Russell Brand: Trial By Podcast

Let's start, shall we, with this, uh, crazy ecosystem around the Russell Brand. trial. Can I just say I was looking. through the the top 20 podcasts, um, currently. I won't say where we are. Um, we're number one. >> [clears throat]. >> The Times, The Trial of Russell Brand. Sky News, Russell Brand on Trial. BBC. Sounds, Fame Under Fire, The Russell. Brand Trial. The Crime Desk, The Trial. Russell Brand. All there in the top 20. This feels like a new. development. We're not going to be. talking about the. case. >> Yes, we will get to contempt, of course,

within this item, for sure. But. >> And by the way, we will be talking about. the case when the verdict comes in. We'll be talking about the case in some. detail. >> Yeah. >> Um, but we technology, for sure, as you. say, is changing court reporting. Um, all five major outlets are doing these. podcasts about the trial. Um, the Channel 4 one marks the launch of a. sort of new investigative podcast. franchise, which is called For the. Record, which is going to be. investigative in true crime. It's really. interesting. So, I had a look at lots of. them. The Times one interested me.

because a lot of the reporting about. Russell Brand that led to perhaps people. coming forward and to led to some of. these allegations, which are currently. being heard in court, came from The. Times. And they have Rosa Irwin, who is. who who led that reporting, Charlotte. Wales, who's the investigation. correspondent. And it's quite. interesting. So, you watch this thing, I. say they're 20 minutes, um, depending on. how much has happened in court that day. But they are a. a sort of an event. There is background. music. There are people sitting in a.

studio. It's it's not kind of super. lo-fi. Um, and they say, "We can't film. or record inside the courtroom, but we. can assemble here to tell you exactly. what happened.". >> The Rest Is Entertainment is presented. by Octopus Energy, whose generation. business backs, builds, and manages. renewable energy projects. On screen, though, the practicalities of sourcing. power are slightly more negotiable. >> Certainly in scripts. I mean, my. energy source story, Back to the Future.

Of course, they're supposed to have. plutonium, they don't have plutonium, so. they were like. >> in when they go back in time. >> yeah. >> So, they need to get 1.21 gigawatts. >> Which they get from the lightning. strike, which they know is going to. happen at 10:04, very, very clever. Monsters Inc. Now, you know where the. power source is on Monsters Inc. >> Everything in Monstropolis is powered by. children's screams, which is why they. need to sort of harvest them. >> Yeah, may not work in real life. >> On screen, keeping the lights on does. seem to require an unnecessary amount of. drama. >> Now, Octopus energy generation has.

rather less need for a screenwriter. It. backs, builds, and manages renewable. energy projects with 5.7 gigawatts of. capacity across its portfolio, enough to. power all the homes and businesses of. Birmingham, Leeds, and Manchester. combined. A slightly more conventional. approach to generating power. >> Um. So, there there is this whole new way of. covering um courtroom things, and there. is we're obviously going to get into the. fact, is this exploitative? Is this Does.

this compromise open justice? Is it Does. it turn justice into entertainment? All. of these questions are becoming much. more um prominent. The background to all of these is that. the Mail did a podcast called The Trial. of Lucy Letby during that trial. And two. of their reporters, Liz Hull and. Caroline Cheetham, who are long-term. court reporters, turned their shorthand. notes into scripted courtroom exchanges. that were performed by actors. And that. trial unfolded as a podcast, which was.

sort of pioneering, and it just had. millions of listeners over its course. And I mean, we talked even um last week. when we were talking about You can see. that the audience that came to media. outlets like the Mail, like the. Guardian, like all sorts of other. places, like The Times, for written content, I don't say print. anymore cuz it's online, but written. content, have now moved much more. towards video and audio formats, which. is why everyone is pivoting to these. different ways of providing.

I'm not I don't know if it's the same. analysis or the same coverage, but it's. a different way of providing coverage. >> Yeah. >> Um. >> I would say it's slightly more. discursive sometimes. >> It is, but you have to be so careful. Um. >> I mean, that's [clears throat] where the. worry comes with this particular area. >> Yeah. The trial that trial um the trial. of Lucy Letby because it was so. successful, the trial became a sort of. scalable audio enterprise. They've now. got something like 300 episodes of this. covering lots of major high-profile and.

medium-profile trials. They've built it. out into something really, really big. that drives a huge amount of revenue and. engagement for them. [clears throat]. And I suppose what all this comes from. is all, as I've said, all of these media. outlets thinking, "How do we repurpose. what we already have?" Because the speed. with which. people have moved away from the written. word and into video and audio formats in. terms of what they're actually. interested in, and you can see the. explosion in podcast the podcast market.

at the same time as you can see the very. the clear downturn in print readership. Um so, what have you already got? You've. got reporters, often who have reported. the allegations that they're all day. which have led to the trial in the first. place. Um and um as I say, particularly. in the case in this case of The Times. And um. and these reporters are not people. sitting in their bedroom. really on the edge with contempt of. court discussing what they think they've. seen or read that day um coming out of.

um it it it in court reporting. By the. way, we're losing court reporters at an. incredible rate in this country, and. it's really, really significant that we. do have them. So, any way in my view of. making this sort of thing work as a. commercially, cuz it has to work. commercially as well as um, you know, as. a public service. >> it's a good thing? >> I have to say that rather than having. nothing, yes, because you're we're. losing them at such a fast rate and what. But, I like I it's a good thing when.

people who know what they're doing do. them. >> But, to boil it down, what you're saying. is, you know, if you watch your local. news, if you watch anything, there'll be. a reporter outside a trial who will give. a 30-second piece to camera saying, "This is what happened in court today. Uh the trial continues tomorrow." So, that person sat there. all day. They've taken all of their. notes. They do a 30-second piece to. camera. Or in the Daily Telegraph, they'll do a two-paragraph thing. So, they'll do that and instead of doing. that, we're just saying, "Well, why. don't those people actually sit down for. half an hour and talk us through exactly. what happened?" Give us a slightly.

deeper version of it. But, because they're skilled at their. job, they are not crossing any. boundaries that shouldn't be crossed. But, it's the same people with the same. research just doing a much longer form. >> way. Yeah, in a longer form way, in a. way that people are engaged with. I. think it's very important that, you. know, justice is seen to be served. This. is one of the cornerstones of our. democracy. >> And would it be would it also be safe to. say in a in the in a newspaper. environment that those columns have. always taken up a certain amount of. space, but actually crime and court. reporting is one of the things that.

newspaper readers are most interested. in. You can do pages and pages and pages. of foreign affairs and all sorts of. important things. And, you know, uh Westminster shenanigans. But, actually crime reporting, trials, criminal trials are one of the things. that really drives traffic to. newspapers. >> Look at and. across the board, think of in fiction, in written fiction, in TV fiction, in. cinematic fiction, crime is enormous and. it always has been. Um. The other thing I would say before we go.

any further is what they have, you know, when you're looking at what have we got. in this media organization that we can. repurpose. They've got a legal department. Now, as. you know, from my final column in the. Guardian, I yield to no one in my. absolute love and admiration for. newspapers it used to be newspaper legal. departments. Legal departments are so. expensive cuz lawyers get paid a lot, but if you've got one, then you can do. this because you've got somebody who was. going to go through every single line. and say we can't say that that amounts. to some sort of comment. We can't.

comment on the trial. We can report what. happened, but once we get into comment. or once we get into anything that might. prejudice it, then you're at risk of. contempt of court. Now, my memory, you. know, the Sunday Mirror collapsed the. trial of two leads footballers not even. I mean, you know, whatever it was 20. years ago, but it's possible for people. to make massive mistakes in this. department that are incredibly expensive. and lead to very very bad outcomes. >> This So, not only would you be having. contempt and there would be costs, but. you the trial could collapse. Say that.

this current trial that's going on ends. in a. whatever verdict that the ends in, that. verdict could be overturned one way or. another if you are. >> Actually, something that I have found. myself contemplating over this Russell. Brand trial is. because he is. posting through it. Let me just put it. that way. And he posts a lot of. religious adjacent content saying that. God is in the courtroom with him, things. like this. There is a point at which. things like that you can commit contempt.

of court on your own trial. >> Yes, I would have thought so. >> he posts bizarre sort of. Sunday religious services with him and. his wife in their dressing gowns in. their house. They're talking about dignity in the. courtroom, about God being in the. courtroom with them. I actually think it's it would be worth. keeping an eye. That That wouldn't. collapse it. you know, without warning, but I don't think it would be beyond the. realms for the judge soon to speak to. him about the things he is posting.

because you can commit contempt of court. in your own trial. Um and. um I think, you know, that that it's. sort of quite extraordinary what he's. doing. >> that would just give him more content. That's the truth. >> Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Um. and then just and you buy more time or. whatever it is before you have to go. through the whole thing again. But um. there is a democratic and journalistic. value to making people aware of what. happens in courtrooms. And as I say, we're losing court reporters at such a. rate. It's so expensive to pay someone.

to just sort of sit there and as you say. just get tiny bits of something through. it. And as I say, there's always been. courtroom fascination. I was going back. and looking at sort of things in history. and William Dalrymple's book The Anarchy. about the East India Company. There's. really interesting stuff about the trial. of like Clive of India and Warren. Hastings who was a Bengal government. governor. That was in the 18th century. >> rugby for Scotland. >> Yes, later a couple of centuries later. will go on to play rugby for Scotland. They were and those were they did it in.

Westminster Hall. They were hugely. attended. There were queues round the. block. And they were talked about and. gossiped about. And you know, ladies, society ladies were particularly. interested in all of this. We know that. true crime is. >> It's ever been thus, right? >> It's ever been thus. They're very, very. interested. Women are very interested in. true crime stories. >> Can I say in this particular instance. there is a there is a slightly different. issue which is the crimes that he is. accused of and the victims of those. crimes. I I imagine it's incredibly. difficult to say any sort of allegation.

like that to court. It must be. incredibly traumatic. And I wonder if. this makes it worse. If you look in. America at the corner rape case that's. that's all over the media in in the. states at the moment. And so. but what you're saying here is actually. having proper court reporters doing. these things. sort of stems the tide of amateur court. reporters which seems to me to be a real. issue. Amateur detectives and amateur. court reporters who firstly cause. immense distress for almost everyone. involved.

And also as you say, it's possible for. them to collapse a trial. Now, of. course, there are loads of cases we've. seen solved by people who are amateur. detectives that the police have left. behind 20, 30 years ago. It's. vanishingly rare that someone sees a. news report and goes, "Oh, I don't think. I'm being told the whole truth." and. solves the case before the police. And. this whole world of of of of the amateur. detective and the amateur lawyer feels. to me to be. >> when that poor woman went into the. river, Nicola Bulley, and police had to. issue sort of evacuation orders for.

anyone who didn't live in that village. because it was just swamped by people by. TikTokers, basically, who think that. they're going to discover something. Um, I would say and at the other end of. this, you've got situations where, um, other people, you know, people who have. actually been found in contempt of court. because they either they don't. understand it or they just want content. I would definitely include someone like. Tommy Robinson in that who, you know, has nearly collapsed screaming trials. before. >> And that's And that's exactly what he's. doing. >> Yeah, I mean, I'm really fascinated that.

you care about women and girls because. if you do, you wouldn't possibly risk. these women have having to go through. the horror of having to testify on on. what they're testifying there twice. If. you collapse a trial, that is what will. happen, and trials do collapse. So, for. me, I think that. although it may initially seem quite. exploitative, it's a we need this for. >> these podcasts. >> These. Or or or it may because it's new, people. are like, "What is this? Is this. entertainment?". >> But, as you say, that And the Times, especially, who who you know, are behind.

an awful lot of things that went into. this case. You sort of feel like that it. Yeah. >> They've done it very, very carefully. Um, the other ways which are more. problematic and we've definitely seen. start to happen is, um, in with the. Diddy trial in the US, people did AI reconstructions. I find. that there's a lot of concern about the. use of AI in this. And AI You know, AI. recreations are big in this. Um, and I can't remember the name of. their channel, you know, whatever it's. called, the Law & Order channel or. something like that. They did it. Um and.

the trouble is is that because as we. know, everything is clippable and. everything is shared and things become. so quickly online in our hyper-fast. digital world unmoored from the original. context, people think that these AI. recreations are the original court. transcripts. Um and once they've become. pulled out of their context, which. happens with lightning speed, it's very, very difficult. Um. But for me, I would say that I think we. must find ways of keeping court.

reporting a viable. It has to be as commercially viable as. possible to some degree. It never will. be. And I don't think that these have. been done particularly sensationally. I. mean, I don't love the music, but. >> Yeah. >> it is what it is. You have music in news. reports nowadays. >> But it's essentially the job these. people would be doing anyway in a couple. of paragraphs, but actually given a. little bit more space to breathe. >> But with those AI reconstructions, which. we're going to see so many more more. more of because anyone could really get. one of those [clears throat] out. >> like I would be anti those. >> Yeah, I feel Yeah, because at what point.

because you can you can see if you are. following court reporting and you have. some access to the different reports. that are filed throughout the day. May-. maybe someone will file four or five. updates on the. the Brand trial as an example. At what. point does a sort of if you were doing. an AI reconstruction of it, which I'm. slightly surprised people aren't doing, at what point does a sort of faithful. recreation of it tip over in into. dramatization? Um and then that spirit. of open justice, I think is something. quite you you that is definitely.

compromised. >> But for now, we support these news organizations. doing this in this way. >> and and you can do it only if you have. great reporters and a really. great legal department. >> Can I ask you another question talking. about legal departments? Which is lots. of people who have seen a story about a. well-known celebrity who's had. allegations, who has taken legal action. to stop allegations even being aired. And obviously we can't name who that. person is or what the allegations. >> as a well-known man.

>> Yeah. But what's the process there? What's. happening there and how how does that. happen? >> That one is interesting. A well-known. man is the description settled upon. He's seeking an injunction against The. Guardian and ITN to stop them reporting. um allegations of sexual assault. Now, three women have made allegations. against him. This has been going on a. few months now. As often in um these. cases, if you want to find out who it is. online, you can. Um this person is seeking a permanent.

injunction under European human rights. law. Um his lawyers are now saying he suffers. from very serious mental health. problems. He's a suicide risk. Again, this is an ongoing kind of request for a. court order. >> But what are the arguments that that. that person could use? If they if the. allegations have been made and have been. made presumably haven't been made. publicly maybe, but if they if it was. reported they would they would be made. public, right? >> in letters, which is why.

um. and he is saying the contents of these. letters are such that if they were. reported, I would you know, I would. attempt suicide and so on. And has. private clinicians working on his behalf. saying um he would be a suicide risk. It's interesting because you have to. balance that, I think. Um and the judge. is going to have to balance that against. the fact that reporting is a significant. part of who comes forward. >> Mhm. >> In the case of the Russell Brand. allegations currently being heard in. court, because of that reporting, other.

people came forward and made criminal. allegations and those are the ones being. tried now. Um. the three women These three women in. this case with the well-known man. can make criminal complaints. I should. stress I don't know the details of their. cases, so I don't whether they have made. complaints yet or whether they are. considering complaints. But The Guardian. and ITN will be arguing that he's not. detained for his own safety. They will. say that he was offered NHS assessment. of his.

safety and and follow-up staff and he. declined to take it preferring to stick. with his private clinicians. But we're in a sort of situation where. should the ability to be published be. decided in court, which is certainly the. position of the The Guardian and ITN, or. should it effectively be be decided by. private clinicians? This well-known man had made a 1-hour. video recently addressing at some level. all the allegations. He denies the. allegations, but addressing at some sort.

of length or in some type of way. And the judge at a hearing last week. said that the existence of this filmed. interview raised the question of whether. the celebrity had at all times been. truthful with his clinicians. So, as you. can see, it's really complicated and. it's sort of ongoing. >> But also we are very close to the. the terrible tragedy with Jason Orange. and things like that. So So newspapers. and commentators, you know, this is. something that has to be weighed up. >> Yes, and I think that.

in the case of this person they have. relied for a very long time on extremely. expensive lawyers and that. the side of that are well, that's. they're just protecting that they deny. everything and they're protecting their. their rights. And the counterpoint to. that is that this is a form of lawfare, which we sometimes talk about when we. talk about sort of Russian oligarchs and. whatever. We we kind of. sue or legally threaten people into just. not being able to sort of publish. anything. So, that is ongoing. I.

>> Do we know Do we know when it might come. to a head? >> If the injunction is granted in. perpetuity, I think that would be. I I I'm I personally my opinion is that. injunctions should not be granted in. perpetuity in general in the I mean in. the vast vast majority of cases. >> What would be the sanction if one were. to breach that. permanent injunction if if one newspaper. just went you know well we'll go for it. or someone or an online publication. decided to. >> Well then you're you know you you've you.

get you get sued and you've broken the. law and you've committed a criminal. offense and you're in a whole other. which you you know knowing you've. knowingly committed a criminal offense. there I think they'd find it quite. difficult to argue anything else. Um. you can always have an MP say it in. Parliament. Um I don't know whether I. think an MP would give given what we've. just said. and given the sort of hyper sensitivity. around when anybody mentions suicide or. the possibility of suicide.

I think they probably wouldn't but. there are a lot of there are a lot of. crazy people in Parliament who would say. what I would say. >> And I think this is a question that lots. of people always want to ask which is. when you have these cases where there's. a a super injunction or someone's taken. that injunction does everyone in Fleet. Street know who the person is? Is it an. open secret that they know who that. person is usually? >> It's not difficult for anyone listening. to this podcast to find out who this. person is. >> You're not recommending they do. >> I'm not recommending they do but it's. not difficult for various reasons.

to do with the process. Um. in other cases it has been difficult and. people are often way off base when they. suggest certain people in connection. with certain stories. this must be so and so and it's like. well actually I happen to know it isn't. Often everyone in Fleet Street as we. used to call it does know. Um you can certainly. in certain cases you could ask your. legal department so you don't make a. mistake. Um occasionally we used to get.

sort of legal warnings saying there. there is an injunction or you can't do. this and for reference to celebrity is. so they to they have to stop you making. an inadvertent. >> An inadvertent Yeah, and it's better but. it's also better not to put it in an. email even. So. >> But I would also be right in saying when. we say open secret. that sometimes sounds like people are. gossiping and it is not that. It's. almost always like when the police know. something and they can't they can't do. anything about it. It's more of a. frustration. >> Yes. >> It's more of a I wish we could do.

something about this. >> and The Guardian will feel they have a. moral duty to report these things for. the reasons I've said, which is that. people come forward in these cases. He. denies all the allegations and I suppose. his counterpoint is that they have a. moral duty not to because he is a. suicide risk. >> Yeah. >> Whether or not. I mean, this is quite a strong case. because of the way that this has been. mounted. to go to say I am a suicide risk. But. equally, you can see that there are.

things that kind of weigh against it. And I wonder how long this person can. continue. this tactic which has been successful. for a very long time. Um. But as you say, people can know things. but it's very different to for it being. reported by every single media outlet. for days and days and days and then. maybe some sort of maybe people further. people coming forward, maybe some of. them make criminal complaints. I don't. know. He denies all of this. Um but you. you have to also wait and see but.

it's an interesting one again and it's. finely balanced um and it's very. expensive. uh thing to have to pursue. >> Okay. Shall we. >> it there? >> Yeah. Let's uh. let's leave that there for now. Um shall. we go to a break and afterwards we'll. talk about uh you can see everything. this Nathan Fielder Elizabeth Holmes. documentary. I know a lot of our. listeners will be very excited to see. >> Yes. >> [music].

>> This episode is brought to you by our. friends at Lloyds. >> Now, let's talk about movie con artists. Who are your absolute favorites? >> Movies, TV, and book, my answer is the. same. And it's Tom Ripley. >> I was going to say him. It's one of the. greatest characters of all time. >> So, from the Talented Mr. Ripley books. by Patricia Highsmith, there's five of. them. So, if you like Talented Mr. Ripley, you are in luck. He's like one. of the worst men in the world, but you. absolutely you root for him at all. times. >> Now, of course, deception makes.

excellent entertainment on screen. In. real life, when it's your bank account. being targeted, the charm somewhat. disappears. >> Yep, Lloyds have invested 100 million. pounds in Dark Horse anti-fraud. technology, which combines intelligent. monitoring and real-time alerts to keep. you safe from fraud. >> Click on their app or visit. lloydsbank.com to find out more about. how Lloyds protects you from fraud. AI-powered scam checks, voice. biometrics, and real-time alerts are. just some of the ways Lloyds are.

protecting you, based on Lloyds Banking. Group data 2023 to 2025. >> [music]. >> Welcome back, everybody. Now, before we. dive into the Nathan Fielder Elizabeth. Holmes documentary, just a reminder that. we're doing reaction episodes to every. Traitors episode, including after the. final, which is next Friday the 30th, a. live stream. >> It's been amazing so far. The amount of. people walk down the street and.

literally take out their earbuds and. say, "I'm literally listening to you. talk about Traitors.". >> We love doing this. We I mean, our dream. is to watch television and talk about it. straight after. >> Yeah. There need to be more shows as as. as as amazing as Big Celebrity Traitors. We do it every week if we if if you let. us. >> Yeah. >> No, we love it. It's It's been really. really It's been really good fun. And. the amount of messages I've had from. contestants, former contestants, saying, "Yeah." Cuz we can say things they can't. say on other shows. >> We certainly can. I've had a I've had a. lot of dial-in from previous contestants. about. And many from the civilians as well. >> Yeah, exactly. Now,

>> Right. >> There is a documentary. It is called You. Can See Everything. So, Elizabeth Holmes. invites Nathan Fielder into her home. So, the the film actually covers She's. about to go to prison. She's just had a. baby. She's about to go to prison. The. film covers her last 40 45 days before. she goes into prison. She's there with. her husband who is quite a character, I. would say. He certainly Yeah, listen, he. >> Let's just watch the documentary. >> be interested to meet this gentleman and. their child. So, we have the 45 days. before she goes to prison. He's in the.

house the whole time and that feels like. Oh, I've sort of sort of seen something. a bit like this before. Bit Louis. Theroux-esque, that sort of thing. Uh. and then after she goes to prison, he no. longer has access to her. The film. becomes something. different. So, that's a That's the film. That's why it's 3 hours. It's sort of. split into those two halves, kind of. pre-going to prison, post-going to. prison. Uh but, that's the kind of basic setup. of the thing. >> One of the most interesting things I. have read in the aftermath of it was. Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim. saying they realized they had a great.

film when the people who were actually. filming and reviewing and editing the. footage, they weren't. completely disagreed. about what they were seeing. >> Oh, really? Yeah. >> Which you can imagine. >> People will definitely disagree. >> Yeah. >> Uh on what they're seeing. And the. resultant documentary, You Can See. Everything, has just opened to enormous numbers in. the US, is tipped to be the first documentary. in history to be nominated for the Best. Picture Oscar.

and is, I would say, an almost unique case of. both content, marketing, and filmmaking. So, we wanted to talk. about it cuz it's we We've seen it. >> We will see Yeah, we have seen it. Um. and. we will not do any spoilers. >> at all cuz one of the key things about. this film, I I think is people want to. go into it absolutely People don't want. spoilers. They they are I have to I. don't quite understand what this is. I've seen it. I still don't. I don't. quite understand what this is. I want to. go in and just watch something that I.

haven't seen before. So, what what can. we say about the the genesis of this. thing as much as anything and the. phenomenon? >> You're right. In terms of the. phenomenon, it is amazing. It's opened. to $15 million. in America. You know that we know they. have such great audience metrics, which. makes me so sad that we don't have them. in our country, but um the critical. reviews are like 99% on Rotten Tomatoes. Audiences scored 98%. It is an. extraordinary achievement to It's made. by A24. >> By the way, just to point out, it made.

twice as much as. Digger in a quarter of the screens. This. is This is on in under a thousand. screens. >> million. So, yes. It is an extraordinary. achievement to have people literally. queuing around the block um to see a. 3-hour documentary. >> yeah. >> Um best ever opening for a documentary. behind Fahrenheit 9/11, which is Michael. Moore's one in the sort of in 2004. And. it's only just on wide release. People. sometimes ask what counts as wide. release. 600 plus screens. It will go. wider next weekend, which will be sort.

of interesting, and people just haven't. been able to get in to see it. So, they. will it will do as And as I say, it cost. $7 million. It's currently the highest. ever score of anything on Letterboxd, a. community which it won't surprise you it. would naturally appeal to. >> Yeah. >> So, as I say, A24 are in a quite a nice. position this Monday morning when we're. recording because people are saying, "Well, should they have had more. theaters?" This is a great question for. people to be asking about your films. >> Should we Should we talk a little bit. about who Nathan Fielder is? Cuz I think. over here people know him less, I would.

say. He feels almost like I think when. it comes over people will think of him. as a Louis Theroux type in that he's a. documentarian who's always in the middle. of everything he makes, but he's he's. he's he's he's very different to. >> He's a comedian as well, though, you. see. And I think that. >> And he's very situationist, and he will. do either the so-called the rehearsal. where and the thing is he like rebuilds. sets and rebuilds situations and takes. real people into slightly surreal. reimagining of their. >> And Nathan Fielder pre-dated that which. was this extraordinary you know where he. would give people terrible sort of.

business advice really but it's very. hard to explain. >> It's it's sort of cranky, it's sort of. art, it's sort of Louis Theroux-esque, it's sort of it's it's it's got a little. bit of everything but it's a very very. specific. flavor and I think I would say before. you see this film maybe watch a couple. of his things if you haven't I know lots. of people here oh I. I do too but but I think this this is. going to be such a phenomenon that it. will reach an awful lot of people who do. not know who Nathan Fielder.

is. >> I mean it is an art movie in lots of. ways. I. in terms of how they did did it no one. knew of its existence. No one knew that. Nathan Fielder you know this is sort of. four years this has been four years. happening and Lance Oppenheim we should. say he co-directed it. >> Who's the director of Primetime so he's. having a good year. >> Yeah he's having a good month I mean. So they didn't realize I it definitely. A24 did not realize how big it would be. even though I'm sure they thought it. would be hugely interesting but and. we'll talk about why she is a kind of an.

interesting as a phenomenon and why she. just remains this kind of mesmeric. figure for a whole generation. They so. they screened it at Telluride which is. the documentary festival and it was a. sort of surprise screening. People. didn't obviously know as I say of his. its existence and his access and people. went absolutely nuts for it. Now this is. why. I feel a bit it's difficult for us to. talk about it but we have to talk about. it because it's become so big in the US. this last weekend but they don't have. what's called day and date release in. the UK and it's not coming out until the. 20th of November in the UK because.

you've got to sort of pre-book lots of. this stuff and you and they didn't. realize I don't no one realized what. quite what a phenomenon. >> it's a three-hour documentary made by. someone who does not particularly have a. profile in Britain. I think if I was. A24, I wouldn't be going, "Let's book a load of theaters.". >> of how they marketed it, they are so. great at marketing. You know, they. particularly understand how to appeal to. Gen Z, and they, you know, 70% of people. who went this weekend were sort of, I.

think, were under 25 or whatever. They. don't spend Brazilians on marketing, um. and they don't act really, really pushy. or blitz-y. They sort of create. materials. This is how I would I mean, in the world of when you're actually. trying to publicize something, professionals will call it assets. They. create, effectively, things and hope. they put tiny little clips and bits out. and hope that those are taken up. organically. As so, they My goodness, the first bit that anyone saw, you would. have seen that meme frenzy of There's a.

close shot of her looking at him, and. she looks kind of crazy. Elizabeth. Holmes looking at Nathan Fielder. And. also, him looking at her like, "What the. hell?" And. those have been taken up and memed. beyond. You just get other people to do it all. for you. >> Yeah, well, I the big strength of this. is. everyone is asking the question, "Yes, but Yes, but what is it?" And. interestingly, af- after you've seen it, you're also asking the question, "Yes, but what is it?". >> I loved it. I have to say, I actually. loved. >> no, absolutely. I I think it's. extraordinary. So, it it is a genuinely. extraordinary piece of work, and and.

anyone who's interested at all in. television, in film, any of that stuff. will will definitely get stuff from it. But, it's fascinating over here is. like, Elizabeth Holmes and Nathan. Fielder are both names that. a lot of our listeners will know, but a. lot won't. Or, a lot will go, "Oh, yes, is she the Wasn't there a podcast about. her?" Uh. >> And there was a drama about her. >> And there's a drama about her with. Amanda Seyfried. The issue we're having. with talking about this is normally at. the top of a something like this, we'd give a little pre-see of what the.

film is. Yeah. We're going to go, "Oh, this is interesting cuz this happens, this happens, this happens." Having seen. it, I I would be incapable of providing. that. précis. Would you? >> I would not want to because it would. spoil it. There's only one thing that I. will mention and I should say as, you. know, disclosure, I have um something in. development with A24, but. there is a scene in this that I would. have thought would have got. obviously A24 taking all the plaudits um. for this, but I would there is a scene. in it in which involves A24 executives.

effectively agreeing a form of payment. for this documentary that is not wished. for by. Nathan Fielder. And I haven't seen that. get quite the attention I thought it. might because there'll be a lot of. creatives out there who think, "Huh, well, is that how you compromise your. talent?" You do a deal like that in. front of your talent that a deal that. really compromises them. I I don't know. It's a I It's an It's amazing. I'm so. thrilled they they funded it all, etc.

etc., but it's quite interesting that. particular thing. And I think a lot of. creatives would be like, "Ooh, dear. I. don't love that." But they are an. amazing company and um I you know, they're an amazing company, but I think. it was that's quite an interesting. scene. Perhaps it will be discussed more. in the coming times, but something I am. interested in is her as a subject, her. as a kind of cultural idea. It's really. interesting. For me, she's almost. synaptically twinned with that Billy. McFarland from the Fyre Festival. They.

all It happened in the same year. It was. 2017. It's one of those things um where. everyone fell they became complete sort. of frenzies. They gave birth to a. million memes. People felt like, "Ah, some sort of. curtain had been ripped." It's like, "Oh, I see." When people became very. media literate, which I've said before. in this podcast about people and that. paparazzi pictures being staged and. things like that. That was a sort of. watershed moment. And that was long ago, long ago, back in the. 2017 was is of moment where a new era of.

kind of online grift was seemed to be. exposed. And also it was it happened to. dovetail with the whole sort of not all. of these were Netflix, but the idea that. you could get a really successful. podcast about something and a book about. it and then you'd have a dramatization. follow really soon and maybe there'd be. a counter documentary. It's like how. many times am I going to watch the same. story? And the answer is people would. watch the same or read the same story. four, five, however many times. >> times have I seen documentaries about. the Essex boys, the drug dealer Sean in.

the Range Rover? I watched it and. honestly I must have I must have seen 40. of them. >> It's it's it's fascinating. It's really. fascinating. But it also marked a sort. of thing where, you know, an idea that. oh, it's all just some grift matrix. Everything's nothing's true. Everything's just people. >> the grift matrix. >> matrix. But it but you know, and the. idea that she had a box that actually. contained nothing and didn't really do. any of the blood tests it said or that. all those influencers like Kendall. Jenner went down and were selling this.

Fyre Festival and it was really like. some sort of storm hit thing with things. in cardboard boxes. >> Yeah, so Theranos it's interesting. So. Theranos that box of the the whole idea. of it is you have a box which can run. diagnostic tests on a single drop of. blood. and it can predict likelihood of. diseases lots lots of diseases or or or. find them. And it became apparent during. the. process of selling that company that the. box did not work. >> Yeah. >> The technology didn't work and so. essentially what you had was.

an empty box with lots of flashing. lights on the outside and that to me. sounds an awful lot like our culture. So. God bless Elizabeth Holmes for giving us. a a lovely allegory. >> Yes, the other. overarching thing that I think it's it. is interesting is that for a. generation who are sort of raised on. self-commissioned documentaries, here is one that is effectively. self-commissioned, yeah, but. much in in a way that you're never going. to see the Beckham documentary do, it.

the lines on that issue are blurred and. it foregrounds the fact that it's. self-commissioned by at least by at. least one of its subjects. I'll leave it. at that. And. I I found that quite that is interesting. because it shows its working so much. that for people who were so used to. watching these very very polished. documentaries and you think, oh, I see. it's executive produced by the person. who is the subject of it. This is. different. And that's why I think it's. sort of landmark and why it's so. educational and why you might teach it. in film schools. >> It has a very weird innocence to it.

>> Yeah. And I also wonder about it. The. other thing it got me thinking, this is. just a sort of sidebar, is. whether you can ever really profile. somebody. without sort of opening yourself as the. supposed documentarian or profiler. personally to them. almost in a very without if you can ever. do it brilliantly without slightly. opening your heart. I've really felt. like I would love to ask this question. of Taffy Brodesser-Akner who I've talked.

about before who's the New York Times. profiler and is absolutely amazing. A. lot of her profiles contain a lot of her. personal reactions to them. And you know. those Claddagh rings that says I'm open. to love. There's a type of ring It's an. Irish. I'm open to love. And I sometimes wonder. whether anyone profiling someone has to. slightly allow themselves the. possibility of falling in love with. their in some weird way with their. subject. We hear so much about. objectivity in documentary making and. it's fetishized and it's whatever, but I.

I wonder whether you can ever and it's. very this is a question that the film. certainly asks, whether you can ever not. have some kind of porous. barrier between yourself and your. subject if you get really really close. to them. And I definitely think that's. interesting here and I sort of wondered. whether you can ever not quite slightly. fall in love if you. if you're going to go really deep. And I. definitely think that some of, for. instance, Taffy Brodesser Akner's. profiles. involve a form of opening herself to her. subjects, and I wonder whether it's I I.

definitely thought about that throughout. watching this, and I think it's so. interesting because we do live in an era. of these incredibly polished. documentaries which conceal their. subjects' involvement in them. This. doesn't in any way. >> Yeah, and you certainly leave this with. more questions than answers, but in a. way that satisfies you. >> Yes. And and. yes, and in a way that is kind of. intellectually. >> interesting. >> Yeah, really interesting for. particularly for this era that we live. in. >> I said right at the beginning no. documentary has ever ever been nominated.

for the best picture Oscar. Yeah. This. seems to be a shoe-in now. People are. saying that. >> [clears throat]. >> they would be shocked if this wasn't. nominated for the best picture. First, it's extraordinary that no documentary. has ever been nominated. I assume that. they couldn't have been because I. thought there's been enough. documentaries over the years that have. definitely been one of the best 10. pictures of the year. But I was reading. a great piece in the Vulture talking. about how that. I think everyone thinks that it will be. nominated for the best picture Oscar. But the they were saying it probably. won't be nominated for best documentary. because the best documentary shortlist.

is put together by the documentarians. And the documentarians, I think, by the. way, quite rightly, are very very very. protective of what they believe a. documentary to be. There's a case a few. years ago where there's a whole whole. series of very worthy and well-meaning. documentaries on the best documentary. shortlist, and My Octopus Teacher was. also on that beautiful one about the. octopuses. And so the Academy members, which are the people outside the. documentarians, voted for My Octopus. Teacher to win best Oscar, and the. documentarians were furious because they. they thought there was more worthy fare. So they're saying actually they they now.

don't like to put some of those. crowd-pleasy things on the on the. shortlist because they think that the. wider Academy will vote for them, and. that's not what they want. >> Never underestimate this process's. ability to completely get in its own. way. I mean, just completely. We know. what the Academy are like. They. half the people don't watch the films, but I definitely think they need. something like this that's different and. that will get complete attention. throughout the awards race to people. saying, "Will it be you know, will it be. nominated?" That will be the question. until the nominations come in and then.

will it win? >> So I would say to you our listeners, so. it's coming out in the middle of. November we think over here. Um I hope. we haven't given any spoilers. We really. haven't. It's It's a very rich and. complex film and lots and lots of things. happen and we have not said any of them. Genuinely would do it. It's 3 hours. long, but we'd recommend going to see it. cuz it is you will definitely leave with. questions about it. And perhaps when it. has come out and everyone's seen it will. we'll have a different discussion about. it, but for now I think it's just worth. talking about as this extraordinary.

phenomenon that's happened that's done. huge money. It's going to be nominated. for the best picture Oscar and it's. coming over here in a couple of weeks. Any recommendations? >> I read Ari Emanuel's Roll With It Calls. >> we talked about last week. >> about. I am a completist in any books. that I can read about Hollywood agenting. and also Hollywood monsters as you know. I got both. Loved it. Roll With It Calls. Ari Emanuel. >> Um and I do we finally finished this. season of Ludwig the David Mitchell and.

Robert Webb Martin show on BBC. And I. just I do think it's worth remembering. sometimes that this is a big show that's. watched by a lot of people right in the. middle of our culture and it's really. good. It's. really playfully written. It's. beautifully acted. It's really well. directed and it is. >> I love the cinematography in it. I think. it's beautiful. >> It's really really good. So how how. lovely to have something that's a big. mainstream hit, but that's also. brilliant. >> A lot going on this week in terms of. other episodes. >> calm down when Traitors is over, I. promise.

>> Wednesday is the final episode of our. for members for our bonus series about. Big Brother. We're going to be talking. about Jade Goody and also the iconic. David's Dead moment. You can join at the. rest of entertainment.com. We will also. have celebrity traders reaction. episodes. >> Which of course are free to everyone as. always. >> Yes, for episodes seven and eight. >> I'll probably wait. >> And yeah, that oh and we're back for Q&A. on Thursday. Sorry, sorry, sorry. >> It's a busy old week, isn't it? >> It is a busy old week. >> Sorry everyone. >> All right then, see you tomorrow.

>> Yeah, see you through the week. >> [music].