don't I don't think 0:54:07.400 --> 0:54:09.350 we do have those numbers, but it would be fascinating. 0:54:09.350 --> 0:54:11.300 I would love to have the more data on this stuff, 0:54:11.300 --> 0:54:13.340 the better. And I, you know, maybe I will start 0:54:13.340 --> 0:54:16.580 a consultancy on the slide just helping rally votes for 0:54:16.580 --> 0:54:19.969 different movies. Um, the other part to this, I guess 0:54:19.969 --> 0:54:23.509 story is, is what we call the precursor awards. And Thomas, 0:54:23.510 --> 0:54:25.430 you were you were talking about these before. Like you 0:54:25.430 --> 0:54:28.730 can sort of basically start to predict what happens at 0:54:28.730 --> 0:54:31.339 the Oscars by looking at things like the Golden Globes, 0:54:31.340 --> 0:54:33.800 the Critics Choice, the Directors Guild, the SAG Awards. You 0:54:33.800 --> 0:54:34.850 want to talk a bit about that? 0:54:35.480 --> 0:54:38.450 Yeah. Like the there's. It's funny, certain awards seem to 0:54:38.450 --> 0:54:41.330 carry more weight. Um, but like awards season generally you 0:54:41.330 --> 0:54:43.700 start to get an idea of like which films are 0:54:43.700 --> 0:54:45.410 the ones that seem to be leading the way and 0:54:45.500 --> 0:54:48.049 specifically in like, you know, like best actor and actress 0:54:48.050 --> 0:54:50.630 and supporting actor and actress. You really get a sense 0:54:50.630 --> 0:54:53.299 of like, who the voters are going with. Or if 0:54:53.300 --> 0:54:55.819 it's a two horse race, we can start to see like, okay. 0:54:55.820 --> 0:54:59.090 But like critically, you know, the Critics Choice are going with, uh, 0:54:59.090 --> 0:55:02.210 you know, let's say Cillian Murphy and Oppenheimer, whereas SAG 0:55:02.210 --> 0:55:04.790 has gone with Paul Giamatti and The Holdovers. And and 0:55:04.790 --> 0:55:07.009 it's really funny because we talked about it last week 0:55:07.010 --> 0:55:09.980 in a story SAG especially, which is one of the 0:55:09.980 --> 0:55:12.950 last awards of the season. Very like the overlap with 0:55:12.950 --> 0:55:15.620 the Oscars winners is like almost like for like, um, 0:55:15.620 --> 0:55:17.720 so that's often a big one. But yeah, we have 0:55:17.719 --> 0:55:20.810 this full awards season now that by the end of it, um, 0:55:20.810 --> 0:55:22.609 you know, the Oscars is kind of the cherry on top, 0:55:22.610 --> 0:55:25.460 but it almost robs us of, of, of the mystery 0:55:25.460 --> 0:55:27.860 because it's like, well, really it's going to come down 0:55:27.860 --> 0:55:31.100 to like, you know, 1 or 2 films and there's 0:55:31.100 --> 0:55:33.049 going to be 1 or 2 categories where we maybe 0:55:33.050 --> 0:55:36.110 don't know, but we're pretty sure, like, you know, it's 0:55:36.110 --> 0:55:39.530 created this system whereby the mystery is gone a little bit. But, uh, yeah, 0:55:39.650 --> 0:55:43.460 basically come March, um, the whole industry has an idea 0:55:43.460 --> 0:55:44.690 of like, you know, if you're just turning up as 0:55:44.690 --> 0:55:46.279 a nominee and you know, you're not like, there's not 0:55:46.280 --> 0:55:47.210 a chance you're winning. 0:55:47.510 --> 0:55:49.280 Yeah. And if you look at like the kind of 0:55:49.280 --> 0:55:52.220 the what the, the odds that the betting companies are 0:55:52.219 --> 0:55:55.940 putting on it like everyone. Well, the, the gamblers are 0:55:55.940 --> 0:55:58.670 pretty sure that they know who is winning every single 0:55:58.670 --> 0:56:01.070 category at this point when it comes to the Oscars. 0:56:01.070 --> 0:56:04.760 Yeah, the bookies odds for this year's like pretty depressing. 0:56:04.760 --> 0:56:05.779 If you go and look at it like it doesn't 0:56:05.780 --> 0:56:07.880 it doesn't doesn't like make you want to watch the 0:56:07.880 --> 0:56:09.500 Oscars a bunch because it's like, well, they know who's 0:56:09.500 --> 0:56:10.040 going to win. 0:56:10.280 --> 0:56:13.040 Well, I think that very neatly brings us to this 0:56:13.040 --> 0:56:18.350 year's awards. Let's start by listing the ten nominees for 0:56:18.350 --> 0:56:22.520 Best Picture. Uh, they are, in no particular order, American fiction. 0:56:22.520 --> 0:56:24.320 And actually, I lied. They are in alphabetical order. I 0:56:24.320 --> 0:56:24.589 was about. 0:56:24.590 --> 0:56:26.180 To say that's quite clearly alphabetical. 0:56:29.030 --> 0:56:33.260 Uh, American fiction. Anatomy of a fall. Barbie. The holdovers. 0:56:33.260 --> 0:56:37.790 Killers of the Flower Moon. Maestro. Up and Huma, Past Lives, 0:56:37.790 --> 0:56:41.210 Poor Things, and The Zone of Interest. And how do 0:56:41.210 --> 0:56:42.770 we feel about that list? It's so interesting, because I 0:56:42.770 --> 0:56:44.750 feel like there are a couple of movies where at 0:56:44.750 --> 0:56:46.879 certain moments, I was like, that's probably going to win. 0:56:46.880 --> 0:56:48.500 Like when killers of the Flower Moon came out, it 0:56:48.500 --> 0:56:51.170 felt like cool, this big epic Scorsese thing that he 0:56:51.170 --> 0:56:55.460 really pulled off. But then Oppenheimer drops, you know, the 0:56:55.460 --> 0:56:58.160 zone of interest drops. Things start to shift a little bit. 0:56:58.160 --> 0:57:00.440 What are your thoughts on on the list of nominees, 0:57:00.440 --> 0:57:02.660 and do you think anything's missing from it? 0:57:02.780 --> 0:57:05.149 I'm pretty happy with that list. I think that does 0:57:05.150 --> 0:57:07.100 hit the big ones. There are two that, and I 0:57:07.100 --> 0:57:09.770 don't necessarily believe that they should be on that list, 0:57:09.770 --> 0:57:12.739 but it is interesting that they haven't got a look 0:57:12.739 --> 0:57:13.550 in and one. 0:57:13.550 --> 0:57:16.340 Bit you think, yeah. 0:57:16.820 --> 0:57:19.670 Best actress for sure. Um, Napoleon. 0:57:19.970 --> 0:57:24.710 Huge. You're obsessed. Are you talking in. Oh, that's so rogue. 0:57:24.710 --> 0:57:24.920 Mel. 0:57:24.920 --> 0:57:25.520 That's not great. 0:57:25.520 --> 0:57:27.110 No it's not. No, no, I don't think it's a 0:57:27.110 --> 0:57:29.660 great film. But I do think like, it's complete lack 0:57:29.660 --> 0:57:32.930 of kind of relevance. You know, there was a huge 0:57:32.930 --> 0:57:35.240 buildup to that film and it's such a big name, 0:57:35.240 --> 0:57:36.530 a big filmmaker. Are you going to like. 0:57:36.530 --> 0:57:37.310 Producing it. 0:57:37.310 --> 0:57:38.150 On Napoleon and. 0:57:38.270 --> 0:57:39.770 Like, getting money in the back end? Yeah, yeah. 0:57:39.770 --> 0:57:42.890 I train the horse. Um, and the other one that 0:57:42.890 --> 0:57:46.220 maybe I could see being on best Film. Priscilla I 0:57:46.220 --> 0:57:50.510 liked that film. Um, Sofia Coppola's Priscilla. Um, I could 0:57:50.510 --> 0:57:52.820 see it sitting on there, like, as comfortably as some 0:57:52.820 --> 0:57:54.620 of the others on that list. So I thought they 0:57:54.620 --> 0:57:57.740 were too kind of notable absences. Um, not that I 0:57:57.740 --> 0:58:00.560 think they deserve to win. Um, but yeah, I could 0:58:00.560 --> 0:58:01.940 have seen them on that list. 0:58:02.240 --> 0:58:03.230 What about you, Thomas? 0:58:03.470 --> 0:58:05.210 Uh, yeah. I've been banging this drum for a while. 0:58:05.210 --> 0:58:06.500 You guys are going to both laugh at me. I 0:58:06.500 --> 0:58:08.570 reckon fair play. Should have got a nomination for Best Picture. 0:58:08.600 --> 0:58:09.500 I'm obsessed with that film. 0:58:09.500 --> 0:58:10.670 You're always talking about it. 0:58:10.670 --> 0:58:13.190 Well, I actually am, but it was. It was a 0:58:13.190 --> 0:58:17.210 good film, and it suffered from, like, being a Netflix release. Um, 0:58:17.450 --> 0:58:20.750 and I think it could have easily slotted in there. Um, 0:58:20.750 --> 0:58:24.020 Chloe directed and I thought the two leads were great, 0:58:24.020 --> 0:58:26.180 and I just thought it was a really interesting, like, 0:58:26.180 --> 0:58:29.240 film for our time. And it kind of just like, 0:58:29.240 --> 0:58:31.970 didn't get the credit it deserves. Uh, but yeah, that 0:58:31.970 --> 0:58:33.050 would have been my audition. 0:58:33.470 --> 0:58:37.640 Yeah. Mine one is the Iron Claw. The, um, Zac Efron, uh, 0:58:37.820 --> 0:58:41.630 Jeremy Allen White wrestling movie. Um, I thought that movie 0:58:41.630 --> 0:58:44.840 was astonishing. I think the reason for it not getting 0:58:44.840 --> 0:58:47.300 nominated or not really having much of a campaign, it's 0:58:47.300 --> 0:58:50.690 an A24 movie like Past Lives and A24 put all 0:58:50.690 --> 0:58:52.520 their chips on past life. This, this. You see this 0:58:52.520 --> 0:58:55.790 happen with small but also big studios like Netflix and, 0:58:55.790 --> 0:58:57.620 you know, and Apple and whatever they'll be like, this 0:58:57.620 --> 0:59:00.080 is the movie we're going for, and past Lives is great, 0:59:00.080 --> 0:59:02.930 and I'm glad it's nominated and I'm glad it's getting love. 0:59:02.930 --> 0:59:07.100 But the ankle just felt like a really obvious absence 0:59:07.100 --> 0:59:10.190 in the Oscars conversation to me. Yeah. 0:59:10.580 --> 0:59:12.230 Yeah. And I feel like lots of people are saying 0:59:12.230 --> 0:59:14.990 that post Iron Claw being released. I still haven't seen it. Um, 0:59:14.990 --> 0:59:17.960 but yeah, like one of the biggest things I've heard 0:59:17.960 --> 0:59:19.669 people say is that I'm like really shocked it didn't 0:59:19.670 --> 0:59:22.520 get nominated for Best Picture. So yeah, it's curious that 0:59:22.520 --> 0:59:23.690 that's been overlooked. 0:59:24.140 --> 0:59:27.950 I think it's probably time to talk about the, the, uh, 0:59:27.950 --> 0:59:31.700 atomic bomb sized elephant in in the room. And this 0:59:31.700 --> 0:59:34.130 is what you're alluding to, Thomas, with the betting odds 0:59:34.130 --> 0:59:39.420 looking pretty. Pretty grim. Oppenheimer is just like expected, both 0:59:39.420 --> 0:59:42.900 through what the bookies are saying and the precursor awards 0:59:42.900 --> 0:59:46.710 that you were talking about, to sweep basically everything. How 0:59:46.710 --> 0:59:47.670 do we feel about that? 0:59:49.030 --> 0:59:52.480 Ah, I feel like I've got Oppenheimer fatigue a little bit, 0:59:52.480 --> 0:59:56.350 to be honest. It's the the cultural juggernaut that was 0:59:56.350 --> 0:59:59.200 Barb and Heimer, um, was amazing to be a part of, 0:59:59.200 --> 1:00:01.900 and we all really enjoyed it. I mean, Osmond openly 1:00:01.900 --> 1:00:05.590 wept at the end of, um. Osmond wept openly at 1:00:05.590 --> 1:00:07.240 the end of Oppenheimer and then saw it again the 1:00:07.240 --> 1:00:07.840 next day. 1:00:07.840 --> 1:00:08.980 It was it was. 1:00:08.980 --> 1:00:10.390 June, the original June. 1:00:10.570 --> 1:00:11.140 Yeah, it's been. 1:00:11.140 --> 1:00:13.450 A big I ended up seeing Oppenheimer at Imax three times, 1:00:13.450 --> 1:00:14.290 I believe in a week. 1:00:14.440 --> 1:00:14.800 Yeah. 1:00:15.070 --> 1:00:17.320 But yeah, like it was it was a really cool 1:00:17.320 --> 1:00:19.000 thing to be a part of. And, you know, maybe 1:00:19.000 --> 1:00:21.340 just it's just the passing of time. Unfortunately, it's been 1:00:21.340 --> 1:00:24.070 a while and it feels like Oppenheimer hasn't gone away. 1:00:24.070 --> 1:00:27.310 And it's a great movie, but I think I find 1:00:27.310 --> 1:00:30.850 it very like depressing to go into Oscar season and 1:00:30.850 --> 1:00:32.590 knowing that this film is just going to sweep. And 1:00:32.590 --> 1:00:34.720 I do have some major issues with some of the 1:00:34.720 --> 1:00:36.790 categories that it is predicted to sweep in. 1:00:37.120 --> 1:00:40.300 I think Oppenheimer is a stunning film, and I've watched 1:00:40.300 --> 1:00:43.180 it multiple times since, and I think it's incredible work 1:00:43.180 --> 1:00:46.840 by all the actors, um, and, and the filmmaker. And, 1:00:47.230 --> 1:00:49.450 but I do think it is maybe one of the 1:00:49.450 --> 1:00:54.250 safer films on that list. And often safer films do 1:00:54.250 --> 1:00:57.040 win awards because the more polarizing films. 1:00:57.040 --> 1:00:58.810 What do you mean, what do you mean by safe? 1:00:59.080 --> 1:01:01.360 I think it's a more traditional film. I think the 1:01:01.360 --> 1:01:05.440 way Christopher Nolan tells stories. I mean, it's a biopic 1:01:05.440 --> 1:01:09.670 of an American figure who is his genius kind of 1:01:09.670 --> 1:01:13.390 is hard to control, who has to reckon with guilt 1:01:13.390 --> 1:01:15.220 and right and wrong like it is kind of. You're 1:01:15.220 --> 1:01:16.000 talking about, maestro. 1:01:16.000 --> 1:01:16.360 Yeah. 1:01:17.050 --> 1:01:19.450 I mean, I yeah, that's kind of a similar genre 1:01:19.450 --> 1:01:22.720 of film, right? Obviously Christopher Nolan's film is way better. Um, 1:01:22.720 --> 1:01:25.090 and Cillian Murphy is way better in it. But I 1:01:25.090 --> 1:01:29.620 do think it's a film we recognize, particularly Hollywood recognizes 1:01:29.620 --> 1:01:32.140 it's tried and true and tested. And I'm not saying 1:01:32.140 --> 1:01:34.630 that to take away from how powerful it is, but 1:01:34.630 --> 1:01:38.530 I think the format is kind of one that universally 1:01:38.530 --> 1:01:41.530 people agree on. And when people universally agree on something 1:01:41.530 --> 1:01:43.780 that's kind of going to win, where is more like, 1:01:43.780 --> 1:01:46.450 you know, something like poor things is way more divisive, 1:01:46.450 --> 1:01:48.820 which is probably why we won't see it win. Best film. 1:01:48.820 --> 1:01:49.450 But this is where. 1:01:49.450 --> 1:01:51.850 Again, that catch up cycle comes into play because they're like, oh, 1:01:51.940 --> 1:01:53.740 we did the weird one last year. Like, we gave 1:01:53.740 --> 1:01:55.540 you everything everywhere all at once. Like that was you 1:01:55.540 --> 1:01:57.670 got the crazy A24 one. So this year we'll go 1:01:57.670 --> 1:02:00.070 back to more something more traditional. I agree with you. 1:02:00.070 --> 1:02:03.220 I think that, um, it, you know, Oscar bait is 1:02:03.220 --> 1:02:04.930 a term that gets thrown around a lot lately. But 1:02:04.930 --> 1:02:07.540 fuck me, Oppenheimer is Oscar bait to a T. 1:02:07.540 --> 1:02:10.060 Yeah, I, I see what you're saying. And I think 1:02:10.060 --> 1:02:13.000 in terms of the great man and and all that 1:02:13.000 --> 1:02:15.040 sort of stuff, it is traditional. But I also think 1:02:15.040 --> 1:02:18.070 Nolan and Killian and they did they did so many 1:02:18.070 --> 1:02:20.470 interesting things in that movie that made it a little 1:02:20.470 --> 1:02:23.890 bit more interesting than like other previous biopics out of one. 1:02:23.890 --> 1:02:25.690 But I think you're right. I mean, like, I think 1:02:25.690 --> 1:02:28.270 something like killers of the Flower Moon was told in 1:02:28.270 --> 1:02:31.240 such an interesting way, in such an interesting story that 1:02:31.480 --> 1:02:33.640 I would have loved to say that have more of 1:02:33.640 --> 1:02:37.000 a chance against something like Oppenheimer if Oppenheimer wasn't in 1:02:37.000 --> 1:02:39.910 this race. Do you guys think there's another obvious film 1:02:39.910 --> 1:02:42.490 that would be sweeping the way Oppenheimer is, or do 1:02:42.490 --> 1:02:45.130 you think things would be a little bit more disjointed, 1:02:45.130 --> 1:02:47.230 like Best Picture could go that way. Best Actor could 1:02:47.230 --> 1:02:48.670 go in a different way. 1:02:49.320 --> 1:02:51.360 I think things would be way more fractured if Oppenheimer 1:02:51.360 --> 1:02:53.340 wasn't in. I don't reckon there would be another obvious 1:02:53.340 --> 1:02:56.220 like sweep film, I think. You then say like the 1:02:56.220 --> 1:02:59.190 big five awards go to, like possibly five different films 1:02:59.190 --> 1:03:01.290 or these, you know, fractured. 1:03:01.320 --> 1:03:04.950 Yeah, I think I think maybe killers might have had 1:03:04.950 --> 1:03:07.440 more of a shoo in for Best Picture. I do 1:03:07.440 --> 1:03:11.790 think on Oppenheimer two, it's the narrative. Like if Hollywood 1:03:11.790 --> 1:03:15.600 is largely voting for this, an American institution, the story 1:03:15.600 --> 1:03:18.660 of the atomic bomb is something that really speaks deeply 1:03:18.660 --> 1:03:21.690 to the US, say, psyche and kind of their reckoning 1:03:21.690 --> 1:03:25.980 of their history and role in the global kind of community, 1:03:25.980 --> 1:03:27.660 I think. I don't know, I do think it speaks 1:03:27.660 --> 1:03:31.380 to that audience very differently as well to the Australian audience, 1:03:31.380 --> 1:03:33.840 which might be why we're seeing it kind of dominates 1:03:33.840 --> 1:03:34.830 so strongly. 1:03:35.220 --> 1:03:39.090 And also the Academy, the Academy loves movies that are like, oh, wow, 1:03:39.090 --> 1:03:41.580 like we persecuted communists in the 50s. And that was 1:03:41.580 --> 1:03:44.550 pretty bad. And war's pretty bad. Like, the Academy does 1:03:44.550 --> 1:03:50.010 have that small liberal sensitivity that makes Oppenheimer pretty appealing. Film. Mhm. Totally. 1:03:50.130 --> 1:03:52.230 I thought as a way, it's a little bit more 1:03:52.230 --> 1:03:54.480 fun to talk about the other categories, rather than just 1:03:54.480 --> 1:03:57.000 listing who's nominated and debating it. We could play a 1:03:57.000 --> 1:04:01.290 little game. So for Best Picture, Best Director, Best actress, 1:04:01.290 --> 1:04:05.370 Best Actor and the two screenplay categories adapted and original, 1:04:05.370 --> 1:04:09.350 we could share who we think. We want to win 1:04:09.350 --> 1:04:11.690 and who we think will win. I have a bit 1:04:11.690 --> 1:04:13.460 of a chat about those, and then when we do 1:04:13.460 --> 1:04:17.300 our Oscars kind of review show on Monday, we can. 1:04:18.070 --> 1:04:20.440 To hold ourselves accountable and see who actually won. How 1:04:20.440 --> 1:04:21.580 do you guys feel about that? 1:04:21.640 --> 1:04:22.990 I'm keen. Love a game. 1:04:23.410 --> 1:04:26.500 Well, let's start with Best Picture. I'll go first because 1:04:26.500 --> 1:04:28.750 I'm probably the most boring on this one. I do 1:04:28.750 --> 1:04:30.880 like I think I said I like killers of the 1:04:30.880 --> 1:04:33.520 Flower Moon a lot, but I think Oppenheimer is a 1:04:33.520 --> 1:04:36.130 great movie. I think it's like, you know, probably my 1:04:36.130 --> 1:04:38.770 favorite movie of the last year, and I think it 1:04:38.770 --> 1:04:42.130 deserves to win. I also think it will win. Uh, 1:04:42.130 --> 1:04:45.760 so happy to just get my boring best picture take 1:04:45.760 --> 1:04:46.480 out of the way. 1:04:46.600 --> 1:04:48.250 Yeah, you need to be in the academy. 1:04:48.580 --> 1:04:48.910 Um. 1:04:49.600 --> 1:04:52.540 For my what? I want to win. I'm just going 1:04:52.540 --> 1:04:54.610 purely subjective for all of them. Okay? Like, I'm not 1:04:54.610 --> 1:04:56.320 even going based on, like, what I think is a 1:04:56.320 --> 1:04:58.540 good film. It's the film that I liked the best. 1:04:58.540 --> 1:05:00.400 Completely uncritically. Yeah. 1:05:00.400 --> 1:05:01.150 That's why you're here. 1:05:01.840 --> 1:05:05.500 What I think was the actual best film was anatomy 1:05:05.500 --> 1:05:09.940 of a fall. I think that film was incredible, unlike 1:05:09.940 --> 1:05:14.620 anything I've probably seen in a while. Interesting concept, interestingly shot, um, 1:05:14.620 --> 1:05:17.290 very moving and will stick with me for a while. 1:05:17.290 --> 1:05:18.370 What I think will win. 1:05:18.370 --> 1:05:20.140 A bit a bit anti man though, right. 1:05:20.140 --> 1:05:25.660 Well yeah yeah yeah this is Oppenheimer. Very all about 1:05:25.810 --> 1:05:26.380 the man. 1:05:26.620 --> 1:05:29.380 So yes I think because we are also as a 1:05:29.380 --> 1:05:32.440 society all about a man. Oppenheimer will win as we've 1:05:32.440 --> 1:05:33.880 just full flagged. 1:05:34.420 --> 1:05:38.470 Yes. Uh well look I, I think sadly Oppenheimer will win. 1:05:38.470 --> 1:05:40.180 It is a great film. And I loved Oppenheimer, but 1:05:40.180 --> 1:05:42.130 I don't think it's the best film. Um, this won't 1:05:42.130 --> 1:05:44.920 shock you, because I am obviously famous for my emotional intelligence. 1:05:44.920 --> 1:05:47.980 The film that deserves it most is Past Lives. Uh, 1:05:47.980 --> 1:05:51.010 that film, you know, you guys were very, very early 1:05:51.010 --> 1:05:52.570 on it, and you saw it both before me, and 1:05:52.570 --> 1:05:54.430 you both spoke about how great it was, and I 1:05:54.430 --> 1:05:56.440 watched it, and it really it really broke me. I 1:05:56.440 --> 1:05:59.740 thought it was a beautiful movie, um, in every aspect 1:05:59.740 --> 1:06:03.280 of filmmaking. And I just think, unfortunately, coming after a 1:06:03.280 --> 1:06:05.560 year where A24 did so well, I think it suffered 1:06:05.560 --> 1:06:08.200 from that. Um, but that's who should win. But obviously 1:06:08.200 --> 1:06:09.100 Oppenheimer will win. 1:06:09.340 --> 1:06:11.410 Yeah, I think that's a really good chat. It is 1:06:11.410 --> 1:06:12.820 a great movie. I think the other thing is the 1:06:12.820 --> 1:06:16.930 Oscars just generally don't reward debut filmmakers. It's like, good 1:06:16.930 --> 1:06:20.080 on you. You got your nomination now. Like do your time. 1:06:20.080 --> 1:06:22.900 One of the exceptions that was Emerald Fennell, who, as 1:06:22.900 --> 1:06:26.229 we've spoken about before, just bizarrely won Best screenplay for 1:06:26.230 --> 1:06:29.380 Promising Young Woman, uh, her debut feature. Um. All right, 1:06:29.380 --> 1:06:32.740 onto Best Director. Yeah. This is the one I thought 1:06:32.740 --> 1:06:37.750 long and hard about. I, I do think Scorsese deserves 1:06:37.750 --> 1:06:41.620 it for killers because of the way he both adapted 1:06:41.620 --> 1:06:45.430 that movie from the source text, the way he filmed it, 1:06:45.430 --> 1:06:48.130 the way he opened it and closed it. He just, like, 1:06:48.130 --> 1:06:51.130 did so many interesting things and pulled off a movie 1:06:51.130 --> 1:06:55.630 that was both entertaining and gripping. And as far as 1:06:55.630 --> 1:06:58.930 movies about American history go, we we kind of maybe 1:06:58.930 --> 1:07:00.790 didn't know all the details about Oppenheimer. We knew the 1:07:00.790 --> 1:07:03.430 big picture stuff. I think most people accept that they 1:07:03.430 --> 1:07:06.970 had no knowledge of what was going on in Oklahoma, uh, 1:07:06.970 --> 1:07:10.390 in that period of time. So I, I would put 1:07:10.390 --> 1:07:13.360 in a vote for Scorsese. But I do think Nolan 1:07:13.360 --> 1:07:16.870 will win just with the Oppenheimer train, uh, trundling on 1:07:16.870 --> 1:07:17.950 the way that it is. 1:07:17.950 --> 1:07:20.710 Oh, you have totally talked me into Scorsese. Like, I 1:07:20.710 --> 1:07:23.560 remember remembering now the feelings of killers. And I think 1:07:23.560 --> 1:07:24.820 I would also like to see him when I head 1:07:24.820 --> 1:07:28.420 down Yorgos Lanthimos, though, for Poor Things. Only because I 1:07:28.420 --> 1:07:30.190 think when you talk about director, when you look at 1:07:30.190 --> 1:07:32.290 who took the most risks, who was working with the 1:07:32.290 --> 1:07:37.240 most kind of interesting source material, who pushed actors and actresses, 1:07:37.240 --> 1:07:40.450 that furthers the kind of whole aesthetic of that film. 1:07:40.450 --> 1:07:44.260 I think in terms of interesting filmmaking, Yorgos Lanthimos takes 1:07:44.260 --> 1:07:46.990 the takes the prize, but I tend to agree that 1:07:46.990 --> 1:07:50.290 Christopher Nolan also will probably get the nod from the Academy. 1:07:50.290 --> 1:07:53.080 Yeah, I agree, I'm in line with Mel on this one. 1:07:53.080 --> 1:07:56.530 I think Nolan will win. Um, but I also think, uh, 1:07:56.530 --> 1:08:00.340 Yorgos deserves it. And not only because the movie is great, 1:08:00.340 --> 1:08:03.370 but because he is Greek. And let me tell you, 1:08:03.370 --> 1:08:06.520 the last director to win an Academy Award who is, 1:08:06.520 --> 1:08:09.310 you know, even like second generation Greek was Elia Kazan 1:08:09.310 --> 1:08:11.470 in 1954 for On the Waterfront. It's one of the 1:08:11.470 --> 1:08:14.680 great injustices in cinema. Uh, and, you know. 1:08:14.680 --> 1:08:17.920 Obviously, Eli Cezanne was also a rat who betrayed former 1:08:17.920 --> 1:08:20.560 members of the Communist Party to the House. Uh, Committee 1:08:20.560 --> 1:08:22.960 on UN activity. Yeah. American activities. What do you. 1:08:22.960 --> 1:08:23.770 Have to say about that? 1:08:23.770 --> 1:08:25.059 I just say we take the wins where we can 1:08:25.060 --> 1:08:25.450 get them. 1:08:25.450 --> 1:08:26.890 And obviously. 1:08:26.890 --> 1:08:29.590 Yorgos was nominated in 2018, our very own George Miller 1:08:29.590 --> 1:08:32.439 nominated in 2015. But because of systemic racism, we've been 1:08:32.439 --> 1:08:34.419 overlooked since the 50s. And so. 1:08:37.900 --> 1:08:41.229 Uh, both of us outdoing each other on our insane takes. 1:08:42.550 --> 1:08:45.160 That's great. Okay. Best actor. This is interesting because I 1:08:45.160 --> 1:08:47.980 don't think this category is that stacked really. Like, I 1:08:47.979 --> 1:08:50.140 think when I think about some of the best performances 1:08:50.140 --> 1:08:53.710 of the year outside of Oppenheimer, I'm thinking about anatomy 1:08:53.710 --> 1:08:56.019 of a fall. I'm thinking about past lives. I'm thinking about, 1:08:56.020 --> 1:08:59.410 like a lot more performances from actresses. I thought, yeah, Killian, 1:08:59.410 --> 1:09:02.110 I think just really went for it in, in this. 1:09:02.110 --> 1:09:04.540 I think he should win and I think he will win. 1:09:04.540 --> 1:09:06.880 But interesting. You guys have a different take. 1:09:06.880 --> 1:09:09.700 Yeah, I completely, completely agree. Looking at the list, um, 1:09:09.700 --> 1:09:13.600 who's up for that? Bradley Cooper, Colman Domingo, Paul Giamatti, 1:09:13.600 --> 1:09:16.780 Jeffrey Wright and Cillian Murphy. Like, I feel like he is. 1:09:17.060 --> 1:09:18.799 Serving of that for sure. 1:09:18.920 --> 1:09:20.990 Do you think Kilian deserves that? This is probably like 1:09:20.990 --> 1:09:23.510 a should and will, although I will say, and we've 1:09:23.510 --> 1:09:24.680 had a bit of a chat about this in the office. 1:09:24.680 --> 1:09:28.040 And I know you fucking hate Maestro and Bradley Cooper. 1:09:28.310 --> 1:09:29.780 I feel bad for him. 1:09:29.780 --> 1:09:32.030 He is. I really do not like that movie and 1:09:32.030 --> 1:09:33.410 he is annoying me a lot. 1:09:33.410 --> 1:09:37.850 Okay, like I quite liked maestro, but also he like, 1:09:37.850 --> 1:09:40.550 he wants this. He is like, obsessed with winning an 1:09:40.550 --> 1:09:43.820 Oscar and, you know, like, let him have one. 1:09:44.030 --> 1:09:44.750 Yeah, but sometimes. 1:09:44.750 --> 1:09:46.100 You want things and you just don't. 1:09:46.100 --> 1:09:48.740 Get that. How the world works. Good on you. Do 1:09:48.740 --> 1:09:49.880 we feel a bit bad. 1:09:49.880 --> 1:09:52.490 For Bradley Cooper now? Like he is just he like, 1:09:52.790 --> 1:09:55.700 no one's working harder for that Oscar than Bradley Cooper. 1:09:55.700 --> 1:09:58.490 I think he's been overrated his entire career. And it's 1:09:58.490 --> 1:10:00.950 time for him to understand his place. 1:10:01.910 --> 1:10:03.350 He'll he'll get one now. He will. 1:10:03.500 --> 1:10:05.120 He'll do like the hangover 4 in 5 years. And 1:10:05.120 --> 1:10:05.810 they'll give it to him for that. 1:10:05.810 --> 1:10:07.640 I also don't think, like, I didn't mind that film 1:10:07.640 --> 1:10:09.860 as much as other people seem to, but, um, I 1:10:09.860 --> 1:10:13.040 don't think his role in it was that impressive, particularly 1:10:13.040 --> 1:10:15.800 not compared to Killian Murphy's. And I think the best 1:10:15.800 --> 1:10:18.320 parts of that movie were Carey Mulligan and him in 1:10:18.320 --> 1:10:21.260 dialogue and conflict with her, like, alone. He did not 1:10:21.260 --> 1:10:22.280 carry that film. 1:10:22.280 --> 1:10:24.530 Yeah, true. But anyway, it's all a moot point because 1:10:24.530 --> 1:10:25.309 Killian will win. 1:10:26.360 --> 1:10:27.860 Well, let's go to Best Actress. And this is one 1:10:27.860 --> 1:10:31.160 that I changed my mind on, like recently. Um, for 1:10:31.160 --> 1:10:34.370 a really interesting reason. Sandra Bullock, who is the lead 1:10:34.370 --> 1:10:38.600 in anatomy of a fall, but is also a really 1:10:38.600 --> 1:10:41.270 big part of the Zone of Interest, another movie nominated 1:10:41.270 --> 1:10:44.450 for Best Picture. And I know that people are nominated 1:10:44.450 --> 1:10:47.600 for like, individual movies, but the fact that she was like, 1:10:47.600 --> 1:10:51.620 astonishing and too pretty fascinating and interesting and very well 1:10:51.620 --> 1:10:54.410 made movies, uh, like hats Off to her in the 1:10:54.410 --> 1:10:57.620 same year. And I thought she really killed it in both. 1:10:57.620 --> 1:11:01.009 So I would love to see her win. Uh, I 1:11:01.010 --> 1:11:03.110 do think, and I'm not upset about this at all. 1:11:03.110 --> 1:11:05.450 I do think Lily Gladstone will win for killers of 1:11:05.450 --> 1:11:07.400 the Flower Moon. I know there's like a a lily 1:11:07.400 --> 1:11:09.410 versus Emma Stone thing going on. I think it's probably 1:11:09.410 --> 1:11:12.320 the most interesting category where we're not totally sure what's 1:11:12.320 --> 1:11:14.240 going to happen. Yeah, and I think Lily will win. 1:11:14.240 --> 1:11:16.880 She's won those awards. Thomas, that you mentioned tend to 1:11:16.880 --> 1:11:19.400 overlap the most with the Oscars. It seems like the 1:11:19.400 --> 1:11:20.570 most likely result. 1:11:21.080 --> 1:11:24.680 Yeah, I would really like to see Lily win. I 1:11:24.680 --> 1:11:27.080 think that what she did with that role, the kind 1:11:27.080 --> 1:11:30.979 of quiet power of the character she played is, was 1:11:30.979 --> 1:11:34.040 remarkable and very moving. And I think Emma Stone was 1:11:34.040 --> 1:11:36.050 fantastic in poor things and like really had to put 1:11:36.050 --> 1:11:38.600 herself out there as an actress. But it is in 1:11:38.600 --> 1:11:43.130 many ways a larger than life role versus what Lily 1:11:43.130 --> 1:11:45.860 Gladstone had to do with holding back, but still managing 1:11:45.860 --> 1:11:49.280 to convey so much. And I think in terms of acting, 1:11:49.280 --> 1:11:52.189 I was more impressed by Lily than than Emma. Um, 1:11:52.189 --> 1:11:54.320 so yeah, I think she should win. And I reckon 1:11:54.320 --> 1:11:55.280 she probably will too. 1:11:55.970 --> 1:11:59.210 Uh, yeah. I'm pretty sure that Legatum is going to 1:11:59.210 --> 1:12:01.250 win this category. I know that Emma Stone has kind 1:12:01.250 --> 1:12:04.340 of been tipped to win it, although just recently the 1:12:04.340 --> 1:12:08.390 bookies have like seen Lily move in front. That's interesting. Um, 1:12:08.390 --> 1:12:10.490 but I also think like it's one of those things where, 1:12:10.850 --> 1:12:14.210 you know, and like, I think lots of viewers often 1:12:14.210 --> 1:12:16.820 assume this like the Academy looks at what's happening and 1:12:16.820 --> 1:12:18.470 then it's like, well, just give out one here to 1:12:18.470 --> 1:12:20.780 make sure that, like, that film gets its big award 1:12:20.780 --> 1:12:23.570 and not that, you know, Lily's performance doesn't warrant the 1:12:23.570 --> 1:12:26.090 award anyway, but this feels like the category where if 1:12:26.090 --> 1:12:29.000 killers will, like, get it's just desserts. And and she 1:12:29.000 --> 1:12:31.310 was amazing in that movie. Emma Stone's already got an Oscar. 1:12:31.310 --> 1:12:33.230 Like it all just seems to add up that like, 1:12:33.229 --> 1:12:35.450 I think Lily Gladstone should and will win this category. 1:12:36.140 --> 1:12:38.570 So yeah, out of all of those, we basically all 1:12:38.570 --> 1:12:41.090 agree on who we think will win. Which is interesting 1:12:41.090 --> 1:12:43.880 because it means that we can't say we're better than 1:12:43.880 --> 1:12:45.950 the other on Monday. That is annoying. But also, I 1:12:45.950 --> 1:12:48.830 think speaks to how locked up the race is. A 1:12:48.830 --> 1:12:50.900 couple more categories to to whip through, which I thought 1:12:50.900 --> 1:12:53.540 would just add a little bit more uncertainty to the equation. 1:12:53.540 --> 1:12:56.660 Original and adapted screenplay. So original screenplay is where I 1:12:56.660 --> 1:12:58.940 think past lives could get a nod. It deserves to 1:12:58.939 --> 1:13:01.969 get a nod. It's a great screenplay, like it's we've 1:13:01.970 --> 1:13:03.620 talked about the movie before, don't need to go into 1:13:03.620 --> 1:13:08.570 it again. Just beautiful. Simple. Moving like just affected almost 1:13:08.570 --> 1:13:12.320 everyone I know who saw it. I think the holdovers 1:13:12.320 --> 1:13:16.370 will probably win just because GMT is like is is 1:13:16.370 --> 1:13:18.170 is part of this narrative. You know, after he won 1:13:18.170 --> 1:13:22.009 the Globes, he's being considered as a pretty close second 1:13:22.010 --> 1:13:24.889 to Killian in Best Actor category. So this could be 1:13:24.890 --> 1:13:28.580 where The Holdovers manages to to just get to get something. 1:13:28.580 --> 1:13:30.769 What do you guys thoughts on Original Screenplay? 1:13:30.770 --> 1:13:33.469 I would like to see anatomy of a Fall Win. 1:13:33.470 --> 1:13:36.469 I think that film is told in a really interesting wow. 1:13:36.470 --> 1:13:37.220 You really, really had a. 1:13:37.220 --> 1:13:37.970 Big impact on you. 1:13:37.970 --> 1:13:40.099 I thought it was pretty incredible. Like, did. 1:13:40.100 --> 1:13:40.850 You meet the dog? 1:13:41.030 --> 1:13:42.290 Yeah, I would. 1:13:42.290 --> 1:13:43.160 Love to. I would yeah. 1:13:43.160 --> 1:13:44.450 The dog is great though, isn't how good. 1:13:44.540 --> 1:13:46.130 Yeah, what a role I was the whole time. I 1:13:46.130 --> 1:13:48.830 was like, how did they get it to do that? Yeah. Um, 1:13:49.189 --> 1:13:52.760 I just think that how that story unfolded, like the 1:13:52.760 --> 1:13:55.580 kind of slow release of information at the same time 1:13:55.580 --> 1:13:58.880 as you're slowly starting to doubt people more and more like, 1:13:58.880 --> 1:14:00.470 I just think, I always think when you watch a 1:14:00.470 --> 1:14:02.299 film and you can't really see the joints of it 1:14:02.300 --> 1:14:05.300 like that is when I'm like wondering, how did they 1:14:05.300 --> 1:14:07.580 do that? How is it working? Like, that's a really 1:14:07.580 --> 1:14:10.550 good film. Um, so I think I would like to 1:14:10.550 --> 1:14:14.299 see that win. I actually think past lives will win. Interesting. Yeah. 1:14:14.300 --> 1:14:17.150 I think it's a way to acknowledge that. Movie which 1:14:17.150 --> 1:14:20.780 deserves to be acknowledged, um, to commend and encourage a 1:14:20.780 --> 1:14:23.420 first time filmmaker. Um, and that could be where it 1:14:23.420 --> 1:14:25.670 gets its nod, and it is well deserved to. 1:14:25.820 --> 1:14:28.460 If there was an award for best use of a 1:14:28.460 --> 1:14:33.260 steel band cover of $0.50 per amp, I think anatomy 1:14:33.260 --> 1:14:35.720 of a full should and would win that category. 1:14:35.750 --> 1:14:36.740 Yeah, it was in my head. 1:14:36.860 --> 1:14:38.269 So like for so. 1:14:38.270 --> 1:14:38.780 Long after the. 1:14:38.780 --> 1:14:39.710 Film, we could. 1:14:39.710 --> 1:14:42.470 Also do some like quite a fun, you know, best 1:14:42.470 --> 1:14:44.360 dog in a movie. 1:14:45.150 --> 1:14:45.839 Yeah. 1:14:46.080 --> 1:14:46.920 Do you have one at the. 1:14:46.920 --> 1:14:47.970 Top of your head? We'll do it next year. 1:14:48.210 --> 1:14:51.479 Anyway, I think Anatomy Before will win Best original Screenplay. 1:14:52.380 --> 1:14:52.950 Do you think it should? 1:14:53.100 --> 1:14:54.870 I think it should. Yeah. I think it should. Um, 1:14:54.870 --> 1:14:57.840 but I definitely think it's it's more curious to talk 1:14:57.840 --> 1:15:00.030 about best adapted. Um, which obviously we'll move on to 1:15:00.030 --> 1:15:02.670 now because of, you know, I mean, we've discussed this previously. 1:15:02.670 --> 1:15:03.870 The Barbie element. 1:15:04.260 --> 1:15:06.900 Yeah. Well, talk us through that. So Bobby ended up 1:15:06.900 --> 1:15:10.500 being put into that category because I guess the argument 1:15:10.500 --> 1:15:13.830 is that Barbie the doll is a source material that 1:15:13.830 --> 1:15:14.969 is being adapted. 1:15:15.120 --> 1:15:17.160 Yeah. So I think I believe it was originally submitted 1:15:17.160 --> 1:15:20.040 for Best Original because obviously, you know, the world and 1:15:20.040 --> 1:15:23.310 the story was completely created by, um, you know, Greta 1:15:23.310 --> 1:15:26.280 Gerwig and Margot Robbie and the entire team and Noah Baumbach, 1:15:26.790 --> 1:15:29.280 Gerwig's husband, who also co-wrote the movie. But then it 1:15:29.280 --> 1:15:31.410 was pushed into Best Adapted because they made the argument 1:15:31.410 --> 1:15:35.220 that there was original source material for Barbie. But, I mean, 1:15:35.220 --> 1:15:38.340 I don't know, it's now up against American fiction, Oppenheimer, 1:15:38.340 --> 1:15:41.550 Poor Things, and The Zone of Interest. Uh, pretty stacked field, 1:15:41.640 --> 1:15:44.970 but luckily, uh, both my should and will line up. Uh, 1:15:44.970 --> 1:15:46.769 it's a film that we all enjoy, the film that 1:15:46.770 --> 1:15:49.680 we discussed at length recently, and that is American fiction. 1:15:50.310 --> 1:15:52.800 Yeah. I would like to see American fiction when and 1:15:52.800 --> 1:15:55.410 particularly when you know that the book, Percival Everett's book 1:15:55.410 --> 1:15:58.530 is kind of written in a book within a book. 1:15:58.530 --> 1:16:02.100 I think the job of translating that to screen is 1:16:02.100 --> 1:16:05.280 pretty impressive. And the balancing of the satire with the 1:16:05.280 --> 1:16:08.340 familial relations, um, was really well done. So I'd like 1:16:08.340 --> 1:16:10.860 to see that when I reckon Barbie might win this, 1:16:10.860 --> 1:16:13.680 it will be controversial. Maybe it'll be the controversial moment 1:16:13.680 --> 1:16:16.349 of the Oscars, but I do think they might want 1:16:16.350 --> 1:16:18.360 to give Barbie a bit of a nod, and people 1:16:18.360 --> 1:16:20.910 might see this category as a way to celebrate that 1:16:20.910 --> 1:16:23.940 film and Greta Gerwig in her role in it. 1:16:24.689 --> 1:16:27.150 If, um, if killers was nominated, I would put in 1:16:27.150 --> 1:16:29.280 a plug for that. It's bizarrely not, even though I 1:16:29.280 --> 1:16:32.910 think it's maybe the best adapted screenplay this year, I, 1:16:32.910 --> 1:16:34.620 I think without that, I agree with you guys on 1:16:34.620 --> 1:16:37.740 American fiction. Don't be shocked if the zone of interest 1:16:37.740 --> 1:16:40.620 picks up here. Like, that movie is having a bit 1:16:40.620 --> 1:16:43.110 of a run at the moment. You know, picked up 1:16:43.110 --> 1:16:45.810 a bunch of awards at the BAFTAs. It's really landing 1:16:45.810 --> 1:16:48.689 with a lot of people, movies that that sort of 1:16:48.689 --> 1:16:52.589 discuss with or engage with the Holocaust have, have generally 1:16:52.590 --> 1:16:56.490 been pretty, you know, well received. Seems like a weird 1:16:56.490 --> 1:16:59.250 term to use. But the Oscars has acknowledged those movies 1:16:59.250 --> 1:17:01.830 generally in the past. Spielberg came out and said a 1:17:01.830 --> 1:17:04.200 very weird thing, that this is like the best Holocaust 1:17:04.200 --> 1:17:06.960 movie since Schindler's List, which sounds great until you remember 1:17:06.960 --> 1:17:09.330 that he made Schindler's List and was like, this is 1:17:09.330 --> 1:17:11.040 the best movie about this topic since the one that 1:17:11.040 --> 1:17:13.590 I did, so I think that could be an interesting 1:17:13.590 --> 1:17:16.410 one to watch as well. Are there any other categories 1:17:16.410 --> 1:17:18.809 you guys wanted to to mention any, any races or 1:17:18.810 --> 1:17:21.300 any particular films that we haven't touched on that, uh, 1:17:21.300 --> 1:17:23.580 deserve a little bit of conversation? 1:17:23.580 --> 1:17:27.510 Yes, I, I mean, it's no conversation about the Oscars 1:17:27.510 --> 1:17:30.660 is complete without getting a little bit parochial and talking 1:17:30.660 --> 1:17:34.650 about the Australians nominated, uh, obviously Margot was, uh, famously 1:17:34.650 --> 1:17:36.510 and controversially shut out, even though I think we all 1:17:36.510 --> 1:17:39.360 agreed that she probably didn't deserve a nomination. Uh, but yes, 1:17:39.360 --> 1:17:42.179 there are two Australians nominated in one category, which is 1:17:42.180 --> 1:17:46.019 live action short. So Niki Bentham, a producer of the after, 1:17:46.020 --> 1:17:49.530 which is on Netflix, and Sara MacFarlane, uh, red, white 1:17:49.530 --> 1:17:52.320 and blue. So they're both, uh, two Australian producers up 1:17:52.320 --> 1:17:55.020 against each other in best live action short. Uh, and 1:17:55.020 --> 1:17:57.390 actually I haven't seen either of those, but the after 1:17:57.390 --> 1:17:59.010 is kind of a hot favourite now, and we always 1:17:59.010 --> 1:18:01.320 love to see Australians do well. So that's Nicki Bentham 1:18:01.410 --> 1:18:04.020 up against Sara macfarlane in live action short. 1:18:04.880 --> 1:18:05.630 Great shout. 1:18:05.810 --> 1:18:07.730 We do. And we often the Australians we do really 1:18:07.729 --> 1:18:11.180 well in cinematography, historically has been where we often shine 1:18:11.180 --> 1:18:15.439 at the Oscars. Look I for music original song I 1:18:15.439 --> 1:18:19.400 wouldn't mind seeing. I'm just can get a nod. But 1:18:19.400 --> 1:18:21.800 particularly I'd like to get a nod over the Billie 1:18:21.800 --> 1:18:22.880 Eilish song. 1:18:23.060 --> 1:18:24.589 Was seriously enough. 1:18:24.590 --> 1:18:25.790 With the Billie Eilish thing. 1:18:25.790 --> 1:18:27.470 If one is going to get it from Bobby, I 1:18:27.470 --> 1:18:28.670 want it to be I'm just can. 1:18:28.670 --> 1:18:31.310 Yeah, I find the Billie Eilish song so like drab 1:18:31.310 --> 1:18:34.220 and yeah, I'm just getting way more fun. 1:18:34.220 --> 1:18:36.200 And I know the only other category I'm kind of 1:18:36.200 --> 1:18:38.120 interested in, only because I think a lot of the 1:18:38.120 --> 1:18:41.420 films we're talking about are so visually stunning is costume design, 1:18:41.420 --> 1:18:44.630 which we as Australians have also won in the past 1:18:44.630 --> 1:18:47.090 with Catherine Martin. Like when you look at the list 1:18:47.090 --> 1:18:53.330 for that Barbie, Poor Things, Killers and Napoleon and then Oppenheimer, 1:18:53.330 --> 1:18:55.309 which I would say probably isn't quite the same, though 1:18:55.310 --> 1:18:57.860 it does have stunning outfits like, yeah, who would you 1:18:57.860 --> 1:19:01.130 pick for that? They're all such remarkable acts of world 1:19:01.130 --> 1:19:02.720 building in their costuming. 1:19:03.050 --> 1:19:05.780 Totally, totally pull things. Or Barbie winning that would be 1:19:05.780 --> 1:19:06.950 would be pretty great. All right. 1:19:06.950 --> 1:19:07.340 Yeah. 1:19:07.640 --> 1:19:09.320 So it's so sad though, when we have a year where, 1:19:09.320 --> 1:19:12.200 like Mandy Walker or Catherine Martin aren't involved in a film, 1:19:12.200 --> 1:19:13.460 we're just like, not going to win any Oscars. 1:19:15.560 --> 1:19:18.860 Well, Greg Frazier will probably be nominated for cinematography for 1:19:18.860 --> 1:19:20.179 June part two next year. 1:19:20.180 --> 1:19:21.200 Oh my God. 1:19:22.160 --> 1:19:22.760 People get to. 1:19:22.760 --> 1:19:24.050 Relive it all over again. 1:19:24.650 --> 1:19:26.300 I was like, I saw it for the 800th time 1:19:26.300 --> 1:19:26.810 last week. 1:19:26.810 --> 1:19:29.330 And the only other thing that I wanted to mention, 1:19:29.330 --> 1:19:31.730 I won't go in deep on this one, is Best 1:19:31.729 --> 1:19:35.780 International Feature Film. I. I love this category, not just because, 1:19:35.780 --> 1:19:38.990 you know, it's also a category where Australians can sometimes compete, 1:19:38.990 --> 1:19:41.780 but the politics of it are the most fascinating. So 1:19:41.780 --> 1:19:44.270 the way this works, unlike the other categories that I 1:19:44.270 --> 1:19:48.290 ran through before, each country actually has a system whereby 1:19:48.290 --> 1:19:53.090 they nominate what the one movie from that country should 1:19:53.090 --> 1:19:56.300 be in terms of contention for Best International Feature Film. 1:19:56.300 --> 1:19:59.570 And in Australia, like it's Screen Australia, the government funded 1:19:59.570 --> 1:20:02.750 screen body that decides other countries have like the ministries 1:20:02.750 --> 1:20:05.479 of culture. So like the government picks the movie or 1:20:05.479 --> 1:20:08.480 they have like industry bodies and panels, it's a pretty 1:20:08.479 --> 1:20:11.330 interesting screen. Australia not a great track record. I think 1:20:11.330 --> 1:20:15.020 we've had one movie nominated since this category was introduced 1:20:15.020 --> 1:20:17.660 in the 90s, but there's actually a bit of drama 1:20:17.660 --> 1:20:21.080 around the French nominee, which this year was the taste 1:20:21.080 --> 1:20:23.480 of things, and a lot of people were upset that 1:20:23.479 --> 1:20:26.450 it wasn't anatomy of a fall because they thought it's 1:20:26.450 --> 1:20:29.960 nominated for Best Picture, it's nominated for Best Director. Why 1:20:29.960 --> 1:20:33.590 is Justine Tree's pretty good movie not in Best International Feature? 1:20:33.590 --> 1:20:36.290 And essentially there was like a lot of political bullshit 1:20:36.290 --> 1:20:38.660 that went down at the French body. There was a vote. 1:20:38.660 --> 1:20:41.600 It was 4 to 3 in favor of the taste 1:20:41.600 --> 1:20:43.849 of things instead of anatomy of a fall. One of 1:20:43.850 --> 1:20:46.430 the voters said, can I change my vote? I didn't 1:20:46.430 --> 1:20:48.500 realize I was going to be the swing vote. And 1:20:48.500 --> 1:20:51.380 they're like, no, you fucked up. I'm sorry. And seemingly 1:20:51.380 --> 1:20:53.030 the reason for it is, like the French film body 1:20:53.030 --> 1:20:56.180 has more conservative elements within it. And Justine Trier, when 1:20:56.180 --> 1:20:58.880 she won the Palme d'Or at Cannes since then gave 1:20:58.880 --> 1:21:02.240 a lot of speeches decrying the French government, accused them 1:21:02.240 --> 1:21:05.900 of being neo liberal stooges like basically has taken a 1:21:05.900 --> 1:21:08.450 very strong stance on a number of key issues which 1:21:08.450 --> 1:21:11.990 potentially alienated her from the French film body and probably 1:21:11.990 --> 1:21:14.990 cost France the best international feature Oscar. Because I think 1:21:14.990 --> 1:21:18.200 if anatomy was in, it would 100% have won this award. 1:21:18.590 --> 1:21:19.790 Yeah. That's crazy. 1:21:19.970 --> 1:21:20.390 Yeah. 1:21:20.660 --> 1:21:24.710 Geopolitics, man. This award rules the Oscars are the best. 1:21:24.710 --> 1:21:26.900 Oh, now I'm just like in 2000. Why did Screen 1:21:26.900 --> 1:21:28.849 Australia not put Wog Boys forward. 1:21:29.120 --> 1:21:30.020 That's like it. 1:21:30.620 --> 1:21:32.450 But seriously that was like the one time Nick Jonas 1:21:32.450 --> 1:21:35.780 got funding from Screen Australia is a good movie anyway. 1:21:36.020 --> 1:21:38.420 And on that note, we could have wrap up our 1:21:38.450 --> 1:21:42.290 2024 Oscars deep dive. So we'll be back on Monday 1:21:42.290 --> 1:21:44.990 evening with a review and a wrap of the show 1:21:44.990 --> 1:21:48.290 and discussions of what worked, what went right and what 1:21:48.290 --> 1:21:51.679 went wrong, and hopefully some upsets to to chew on. 1:21:51.680 --> 1:21:55.370 But before we sign off, we're we've got our regular 1:21:55.370 --> 1:21:59.180 Impress Your Friends segment, something we watched read, listened to 1:21:59.180 --> 1:22:01.939 from the past week that we want to shout out, Thomas, 1:22:01.939 --> 1:22:03.229 why don't you go first this time? 1:22:03.740 --> 1:22:06.530 Yes, this is a Netflix show that's out today. It 1:22:06.530 --> 1:22:08.840 is the gentleman. This one's been coming for a little while. 1:22:08.840 --> 1:22:11.270 It's a spin off of the Guy Ritchie film. Um, 1:22:11.270 --> 1:22:13.070 and firstly, it's got a few things that I think 1:22:13.070 --> 1:22:15.320 make it really fun. Uh, it's firstly, it's got just 1:22:15.320 --> 1:22:18.050 a guy Ritchie's DNA all over it. Um, it's like 1:22:18.050 --> 1:22:22.849 proper gangsters, uh, you know, in London. The soundtrack is amazing. Uh, 1:22:22.850 --> 1:22:24.980 and the lead actor is Theo James, who, of course, 1:22:24.979 --> 1:22:27.080 we all know and love from The White Lotus. He's 1:22:27.080 --> 1:22:29.450 being very charming. He plays a guy named Eddie who 1:22:29.450 --> 1:22:32.840 basically his father dies. He he inherits, um, you know, 1:22:32.840 --> 1:22:36.260 a very impressive farm and house and also a, you know, 1:22:36.260 --> 1:22:38.840 becomes a duke. Uh, and then, as it turns out, 1:22:38.840 --> 1:22:41.870 the father had been basically leasing his land out to 1:22:41.870 --> 1:22:44.090 a nearby drug lord, and things kind of start to 1:22:44.090 --> 1:22:46.010 unravel from there. But, yeah, like I said, it's if 1:22:46.010 --> 1:22:48.800 you even have a passing interest in Guy Ritchie, you know, 1:22:48.800 --> 1:22:51.530 style and aesthetic and tone, this will be right up 1:22:51.530 --> 1:22:54.349 your alley. But aside from that, it's also just quite fun. 1:22:54.350 --> 1:22:56.330 Guy Ritchie can be a lot, but this is like 1:22:56.330 --> 1:22:58.939 him kind of honed and distilled at his very best. Uh, 1:22:58.939 --> 1:23:00.379 and that's on Netflix today. 1:23:00.890 --> 1:23:03.920 I am going this week with Abbey Morgan's. This is 1:23:03.920 --> 1:23:07.060 not a. Pity memoir, which is what it says. It 1:23:07.060 --> 1:23:09.010 is not. It is not a pity memoir. It's a 1:23:09.010 --> 1:23:11.830 great memoir. Abby Morgan, you might know she's a screamer. 1:23:11.860 --> 1:23:12.519 Is this a book? 1:23:12.939 --> 1:23:13.780 It is a. 1:23:13.780 --> 1:23:16.660 Book, don't you? Don't even say it anymore. No, no. 1:23:16.660 --> 1:23:18.550 No, I'm not, I'm not. I'm just checking. You didn't 1:23:18.550 --> 1:23:21.160 tell me what medium this this item came in. True. 1:23:21.280 --> 1:23:22.000 It's not a kitty. 1:23:22.030 --> 1:23:22.480 When I said. 1:23:22.720 --> 1:23:27.640 Memoir twice, maybe. But that also I've stitched up because 1:23:27.640 --> 1:23:30.310 Thomas doesn't read. It's like I'm doing TV. It's like, well, 1:23:30.310 --> 1:23:33.700 what's left? Um, you might know her. She's a screenwriter. 1:23:33.700 --> 1:23:37.300 She did like the Iron Lady suffragette. Shame. The hour, 1:23:37.300 --> 1:23:40.900 that TV show. Um, so it's a pretty remarkable tale. 1:23:40.900 --> 1:23:44.740 It's very funny the way it's told. Her husband has M.S., 1:23:44.740 --> 1:23:49.150 and he goes on an experiment tree, um, drug trial 1:23:49.150 --> 1:23:51.339 that puts him into a coma. And when he wakes up, 1:23:51.340 --> 1:23:54.070 he does not realize who she is. He does not 1:23:54.070 --> 1:23:58.479 remember her. He is convinced that she is an imposter 1:23:58.479 --> 1:24:02.020 in the body of his partner. And it's just a 1:24:02.020 --> 1:24:06.370 fascinating story, but really. Well told and like, kind of heartbreaking, 1:24:06.370 --> 1:24:09.850 but humorous as well. Um, it's been a very buzzy book. Um, 1:24:09.850 --> 1:24:12.070 so I think, well, well worth the read. 1:24:12.310 --> 1:24:15.400 We low key. We're giving the best book recommendations on 1:24:15.400 --> 1:24:18.340 this show every week. Thanks to you, Mel. Like booktok. 1:24:18.370 --> 1:24:20.889 Eat your heart out. This podcast should be going ballistic 1:24:20.890 --> 1:24:23.470 amongst book lovers. These these recs are great. Like I'm 1:24:23.470 --> 1:24:24.610 not going to get around to reading it, but it's 1:24:24.610 --> 1:24:25.150 good for people. 1:24:25.450 --> 1:24:25.960 Yeah, yeah, you. 1:24:25.960 --> 1:24:27.519 Might need to sit in your guilt for a bit. 1:24:29.320 --> 1:24:33.010 Um, mine is a mine's a memoir, uh, Mel. Adapted 1:24:33.010 --> 1:24:35.200 into a TV show. So, you know, it's important to clarify. 1:24:35.200 --> 1:24:36.280 Yeah. Best of both worlds. 1:24:37.660 --> 1:24:39.790 Um, so this, uh, show first came out a couple 1:24:39.790 --> 1:24:44.559 of years ago. It's Tokyo Vice, uh, to brilliant, brilliant memoir, uh, 1:24:44.560 --> 1:24:49.330 by a American journalist called Jake Adelstein, uh, who moved 1:24:49.330 --> 1:24:51.880 to Japan when he was quite young and became the 1:24:51.880 --> 1:24:55.389 first Westerner to work at this big Tokyo newspaper and 1:24:55.390 --> 1:24:58.780 was a crime reporter embedded with the cops and investigated 1:24:58.780 --> 1:25:02.620 the Yakuza. Uh, he's played by Ansel Elgort. This show 1:25:02.620 --> 1:25:07.330 also stars Ken Watanabe. He's amazing. Japanese actor. The second season, uh, 1:25:07.330 --> 1:25:11.019 has just been released. I didn't watch the first season 1:25:11.020 --> 1:25:13.030 when it came out, and I'm kind of rewatching it 1:25:13.030 --> 1:25:15.700 to catch up. It's really good. Like Michael Mann was 1:25:15.700 --> 1:25:17.950 originally attached to this. I think he did direct the 1:25:17.950 --> 1:25:21.280 first episode, but then wandered off the project and it 1:25:21.280 --> 1:25:25.479 is shot beautifully. It looks great. Japan is an amazing 1:25:25.479 --> 1:25:30.070 location to to set a sort of gritty police journalist 1:25:30.070 --> 1:25:33.009 noir sort of story. I would strongly recommend this one. 1:25:33.400 --> 1:25:34.900 Yeah, I love that I watched the first season. I 1:25:34.900 --> 1:25:37.420 thought it was fantastic. The book is really good. The book. 1:25:37.420 --> 1:25:40.300 Is. I've read that book and I loved it. 1:25:40.300 --> 1:25:42.490 After you're done in Canberra, straight to the, uh, the 1:25:42.490 --> 1:25:45.550 foreign crime beat, correct? Um, but yes, I'm very much 1:25:45.550 --> 1:25:47.410 looking forward to the second season of that. 1:25:47.770 --> 1:25:51.670 Awesome. Well, we we really covered a lot on this episode. 1:25:51.670 --> 1:25:55.150 And thank you so much for indulging me. My Oscars, uh, 1:25:55.150 --> 1:25:59.410 electoral nerdery hopefully people found it interesting and the pubs 1:25:59.410 --> 1:26:01.180 and the clubs will be a chatter with people saying, 1:26:01.180 --> 1:26:04.060 did you know, did you know how the Oscars. It's 1:26:04.060 --> 1:26:06.130 the same way we vote for the Senate. Isn't that crazy? 1:26:06.160 --> 1:26:09.729 That's my contribution to discourse this this week in Australia. 1:26:09.729 --> 1:26:10.510 I'm just happy to get. 1:26:10.510 --> 1:26:13.719 My mandated one mention per product. 1:26:15.189 --> 1:26:17.860 Thanks, guys. Looking forward to debriefing on Monday night. 1:26:17.979 --> 1:26:18.759 See you Monday. 1:26:20.650 --> 1:26:23.800 This episode of The Drop was produced by Qi Wang. 1:26:23.950 --> 1:26:26.320 If you enjoyed listening to today's episode of The Drop, 1:26:26.320 --> 1:26:29.290 make sure to follow us in your favorite podcast app. 1:26:29.290 --> 1:26:32.230 Leave us a review or better yet, share the episode 1:26:32.229 --> 1:26:35.320 with a friend. I'm Usman Farooqui. See you next week!