Peter Rabbit, Mary Magdalene, The Square Film 2018

Hello there.

Welcome to Film 2018,

I'm Clive Anderson.

So I'm Clive and we're live

and tonight, in addition to looking

at three new releases,

we'll be looking back

at the work of Nora Ephron -

writer, director and queen

of the rom-com.

What's your favourite

romantic comedy?

We'd love to hear from you,

so I hope you will get in touch.

But I had you at hello, didn't I?

Details of how to tweet

are on the screen now.

But enough of the foreplay,

coming up tonight:

Carrots, capers and countryside.

Peter Rabbit gets the big screen

treatment starring James Corden,

Rose Byrne and Domhnall Gleeson.

This there is something about Mary.

I'll be with you.

Rooney Mara and

Joaquin Phoenix star in biblical

epic, Mary Magdalene. We'll have

what she's having.

Yes!

We celebrate

the wit and work of Nora Ephron. 25

years on from Sleepless in Seattle.

Men never get this movie.

I know.

Plus, we'll take a look at art

world satire, The Square.

It's very much a case

of When Ellen Met Jason

on the Film Show sofa tonight,

as I'm joined by the ill-matched,

or as it may turn out in the end,

very well-matched film buffs

Ellen E Jones and Jason Solomons.

I hope you are bopping on the sofa?

Thank you for the setup, Clive.

Right, let's get started.

After Paddington 1 and Paddington 2,

the next children's classic

we all want to see is obviously,

well, Paddington 3.

But until that arrives,

we have Peter Rabbit.

Beatrix Potter's naughty,

anthropomorphic bunny,

here the centre of a combined live

action/animated feature with Peter's

voice, and perhaps character,

provided by James Corden -

the British actor turned US talk

show host, who has the daunting

challenge of reinventing a much

loved classic for today's world.

So is it a hit or a myxomatosis?

Let's have a look.

All right, talk to me, Benjamin.

He's mowed half the lawn which maybe

gives us enough time. Look at him

pure evil.

Here is a crazy thought.

What if we don't go in. Last time we

almost got caught.

Peter Rabbit is

based on the Beatrix Potter short

stories.

Take it all in because we

are about to take it all in.

It's

about a quest to try and get back

the land that he feels is rightfully

his.

You all know the drill. I'm not

going to pretend what we are about

to do suspect reckless, foolhardy or

dangerous.

It was the first story I

was read as a child that was

remotely naughty. Your mum and dad

going, he was told not to do it and

he did. You go, he is amazing.

They

admire Peter he is the big brother.

In a sort of anthropomorphic seeing

the dynamic is sweet.

You can

mention my character at any point.

Hello.

I'm really trying to give the

main plot points of the film. I

mean.

This guy is faster than the

old one.

Domhnall Gleeson plays

Thomas McMcGregor's, old McGregor's

nephew who moves into his house.

Do

you know what we do with rats in

this city. We find them and

exterminate them.

Going to work

erday with the express aim of doing

something that will make kids laugh

is sort of, that's very, very

joyious. That's a great reason to go

to work in the morning.

He was

like...

It's like the imagination

Olympics. You really have to train

for it and just sort of go for it.

I

can read lips.

The elephants are

fabulous.

The elephants around here

arogical flatulent.

They really

captured characteristics of us.

It's

OK. I' got 11 more ribs.

What we

realised that people's memories of

being read Peter Rabbit is what they

are trying to protect, not

necessarily Peter Rabbit. We are not

doing anything to your memories, we

are giving a new take on this.

Go,

Mrs Tiggy-Winkle. Stop.

I will

guarantee you that Beatrix Potter

will not be ruined for you if you

watch this movie.

Ah!

Oh. Look away.

What do you reckon, James Corden,

was it a good casting, a naughty

character and pushes it to the

limit?

It's the case of bad casting.

Interesting case of bad casting. It

shows how one bad decision can cast

a nasty shadow over the whole film.

My problem with James Corden, much

respect to him, great at what he

does, hard-working and all of that.

He is too much of a comfortable

family man to pull off off the

naughty cheeky chappieness you need.

Smithy he was naughty.

He's a big

talk show host in America. It is not

working. What is wrong with the film

is a problem in a lot of kids films.

The soundtrack of pop music that is

ano-oning. The tone is too high for

kids or low for their parents. It

would be right if only there was a

central character that wasn't quite

so annoying.

What do you think. Are

you a big Peter Rabbit fan, brought

up on it at all

Not all. I didn't

know what was going on with animals

in the countryside.

Like the young

Mr McGregor, coming up from London a

he does.

Invading my garden.

What do

you think about the tone? It's dark

every now and then. Ol Mr McGregor

is killed off in almost a bullying

way, wasn't it?

No easy time to

learn about death. The sooner they

get over this the better. I don't

have a problem with the film. It has

an uncertain tone, Beatrix Potter

has that innocence and eternal

charm. This has a sort of knowing

quick-fire commercialism to it. They

are very different universes they

are going for. I thought Corden did

fine. Children won't know who James

Corden is. Theyle might see him as a

likeable character. They are excited

by the energy in the animation.

They

don't just, the animation is fun.

They don't just take the odd carrot

they they take over the whole garden

and the house and everything.

There

has been a mini scandal about

bullying which we kind of ridiculed.

That is the least of it. There is a

lot of really bullying behaviour,

dangerous stuff. Although it seems

ridiculous to disapprove, it is the

movie that turns you into that

disapproving mum, I am afraid.

They

have to get rid of Ol Mr McGregor to

bring young Mr McGregor from London

who meets Rose Byrne. I don't want

to spoil it for anyone. What might

happen. Do you think that worked?

I

like the two human leads, shall I

say. What disturbed me there was a

suggestion that Peter Rabbit, who is

a rabbit, let us emphasise, might be

a love rival for Domhnall Gleeson.

This is the child of a mother,

mother figure he is coming in and

being the step-father.

When someone

new -

I'm not imagining it there is

a sub-text there.

What about the

mechanics of it, the animation, the

look of it? We see little glimpses

of Beatrix Potter's drawings. This

girl, Rose Byrne, is a bad artist

except when she draws animals. Of

course the animation is completely

different. It was effective?

Her

character is called Bea. The Bea in

Potter. Does this abstract work that

doesn't work the a all and charming

illustrations. We are in different

times. I think to update something

is a very careful, you can't even

call it Beatrix Potter because

children will think, what has it to

do with Harry Potter and confused

Beatrix Potter.

No Cumbrian or Lake

District accent...

Full of

Australian actors who aren't doing

their natural instincts. We have

Margot Robbie and Sia.

Ol Mr

McGregor is Irish rather than

Scottish.

Sam Neil.

I don't know if

that is a vital thing. You are not

coming over too strongly.

My

children would have liked a football

match in it.

So from the ridiculous

to the sublime.

Peter Rabbit is a much loved

character in a childrens book.

Mary Magdalene, on the other hand,

is a much misunderstood

character in the Bible.

So it is argued in Mary Magdalene,

the movie, starring Rooney Mara

as Mary and Joaquin Phoenix as Jesus

Christ.

Director Garth Davis' film positions

Mary Magdalene as Christ's

most important apostle.

So do we believe in

Mary and the movie?

Let's take a look.

Mary. You brought shame on our

family.

There's something unnatural

inside.

No.

Your family say you

craple with the demon.

If there's a

demon in me, it's always been there.

There are no demons here. Mary of

Magdala. He

She defies her family

and leaves home and becomes dissiebl

Jesus she witnesses his death and

resurrection and unearths a great

spiritual We must prepare truth.

.

We must wash away the stains of your

corruption. And be born anew.

It's a

story that has never been told, the

Mary Magdalene that we all know in

popular culture as a prostitute, an

inpension vention by a Pope in 591.

This is the first time her story has

been told in this way.

What shall I

teach?

Are we so different from men

that you must teach us different

things? We are women. Our lives are

not our own.

To see this story that

people are so familiar with, but

seeing it through the eyes of a

woman I thought was really

interesting and powerful and

different. I think that she sees

something in him that perhaps maybe

she hasn't herself. I think in that

first meeting they have, he is

probably the first person in her

life ever to really truly see her.

And I think it gives her the

strength to follow that thing.

I wanted to avoid all the Life of

Brian moments and make it a very

believable story and very human. How

do you make a miracle feel

believable? They were my challenges.

I'll be with you to the end.

So, life of Brian or the greatest

story ever told?

I have not read

much of the Bible in my house when I

was a kid. And I think a lot of

people don't know Mary Magdalene's

story. The fact that she has been

depicted many times in culture and

in paintings has some people

confused with Mary, the mother.

They

were all called Mary and she has

been regarded as a prostitute, which

is completely wrong. So do you think

this is worth doing at from a

feminist point of view? She is

mentioned a lot in the Bible story,

but is overlooked.

There is a very

compelling and plausible argument

that she was just a woman who was

out of step with time. She didn't

want to play the traditional female

role, which was very narrow, and she

also had a connection with Jesus.

She is more Christ-like than Christ.

She almost became a of Yoko Ono

figure in that the men resented her

for that connection. So that is very

believable. The problem is that

despite his radical take, is still

manages to be a dull film!

But it

looks nice. There is beautifully

stonewashed clothing.

If you like

death tones and sepia tablecloths.

Beige and more beige.

50 shades of

beige.

The award-winning designer

doesn't do much with the cloth is

here. It sort of argues that she

wasn't a prostitute, but doesn't

really posit what she was, she was

just someone who got up from the

dinner table and said, dad, I'm

going to follow that hippie guy that

you would like.

But all the

disciples did that.

disciples did that. And what about

Joaquin Phoenix as Jesus Christ? It

is a difficult role. He's quite

rugged and windswept.

I can see what

they were going for with Joaquin and

Rooney Mara. There are both actors

we know for intense performances, so

it makes sense with them in the

role, but the script doesn't give

them the material to realise their

potential.

They have a platonic

relationship, not a sexual one. That

is traditional.

There is passion in

this Christ. To see Joaquin Phoenix

playing Jesus is interesting because

Jesus is like James Bond on the one

you like is the one you grow up

with.

Who is your favourite?

Robert

Powell was the one I saw on telly,

or David Essex.

But do you think

this is for believers, Christians

looking at the story, or is it for

non-believers? Not much of a

decision is taken as far as Jesus is

concerned. He could be the son of

God or he could be a frustrated

leader.

That is one of the

interesting things about him, that

it brings out the secondary

characters in the story. Judas is

interesting.

They give an

explanation as to why he betrayed

Jesus, which is not for the money,

but because he was impatient to get

on with things.

Which again seems

plausible. That is one of the better

parts.

It is interesting because I

don't know how feminist this reading

could be. Like most men, he thinks

he is God, but show does she. So I

don't see about the revisionism.

Well, you couldn't rewrite it

entirely and make her Christ.

Faith

-based films can make huge money at

the box office, and I'm not sure

this one has enough faith in itself

to carry it off.

Doesn't like you

have become believers in the movie.

The classic rom-com Sleepless

in Seattle may be 25

years old this year,

but it seems writer-director

Nora Ephron and her work continues

to inspire filmmakers old and new.

Theatre director Josie Rourke, whose

debut film Mary Queen of Scots,

starring Margot Robbie

and Saoirse Ronan, comes out

later this year, says Ephron

is her own personal cinematic hero

and with films like

When Harry Met Sally,

Heartburn and Julie and Julia

in Ephron's back catalogue,

it's easy to see why.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

There is no way we

are going on a plane to meet someone

who could be a crazy lunatic.

Men

and women can't be friends because

the sex part always gets in the way.

I'll have what she's having.

Nora

Efron is such a hero of mine. From

before I was trying to make films, I

felt what was important in my

childhood was to find women who had

incredible, truthful and funny

voices.

I have a number of men

friends and there is no sex

involved.

No, you don't. You only

think you do.

I had seen a lot of

black and white films like the

Philadelphia story and the Tracy and

Hepburn movies, and I then went on a

search that I have probably been on

for the rest of my life creatively

for films that are romantic comedies

that have amazing parts for women.

I

don't mean to be rude.

And I don't

want to invade your privacy.

I loved

Sleepless In Seattle. I was just old

enough to see it at the cinema. The

way in which she manages to have you

feeling the great affair to remember

riff that sits in that movie, that

she and Tom Hanks are close all the

time. The way in which they are

inevitably drawn together, you know

it's going to happen. One of the

great pleasures of romantic comedy

is that it says to you very quietly,

don't worry, this is going to go OK.

It is holding you by the hand. In a

sense, the delight of what makes a

romantic comedy truly great is how a

writer and director can navigate the

space between two inevitable points.

You are only going from A to D, and

she does that with dexterity.

Jonah,

tell the truth, are you spying on

your father?

But within it, there is

the most brilliant part Meg Ryan.

The inch thinking about her is that

she clearly had these muses

throughout her career, Nora Efron,

understanding what it is to write

for a particular act and to direct a

particular actor more than once and

the nuance of that. You can see that

sometimes she has left her a huge

amount of space in which to fall

into a comic rhythm of her own.

I

was listening to him talk about how

much he loved his wife and suddenly

I was crying. It is like when I

watch those phone company adds a

guidance have to see the whole

thing.

One of the things I really

admire about her writing is how

brilliantly she writes about female

friendship. So I have just done this

movie that although it is a big

period drama, has many observations

about female friendship at the heart

of it and is powered by that. And to

see her write with such brilliance

around that, the kind of Rosie

O'Donnell Meg Ryan axis is

particularly brilliant.

The Polaroid

commercial, the 25-year-olds of

their grandfather's birthday? That

kills me.

I love the scene where you

are in Tom Hanks' place in Seattle

and there are two guys and Rita

Wilson and Rita Wilson does this

rift where she talks about an affair

to remember and the classic thing

where he starts to tear up.

It's so

amazing when he comes to see her,

because he doesn't even notice that

she doesn't get up to say hello.

Under something amazing about the

dialogue of that. You have three

people talking over each other at

the same time, which happens in

theatre a lot. I have just made my

first film and I have perpetually

been told off by the sound guy for

having people talk over each other

all the time. So I now know how

technically hard that is to achieve.

It is easier to be killed by a

terrorist than to find a husband

after 30.

That is untrue!

And there

is this brilliant piece of mocking

where the guys start to talk about

the dirty dozen and tear up at the

same time. The idea that she is just

the most classy

the most classy mocker of people is

amazing.

Winter must be cold for

those with no warm memories. We have

already missed the spring.

I think

that in order to understand that you

can push forward as a woman and have

a career in film which is no small

thing, you need heroes and icons,

but you also need sisters. And I

think Nora Ephron was both.

Amazingly, in her portrayals of

female friendships in her movies and

her writing and in her long-standing

collaborations with actors in

particular who she worked with a lot

like Meg Ryan and Meryl Streep, she

was not only proving heroism, but

also solidarity, and that seems to

belong to this moment.

Men never get

this movie.

I know!

Good to see Mary

Queen of Scots as a rom-com. You are

a romantic plot. I have some tweets

from Mark, who nominates an affair

to remember. It meant I consequently

proposed to my now ex-wife on top of

the Empire State Building. Next is

the winner of this year's Palme

D'Or, The Square.

It is the latest epic

from Ruben Ostland,

the Swedish Director of 2014

arthouse hit, Force Majeure.

The Square is not so much arthouse

as art world satire

in which pretensions are pricked,

the liberal elite is liberally

mocked and a monkey man runs amok

at a black tie banquet.

Lots of laughs and lots to think

about, but is it art?

What are the biggest challenges in

running a museum?

We are a museum of

modern Art, so we need to present

art that is the art of today,

cutting-edge, and the competition is

fierce.

It's a satire on the art

world. But it's a very funny satire.

If you place an object in a museum,

does that make this object a piece

of art?

It's interesting when some

people in the art world get a little

bit hurt, but they are so silly.

They have to be to criticise

themselves.

For instance, if we took

your bag and placed it here, would

that make it art?

that make it art?

Ah. OK.

As is the

case with a lot of his films, it

makes you feel incredibly

uncomfortable and squirmy.

I love

when you are laughing a lot and then

you suddenly feel, was my reaction

loud?

loud? But I can tell you, you're

allowed to laugh.

allowed to laugh.

You do the first

four or five takes and then he goes

great, now we are going to turn the

camera on. There is a scene where

class, the lead actor, is going

through a garbage skip in the rain,

and a shot that 100 times.

It takes

three years to write the script. Why

should I accept that it only takes

30 days to shoot the film? It is a

visual expression we are dealing

with. We are trying to make a movie.

So it is an arty film about the arts

and here we are on a late-night

discussion talking about a danger of

disappearing up our own arts, but

did you enjoy this?

I did. It should

come with some warnings, though. It

is very long and disordered in a way

that you feel every minute of that

length.

It is episodic, but I didn't

mind the length. But towards the

end, I was getting annoyed that he

wasn't tying in the various

episodes.

To me, it felt like

walking around a contemporary art

exhibition that it is satirising. I

just want people to know what they

are getting themselves into.

But

sometimes that length is useful.

There is the scene with the monkey

man where this man comes in and

disrupts the party. It is supposed

to be a performance piece and you

watch this 11th minute scene and is

one of the great set pieces of

European cinema. You are willing it

never to start, and yet once you are

watching, you are don't want it to

end.

And it goes on for perfectly

too long. It gets a bit weird,

because him smashing a few glasses

or thumping his chest is one thing,

but a near rape goes on and only

then do people react. Earlier in the

film, it is more like W 18, the

meetings and discussions.

That is

something people should know as

well. It is not aggressively

anti-interpretation as we think of

art films as being, there are some

relatable moments with meetings

where people bring up the ice bucket

challenge and wonder how to recreate

it.

Because it is set in Sweden,

even more than if it was in London

or New York, the contrast with the

clean lines of these luscious

people, and on the streets there are

beggars everywhere.

beggars everywhere.

Claes Bang was

perfectly cast.

There are moral

dilemmas like if you lost your

mobile phone, what would you do? And

you can imagine executives watching

the film and going, what would I do?

There is a great setup, because he

has an underling who comes up with a

solution and there is a difficult

thing to do. And there is a passive

aggression between the two of them

and it goes wrong in a way that was

predictable.

Everything goes

slightly wrong. Everything falls

apart and he ends up in this rubbish

heap.

And there is a sexual affair

he has. What did you make of that?

Exquisitely uncomfortable.

But we

don't quite get the result of that.

It fades into the background.

But I

didn't mind. One thing this film is

good at which absolves it of all

sins is genuinely shocking you. So

many films promised to do that and

us jaded audience members don't

usually get that.

There is an odd

bit with a condom. I could never

work out what was going on. And

there is a film called red road that

explored a way of taking the context

of a condom and doing something with

it, but that doesn't happen, it is

just done for shock value.

It has

opened up a strange sub of films

here. There is a tug-of-war over the

condom as well. The art world satire

is easy sometimes, and yet this one

does it rather smugly in a fairly

Swedish, clean way, and yet pulls

you in. And here we are, smugly

talking about it.

And there is a

press conference in somebody with to

rid syndrome is shouting out

obscenities and everybody is saying,

we will carry on with that, however

bad the criticism of the whole

thing. Anyway, we have now come to

the point where you have to say what

your film of the week it is.

It is

hip to be square, so it is The

Square.

Me too.

This is most

unfortunate. That would be my film.

No vote for Peter Rabbit? All right.

So we have made that decision.

So that's it.

Next week Al Murray, presumably not

in his Pub Landlord character,

will be sitting right

here and taking charge.

Playing us out tonight

is a clip from My Generation,

a new documentary about the '60s

cultural revolution in Britain,

narrated by Sir Michael Caine

who, as it happens, is 85 today.

Caine's screen career

was supercharged in the 1960s

when he was cast as Alfie

by Lewis Gilbert,

the prolific director who died

a couple of weeks ago.

So with a fond farewell

to Lewis and a happy

birthday to Sir Michael -

good night!

Growing up in London in the 1950s

was predictable and dull. My

direction demanded a new beginning.

It was the first time in the future

was shaped by young people.

was shaped by young people.

They

have got these rules about how to

live, and it's just not true any

more.

You didn't hear modern speech,

but then you did.

And they never

shut me up.

Police raided Keith

Richards' house.

This isn't the

first generation that has questioned

the moral values of the last

generation.

It was our time. The

best time of our lives.