Hey, I'm Osman Farooqi and this is the drop a culture show from the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, where we dive into the latest in the world of pop culture and entertainment. I'm here with Thomas Mitchell and Mel Kambouris. What's up team? How are you doing?
Pretty good. Yeah. Good week. Big week coming up. Lots on the horizon in the pop culture world. Yeah.
Big, uh, one of our favorite weeks of the year, I think.
Yeah, it's it's a big, big, big week. We're going to be talking primarily on today's show about the Oscars, which are on next Monday. But as you alluded to, Thomas, it's been it's been a big one for cultural consumption and and conversation. There's a lot happening and a lot to talk about. So there's a few things I wanted to run through with you guys before we get stuck into our Oscars deep dive. Last month, it was Taylor Swift causing a gigantic collective freakout in Australia. This time
it's the UK house musician Fred again. Dot dot dot uh. He announced a pop up show at the Sydney Opera House that sold, I think, thousands of tickets in like 15 minutes. There was 200,000 people on the waiting list at peak time. He went on to announce a run of arena shows in Melbourne and Sydney. I hear from insiders that nearly a million people tried to buy tickets to his arena shows, so not quite the Taylor Swift level of hype, but still an enormous amount of interest
in Fred. Again, I don't know if you've seen clips from his shows at Rod Laver Arena the last couple of nights.
Everyone is very into this young guy. Don't make some fucking noise. Okay.
How do you guys feel about Fred again? Dot dot dot.
Look, I don't really get it. I don't really get the interest, and I.
I have you been a big Fred head. I think something could have been wrong with the cosmic universe.
Like, I know you guys think you're all kind of cool and in on things, but I don't think he's that cool. And I'm gonna quote Rob Moran here, who has been on this pod and is one of the best music writers in the country, who says he's just the Ed Sheeran of dance music. And I think that's perfect. I think that's a very apt description of what he is.
And there's a whole lot of excitement, which I think is probably tied to kind of people feeling like they're part of something to this musician that I don't really think is warranted. Um, yeah. Thomas, I mean, you think you're all indie. Is that why you like Fred again? Thank you. Cool.
When you talk about being cool, it's like talking to my mom. Honestly. No, I know you think you're a pretty cool dude. Um, no, I think you're actually kind of right. Like, I think his music is good, but I think the hype around Fred again has become like
its own really funny beast to watch. Um, and especially, you know, I think in what's really important these days as well, is that he's a bit of a marketing genius, like doing the surprise show at the Sydney Opera House to like, you know, whip everyone up into a frenzy was a really smart idea because then everyone who missed out was like, well, I'm 100% buying tickets to the
six arena shows. I think he's just become he's slot into this weird, like kind of trend, you know, like almost like post triple J, but love dance music, but still a bit accessible. And he's really captured a big kind of aging millennial audience, um, that have just, like, eaten his shit up big time. But I do think his music is fun. He makes fun dance music. He's
a good producer. And, you know, I thought particularly and I think you'll appreciate this, seeing some vision of him at Revolver in Melbourne at like 9 a.m., like simultaneously made me envious. And I had like, PTSD. Uh, so yeah, it he's definitely made a mark in his short time here.
I'm glad you brought up the marketing element of it, because to me, this is where the Taylor Swift comparison is really interesting. Not just because they both are very popular and selling a lot of tickets in Australia. I think they both have found a very smart way to create a, I guess, a mystique or an aura around them that feels very relatable and very honest and very earnest and very real when it is kind of anything but.
And by that I mean that both Taylor Swift and Fred again have got, I would assume, giant marketing team not even assume I know this giant marketing teams that are working overtime to both do interesting things, like surprise shows at revolver, keep a stadium show under wraps, post in WhatsApp groups and discord chats like he's just a regular person keeping you in the loop with his life.
It's a really interesting way to use a huge amount of resources and a huge amount of buzz to feel like just a regular person, and that certainly so much of his aura. You mentioned elder millennials, Thomas. I think there's a bit of that because I think maybe it reminds people of a kind of electronic music that is a little bit out of vogue or has been for a while, but particularly younger people like Gen Z's in
the pandemic. Fred went ballistic on TikTok, making a kind of music that I think that generation probably never really heard commercially. And then when he came out of the pandemic and started doing live shows for a lot of people aged, I guess like 18 to 21, it was probably the first live music they'd seen. And electronic music, house music is so good for that collective, joyous experience of dancing and partying. So they're like reasons why it
makes sense to me. But I think what I find interesting about Fred again, and I think this is why it's in conversation with Taylor, is being a good musician is only, like I would say, not even 50%, maybe like 20% of what it takes to succeed. The rest of it is how do you market yourself? How do you brand yourself, and how do you become part of a cultural conversation? And I think he's done that in a very interesting way, in a way that I think
overstates how good the music is. Like, I don't totally love the music, I don't really hate it, but for me it is more about how he's created a wave around him. Then he's this like incredible musician that's never done anything like this before, because ultimately, Mel, I got to say, Rob's comp is spot on, like Ed Sheeran, Tash Sultana like when Fred does these shows, he's in the round, he's in the middle. He's like recreating the stuff, using his MPC and loops. It's very like busking in
that Ed Sheeran way. Australians seem obsessed with that kind of music in particular. It's a really funny little moment, I think.
Yeah, and I agree, like there are good kind of catchy songs that Billie song I quite like. What are some of your other things? Well, Melanie, Melanie's doing the part in brackets. There you go.
Um, Rumble is also a really good song. Like there's a couple of great tracks.
Yeah, I think you're completely right that it's just. And you say 20% talent, the rest marketing I think like it's 5% talent, really. And the rest is marketing. And I do think that he's managed to hit that sweet spot where, you know, it's supply versus demand of who can get to see the show, but then it becomes just a tool of social currency. You know, I went to the show and I'm going to the show and
I like. Again, like I'm in the know without realizing. Like, I guess the bigger picture is that, you know, you're just being played in a way. So I do think it's just become like a tool of social currency to be like, I'm attending this gig. In the same way any exclusivity, you know, becomes a marker of your taste and class and who you are, like a performance of your own identity. So I yeah, I think you're spot on us.
That being said, if the team is listening to this pod, we would love six tickets to some of the shows.
I would happily miss, so I'm not that fussed, but I hope you guys managed to get tickets to the show. I think the other the other reason why I wanted to talk to you guys about it, because to me, it raises this other question of, okay, well, he makes decent music and he's very smart at marketing where the people around him are. Should that be a knock on him? And I think the answer is obviously like, no, not necessarily.
But to me what it raises is who gets to be Fred again and who gets to be Taylor Swift. And I think we've talked about this over the last couple of weeks, thinking about the Australian music industry, the live music space in particular, crumbling around us. So many acts, so many artists that I know was talking, uh, to to a friend last night who I won't name the band, but they're in like a very prominent Australian band that that perform all over the country, all over the world.
And you would think that they would be like multi-millionaires who own dozens of houses all over the country. And probably in another era they would have been. But they're like struggling financially because of the way the economics of music works right now. And then, on the other hand, you've got someone like Fred again who just comes in, who've is up all this demand and is in is going ballistic. And there is this conversation around Fred again. You guys aware of his family background at all?
Yeah. Isn't he like a rich private school kid? I am.
I have to say, the opening paragraph on like Wikipedia. When you look, look him up like we've got words like aristocrat jukes, viscounts. Like, I've never seen someone with such a background with so many kind of high class words involved in its description.
I don't even know what half these words mean. It's on his Wikipedia. It says, descended from the Huntingdonshire gentry on his father's side through his mother's side. Fred's ancestry comprises earls Marcus Jukes as well as many other peerage and baronet families. That's like Thomas. He sort of understated it by saying, private school rich kid, these guys like a baron. That's crazy.
Play that shit, Fred.
And I think his godfather is by Brian Eno, the, the, the very well known producer and and this is what I think is so interesting and I think it's deliberate part of why he's constructed this persona around himself. Because you can't really lean into that too much. Like it's okay to be a bit rich, but it's hard to be the literal baron who was raised and taught everything he knew by Brian Eno. And I think it seems like he's working overtime to be. I'm just a normal person.
This guy got his start writing songs like shotgun with George Ezra, solo by Clean Bandit, writing for Rita Ora, writing for producing for Ed Sheeran. Like he's born into music royalty, but it is interesting to see how he counteracts that because he does these shows at Rev's. He's been so supportive of Australian artists on this tour. He, you know, he's done pop up shows with club Angel.
On Tuesday night at Rod Laver Arena, he brought out Angie McMahon, a you know, young Australian artist who's got an album and doing a tour right now and brought her on stage to perform, made.
Some noise for Angie McMahon.
And that's one of the things we knocked Taylor Swift for, was not engaging with the local music scene and not boosting that. So on that front, like, kudos to him. I think it's smart, but I also kind of think you kind of have to do that stuff because it's so easy to make fun of this guy as just being like a nepo baby making electronic music. And I guess that's that big a point of good on him
for giving back a bit. I'd still remain worried that it's literally just Taylor Swift and a Baron that can make and perform live music in this, in this current era of pop.
Yeah, I mean, it's definitely an issue. I wish my biggest issue in life, though, was like trying to seem more regular because I was so rich. Like, if that was my only problem in life, I think I'd be doing okay. But I mean, we talked about before, you know, that the marketing is maybe like 80% of it and then, you know, the talent or the good bit, it's only 20%. But I mean, like, I know you're wanting to speak about this, that just kind of reminds me of the
maths on June. Like the marketing tells you, it's so good. And then you sit there for seven hours and you're just like, this is a letdown.
All right. Well, I'm glad you brought up. Let's pivot to that. Let's pivot to that. I, I watched this movie again after we spoke about it last year.
Of course.
I had some time to reflect on on what I said and what you guys said. And I've got to say, you I mean, like Thomas in particular, you're so wrong on this movie, man. Like, like, I feel like I was made out to be some sort of, like, sci fi freak who was like, this weird movie that no one will like is pretty cool. And then Tommy still sending me text messages from your friends who are like, you know, I was just making this movie sound so dumb.
You're right, Thomas, you're a man of the people. This movie is not only objectively very good, it has been critically acclaimed. It has been watched by millions of people. It's breaking box office records. It's genuinely very good. Interesting. I just wanted to ask you guys whether you had had time to reflect on your thoughts, and if you had any other things you wanted to say about the state of the discourse around June part two?
Yeah, I'll, I'll start off given the only one, I am probably the only one out of the two of us that does reflect on their thoughts. Um, yeah. I was, you know, I took a more middle ground approach, I would probably say, but I was blown away by the box office results over the weekend. And I really did see that this film is incredibly popular, and the box office results for part two have been well and truly outdone. Part one as well. So not only has it kind of got a lot of fans, it's got heaps of
new fans as well since the first one. So, um, yeah, I'm sorry, Oz, that we made you seem like an obscure.
I have to apologize.
I don't apologize on my behalf.
But you are the man of the people.
The man.
Of cinema. You could.
Say the man of the people.
Who's never flown economy. I did reflect on it, and I reflected on it with friends. Allow me to share some of my reflections. So this is a friend of mine who texted me every moment Oseman talks about June confirms more and more that I absolutely do not want to see it. And this is a separate friend. June 2nd sounds boring as fuck lol. What are you doing?
I mean these maybe.
Reflect more on you and your friendship.
I agree you have completely.
Moronic friends who are not interested. I do have.
Some some really moronic friends. Uh, one of them is included in that group, but I just think, look, it's important that we show both sides of the debate. And, you know, as we've discussed at length this week, I mean, some people see June as this masterpiece, and other people see it as a 2.5 hour movie about worms. So that's the world that we live in.
It is it is interesting, I think even and like Thomas, even though you didn't love the movie, like you and I were exchanging kind of Dune memes over the weekend and stuff, it certainly you can acknowledge, has become like a significant cultural moment. Probably not to the scale of Barbie, but probably the next biggest in the last 12 months.
Yeah, 100%. And like it is funny because like we're just saying it more and more now, like both before and after a movie comes out. Just like the like ecosystem of the internet around films is so crazy now. Like we have joked about, you know, the June popcorn bucket or whatever, but like, yeah, like I've had people exchanging memes to me about June who I know haven't actually even seen the movie yet. So yeah, it's really weird that we live in this world now. That's a thing.
While we're talking about marketing, there is actually one bit of the Dune Part two phenomenon that has left me feeling like a little bit weird. I almost spent too much time on this because I want to get to the big stuff. The Oscars we're going to talk about today. But the way that movie studios, distributors, marketing firms are controlling the conversation about a movie in this day and age is really fascinating to me and frankly, a little
bit depressing. So in the olden days, you know, the first you generally hear about a movie and whether it was good or bad, it was critics would go to screenings early and they would write their reviews in the newspaper, and great reviews would get you hyped. And you'd be like, I guess that's the picture I want to go see this weekend, and a bad review would like a movie would be dead on arrival, right? So it's not surprising that studios want to take some control back and set
the set the narrative on their terms. And so what you've seen increasingly, is early screenings filled with influences more than critics, even interview panels, which generally used to be reserved for. Film journalists have now become about getting an influencer, a TikToker, to ask someone involved in the movie what their favorite like food is right to send that clip viral, rather than an interesting conversation about what the movie is
about and what their process was. The new thing that I've seen, and I think June Part two was, was a really interesting example of this. You fill your early release cinemas with fans of this franchise so that social media, IMDb Letterboxd reviews are overwhelmingly positive because it's crazy spicy to say it's great. That creates a narrative that this movie is amazing, it's perfect, it's great, and no one really wants to be the first person to say it
isn't quite that good. So everyone jumps on the hype train. They watch it. The box office numbers are big. You have that effect that you're talking about with Fred again when no one wants to miss that. So they go and see it. I think that's really interesting. It's really
smart marketing. The only bit of that that really annoys me is those opportunities and that space that used to be about writing about movies or asking interesting questions about the choices directors and actors and editors make, going to the kinds of people who and like. Obviously there are smart, interesting film TikTokers and YouTubers. I'm not knocking those, but a lot of it now is just how do we get the most engagements to get this in people's feeds,
to get people to watch the movie? And I think that's a little bit sad if that's the way it goes. Do you guys have any any thoughts about this? Am I just being curmudgeonly?
You are being a bit curmudgeonly because I do think that there is. I think what they're doing is trying to appeal to a demographic that traditional critics aren't appealing to or aren't reaching, and that's exactly what they're trying to do. And I think there is room for both. I mean, I don't think at the June premiere, our movie reviewers weren't invited because someone from an influencer was invited to take photos in front of, like, a wall
of sand. Like, I think they both can exist. And I think a more positive frame on it is to say, look, if this is how we're getting a new generation into cinema and into films like that's a really good thing. Like if this is a lot of people's first introduction to cinematic culture, like, that's wonderful, why wouldn't we celebrate
the fact that we're reaching a younger audience? And I do understand what you're saying, like, obviously we don't want a dumbing down of the critical industry that we have, but I just I really do think it's a way of getting people into cinema more than kind of trying to remove the critical culture around it. And they can both exist because there will always be. And we had serious reviews of Dune at the same time as there is this kind of separate world going on for younger people.
And I will say it's not every film like it's not like an Oppenheimer, although obviously that because of its release with Barbie, we did see kind of a lot of social stuff around it. But not every film is treated the way Dune has been. Like Oppenheimer wasn't killers, wasn't a lot of anatomy of a fall. These are really big, critically glorious films, but they're not being treated this way. So it is these kind of blockbuster films that are getting this treatment particularly. Yeah.
And I think there will always be, um, a few of us brave people who go on the pods and say, June 2nd, June 2nd sucks. No, I think I think it's a very valid argument. I think you guys, um, kind of covered both sides. I do think, yeah, it ultimately should be about the balance. Like, you know, I remember when I went to the Saltburn screening and I was like, oh, this is really weird. Like, this is it was such a like, almost like party like atmosphere in the cinema. And this was like two weeks before
it came out. And then like when it was lights up, um, I saw like several I would say like 60% of the crowd was like influences who I knew and not recognized. And then, like, would, you know, a day later saw
their content on online. And I guess it'll be about the balance that you don't want to kind of like flood it with that, you know, very I know it's like so tempting for these movie companies to get the influencers in to be like, oh, they'll, you know, you do three posts to your 200,000 followers about how great Saltburn is and blah, blah, blah. But, um, I don't ever think we'll see, you know, the full watering down of the critical, you know, uh, culture.
Yeah, I hope, I hope so. And you guys are right. I mean, we are very lucky to get great access to these movies. We get to watch them earlier, as do critics. And we often get great access to stars and talent. So I'm not saying that this is the end of good film criticism, but something about the way that the Dune stuff operated, on one hand super smart
from the studio and is clearly paid off. But I just can see like like Paul Atreides with his with his, you know, spice vision, a darker path ahead if we follow this one too far down the track, but one to watch, I reckon.
I mean, I don't know what that metaphor means.
So something about talking about a worm, I think. Yeah.
Blue liquid.
Um, look, one other thing we wanted to, to touch on, um, was a show that I mentioned in the Impress Your Friends segment last week, uh, called Shogun. It's had a pretty big response internationally, making a lot of comparisons to Game of Thrones and even succession. The ringer called it high stakes event TV at its finest. The Washington Post says that Shogun is what thrillers or wish they were. It's a show made by FX in the in the US.
It's the home of shows like Atlanta Legion, It's Always Sunny, but this feels like that leveling up. It's one of their most epic, intense shows yet, airing on Disney+ in Australia. And if you didn't catch me talking about it last week, very quick summary. It's set in Japan in the 1600s. It follows an Englishman who ends up shipwrecked in the country and quickly becomes ensnared in political intrigue as this group of five Japanese regents who rule over the country
trying to politically outdo and backstab each other. Thomas, you've since watched Shogun. What did you think?
Yeah, I am really into it. Um, it feels, I guess, like the closest thing we have to prestige TV right now. Um, it just it just does such a good job of setting up this world. It's not really like an easily accessible world at, like, on paper, but you so quickly get, like, drawn into the power struggles of these five different kind of like families or regions. And, you know, it is those themes that we love consistently. From the shows that
we love. And, you know, we talked about comparisons to succession and, you know, whether or not that's accurate, I don't know. But like this power vacuum that is suddenly, you know, has this ripple effect is so intoxicating, I think. And on top of that, I also think like the way they do the era is really great. And yeah, I the first two episodes are actually pretty dense as well. Like in terms of trying to figure out exactly what's
going on. And there is so many different characters. But yeah, I, I'm very into this. I'm on the Shogun train now.
Oh my gosh, it is so graphic too.
This is like video game level violence.
And it did remind me of our Murray Scorsese episode. We talked about his film silence, which is also set in a similar period. And if you liked that film, you will love Shogun, because it actually picks up on a lot of those themes and the exact same kind of rough and ready landscape, the kind of collapse and building of civilizations. It's, uh, it's pretty gripping viewing.
Yeah, I get I get the Game of Thrones comparisons, particularly the violence, the unexpected violence, this sort of sex and stuff. But the creators have said, look, we want this to be considered along shows like succession and House of cards as well. And I get that too, because while there is, you know, there like some really great action sequences, so much of it is like conversations and rooms and this, this web that continues to grow of
double dealing and like Catholic missionaries playing both sides. There's so much complexity and denseness to this story, but I think it's done in a way that's more, uh, I guess, welcoming to outsiders and something like June, like they really explained things to you, which really helps, particularly the first
couple of episodes. I feel like I get this world and the stakes and I'm really in, uh, I, I also think the way it's shot is really interesting that you said it's, you know, one of the few prestige shows out right now. Thomas, I kind of agree, even though there are like other hyped shows, you know, there's the regime with Kate Winslet that's out on, um, out
on binge, the HBO show. But the way that this show is filmed, the lighting, the directing, the sequences, the performances, it feels like this last kind of we're making a movie into a TV show over eight parts and come along for the ride.
Yeah, you're like totally in that environment with them, with the rough waters and the jungle and the kind of you're they do such a good job at making you feel like you're in that moment.
Yeah, it feels expensive. And also I, I've had like a lot of people, um, like texting me about it, like I can the word of mouth on this show is, like, really kicking off over the last couple of weeks. Like it it feels like it could be in 5 or 6 episodes. People are like, oh, fuck. Shogun. This is like the show for the year.
So the esteemed friends you quoted before who didn't like.
June, are they into Shogun?
Correct? Yeah. They've given Shogun the tick of approval.
Interesting.
Well, let's keep an eye on it, because I do think you're right. I think more people will jump on, and it may be worth doing, like a deeper dive and some character analyses and and that sort of fun thing. So yeah, we're all going to send the Shogun train, it sounds like. All right, folks, the 96th Academy Awards are nearly here. They are airing during the day on Monday, the 11th Australian time. All three of us are fans of the Oscars. We love cinema. We love award shows.
We love the celebration of film culture and everything to do with the moving image with some sound attached to it. We love it when the Oscars get it right. We love it when they get it wrong. We love it when they do both on the same night, which they basically always do. Today we're going to do a deep dive on this year's awards. We're going to take a look at the state of the race, how the campaigns for each film playing out, and we'll unpack exactly how
the awards work. And we'll also make some predictions that you can hold us to next week when we do a special Oscars reaction podcast, dropping in your feeds on Monday evening. I actually thought, before we start talking about this year's awards, it'd be fun to read out this passage from a book. Mel Michael Shulman's Oscar was the one that you and I both enjoy.
Favorite book?
It's about the history of the Oscars, and early on in the book he asks, like, what are the Academy Awards anyway? And he says that the closest thing America has to royalty, they're the only thing forcing Hollywood to factor art into commerce. They're a marketing ploy, propping up a multi-billion dollar business there, a method, however dubious, of organizing movies into canon. They're a game. They're a relic.
They're a fashion show. They're a horse race. They're an orgy of self-congratulation by rich and famous people who think too highly of themselves. They're the gay Super Bowl. I thought that is like, awesome, because all of those statements are right. And I think they explain why these awards are so fascinating to watch and to talk about, both as a spectacle, but both as a statement on this big question that we talk about every show, how culture is made and received in the world right now.
Yeah, just hearing that made me excited.
Yeah.
So. So now we've got that kind of summary out of the way. I thought it'd be fun if the three of us started with sharing some of our favorite Oscar moments from recent years. What are the bits that stand out that you still think about that make you think, God damn, I love this insane group of people and what they get up to? Mel. Jonah, do you want to go first?
Well, I have to say one of them that I think still the influence still continues to loom large on our culture was Ellen's selfie, which turns ten this year?
Um, this week, I believe. Two days ago. Yeah.
Of course. Yeah. So, um.
Remind us.
Of the selfie.
No, I mean, it's a bit. Ellen. Probably. Now, we know she probably bullied everyone into doing it and smiled the whole way. So it's kind of a bit tinged now, but, um, Ellen just happened to take that, you know, seemingly random selfie. Probably ten years ago. We were all just discovering selfies, right? And it had the who's who of Hollywood in it. Everyone from Meryl Streep to Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence was in it, Brad Pitt all like in a kind of
Renaissance style, scattered composition. And it was just kind of captured a moment in time in Hollywood so perfectly. And since then it's obviously been ripped off multiple times. Everyone's kind of done their own version of the Ellen self, and it became a trend at other events as well.
It's so funny that selfie, because you're right, it had this chokehold on the on the world. But now you look back, you're like that is so cringe. Like who cares? The photo looks like depressing Kevin Spacey. There's a few people there that have not aged well, but now it's like you just couldn't see that going ballistic the way that that did.
No, I feel like if you saw it, you'd probably mock them and criticize them for the ostentatious ness of it all. Um, of course, at the moment that I think we'll never get past from the Oscars is the slap. Um, not the Crystal talkers book, though we can talk about that later. The 2022, um, Will Smith, Chris Rock, I'm out here.
Oh, Richard. Oh, wow. Wow.
Will Smith just smack the shit out of me.
Name out your mouth.
Wow, dude. Yes, it was a G.I. Joe.
My wife's name. I remember we were all in the office, I think, when it happened. And it was. The response was. So no one really understood what was going on.
I was famously not in the office. I'd been helping live blog at all day and went to get a sandwich and was like.
What could.
Happen here? And I got my phone starts blowing up. It's like, you know, Will Smith just slap Chris Rock. I'm like, ah, I was like George Clooney at the opening of Ocean's 12. And Julia Roberts calls and he throws the flowers away and just gets back, runs back in.
It was like a BLT. Yeah, yeah, just enjoying himself.
It was so funny. You mentioned Crystal Soakers because I can remember who it was. Someone in our team had an idea to message Crystal and see if he would comment on the slap, and and I did. He decided to not buy it. Actually.
That is such a good idea and I think we should ask him again.
I actually, I actually just found the message. He said, Hi Osman, I think the wisest thing for me to do is let the memes take care of themselves. Hope that's okay. Don't hesitate to ask me anything. My best Christmas.
That's a great message.
Speaking of the time, I asked Helen Garner to write about the Kardashians and.
Which I still.
Believe would have been a remarkable.
Can you bring this up often?
She just replied one line. No, not for me. Um, yeah, but do you remember? We were all very confused about whether it was a joke at first or like whether it was staged. There was at least a kind of a few minutes where everyone was kind of confused about whether it was set up, one of those kind of interactive.
Yeah. It just seemed so outrageous that.
It actually happened.
I remember shortly after that Osbourne was like, you have to write this anatomy of the slap piece, where I broke it down into like, it was like, you know, it was like a replay of a of a football game or something and like, broke it down piece by piece. And we got like vision made up. And that was another one of those times where I'm like, I used to be somebody. And now here's one of those.
Times where you said, oh, do I have to? And then it became one of the most beautiful and best read.
It actually did absolutely pop up. What would have been like, is this.
Even a story?
Um, funnily.
Enough, my Oscars moment comes from the same year I present to you two words. Ladies and gentlemen, Adele.
Naseem, please welcome the wickedly talented one and only a dozen.
Aside from the fact I love Travolta, I also love late era Travolta because he's just, like, fucking careening out of control. He's a pilot whose face doesn't move. Um, everything he does is hilarious. But the fact that, you know, we can still have something like the Oscars, which is the most heavily coordinated, one of the most watched black cultural events in the world, and you can still have
these hilarious slip ups. It's very funny. Obviously, it was when John Travolta went up on stage to introduce, um, actor and songstress Idina menzel. Um, who was going to, you know, perform Let It Go from frozen. And he obviously he's I guess his logic is that he misread the phonetic spelling of her name on the teleprompter, and he said, Adele, dizzy. And I was just like, what the fuck, Travolta? Um, and, you know, funnily enough, it was. Yeah,
it was ten years ago. Two days ago, I think. Um, so Idina menzel went on Instagram to wish Adele regime a happy.
Happy 10th birthday, which was very funny.
Um, so yeah, that's my one that stands out.
It's funny that all of ours are kind of fuckups, like no moments, just like, wow, the first so-and-so to win an Oscar because mine is my favorite moment of all time. The 2017 Moonlight La La Land clusterfuck, which which, if you don't remember, Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty were announcing the winner of Best Picture. Everyone knew it was down to La La Land and Moonlight. That was like
shades of the 2009 VMAs. It's kind of like clash of of race and culture and films and what stories matters, this beautiful, queer black story that just looked stunning compared to this movie about Hollywood. You know, I'm not a big La La Land guy, you guys know that. And then they announced that it's La La Land. All the producers jump up, everyone's celebrating. It's pretty exciting. Then Jordan Horowitz, the producer, looks at the envelope and says, there's been
a mistake. Moonlight, you guys won Best Picture.
We lost, by the way. But, you know.
I'm sorry. No, there's a mistake. There's a mistake. Moonlight. You guys won best picture. Moonlight won.
This is not a joke. This is not a joke. I'm afraid they read the wrong thing. This is.
This is not a joke. Moonlight has won Best picture. Moonlight Best Picture.
I watched that clip multiple times a week. It gives me chills. No one knows what's going on. It is insane. How do they get it wrong? I was liveblogging those awards for a different company I was working for at the time. I did the same thing I made you do, Thomas. I did like an anatomy of it screenshots, time frames, where it all went wrong. It was just so good and I love that it lives on in Oscars history.
And again, it's just like, how does this happen? Not since the winner of Australia's Next Top model has.
Such a disaster, but like, yeah.
I mean, it just was like that heart in the mouth moment. Similar, I guess, to to the Will Smith thing. Like everything in our world really is often so like scripted and expected and there's not much room for chaos. And so when stuff like that happens, especially at these moments where, you know, like much of the world is watching, it's just it's kind of beautiful.
Yeah.
I like the, you know, there's no chaos until there is chaos and then it's absolute chaos.
And because this involves like people who make the best films in the world, you think they can get a broadcast, right? They can produce a ceremony. So I think you're spot on. I think that element of chaos is why we love the alive award ceremony as much as, like, who actually wins and loses.
Yeah. Gosh, it would be good to have a like a kind of documentary of what went on behind the scenes after that kind of is.
It Warren Beatty is that.
Really old and can't.
Fucking say anything anymore? Yeah, yeah it is.
He did, I think I think from memory, like he took the wrong envelope. He took it Emma Stone's envelope for Best Actress, and he was confused and it had La La Land on it. And he's like, well, I guess that's the best picture. And so that's what happened.
If I.
Say it with confidence.
They'll believe me.
Now. Warren Beatty rules like good on him. And it led to a very funny moment. So very happy for everyone involved. Except, anyway, moonlight got the award. That's what matters.
Um.
Speaking of awards, I thought it'd be interesting to do a bit of a reflection on last year's awards. Uh, I think they're actually an interesting case study into how the Oscars work and why some movies and actors and directors win, when it might not necessarily seem super obvious. It's a good way to kind of ground ourselves before we talk about what could happen this year on Monday. So last year, 2023 was basically a sweep for everything everywhere,
all at once. It won Best Picture, Best Director for the two, Daniels, Best Original Screenplay for the Daniels Best Editing, Best Actress for Michelle Yeoh, Best Supporting Actor for Kwan, and Best Supporting Actress for Jamie Lee Curtis. It was ultimately just one shy of what we call in the business the Big five. When a film wins Best Picture, best director, best screenplay, actor and actress, that's only happened
three times in history. Uh, it happened One Night, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and The Silence of the lambs. Last one was 1991. So I watched this movie again, like late last year after all the awards. And honestly, I found it like a bit harder to sit through than the first time I remember thinking the first one. This is pretty wacky and fun. It's kind of interesting, but do you guys think a year on that? It kind of stacks up that this movie won so many Academy Awards?
I haven't gone back and watched it, and I have to say I enjoyed it at the time and same as you. I found it kooky and different, and it wasn't like anything else that was out at that time of the year, and it had an interesting cast. Um, but it really did seem that that year it was kind of just on point. And I think we do
see this with the Oscars often. One film kind of steals a lot of the oxygen, and it gets all the hype in the build up to the Oscars campaign and the kind of vibe is on its side, and then it sweeps a lot of them. And then, you know, it doesn't particularly always age well. I still think this film is really good. Do I think it would have
won all those Oscars this year? Probably not, because I think the mood is different that we're in right now, and I think its success was a direct reflection of kind of the world that was voting for it and created it at the time. So no, I think it was like pretty limited to that year. And that moment and wouldn't necessarily have the same success at another time. What do you think, Thomas?
I think Top Gun Maverick was robbed, which I think was like obvious. No, like I yeah, I don't really love everything everywhere all at once. Like, not as much as everyone else seems to. I do like in my most cynical part, I think, oh God, was the Oscars. Just like, did they see a big opportunity to, like, write some maybe historical wrongs and just kind of like hand out, you know, in this one year, like, make themselves feel better about their checkered history. I do think
there were better films. Um, and I especially think Jamie Lee Curtis, which I know will get on to. But that was like a fucking stitch up of a win. I think that was them playing catch up. Uh, and also I think similarly, Cate Blanchett sadly, was the best actress that year and she was robbed. So that's my thoughts on it. But this is this is a problem that the Oscars faces. It's a vicious cycle they're stuck in.
And and yeah, I mean time will tell if Oppenheimer basically does the same thing this year, I think it will go even further. Um. Yeah, it's a funny thing. And I think what you said is right, Mel, sometimes we go into this season and the way, you know, the major kind of critic awards go and the Globes and stuff, and by the time we get to Oscars, it's like, well, this is the way that everyone like, this is the way the wind is blowing. So it's like an inevitable.
Yeah. I'm glad you brought up those kind of make good Oscars, as I call them, where someone gets rewarded because the Oscars want to rectify a historical either injustice or someone's turn. Right. They've been this big part of Hollywood for so long, they haven't gotten an Oscar, and so they give it to them. But what that really does is it then creates another example of someone who probably deserved it, didn't get it, that they have to, like, make good down the track. And I think there were
a few of those examples with with everything everywhere. I thought like the acting categories is so interesting because they give you a bit of a snapshot of how different narratives can can lead to a performance that you might not think as being the best performance. Winning Michelle Yeoh is an interesting example. Was she better than Cate Blanchett in Tar like? I don't think so. I think Tarr was an astonishing movie, and I thought Cate Blanchett did
an extraordinary job. But the Oscars aren't just like a liberal who was the best in a movie. There's all these questions and and conversations and in historical threads, like Blanchett, for example, has an Oscar, Michelle Yeoh hasn't won an Oscar, and if she was to win, which she did, she would have become and did become the first East Asian woman to do so. Right. So that's like a big a big factor in that. And I think everything everywhere was was really wrapped up with the identity politics of
that movie and the story it told. Then. Kwan, who won Best Supporting Actor, it was sort of similar, like you could argue, and I probably would, that both Barry Kuhn and Brendan Gleeson gave more compelling performances in Banshees of Inisherin like Kwan was fine, but he had this amazing comeback narrative, right? He was basically written out of
Hollywood because of racism for decades and decades. He gave powerful speeches when he won at other awards, and it just became a story of like, we've got to rectify the injustice we did to win. Sorry, Barry and Brendan, and you mentioned Jamie Lee Curtis Thomas like that feels like a total just like Jamie Lee Curtis. Thank you for everything you've done for Hollywood. Take this award because
she's like, that role is fine. I don't think she thought when she was doing it she was going to be up for an Oscar, right?
Definitely not.
Yeah. But I do think we have to be careful in a way, because you're speaking about like the Oscars decided and it is like a member voted award. You know.
We'll get into all of that.
Yeah. All right. Yeah.
Because I think that that yeah. It's not like the an institution is necessarily being like, you deserve this. It's like people voting. Not that there can't be campaigns and there's not like kind of groupthink in that, but maybe we'll, uh, I can maybe we'll pin that. I feel like there's more to be said.
I just for the second time, this podcast wanted to quote the ever wise Rob Moran because he wrote about this recently about award ceremonies playing catch up. And he said, call it the who are effect the West. Sorry, Mr. Pacino, we didn't watch Dog Day afternoon in the 70s because of cocaine. Here, take this for scent of a woman.
And it's very true. And yeah, and, you.
Know, it's funny, I was watching DiCaprio's acceptance speech for winning for The Revenant, which is not his best film. He was a six time nominee. He probably should have won for The Departed. And, you know, he got the the Oscar for The Revenant. Same thing with Scorsese winning for The Departed instead of Goodfellas. Like, the list is endless. Uh, and, you know, again, I'll quote Rob here, who actually recalled the very recent and very wise words of Jay-Z, who
said these organizations at least have to get it close to. Right.
Yeah, yeah. And I think it's good to have that history. And I think that's why Michael Shulman's book is so interesting, because for people who have just like, jumped on the Oscars train and are really excited about what it says, they always do weird things like, do not look to them to be an objective, you know, decider of what the best film or the best performance are, that they're a political organization in the sense that. And you're right, Mel,
we're about to get into how they're deciding things. But everyone in the academy, the near 10,000 members, have their own personal views and biases. A lot of them don't watch every movie. And yes, there are campaigns and narratives that push people in certain directions, but they're very fallible. They'll be the first to admit that they've made outrageous.
Troy Green Book won an Oscar, Driving Miss Daisy beat Do the Right Thing, and it's almost because they get things wrong a lot that I think it's so interesting to talk about, because it'd be kind of boring if they just nailed it all the time.
I do think, too, that, like, really good stuff is often not appreciated in its time, which speaks to some of what we're saying about people being recognized well after the moment of their art. Like great art, doesn't necessarily shine in the moment. What's the kind of the marry the age widow in the next, which I always talk about, like, you know, if you're so on point as an artist, I don't know, sometimes you don't necessarily last the test
of time. And I guess some of these historical revisions are people being recognized later on for the influence and significance they had then, but it wasn't appreciated.
Yeah, I think that's a really good point. All right, let's let's, um, let's break down how these awards are actually decided. What do you guys know about how the Academy decides who is nominated and who wins?
They don't just ask Warren Beatty.
And I know the very respectable PricewaterhouseCoopers is doing the auditing.
So that's are not always to be found.
I don't have I don't know if I know I don't like I'm sure when you inevitably tell me in about two minutes I'll be like, oh yeah, I did know that, but I don't think I know exactly how it works.
I do know, but it's very complicated. So I'm going to hand over to Osmond. He's read this book called Oscar Wars.
I might.
Be able to, uh, he might be able to.
Shine. Let me tell you.
I've gone super deep. And even if you go in the Academy's website when they explain voting and stuff, it's very superficial. And me being like a kind of, I guess, election numbers nerd as well, was really fascinated in the specific mechanics of all of this. So. So I've gone pretty deep and it turns out it is super fascinating. Uh, believe it or not. But I think the first thing we should say and this this is to your point, all these awards are like are not judged. They are
voted on. And by that I mean no one gets together and says, okay, so we've all watched these movies. Now let's sit down in a room for a couple of hours and debate what deserves a nomination. And and a win like this is an anonymous ballot. Obviously, people talk to each other about what they think is good, and we'll get into campaigning later on. But the nominations and the winners are the result of like thousands of
discreet votes. It's more like an election than like a literary awards judging panel where you just debate and decide these things. And so who, who, who votes? The Academy is made up of just under 10,000 people from all around the world. It's actually a 60% increase from around a decade ago. And that big increase happened because the academy was trying to diversify its membership in terms of gender, race and nationality. Each of those members is divided into
different branches. It's like actors and the acting branch directors are in the directing branch, etc. and when you get to voting, this is where it gets really interesting. There are two rounds of voting. First is deciding who the nominees are. Each branch gets to vote on the eligible movies to decide who's nominated, and every category has got five nominees except for Best Picture, which is ten, and
everyone gets to vote on that. So basically, if you're a director, you get to decide who the nominees for Best Director are. If you're a writer, you decide on Best screenplay. The method used this is where, like Nerdy Brain is. And if you're an Australian political science fan, you're definitely going to want to turn the volume up on this one. The method used to vote and decide on the nominees is a system called proportional preferential voting. Where have you heard that before, Thomas?
Succession? No. Like when we vote in the federal election.
Yes. That is the system used to elect the Senate in Australia.
You're going to Canberra. You always wanted to go. You're going.
It was always my next posting.
Every federal election, we elect six senators from every state using proportional preferential voting. And that is the same system the Academy uses to decide the nominees. How cool is that?
Pretty cool.
I think it's really cool. I think it's really cool because Australia is it's.
Really Senate electoral system is like kind of. It's pretty rare in the Anglosphere and America doesn't use it famously for its federal elections. And I think it's kind of wacky that the Oscars are like, cool, let's use the insane Senate system to decide our nominees. So that's a fun one.
That is a fun one.
Thank you for encouraging me on this. Um, okay. So then when you have your nominees, it's time for the second round of voting. And I think a lot of people don't know that the second round where you decide who actually wins takes place in late February, and it only goes for like about a week. People lodged their ballots online. And this time everyone is allowed to vote in every category. So doesn't matter if you're an actor, director and editor or writer, you can vote on every
single award. The voting system this time is much more straightforward. It's just first past the post, which is the system they use in the US presidential election. Whoever gets the most votes wins, even if they don't get over 50%. You're following me on that one? Yep, yep. The exception, however, is Best Picture, where they use preferential voting so you can number your ballots from 1 to 10, which is just like the system we use for the House of Representatives.
So basically the Oscar system. Is pretty akin to the system we use to elect Australian Parliament.
And what do you take? What is.
So meaningful.
To you?
What isn't it cool like? I mean, maybe it's not cool. Maybe I'm the only person the Venn diagram of the Oscars and the Australian political system. But I just found that out, like in the last few weeks, that specifics of how the voting works and the fact that it mirrors something that we are so familiar with, but most
Americans have no idea about is really interesting. And when you when you hear Academy like employees talk about this, they're like, most voters have no idea how any of this works that's so unfamiliar, even though they can put preferences down. They don't, because I just don't understand how
preferences work. But why? Why, I guess it's relevant is up until a few years ago, the Academy only had five Best Picture nominees, and when they expanded it to ten, they realized they had to include preferences because you could end up with a situation where one film gets 12% of the vote and becomes Best picture, even though 88%
of people didn't think it was the best one. So they had to change the mechanism to make sure that the actual best picture is reflective of what most people think is the best picture, if that makes sense.
Yeah. That does.
That actually is surprisingly interesting.
I'm so glad you said so. I was worried I was losing you guys, but I think understanding these things helps you understand why sometimes you get divergences right between best picture and actors and actresses, and also makes me really fascinated to look at what I would love them if they somehow someday decided to release the raw votes for these movies. Like how many votes did a certain movie a certain actress get to get the award? It's super interesting.
The podcast is just increasingly becoming like Osborne's fringe interest each week.
I feel like we, both you and the awards.
Are not a fringe interest, my.
Friend. No, no no no.
But frankly, that's what it's always been. So yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
Because you didn't do history and I'm at uni. Right. So now we're kind.
Of yeah.
We're up to date.
Okay. So that's like the system. That's how it works. But in reality the actual process or I guess the campaigning, the way that this plays out behind the scenes and in front of the screens is way more interesting than just like how votes are tabulated by PricewaterhouseCoopers. I want to ask you guys about campaigning. Like we see this happen. We are kind of sometimes part of it, right? Where you get a PR person saying, hey, can you do an interview with this actor or actress or director? They
want that person part of the narrative. They want that person talking about all the specific things they did to make this movie so good. Because Oscar voters and there are lots of Australian Oscar voters in the Academy might be swayed by that and might vote for that person. How do you guys feel about campaigning more generally? And also, any interesting highlights from the campaign for this year's Oscars that are stood out to you?
Yeah, I do think it's a little less for the Oscars than it has been previously for the Golden Globes, because for the Golden Globes, you have to be a member of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. And then they really do sometimes only give access to actors, to people who are part of that association, um, knowing that they will be voting. So the Oscars is slightly different just because of the sheer number of people who can vote.
But I mean, yeah, you do see the momentum and the push that develops behind these films, and none of it just kind of rarely does it grow authentically, as
we were obviously talking about earlier in the pod. So like I would say, like in some ways Saltburn isn't on the list for, um, nominated for best films, but I reckon that was kind of quite a momentous push to try to get that to be part of the Oscar conversation, the way that that films kind of suddenly took off at the box office speaks to like, a marketing campaign that was rolled out and kind of capitalised on what was going on in the conversation to push
it back to the forefront. So I do feel I do think you see some of those smaller films and then in the bigger films like, you know, with Scorsese, Christopher Nolan, Yorgos Lanthimos, you know, the huge stars are everywhere in the lead up to the releases of these films. Um, the releases are kind of tied to the start of the Oscar voting. Often, though, in Australia we get them
at a different time. Um, so yeah, I mean, I think you can see that the campaigns do push certain films to the forefront of public discussion, and then they're often the films that are then reflected in the Oscars.
Yeah, I think it's funny. Like I remember last year, um, our colleague Meg, who is currently on maternity leave, but like just a week before the Oscars, they just, like, made Austin Butler available to her. Do you remember that she did a really long sit down with Austin Butler like he was? He was in the middle of a very intense campaign, uh, to win Best actor for Elvis. He was probably the best shot that film had at
a big award. And yeah, like I remember even saying to yours, like, it's so weird that Austin Butler is just, like, got like 45 minutes the week before the Oscars because they were just, like, really putting him out there to like, push hard. And, you know, he kind of was it was a great interview. You should go back and check
it out. But yeah, it is interesting that, you know, even though we kind of look at these awards and think everything's maybe like preordained or it all feels so far away, like it is still such a big campaigning thing and you've ever spent time in especially like in the. Around any kind of, like, awards season. Like, we don't get it as much over here because we're not like, obviously in the ecosystem, but like over there, it's like
the full billboards, like for your consideration. And, you know, on TV the ads are like relentless, like it's the, the constant pushing down your throat of the message of like vote and like it's just like pushing the awareness. And we don't really get it here as much. It's a very strange thing to say.
Yeah. And, and all these studios have got big budgets for not just marketing movies, but for the Oscars specifically. Like for those ads, they also more often in the States than elsewhere, but also elsewhere, particularly as the Academy has become more internationalized. We'll host events and they'll get the actors and the directors there, and they'll it's like a political campaign. There are rules around campaign finance, like what you can and can't spend money on, and people
will shake hands. There was, uh, someone telling a story on a podcast I was listening to where they're like, I'm voting for. I think it was Robert De Niro. No, it was Robert Downey Jr, because he just came up to me and said, hey, I'm Robert Downey Jr. How's your day going? He's like, great, I'm voting for him.
So I think this goes to the point of like, it is just like 10,000 weird film nerds or people that used to make films, in some cases, voting on these things based on sometimes what they think is good, sometimes like an interview that they read that really compelled them, and sometimes who was nice to them, like a la, you know, luncheon event. That is a really interesting campaign move by, I think, neon, who distributed anatomy of a fall. And I don't want to give too much away, but
the dog in that movie plays a few crucial roles. Uh, the dog's real name is messy. They brought that dog to the Oscars luncheon, and so every actor wanted to take a selfie with it. All the media, like, took photos of it. And so all of a sudden, for a week in the key voting period, everyone is talking about anatomy of a fall, like those kinds of tricks are used just to get your film in front of people.
And it would be interesting to see actually, how many voting Australians we have in in the Oscars, because it could speak to how much access we get to these people, and also to the release dates of films here. Because if they're looking at Australia as a smaller or larger voting bloc, I think it would kind of determine how films are rolled out here. I don't I don't think we do have those numbers, but it would be fascinating.
I would love to have the more data on this stuff, the better. And I, you know, maybe I will start a consultancy on the slide just helping rally votes for different movies. Um, the other part to this, I guess story is, is what we call the precursor awards. And Thomas, you were you were talking about these before. Like you can sort of basically start to predict what happens at the Oscars by looking at things like the Golden Globes,
the Critics Choice, the Directors Guild, the SAG Awards. You want to talk a bit about that?
Yeah. Like the there's. It's funny, certain awards seem to carry more weight. Um, but like awards season generally you start to get an idea of like which films are the ones that seem to be leading the way and specifically in like, you know, like best actor and actress and supporting actor and actress. You really get a sense of like, who the voters are going with. Or if it's a two horse race, we can start to see like, okay.
But like critically, you know, the Critics Choice are going with, uh, you know, let's say Cillian Murphy and Oppenheimer, whereas SAG has gone with Paul Giamatti and The Holdovers. And and it's really funny because we talked about it last week in a story SAG especially, which is one of the last awards of the season. Very like the overlap with the Oscars winners is like almost like for like, um,
so that's often a big one. But yeah, we have this full awards season now that by the end of it, um, you know, the Oscars is kind of the cherry on top, but it almost robs us of, of, of the mystery because it's like, well, really it's going to come down to like, you know, 1 or 2 films and there's going to be 1 or 2 categories where we maybe don't know, but we're pretty sure, like, you know, it's
created this system whereby the mystery is gone a little bit. But, uh, yeah, basically come March, um, the whole industry has an idea of like, you know, if you're just turning up as a nominee and you know, you're not like, there's not a chance you're winning.
Yeah. And if you look at like the kind of the what the, the odds that the betting companies are putting on it like everyone. Well, the, the gamblers are pretty sure that they know who is winning every single category at this point when it comes to the Oscars.
Yeah, the bookies odds for this year's like pretty depressing. If you go and look at it like it doesn't it doesn't doesn't like make you want to watch the Oscars a bunch because it's like, well, they know who's going to win.
Well, I think that very neatly brings us to this year's awards. Let's start by listing the ten nominees for Best Picture. Uh, they are, in no particular order, American fiction. And actually, I lied. They are in alphabetical order. I was about.
To say that's quite clearly alphabetical.
Uh, American fiction. Anatomy of a fall. Barbie. The holdovers. Killers of the Flower Moon. Maestro. Up and Huma, Past Lives, Poor Things, and The Zone of Interest. And how do we feel about that list? It's so interesting, because I feel like there are a couple of movies where at certain moments, I was like, that's probably going to win. Like when killers of the Flower Moon came out, it felt like cool, this big epic Scorsese thing that he
really pulled off. But then Oppenheimer drops, you know, the zone of interest drops. Things start to shift a little bit. What are your thoughts on on the list of nominees, and do you think anything's missing from it?
I'm pretty happy with that list. I think that does hit the big ones. There are two that, and I don't necessarily believe that they should be on that list, but it is interesting that they haven't got a look in and one.
Bit you think, yeah.
Best actress for sure. Um, Napoleon.
Huge. You're obsessed. Are you talking in. Oh, that's so rogue.
Mel.
That's not great.
No it's not. No, no, I don't think it's a great film. But I do think like, it's complete lack of kind of relevance. You know, there was a huge buildup to that film and it's such a big name, a big filmmaker. Are you going to like.
Producing it.
On Napoleon and.
Like, getting money in the back end? Yeah, yeah.
I train the horse. Um, and the other one that maybe I could see being on best Film. Priscilla I liked that film. Um, Sofia Coppola's Priscilla. Um, I could see it sitting on there, like, as comfortably as some of the others on that list. So I thought they were too kind of notable absences. Um, not that I think they deserve to win. Um, but yeah, I could have seen them on that list.
What about you, Thomas?
Uh, yeah. I've been banging this drum for a while. You guys are going to both laugh at me. I reckon fair play. Should have got a nomination for Best Picture.
I'm obsessed with that film.
You're always talking about it.
Well, I actually am, but it was. It was a good film, and it suffered from, like, being a Netflix release. Um, and I think it could have easily slotted in there. Um, Chloe directed and I thought the two leads were great, and I just thought it was a really interesting, like, film for our time. And it kind of just like, didn't get the credit it deserves. Uh, but yeah, that would have been my audition.
Yeah. Mine one is the Iron Claw. The, um, Zac Efron, uh, Jeremy Allen White wrestling movie. Um, I thought that movie was astonishing. I think the reason for it not getting nominated or not really having much of a campaign, it's an A24 movie like Past Lives and A24 put all
their chips on past life. This, this. You see this happen with small but also big studios like Netflix and, you know, and Apple and whatever they'll be like, this is the movie we're going for, and past Lives is great, and I'm glad it's nominated and I'm glad it's getting love. But the ankle just felt like a really obvious absence in the Oscars conversation to me. Yeah.
Yeah. And I feel like lots of people are saying that post Iron Claw being released. I still haven't seen it. Um, but yeah, like one of the biggest things I've heard people say is that I'm like really shocked it didn't get nominated for Best Picture. So yeah, it's curious that that's been overlooked.
I think it's probably time to talk about the, the, uh, atomic bomb sized elephant in in the room. And this is what you're alluding to, Thomas, with the betting odds looking pretty. Pretty grim. Oppenheimer is just like expected, both through what the bookies are saying and the precursor awards that you were talking about, to sweep basically everything. How do we feel about that?
Ah, I feel like I've got Oppenheimer fatigue a little bit, to be honest. It's the the cultural juggernaut that was Barb and Heimer, um, was amazing to be a part of, and we all really enjoyed it. I mean, Osmond openly wept at the end of, um. Osmond wept openly at the end of Oppenheimer and then saw it again the next day.
It was it was.
June, the original June.
Yeah, it's been.
A big I ended up seeing Oppenheimer at Imax three times, I believe in a week.
Yeah.
But yeah, like it was it was a really cool thing to be a part of. And, you know, maybe just it's just the passing of time. Unfortunately, it's been a while and it feels like Oppenheimer hasn't gone away. And it's a great movie, but I think I find it very like depressing to go into Oscar season and knowing that this film is just going to sweep. And I do have some major issues with some of the categories that it is predicted to sweep in.
I think Oppenheimer is a stunning film, and I've watched it multiple times since, and I think it's incredible work by all the actors, um, and, and the filmmaker. And, but I do think it is maybe one of the safer films on that list. And often safer films do win awards because the more polarizing films.
What do you mean, what do you mean by safe?
I think it's a more traditional film. I think the way Christopher Nolan tells stories. I mean, it's a biopic of an American figure who is his genius kind of is hard to control, who has to reckon with guilt and right and wrong like it is kind of. You're talking about, maestro.
Yeah.
I mean, I yeah, that's kind of a similar genre of film, right? Obviously Christopher Nolan's film is way better. Um, and Cillian Murphy is way better in it. But I do think it's a film we recognize, particularly Hollywood recognizes it's tried and true and tested. And I'm not saying that to take away from how powerful it is, but I think the format is kind of one that universally
people agree on. And when people universally agree on something that's kind of going to win, where is more like, you know, something like poor things is way more divisive, which is probably why we won't see it win. Best film. But this is where.
Again, that catch up cycle comes into play because they're like, oh, we did the weird one last year. Like, we gave you everything everywhere all at once. Like that was you got the crazy A24 one. So this year we'll go back to more something more traditional. I agree with you. I think that, um, it, you know, Oscar bait is a term that gets thrown around a lot lately. But fuck me, Oppenheimer is Oscar bait to a T.
Yeah, I, I see what you're saying. And I think in terms of the great man and and all that sort of stuff, it is traditional. But I also think Nolan and Killian and they did they did so many interesting things in that movie that made it a little bit more interesting than like other previous biopics out of one.
But I think you're right. I mean, like, I think something like killers of the Flower Moon was told in such an interesting way, in such an interesting story that I would have loved to say that have more of a chance against something like Oppenheimer if Oppenheimer wasn't in this race. Do you guys think there's another obvious film that would be sweeping the way Oppenheimer is, or do you think things would be a little bit more disjointed,
like Best Picture could go that way. Best Actor could go in a different way.
I think things would be way more fractured if Oppenheimer wasn't in. I don't reckon there would be another obvious like sweep film, I think. You then say like the big five awards go to, like possibly five different films or these, you know, fractured.
Yeah, I think I think maybe killers might have had more of a shoo in for Best Picture. I do think on Oppenheimer two, it's the narrative. Like if Hollywood is largely voting for this, an American institution, the story of the atomic bomb is something that really speaks deeply to the US, say, psyche and kind of their reckoning of their history and role in the global kind of community,
I think. I don't know, I do think it speaks to that audience very differently as well to the Australian audience, which might be why we're seeing it kind of dominates so strongly.
And also the Academy, the Academy loves movies that are like, oh, wow, like we persecuted communists in the 50s. And that was pretty bad. And war's pretty bad. Like, the Academy does have that small liberal sensitivity that makes Oppenheimer pretty appealing. Film. Mhm. Totally. I thought as a way, it's a little bit more fun to talk about the other categories, rather than just listing who's nominated and debating it. We could play a
little game. So for Best Picture, Best Director, Best actress, Best Actor and the two screenplay categories adapted and original, we could share who we think. We want to win and who we think will win. I have a bit of a chat about those, and then when we do our Oscars kind of review show on Monday, we can. To hold ourselves accountable and see who actually won. How do you guys feel about that?
I'm keen. Love a game.
Well, let's start with Best Picture. I'll go first because I'm probably the most boring on this one. I do like I think I said I like killers of the Flower Moon a lot, but I think Oppenheimer is a great movie. I think it's like, you know, probably my favorite movie of the last year, and I think it deserves to win. I also think it will win. Uh, so happy to just get my boring best picture take out of the way.
Yeah, you need to be in the academy.
Um.
For my what? I want to win. I'm just going purely subjective for all of them. Okay? Like, I'm not even going based on, like, what I think is a good film. It's the film that I liked the best.
Completely uncritically. Yeah.
That's why you're here.
What I think was the actual best film was anatomy of a fall. I think that film was incredible, unlike anything I've probably seen in a while. Interesting concept, interestingly shot, um, very moving and will stick with me for a while. What I think will win.
A bit a bit anti man though, right.
Well yeah yeah yeah this is Oppenheimer. Very all about the man.
So yes I think because we are also as a society all about a man. Oppenheimer will win as we've just full flagged.
Yes. Uh well look I, I think sadly Oppenheimer will win. It is a great film. And I loved Oppenheimer, but I don't think it's the best film. Um, this won't shock you, because I am obviously famous for my emotional intelligence. The film that deserves it most is Past Lives. Uh, that film, you know, you guys were very, very early on it, and you saw it both before me, and you both spoke about how great it was, and I
watched it, and it really it really broke me. I thought it was a beautiful movie, um, in every aspect of filmmaking. And I just think, unfortunately, coming after a year where A24 did so well, I think it suffered from that. Um, but that's who should win. But obviously Oppenheimer will win.
Yeah, I think that's a really good chat. It is a great movie. I think the other thing is the Oscars just generally don't reward debut filmmakers. It's like, good on you. You got your nomination now. Like do your time. One of the exceptions that was Emerald Fennell, who, as we've spoken about before, just bizarrely won Best screenplay for Promising Young Woman, uh, her debut feature. Um. All right, onto Best Director. Yeah. This is the one I thought
long and hard about. I, I do think Scorsese deserves it for killers because of the way he both adapted that movie from the source text, the way he filmed it, the way he opened it and closed it. He just, like, did so many interesting things and pulled off a movie that was both entertaining and gripping. And as far as movies about American history go, we we kind of maybe didn't know all the details about Oppenheimer. We knew the
big picture stuff. I think most people accept that they had no knowledge of what was going on in Oklahoma, uh, in that period of time. So I, I would put in a vote for Scorsese. But I do think Nolan will win just with the Oppenheimer train, uh, trundling on the way that it is.
Oh, you have totally talked me into Scorsese. Like, I remember remembering now the feelings of killers. And I think I would also like to see him when I head down Yorgos Lanthimos, though, for Poor Things. Only because I think when you talk about director, when you look at who took the most risks, who was working with the most kind of interesting source material, who pushed actors and actresses, that furthers the kind of whole aesthetic of that film.
I think in terms of interesting filmmaking, Yorgos Lanthimos takes the takes the prize, but I tend to agree that Christopher Nolan also will probably get the nod from the Academy.
Yeah, I agree, I'm in line with Mel on this one. I think Nolan will win. Um, but I also think, uh, Yorgos deserves it. And not only because the movie is great, but because he is Greek. And let me tell you, the last director to win an Academy Award who is, you know, even like second generation Greek was Elia Kazan in 1954 for On the Waterfront. It's one of the great injustices in cinema. Uh, and, you know.
Obviously, Eli Cezanne was also a rat who betrayed former members of the Communist Party to the House. Uh, Committee on UN activity. Yeah. American activities. What do you.
Have to say about that?
I just say we take the wins where we can get them.
And obviously.
Yorgos was nominated in 2018, our very own George Miller nominated in 2015. But because of systemic racism, we've been overlooked since the 50s. And so.
Uh, both of us outdoing each other on our insane takes. That's great. Okay. Best actor. This is interesting because I don't think this category is that stacked really. Like, I think when I think about some of the best performances of the year outside of Oppenheimer, I'm thinking about anatomy of a fall. I'm thinking about past lives. I'm thinking about, like a lot more performances from actresses. I thought, yeah, Killian, I think just really went for it in, in this.
I think he should win and I think he will win. But interesting. You guys have a different take.
Yeah, I completely, completely agree. Looking at the list, um, who's up for that? Bradley Cooper, Colman Domingo, Paul Giamatti, Jeffrey Wright and Cillian Murphy. Like, I feel like he is. Serving of that for sure.
Do you think Kilian deserves that? This is probably like a should and will, although I will say, and we've had a bit of a chat about this in the office. And I know you fucking hate Maestro and Bradley Cooper. I feel bad for him.
He is. I really do not like that movie and he is annoying me a lot.
Okay, like I quite liked maestro, but also he like, he wants this. He is like, obsessed with winning an Oscar and, you know, like, let him have one.
Yeah, but sometimes.
You want things and you just don't.
Get that. How the world works. Good on you. Do we feel a bit bad.
For Bradley Cooper now? Like he is just he like, no one's working harder for that Oscar than Bradley Cooper.
I think he's been overrated his entire career. And it's time for him to understand his place.
He'll he'll get one now. He will.
He'll do like the hangover 4 in 5 years. And they'll give it to him for that.
I also don't think, like, I didn't mind that film as much as other people seem to, but, um, I don't think his role in it was that impressive, particularly not compared to Killian Murphy's. And I think the best parts of that movie were Carey Mulligan and him in dialogue and conflict with her, like, alone. He did not carry that film.
Yeah, true. But anyway, it's all a moot point because Killian will win.
Well, let's go to Best Actress. And this is one that I changed my mind on, like recently. Um, for a really interesting reason. Sandra Bullock, who is the lead in anatomy of a fall, but is also a really big part of the Zone of Interest, another movie nominated for Best Picture. And I know that people are nominated for like, individual movies, but the fact that she was like, astonishing and too pretty fascinating and interesting and very well made movies, uh, like hats Off to her in the
same year. And I thought she really killed it in both. So I would love to see her win. Uh, I do think, and I'm not upset about this at all. I do think Lily Gladstone will win for killers of the Flower Moon. I know there's like a a lily versus Emma Stone thing going on. I think it's probably the most interesting category where we're not totally sure what's going to happen. Yeah, and I think Lily will win. She's won those awards. Thomas, that you mentioned tend to
overlap the most with the Oscars. It seems like the most likely result.
Yeah, I would really like to see Lily win. I think that what she did with that role, the kind of quiet power of the character she played is, was remarkable and very moving. And I think Emma Stone was fantastic in poor things and like really had to put herself out there as an actress. But it is in many ways a larger than life role versus what Lily Gladstone had to do with holding back, but still managing to convey so much. And I think in terms of acting,
I was more impressed by Lily than than Emma. Um, so yeah, I think she should win. And I reckon she probably will too.
Uh, yeah. I'm pretty sure that Legatum is going to win this category. I know that Emma Stone has kind of been tipped to win it, although just recently the
bookies have like seen Lily move in front. That's interesting. Um, but I also think like it's one of those things where, you know, and like, I think lots of viewers often assume this like the Academy looks at what's happening and then it's like, well, just give out one here to make sure that, like, that film gets its big award and not that, you know, Lily's performance doesn't warrant the award anyway, but this feels like the category where if
killers will, like, get it's just desserts. And and she was amazing in that movie. Emma Stone's already got an Oscar. Like it all just seems to add up that like, I think Lily Gladstone should and will win this category.
So yeah, out of all of those, we basically all agree on who we think will win. Which is interesting because it means that we can't say we're better than the other on Monday. That is annoying. But also, I think speaks to how locked up the race is. A couple more categories to to whip through, which I thought would just add a little bit more uncertainty to the equation. Original and adapted screenplay. So original screenplay is where I think past lives could get a nod. It deserves to
get a nod. It's a great screenplay, like it's we've talked about the movie before, don't need to go into it again. Just beautiful. Simple. Moving like just affected almost everyone I know who saw it. I think the holdovers will probably win just because GMT is like is is is part of this narrative. You know, after he won the Globes, he's being considered as a pretty close second to Killian in Best Actor category. So this could be where The Holdovers manages to to just get to get something.
What do you guys thoughts on Original Screenplay?
I would like to see anatomy of a Fall Win. I think that film is told in a really interesting wow.
You really, really had a.
Big impact on you.
I thought it was pretty incredible. Like, did.
You meet the dog?
Yeah, I would.
Love to. I would yeah.
The dog is great though, isn't how good.
Yeah, what a role I was the whole time. I was like, how did they get it to do that? Yeah. Um, I just think that how that story unfolded, like the kind of slow release of information at the same time as you're slowly starting to doubt people more and more like, I just think, I always think when you watch a film and you can't really see the joints of it like that is when I'm like wondering, how did they do that? How is it working? Like, that's a really good film. Um, so I think I would like to
see that win. I actually think past lives will win. Interesting. Yeah. I think it's a way to acknowledge that. Movie which deserves to be acknowledged, um, to commend and encourage a first time filmmaker. Um, and that could be where it gets its nod, and it is well deserved to.
If there was an award for best use of a steel band cover of $0.50 per amp, I think anatomy of a full should and would win that category.
Yeah, it was in my head.
So like for so.
Long after the.
Film, we could.
Also do some like quite a fun, you know, best dog in a movie.
Yeah.
Do you have one at the.
Top of your head? We'll do it next year.
Anyway, I think Anatomy Before will win Best original Screenplay.
Do you think it should?
I think it should. Yeah. I think it should. Um, but I definitely think it's it's more curious to talk about best adapted. Um, which obviously we'll move on to now because of, you know, I mean, we've discussed this previously. The Barbie element.
Yeah. Well, talk us through that. So Bobby ended up being put into that category because I guess the argument is that Barbie the doll is a source material that is being adapted.
Yeah. So I think I believe it was originally submitted for Best Original because obviously, you know, the world and the story was completely created by, um, you know, Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie and the entire team and Noah Baumbach, Gerwig's husband, who also co-wrote the movie. But then it was pushed into Best Adapted because they made the argument that there was original source material for Barbie. But, I mean, I don't know, it's now up against American fiction, Oppenheimer,
Poor Things, and The Zone of Interest. Uh, pretty stacked field, but luckily, uh, both my should and will line up. Uh, it's a film that we all enjoy, the film that we discussed at length recently, and that is American fiction.
Yeah. I would like to see American fiction when and particularly when you know that the book, Percival Everett's book is kind of written in a book within a book. I think the job of translating that to screen is pretty impressive. And the balancing of the satire with the familial relations, um, was really well done. So I'd like to see that when I reckon Barbie might win this,
it will be controversial. Maybe it'll be the controversial moment of the Oscars, but I do think they might want to give Barbie a bit of a nod, and people might see this category as a way to celebrate that film and Greta Gerwig in her role in it.
If, um, if killers was nominated, I would put in a plug for that. It's bizarrely not, even though I think it's maybe the best adapted screenplay this year, I, I think without that, I agree with you guys on American fiction. Don't be shocked if the zone of interest picks up here. Like, that movie is having a bit of a run at the moment. You know, picked up
a bunch of awards at the BAFTAs. It's really landing with a lot of people, movies that that sort of discuss with or engage with the Holocaust have, have generally been pretty, you know, well received. Seems like a weird term to use. But the Oscars has acknowledged those movies
generally in the past. Spielberg came out and said a very weird thing, that this is like the best Holocaust movie since Schindler's List, which sounds great until you remember that he made Schindler's List and was like, this is the best movie about this topic since the one that I did, so I think that could be an interesting
one to watch as well. Are there any other categories you guys wanted to to mention any, any races or any particular films that we haven't touched on that, uh, deserve a little bit of conversation?
Yes, I, I mean, it's no conversation about the Oscars is complete without getting a little bit parochial and talking about the Australians nominated, uh, obviously Margot was, uh, famously and controversially shut out, even though I think we all agreed that she probably didn't deserve a nomination. Uh, but yes, there are two Australians nominated in one category, which is live action short. So Niki Bentham, a producer of the after, which is on Netflix, and Sara MacFarlane, uh, red, white
and blue. So they're both, uh, two Australian producers up against each other in best live action short. Uh, and actually I haven't seen either of those, but the after is kind of a hot favourite now, and we always love to see Australians do well. So that's Nicki Bentham up against Sara macfarlane in live action short.
Great shout.
We do. And we often the Australians we do really well in cinematography, historically has been where we often shine at the Oscars. Look I for music original song I wouldn't mind seeing. I'm just can get a nod. But particularly I'd like to get a nod over the Billie Eilish song.
Was seriously enough.
With the Billie Eilish thing.
If one is going to get it from Bobby, I want it to be I'm just can.
Yeah, I find the Billie Eilish song so like drab and yeah, I'm just getting way more fun.
And I know the only other category I'm kind of interested in, only because I think a lot of the films we're talking about are so visually stunning is costume design, which we as Australians have also won in the past with Catherine Martin. Like when you look at the list for that Barbie, Poor Things, Killers and Napoleon and then Oppenheimer, which I would say probably isn't quite the same, though it does have stunning outfits like, yeah, who would you
pick for that? They're all such remarkable acts of world building in their costuming.
Totally, totally pull things. Or Barbie winning that would be would be pretty great. All right.
Yeah.
So it's so sad though, when we have a year where, like Mandy Walker or Catherine Martin aren't involved in a film, we're just like, not going to win any Oscars.
Well, Greg Frazier will probably be nominated for cinematography for June part two next year.
Oh my God.
People get to.
Relive it all over again.
I was like, I saw it for the 800th time last week.
And the only other thing that I wanted to mention, I won't go in deep on this one, is Best International Feature Film. I. I love this category, not just because, you know, it's also a category where Australians can sometimes compete,
but the politics of it are the most fascinating. So the way this works, unlike the other categories that I ran through before, each country actually has a system whereby they nominate what the one movie from that country should be in terms of contention for Best International Feature Film. And in Australia, like it's Screen Australia, the government funded screen body that decides other countries have like the ministries
of culture. So like the government picks the movie or they have like industry bodies and panels, it's a pretty interesting screen. Australia not a great track record. I think we've had one movie nominated since this category was introduced in the 90s, but there's actually a bit of drama around the French nominee, which this year was the taste of things, and a lot of people were upset that it wasn't anatomy of a fall because they thought it's
nominated for Best Picture, it's nominated for Best Director. Why is Justine Tree's pretty good movie not in Best International Feature? And essentially there was like a lot of political bullshit that went down at the French body. There was a vote. It was 4 to 3 in favor of the taste of things instead of anatomy of a fall. One of the voters said, can I change my vote? I didn't realize I was going to be the swing vote. And
they're like, no, you fucked up. I'm sorry. And seemingly the reason for it is, like the French film body has more conservative elements within it. And Justine Trier, when she won the Palme d'Or at Cannes since then gave a lot of speeches decrying the French government, accused them of being neo liberal stooges like basically has taken a very strong stance on a number of key issues which potentially alienated her from the French film body and probably
cost France the best international feature Oscar. Because I think if anatomy was in, it would 100% have won this award.
Yeah. That's crazy.
Yeah.
Geopolitics, man. This award rules the Oscars are the best.
Oh, now I'm just like in 2000. Why did Screen Australia not put Wog Boys forward.
That's like it.
But seriously that was like the one time Nick Jonas got funding from Screen Australia is a good movie anyway.
And on that note, we could have wrap up our 2024 Oscars deep dive. So we'll be back on Monday evening with a review and a wrap of the show and discussions of what worked, what went right and what went wrong, and hopefully some upsets to to chew on. But before we sign off, we're we've got our regular Impress Your Friends segment, something we watched read, listened to from the past week that we want to shout out, Thomas, why don't you go first this time?
Yes, this is a Netflix show that's out today. It is the gentleman. This one's been coming for a little while. It's a spin off of the Guy Ritchie film. Um, and firstly, it's got a few things that I think make it really fun. Uh, it's firstly, it's got just a guy Ritchie's DNA all over it. Um, it's like proper gangsters, uh, you know, in London. The soundtrack is amazing. Uh, and the lead actor is Theo James, who, of course, we all know and love from The White Lotus. He's
being very charming. He plays a guy named Eddie who basically his father dies. He he inherits, um, you know, a very impressive farm and house and also a, you know, becomes a duke. Uh, and then, as it turns out, the father had been basically leasing his land out to a nearby drug lord, and things kind of start to unravel from there. But, yeah, like I said, it's if you even have a passing interest in Guy Ritchie, you know, style and aesthetic and tone, this will be right up
your alley. But aside from that, it's also just quite fun. Guy Ritchie can be a lot, but this is like him kind of honed and distilled at his very best. Uh, and that's on Netflix today.
I am going this week with Abbey Morgan's. This is not a. Pity memoir, which is what it says. It is not. It is not a pity memoir. It's a great memoir. Abby Morgan, you might know she's a screamer.
Is this a book?
It is a.
Book, don't you? Don't even say it anymore. No, no.
No, I'm not, I'm not. I'm just checking. You didn't tell me what medium this this item came in. True. It's not a kitty.
When I said.
Memoir twice, maybe. But that also I've stitched up because Thomas doesn't read. It's like I'm doing TV. It's like, well, what's left? Um, you might know her. She's a screenwriter. She did like the Iron Lady suffragette. Shame. The hour, that TV show. Um, so it's a pretty remarkable tale. It's very funny the way it's told. Her husband has M.S., and he goes on an experiment tree, um, drug trial that puts him into a coma. And when he wakes up, he does not realize who she is. He does not
remember her. He is convinced that she is an imposter in the body of his partner. And it's just a fascinating story, but really. Well told and like, kind of heartbreaking, but humorous as well. Um, it's been a very buzzy book. Um, so I think, well, well worth the read.
We low key. We're giving the best book recommendations on this show every week. Thanks to you, Mel. Like booktok. Eat your heart out. This podcast should be going ballistic amongst book lovers. These these recs are great. Like I'm not going to get around to reading it, but it's good for people.
Yeah, yeah, you.
Might need to sit in your guilt for a bit.
Um, mine is a mine's a memoir, uh, Mel. Adapted into a TV show. So, you know, it's important to clarify.
Yeah. Best of both worlds.
Um, so this, uh, show first came out a couple of years ago. It's Tokyo Vice, uh, to brilliant, brilliant memoir, uh, by a American journalist called Jake Adelstein, uh, who moved to Japan when he was quite young and became the first Westerner to work at this big Tokyo newspaper and was a crime reporter embedded with the cops and investigated the Yakuza. Uh, he's played by Ansel Elgort. This show also stars Ken Watanabe. He's amazing. Japanese actor. The second season, uh,
has just been released. I didn't watch the first season when it came out, and I'm kind of rewatching it to catch up. It's really good. Like Michael Mann was originally attached to this. I think he did direct the first episode, but then wandered off the project and it is shot beautifully. It looks great. Japan is an amazing location to to set a sort of gritty police journalist noir sort of story. I would strongly recommend this one.
Yeah, I love that I watched the first season. I thought it was fantastic. The book is really good. The book.
Is. I've read that book and I loved it.
After you're done in Canberra, straight to the, uh, the foreign crime beat, correct? Um, but yes, I'm very much looking forward to the second season of that.
Awesome. Well, we we really covered a lot on this episode. And thank you so much for indulging me. My Oscars, uh, electoral nerdery hopefully people found it interesting and the pubs and the clubs will be a chatter with people saying, did you know, did you know how the Oscars. It's the same way we vote for the Senate. Isn't that crazy? That's my contribution to discourse this this week in Australia.
I'm just happy to get.
My mandated one mention per product.
Thanks, guys. Looking forward to debriefing on Monday night.
See you Monday.
This episode of The Drop was produced by Qi Wang. If you enjoyed listening to today's episode of The Drop, make sure to follow us in your favorite podcast app. Leave us a review or better yet, share the episode with a friend. I'm Usman Farooqui. See you next week!