Two Big Egos in a Small Car
A passionately laid back overview of the arts and culture scene in York and Harrogate with observations on journalism. This podcast is hosted by Charles Hutchinson and Graham Chalmers and regular guests.
Two Big Egos in a Small Car
Episode 155: SIr Ranulph Fiennes in Harrogate; New albums from The Coral, Peter Brewis and The Rolling Stones; Killers of the Flower Moon
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Graham recounts his recent encounter with Sir Ranulph Fiennes at the Raworths Harrogate Literature Festival.
Charles asks Graham to choose a winner from threw new albums that have piqued his interest: The Coral's Sea of Mirrors. Peter Brewis of Field Music's with his new album, Blowdry Colossus and the first new album of original material in eighteen years by The Rolling Stones with Hackney Diamonds.
Finally, Charles wonders if Martin Scorsese has finally exhausted the subject of American violence in his new film Killers of the Flower Moon.
Keep in touch with Two Big Egos in a Small Car:
X
@2big_egos
Facebook
@twobigegos
Hello.
SPEAKER_00Sunday night cold.
SPEAKER_02It is, and that's because it's late October, Charles. It's fairly damn obvious, I think.
SPEAKER_00Yep, two jumpers, scarf. No heating on in this house yet.
SPEAKER_02No, no, no. This is this is this is Victorian Britain. You don't have heating on until it gets minus temperatures. The new Victoria the New Victorian. The new Victorian welcome to the new Victorian Britain.
SPEAKER_00Well, you're not wrong. You're not wrong.
SPEAKER_02It's quite important. You know how you haven't you know you know these days all windy weather leads to storm warning across Britain, which we take very seriously. We've just had Storm Babbette, which has had some serious consequences. People have been killed and made homeless. So I'm not I'm not belittling the actual storm, but this is a warning of a different nature, which people in general won't take too seriously, but I take it very seriously. I'd just like to warn that coming up on December the 2nd and the 3rd is the chance to experience a magical cinematic spectacular only in cinemas, packed with chandeliers, candelabras, ice rinks, snow, everything you could possibly get was Christmasy. And the problem is it's actually my favourite Viennese violinist.
SPEAKER_00It wouldn't be Andre Rio.
SPEAKER_02Andrew. So I'm just wondering people like stay away from the cinema on December 2nd, 3rd because he's gonna be on with these white Christmas cinematic snow capped, annoyingly rich in sweet, spectacular.
SPEAKER_00There are there are some success stories that I just think why? And he's one of them. I just don't see any connection between a British audience and him. I can't get it. There's always smiling Viennese people having a whale of a time. I don't know what British people see in him.
SPEAKER_02I would agree, but if you remember back to the past, like back to the 60s and the 70s, the James Last Orchestra was very popular in Britain. And if you think about the 70s and 80s and 90s, Richard Claiderman, the pianist, was also very popular. And they were both very rich and sweet and fruity and obvious, and none of them were British, and yet they were still popular in Britain, so there obviously is an audience for the sort of thing.
SPEAKER_00Why?
SPEAKER_02That is a tricky question. I suppose some British people actually do like a fantasy world of you know where everything's nicey wicey and jolly and happy. I know it's very un British to think like that, but there must be a minority of people actually like to be positive.
SPEAKER_00I'm just just not that positive. He's impossibly happy. That's what I find so irritating. He is impossibly happy all the time, despite playing an instrument that is notorious for not being happy.
SPEAKER_02It's like the whole world could be on a blaze and burning to the ground, and he would still be smiling and jigging away, and the audience would still be smiling and beaming the delight back at him.
SPEAKER_00He'd be fiddler on the aloof.
SPEAKER_02Oh, very good. Actually, that's good, Charles.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, that shocks you that one. It wasn't by my standards. Very good. Now, Graham, talking of um people doing things in extreme climates, I'm not suggesting that recording uh amidstorm Babette is that, but nevertheless, you've met a man who is well that that's kind of his that's what he's doing all the time. You have met Sir Ranulph Fines, and uh Sir Ranulph has been to the Harrogate, the Rayworths, I should say, Harrogate Literature Festival. And um slightly, I mean he's been touring um the same show for a little while now that's come to the various theatres, but this was obviously something a little bit different because he's come to the literary festival. So has he got a new book out?
SPEAKER_02He has indeed. It's about Lawrence of Arabia.
SPEAKER_00Oh so that's a different that's that's quite unexpected. That's interesting that he he should be going up into that field.
SPEAKER_02Not entirely, it he's done 31 amazing expeditions in his whole life, which has got him in the Guinness Book of Records as being the world's greatest living explorer, which I wouldn't argue with, and no one would. But he's also written about 30 books, and we're talking like all sorts of books, fiction and non-fiction, and he's not only written about himself a lot and he's various adventures and journeys, he's also written about classic past explorers, and he's also written history of the special services because he was in the SES in the 1960s, and he's done biographies of Shackleton and Captain Scott, so he he has got for me, he's a legitimate best-selling author, so it's not that that unexpected do Lawrence Arabia. But I I met him because obviously the Harrick advertiser gets to interview you know passing celebrities. So I was invited by Harry National Festival to organise Webers literature festival to him in advance of the whole show. So just me and him, and being me, I obviously talked about myself quite a lot. Which which Sir Sir Ranolph loved. Sir Ranulf really warm to that.
SPEAKER_00Remind remind me, Graham, which is the last mountain you climb.
SPEAKER_02Well, well, I have actually, you know, I've I've been in the Swiss Alps, I've been in the Canadian Rockies, I've been up Hell Bell in the Lake District, Ben Nevis. You know, I've I've got you know, compared to Sir Ranulph, I haven't got any form. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, but you know, I can walk. So there's a tiny similarity between me and Sir Ranulph, and uh he he wasn't the Scott, the Ronald Scott's Grays as a soldier before he sort of had to join the SCS. So he kept on talking about Glas Winsel and Scots, he seems to quite rate Scots in general because he's he's worked with him in a military capacity quite a lot, and he also he's had Scots and his exhibition teams over the decades. So he kept on talking about that, and he because he seemed to be quite proud of Scots, I told him that when it would I told them when I got married, I'd gone to see my favourite uncles in Scotland in advance of the wedding. And I'd been talking about the wedding, and they said, Well, you'll be wearing a kilt, Graeme. I said, No, no, I'm not really, I'm not really that sort of guy. I don't really like kilts, you know, tart and all that you know Scottish fiston stuff. And they went, No, no, no, Graham, you'll be wearing a kilt. And I said, Well, you know, I no, you know, part of me likes would want to wear a kilt, but I don't think I'm gonna wear a kilt. And then they said, No, Graham, you'll be wearing a kilt, or we're not coming to the wedding. So I I told him that story. But you could see him thinking, like, who is this person in front of me talking about this stuff when I'm the world's greatest living explorer?
SPEAKER_00Did you did you end up going to his talk on Lawrence?
SPEAKER_02I did indeed, and it was very interesting because he's now 80. And I I got some interesting answers about him before the show. But the difference between between him off stage and on stage was massive. He behaved and talked like an 80-year-old when I was chatting to him on stage, completely galvanized, completely focused, turned into showman with a great sense of humor. And I had been aware during the face-to-face interview that he's quite a deceptive person and very formidable. So uh, and he didn't answer, he was quite skillful at avoiding answering questions in general as well. And I thought, you're a guy who's quite complex with lots of layers, and that that came out in the actual show itself because he was very good.
SPEAKER_00Why did he not answer questions, Graham? Why would he not do that? I find that surprising. It's not that he had something to hide, so so why would he not answer questions?
SPEAKER_02Well, I I said to him that I'd given a talk recently on David Lean's film, The Bridge in the River Clive.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_02And Lean also made the Lawrence Arabia movie, which is a fantastic movie. I said, but both those films, although the great films were anti-war films, and both of them were factually, you know, not entirely accurate about the events either in the Second World War in Burma or in the First World War in the Arab world with Lawrence Arabia. I said, you know, is your book about Lawrence Arabia is is it myth or is it legend or is it the facts? And I'm not I'm not sure he likes to talk about difficult questions. So he replies and said, When I'm asked that question, I usually say, Yes, it was. Which obviously gets him at yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_00Well, I mean, that's avoid that's interesting, isn't it? Because that's avoiding the art. But to me, if you're looking at a starting point for this book, it has to be the man beyond the myth, the man beyond the legend, which is the figure that's very familiar. Not and partly obviously because of Peter O'Toole's performance and David Lean's direction in that film, but there's so much more of another story to tell there, and so surely he has to break through the myth and the legend. That's that is what you're wanting from this book.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, but I said to him, like Lawrence himself described his actions in leading our revolt in the desert during the First World War against the Ottoman Empire and the Turks as being only a sideshow of a sideshow. So I said to Sir Randolph, you know, Lawrence himself wasn't sure he was important. And Sir Randolph did say that he was a really complex man and that he he couldn't possibly explain the inner workings of Lawrence's brain, which is a fair point to make. But he did say that he thought he was a really important man, he really admired him. And I think the book, which I haven't read yet, but I have got, portrays Lawrence generally as a hero. So I I think uh Sir Ranolph is a military man from a long military family background, I think his dad and granddad were both high up serving officers in the roll greys. I I think he does look on Lawrence as not in a simplistic fashion, but he's he's not gonna be one to undermine the legend because I think he admires them a lot.
SPEAKER_00So, Graham, um, if you're gonna choose between T. E. Lawrence and D. H. Lawrence when it comes to initials as the greatest figure of the two in significance in British history, which would it be?
SPEAKER_02See, here's the Rob. DH is very important and significant because he represented the rise of the working class in British culture in the late Victorian era, and and he sort of like was the harbinger of the 1960s when Victorian Britain finally fell apart in terms of morality, culture, to the degree of politics and and wealth. Yeah, but on the other hand, he was a bit of a sort of like controversial character and maybe not likable, whereas there's something intrinsically romantic about Lawrence Arabia and very quintessentially British. And the feeling I got talking to Saranf face to face was that Saranof himself could be a figure from the late 19th century or from Lawrence Arabia's ear himself. He's got the same British, slightly eccentric, maverick, gung-ho spirit, which, although he's very patriotic, he's also a bit of a he's because he was in the SES, he's a bit of a trickster. He's not like he's not he's not entirely a straightforward person, and so I I think it's very hard not to be. I think I'm more fascinated by Lawrence Arabia than I'm by D. H. Lawrence.
SPEAKER_00Interesting. I thought that that's an interesting answer to that. And um I can see I can see why you hit on that thing of the romantic side of the figure, and that is something I think that we're always drawn to. I mean, the cultural significance obviously is D. H. Lawrence. That would he would have greater cultural significance in this country, I think, overall. Um we are still fascinated by T. E. Lawrence, but the great things of literature is that individuals read it down the ages and respond to it in different ways, and he's still having a huge impact, is D. H. Lawrence. We still have films versions made of his works, and his storytelling is persuasive and remarkable and groundbreaking when it happened and still hugely influential now. So I'm gonna go against you. I'm going with D.H. Lawrence.
SPEAKER_02I think you're entirely right, but uh against my better instincts, I can't stop being British, no matter how, in some ways, non-mainstream I am. I can't shake off that Britishness, which means that I also am fascinated by Scott of the Antarctic and Lawrence Arabia, and I watch Ben Fogle programs. I actually mentioned I actually mentioned Ben Fogel to Sir Ranoff to see if I got any reaction from him. But yeah, he's it's very very hard to wind up Sir Ranoff. He's he's a he's an amazing character, a formidable, very, very intelligent, sharp man. So uh I was never going to win uh any arguments with Sir Ranoff.
SPEAKER_00No, so there you are. You lost out to to Sarranoff. But on the other hand, Graham, um, you didn't have a fallout with him, which you know, in recent um interviewing standards, that's got to be a plus point.
SPEAKER_02This is true, but I did try my best.
SPEAKER_00Now, Graham, um last week, and we'll come on to a film section now, if we may, just going to finish off perhaps our discussion last week about Ken Loach. This just to remind listeners, last week um we were talking about Ken Loach's potentially his last film. Ken is now 87, and the old oak has uh had pretty pretty powerful reactions to it. But you did make the point as I understood it, maybe not that he's sort of stuck stuck in his ways, and um so maybe that slightly diminishes the impact of his films because though I think this this last this run of last three films, I Daniel Blake, sorry, um, sorry, we missed you, and now the old oak, I think are three of his strongest works. But you would make that point that not all his works have been great works, and there is that thing of maybe that the familiarity of material that runs through his films is something that actually runs against the impact of those films.
SPEAKER_02I always think that Ken Loch's films that the best and strongest thing about them is the way he captures working class characters in a very natural way, in a natural setting. And he doesn't he isn't trying to make them look like heroes or villains, they're like real people. And I first my first Ken Loach film I saw was when I was aged eight, like Grangemouth La Scala Cinema, as part of a double bill with 1000 plane raid, was the film Kez from 1969. It wasn't like it wasn't 69 when I saw it, and I couldn't think you couldn't think of a more inappropriate double bill than 1000 plane raid, a sort of gung old Second World War uh British film, or with Kez, but Kez, at even aged eight, had a massive impact on me. Yes, and Kez had no political angle and no political acts to grind really. It was more about how working class culture itself oppressed its its own people because of the tough circumstances it was in. And I I think most of his best films are just about people, and I'd never like his film so much when I can see the point he's trying to make. Although I'm not against him making points, it's perfectly fine, but it's a bit it's a bit like he sometimes like hits you over the head with with a point, and that's when I don't like it so much.
SPEAKER_00I mean, of recent uh acting for him, Paul Laberty, Dave Johns, who's a comedian, and Dave Turner. Um, they are, if you like, actors next door. They're that they are real. You make that, and it's an interesting point, isn't it? That sometimes maybe he can hammer it something too too heavily. But I do think the way that he chooses, um, and one is even loath to call them actors in some ways. He's very deliberate in how he chooses what feels real. And of course, we know that the very nature of filmmaking there is something artificial about it because it's it's film. But I think his great gift is to draw you into those stories to make you think again about issues, to get angry, maybe, to wish the world was different, and I think that will never leave him. And I I I know I know what you're saying that sometimes maybe um he's hammering up the point home, but I wonder whether that's partly the frustration about where is a subsequent generation of filmmakers that's doing what he has done. Where are the new voices making those points about the state of the nation? Why is it Ken that keeps having to make that point?
SPEAKER_02Well, you're talking about the nature of the British film industry then, and and the fact to go all Marxist on you. It's essentially a class, a class-based system. So, therefore, it's not going to make films which are too political in general because the people in charge of making films don't really want films that are too political in general. And that's that's to get that's to get very political.
SPEAKER_00But then I mean that's to run counter to filmmaking, obviously, in the 1960s and 1970s, both in America and Great Britain. That was hugely political and playwriting, hugely political. Isn't that the role of art to challenge the status quo and make us think differently and to want to change things?
SPEAKER_02Yeah, but they challenge the status quo in different ways now. There's different topics, different themes that do challenge the status quo. What they don't do is they don't they don't analyse modern politics or the modern economy. Those are the two things that very well get addressed because those are the two most tricky, biggest, difficult subjects to address, and the two subjects which are likely to annoy the people who've got the money most of all. So yeah, the subject matter falls into certain camps, which do challenge some things in society. It's not all British films are completely devoid of meaning or good intentions, it's not that bad.
SPEAKER_00No, I mean Shane Meadows obviously would be a country's point, wouldn't he?
SPEAKER_02Although Shane's not very political, really. He doesn't he doesn't really make political films. Although I know that you've got this is England series, which which does make some points, but again, he's he's he's more character-driven and and he's more about working class culture.
SPEAKER_00Well, there's our thoughts on uh Ken Loach. Um quite possibly his last film, which brings us to Martin Scores. It's probably not his last film, but Martin has turned 80 and made a film three hours and 26 minutes long. Uh the which It doesn't mean the short film's anymore. He's given up on that. Did it did it feel like that when you watched uh when you watched it? No, really, no.
SPEAKER_02I was surprised because I did expect it to feel long and it it it didn't. It was before I knew it was the end, it was I I wasn't sort of looking at my watch or rather my phone, and I wasn't shuffling around in my chair as as my bottom got a bit sore by sitting for hours on the end. So it it it it it not quite flew past, but it had the same sort of effect as uh Oppenheimer film. It didn't seem as long as its actual timing was. So it was it was a great film, but uh I can't say it was a hugely enjoyable film. No, but it was a very good film.
SPEAKER_00You asked an interesting question, and uh what I'll ask you in in tandem with that is you asked the question, has Martin Score says he finally exhausted the subject of American violence in his new film, Killers of the Flower Moon. Now, are you asking that question before you saw the film or afterwards?
SPEAKER_02Well, before I saw it, that's what I thought was going to happen. And it did in a way, because having made I mean he does make other films. I mean, Age of Innocence was actually a sort of like societal, societal romance in the age of elegance. Wolf of All Street was a was a over-the-top comedy about corruption in Wall Street. He's made a film to be Kunden, he's made one in Japan, Silence. So he doesn't just do films about American violence and American crime, but he has done an awful lot of films about American crime and American violence, and that they're mostly brilliant, they're mostly classics. But I think Killers of the Flower Moon, which is set in 1920s, Oklahoma, when the local indigenous Indian community struck oil in what was supposed to be a crap piece of land that they were forced onto by by the newcomers in the American New America. They strike oil and they become rich. And it's all about how unscrupulous, envious, greedy white Americans manipulate, exploit, and kill to get their hands on the oil money. So it could have been a straightforward typical scarcese of old American violence crime movie, but it's not, it's it's more like The Irishman was, that equally long film that you last made. And if the Irishman was if the Irishman was basically one long apology for glamorizing violence and crime, Killers of the Flower Moon is one long apology for racism and political corruption and the evil that men do. It's like Scorsese's final shot at making up for all the times that he accidentally made crime and violence look glamorous, which he did, which is why watching Good Killers is so such good fun, which is why taxi drivers are enjoyable, why Main Street's enjoyable, because he accidentally makes crime and violence look like rock and roll. Well, the Irishman did not make crime and violence look like rock and roll.
SPEAKER_01No.
SPEAKER_02In Killers of the Flower Moon is very bleak in depicting bad people's behavior in modern America as having no redeeming features whatsoever. So it's a great film, but it's it's it's quite a stern film.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I mean the obviously the two well, there's three central performances. Uh the talking points would invariably be Robert De Niro as the patriarchal figure. Uh it turns out I won't want to be a spoiler alert for for any listeners, but um the significance that he has the evil uncle was the evil uncle, yeah. So he's the evil uncle, and then of course, Leonardo DiCaprio is um uh is his nep is his nephew.
SPEAKER_02Uh he's the very essence of redneck. He's the weak. He's not quite a redneck, he's more a bit stupid. He's the weak, slightly stupid.
SPEAKER_00You're right, he is he is stupid, isn't he? That's right. Yeah, but the then of course, and I think this is partly what makes this film so powerful, is the performance of Lily Gladstone. Lily is playing Molly Burkhart, and Molly Burkhart is one of the Osage or Osage uh County uh native in native uh Indian tribe members, and she is marries the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio. And and I think that's what I think makes this film so strong. Is is her story is told you use that word Sterngram. That's true, it's a very grave and serious film, very watchable within that, but there is the uh absolutely that sense that there is to call it a uh a piece of a apologia would would I think be true, and with good good with good reason. And I think the the significance of Scorsese as a filmmaker is that if he makes this statement, it is hugely powerful. It'd be interesting to see Tarantino make any such uh any any any such uh film. With any such impact.
SPEAKER_02No, he did Django Unchained was basically it was about the most fierce condemnation of Southern States of America and the slavery system and the treatment of black people that any Hollywood director has ever made. It's it was incredibly brutal in showing how horrible this slave the slave system was. So the thing about Tarantino is because his reputation doesn't get taken seriously. Yeah, if Scorsese or or someone else had made Django and Chent, it would have had a bigger sort of political impact. But Tarantino just isn't regarded as being a that sort of director. I I think part part of amazing, I think Tarantino's fast underrated is a in the terms of the meaning of his films, he's always underrated. They're always taken as sort of like you know popcorn fiction, literally pulp fiction, and I think he's better than that.
SPEAKER_00Yes. So Graeme, and you make the point that films the film is stern, and that that's not to its detriment that you're you you would be saying that. I mean, I it's not boring. You never know. It's absolutely is not boring, and and um, and it didn't feel like three hours twenty-six minutes that was um dragging along. It was very intense throughout, which is quite some achievement to hold that for three hours, 26 minutes. Um I I I I mean, I'd I love to see significant filmmakers still bringing something, and you can't say necessarily fresh the term because you make the point about the Irishman, but I think this was as important and as significant a film as Scorsese has ever made. I would be interested to know what you thought of the finale, in which so it turns it into being reminding us that it's a piece of storytelling. It's we have at the end, it's done as a recording with voices, with folio artists doing all the sound effects, and Scorsese himself playing uh the announcer. What did you read into that, Graham? Why why is that, if you like coda there?
SPEAKER_02I thought first of all, it was a very effective gimmick. I thought it was a bit gimmicky because he has to sum up the story in a narration if he doesn't do that. And Scorsese doesn't do narration. So if he wasn't gonna do narration, what's he gonna do? Is he gonna do a a danoom on where it's all on cards on screen with lots of factual information about what happened? Again, that's not really Scorsese. No, so he's thought how how can I tell what happens next without going into elaborate, boring detail and using lots of words? And he thought, I'll turn it in, I'll turn it into a show on the radio. Now you could say he was being clever by showing how in America how quickly real life terrible situations are turned into entertainment, which of course he made the same sort of point in Taxi Driver in 1976 and in The King of Comedy in 1983, was it? So he's made that point before. So that he could argue that, but I I think he thought, how can I wrap this up after three hours, 26 minutes without using loads of words? So it it did sort of work. But my only thing about that that ending was that the film is watchable because no matter how bad DiCaprio's character is, he's such a great actor that you can't stop watching him. And I think the film had to go back to DiCaprio's face at the end, and it didn't. It ended up with that radio followed by modern members of the Osage community dancing as if in as if in celebration that is still here in current times. And I think it had to go back to DiCaprio because eventually DiCaprio doesn't fess up properly, just as in the Irishman, De Nero doesn't fess up properly. These are two bad people who who try desperately to be honest and redeem themselves and can't quite go the whole hog because it it would destroy their own self-belief. And so I think it had to go back to DiCaprio, but I mean, how many films have I made? Uh none in Scorcisson is a is a as a master of cinema, so therefore I'm not going to tell Scorcisi what to do.
SPEAKER_00I mean I would draw maybe the comparison with the Schindler's List finale. Hmm. Yeah, I know what you mean. Where we suddenly get the modern day image and I and I was always in two minds about that.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, I suppose it's a way of having a happy ending without it being a cliche, cheesy, sentimental happy ending.
SPEAKER_00Because it's that's what Yeah, I mean that's because the folio artist sequence I thought was changing the tone of the film right at the finale, but as you say, he then did as with Schindler's list with the modern day Jewish uh community. Uh here we had the Osage uh tribe community, and maybe actually that gave it that gravitess. I I it's an interesting thought about you know, should we have had DiCaprio's face right at the end? Um, how would you have done that?
SPEAKER_02Uh well I the the another reason he probably didn't do that is because ultimately it is about the story of the Osage community, it isn't about DiCaprio. DiCaprio's only one bad guy amongst a sea of bad guys who eventually met their fate to greater or lesser degrees. So I suppose to to pay due respect to the subject matter, because it is based on a real story, yes, it is. He had to focus on the Osage community. So I I understand it from a dramatic point of view, the film seemed to hinge on DiCaprio, but the but the story is bigger than the film in some ways, so I suppose the ending reflected that. Well, I did say one more thing. The one thing about the film that I didn't like, there's only one thing I didn't like really was that early on in the film they spent a lot of time seeing how smart and sharp the Osash community were. For the rest of the film, everybody in in the Osage community, and including DiCaprio himself, were nothing but dumb. It's like they kept on they kept on not seeing the obvious and being being manipulated. And I found that a bit annoying because if they were that sharp, how did that story unfold the way it unfolded?
unknownYes.
SPEAKER_02But I don't know the real story, so perhaps that is but I thought that was a bit a bit annoying. Because when you're when your protagonist, the main character in the film, is so stupid so many times, I was just getting slightly annoyed.
SPEAKER_00I I think that's a fair enough criticism, but overall, absolutely would encourage people to see this film. Uh a toweringly important director and always worth seeing Scorsese's work and three hours 26 minutes of anyone's time, really well spent.
SPEAKER_02No, I would say it's a better film than Oppenheimer. It's a better film than Openheimer. Oppenheimer is a very good film. Yeah, but Scorsese's a better director than Christopher Nolan. So to judge it properly in the modern era, as opposed to like judging it against Scorsese's own lengthy CV, it was better than Oppenheimer as a film, I thought.
SPEAKER_00I would agree with that. Um was doing a link there, cheesy link with the word three for three hours into three new albums, which is our last subject matter for today. I'm gonna hold my hands up. I've yet to hear any of them. The first is the Coral Sea of Mirrors, the second is Peter Brewis, Bloudry Colossus, the third is Blue Dry of the Rolling Stones. Uh, I've got it down, it's been called Hackney Diamonds. I think you came up with a different title, but I'm pretty damn sure it's Hackney Diamonds. Their first album of original songs since a bigger bang in 2005. So now that's the one that's out this week, and it probably has attracted the most interest. But I would would like to know, Graham, out of this. Um, what has satisfied you the most? You it would be fair to say that nothing against field music, but out of the three, probably the field music, the one that perhaps least um penetrative penetrative to a wider audience. The choral is uh who've bubbled along, I think, in a delightful way through many years. The Running Stones, frankly, are the biggest band in the world. So good luck at comparing the three. Over to you.
SPEAKER_02Well, the the Stones, the great thing about the Stones Hackney Dimes album is it sounds fresh as a daisy and full of life and full of energy, and it sounds just as young in tone as the Coral Sea of Mirrors or Peter Bruce's Blow Dry Colossus. The bad thing is, in terms of artistic interest, Hackney Dimes is possibly the worst of the three because, for a large part of the album, although it's performed exceedingly well and sounds brilliant, the songs are just full of loads of Stones recycled riffs. We've heard a million times, and most of the tracks are album tracks. And I'm not surprised because the last time the Stones did an album, which had more than five tracks worth holding on to, was Tattoo You in 1981. They in general they've produced a lot of albums which would make very good EPs. In Hackney Dam is doesn't really rise above that, except at the end it redeems itself to properly Rolling Stones tracks, which could have appeared at any time in the history, and you would have been impressed. So Sweet Sounds of Heaven, which I thought should be the album title. Yes, it is an amazing track. If that if that turned up on Sticky Fingers or XL Main Street, you wouldn't throw it out of bed, you'd think that's a good track. And the last track, Rolling Stone Blues, The Muddy Waters cover, oh, yes, is so authentically bluesy, but in a stones type way, it's just delightful. And those are the two moments where you go, Wow, the Stones were a great group. The rest of the album is really professional and listenable and to varying degrees quite good, but there's a lot of hackneyed to use a terrible pun. There's a lot of hackneyed old stuff going on. So I don't I no, it's not a diamond, but can soon they're 80 years old. I mean, Mick and Keith in Ron Woods, not far behind. You know, you you wouldn't guess that this album was done by guys who are picking up the pension. It sounds like guys in their 30s or 40s, so in some ways it's an amazing achievement.
SPEAKER_00So, what about um Peter Brewers, which we've we've sort of trailed before that Peter was doing this album? So this is Blaudry Colossus. I know we've only got about 90 seconds left, Graham.
SPEAKER_02Blow dry colossus, all instrumentals, very 1980s amazing. Yeah, it's really, really much better thought it was going to be because it's all instrumentals and very 1980s influenced. The Coral Sea of Mirrors, though, is the gem. The Coral Sea of Mirrors, which is a semi-acoustic, semi-cor uh orchestral, pastoral, psych rock album, is phenomenally good. It's as good as like it's nearly as good as Love's Forever uh Changes from 1967.
SPEAKER_00I praise it.
SPEAKER_02It's as good, not quite as good, but close. And it's as good as the Zombies Odyssey and Oracle from the late 60s. It's a very, very good album. The coral have learned so much by being together for more than 20 years, and they just slowly get better and better. They've really got their their teeth into how you do great songs. It's really impressive, Sea of Mirrors.
SPEAKER_00So that would be your recommendation of the album to get at the moment, Sea of Mirrors by the Coral. Definitely, yes. You've been listening to the podcast Two Big Egos in a Small Colour. Your hosts were Graham Chalmers and Charles Hutchinson. This was a Baltic sub-production.