← The Monocle Daily
Loading summary
Transcript70 lines
- [00:00]
A
You're listening to the Monocle Daily, first broadcast on 16th September 2025 on Monocle Radio.
- [00:07]
B
Israel moves on Gaza City as a UN commission of inquiry says it is already committing genocide. Could Ukraine benefit from US President Donald Trump's state visit to the UK and the mysterious Italian folk hero addressing one persistent urban blight? I'm Andrew Muller. The Monocle Daily starts.
- [00:32]
A
Foreign.
- [00:39]
B
Welcome to the Monocle Daily, coming to you from our studios here at Midori House in London. I'm Andrew Muller. My guests Bertu Ersholik and Antonio Sampaio will discuss today's big stories and we'll reflect on the life and legacy of Hollywood titan Robert Redford, who has died at the age of 89. Stay tuned. All that and more coming up right here on the Monocle Daily. This is the Monocle Daily. I'm Andrew Muller and I am joined today by Bertu Ersherlik, a senior research fellow in Middle east security at rusi, and by Antonio Sampaio, expert on Latin American politics and security. Hello to you both.
- [01:18]
C
Hello.
- [01:19]
B
Hello, Antonio. First of all, for the second time in as many days, we have a daily panelist in the owl costume, which is to say we have a daily debutante, although you have spoken to Monocle Radio in other contexts many times before. So as is also tradition, we invite the person in the owl costume to introduce themselves to our listeners. How did you get here?
- [01:42]
C
Oh, thank you. Yeah. The owl is a symbol of wisdom, so I greatly appreciate the optimism. So I worked for 10 years at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which is sort of competitor to rusi, and then also at the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime. So, you know, I'm a bit of a geek in terms of international security stuff and now I'm doing a PhD at King College of London.
- [02:09]
B
Well, being a geek on international security stuff is about to come in very handy. But you have been travelling, as you so very and enviably often seem to have been, but the latest trip has been sort of a going home.
- [02:22]
D
Yes, it was. I was on annual leave, which was just lovely. I was back home in Turkey, had a family holiday. We did some sailing off the coast of Bodrum and Dacia in the Aegean. It was lovely.
- [02:36]
B
What's Bodrum like now? Because that is one of the places I did visit as a young idiot with a backpack schlepping across Turkey centuries ago. It was actually quite quiet at the time. I'm guessing it's not really like that anymore.
- [02:50]
D
Well, it is and it isn't. It does depend on the time of year that you go there. But Bodrum has morphed and transformed into something much bigger than the sleepy fishing town it once was, of which poems and stories have been written. It's become Ming, sort of the new Mykonos Ibiza, and sort of the party town and hugely transformative sort of landscape in terms of new hotels and clubs, restaurants popping up, and the price tag as well is going up in terms of what it means to have a holiday there.
- [03:21]
B
Yeah, I was just about to say, I suspect the option of a mattress on the roof for $3 a night is no longer available. We will start the show proper in Gaza City where Israel's operation to seize and occupy whatever of it is still standing up is now same time a United nations commission of inquiry has declared that Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023 do amount to genocide on four of the five counts defined under international law. The same commission has previously found that Hamas, various other Palestinian groups and the Israel Defense Forces were likely guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes. Israel predictably denies everything. Antonio, we will come back to that commission of inquiry, but if we start first with Gaz City, is it clear to, well, anybody really what the actual military objective is at this point?
- [04:18]
C
Well, the objective seems to be the occupation of the urban area and the attempt to flush out the remaining Hamas members. And it's inevitable that the urban environment will play a big role in this operation because as a non state armed group, Hamas has operated among populated areas. And that has been at the heart of, of the tremendous international discussion and debate and condemnation of Israel in terms of not being put off by the civilian aspect of this operating environment and going full on. So there is an enemy, there is indisputable fact that there is a armed, very dangerous and damaging group that has done great damage to Israel. But there is also the civilian and the proportionality aspect of the military operation that, you know, is a continued debate. And I think today we've seen the international community moving more strongly even against Israel on this.
- [05:24]
B
Because on that thought, Bertu, Israel is trying to present this, as they have so often these last nearly two years, as saying, well, you know, what option do we have? As Antonio says, and as Antonio says correctly, they are fighting a dangerous non state enemy in a built up urban environment, which is a legendarily difficult thing to do. But there are other ways of doing it than just levelling the entire city and deporting its entire population. I mean, I have spoken myself in the last couple of years to American officers who commanded in urban environments in Iraq in particular, who've been actually really pretty appalled by how the Israelis have gone about this.
- [06:07]
D
It's extremely difficult to imagine how this willthis will unfold without inflicting even further excruciating suffering on the civilian population in Gaza. And there are already satellite imagings that show that many, whilst many have fled Gaza City ahead of the operation, many have remained in shelters and tents. And there is a sort of cost aspect to it as well in terms of what it means to be uprooted once more in finding safety and refuge in the sheer cost of purchasing a tent to house your famil. So it's extremely difficult to imagine how this will move forward. There have been statements from the IDF chief of staff, who admittedly was very reluctant to go ahead with this operation and attempted to delay. It is my understanding what the IDF and the political establishment is emphasizing is that it is a moral and operational imperative to try to bring the hostages home. And I understand that one of the core, if not the top mission at the moment is to see if that can be if theseif the remaining hostages, 20 of which are believed to still be alive, can be rescued from the tunnel system underneath these high rises. But a very complicated urban ecosystem, and we've seen this in other urban insurgency counterinsurgency operations, this will not be easy. The IDF has already said that it could take weeks, if not months, to to control Gaza City and then to clear it, which is a rather ominous word indeed.
- [07:50]
B
So, and that, Antonio, does bring us to a question that I think we've been asking guests ourselves, each other, for nearly two years now, which is, are we any nearer understanding what Israel's condition of victory actually is? What does the point look like at which Israel will say, okay, I think we've made our point, we'll now call it off?
- [08:11]
C
Well, I think publicly in terms of official statements, they have been consistent in saying that it is the defeat of Hamas, but it's a tremendously high stakes. It's a very difficult goal that they've set themselves because I'm not sure if my colleague will agree, but the states, the history of guerrilla warfare and warfare in general, it has been very difficult for states to fully defeat these sort of in the shadows, as we call it, non state armed groups, but, you know, guerrillas, insurgents, et cetera, to fully defeat them. Of course, as you mentioned, there are other ways of dealing with them, such as intelligence, infiltration and negotiation, but the latter seems to be out of the Question. Now the question is what short of this objective of fully defeating Hamas, what will Israel consider sufficient? Right. And it has already said, as we discussed, that the IDF has said that it will take months, this operation. So I think that it's a matter of retrieving as many hostages as possible. And then I think Israel might be able to consider a change or a slight moderation to its very, very lofty ambition of defeating fully Hamas.
- [09:39]
B
But does this commission of inquiry's declaration change anything? They are very far from the first people to have accused Israel of genocide. And to be clear, this report does not actually speak for the UN as such, but it is a body operating under the UN's aegis, as it were. Is there any chance at all it changes anybody's mind either in Israel or elsewhere, about anything? Does it maybe at least make Israel's allies, with the obvious exception of the United States, a little bit less eager to go all in behind Israel?
- [10:19]
D
I think we're in the throes of again this moment of contradictions in that yesterday in Doha we had an emergency summit of the Islamic world Arab states condemning in the harshest terms Israel, Israel's attack on Hamas, on the Hamas leadership and negotiating team in Qatar. Last week at the same time we had the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio meet with Netanyahu in Israel. And today the condemnation again in terms of condemning Israel's actions in Gaza as meeting the definition of genocide according to the UN inquiry alongside the IDF's expanded ground offensive in Gaza. So we have two very different visioned to very different ideas of how to tackle what is now the biggest challenge in the Middle east and sort of reshuffling the regional order. The fear is that today's report calling Israel's activities in Gaza genocide, the concern is that this will not change Israel's behavior. It will not really change the tone in the United States. And then the risk becomes does the legal concept of genocide, this principle, this condemnation is the risk is that it's becoming a hollowed out concept if it's not followed up by concrete, tangible action. And the inquiry does call upon the international community to halt arms transfers and sales, to take action that to back up this statement of this categorization of genocide. But if there's the result is not action, but it's just more words, is this then a discursive punishment of Israel? And the risk there is that, well, what do we mean by genocide? Does it have this moral and legal significance that it should? And are we thinking in terms of the desired strategic outcome if Israel's behavior is not changing as a result, if anything, if it's becoming more emboldened to act, as we're seeing now in Gaza City, in advance of also the French and the British intent to declare recognition of Palestine, which has arguably accelerated Israeli actions in Gaza and potentially future annexation of the west bank, then this is a problem. There is huge moral, symbolic weight attached to the concept of genocide, but if it's not followed through with future actions, then I'm afraid that where we stand right now is shifting too quickly.
- [13:07]
C
Just to add to that, I think that I agree. And sadly, the track record in terms of genocide and its sort of legal implications for, let's say, multilateral organizations, international organizations pursuing or doing something about it is that it tends to happen years after the events. Right. I mean, starting with the Nuremberg Trials and all of that. So I think that, you know, in the medium to long term, I think that Netanyahu and some of the senior officials in his government would be quite a bit of trouble internationally if they travel with the International Criminal Court and all of that. But I agree that now there is a lot of doubts about the practical implications of that.
- [13:44]
B
Well, here in the uk, meanwhile, Air Force One is due at Stansted Airport now or now abouts bearing US President Donald Trump on his second full dress state visit. It will be somewhat more circumscribed than such beanos often are. When he does get a go in a gold cart, which you can imagine he'd be pretty excited about, it will be in laps around the grounds of Windsor Castle rather than through the streets of London, where there would be difficulties in guaranteeing the warmth of welcome. Ahead of Trump's arrival, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has taken the opportunity to press for a clear position from the US about further sanctions on Russia and the kind of security guarantees which might be made available in the event of an end to the war. But firstly on this is the fact of Trump being here and getting presumably the full treatment from the royal, etc. Which does always seem to put him in a good mood. Does this make it a good time to bend his ear about Ukraine, which certainly the UK Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, will be anxious to do.
- [14:49]
D
Certainly anxious to do. I think it's the top agenda item, or certainly amongst the top three. It comes at a crucial time, both in the war in Ukraine, of course, we had the incident recently, the violation of Poland's airspace and the drone strikes there and Romania's. That's Right. And so can the uk. Can Prime Minister Starmer do something that's sufficient to convince, persuade President Trump that Putin is not interested in negotiating, is not interested in a ceasefire, is not truly pursuing peace? I think there is a now a window of opportunity given recent actions. I think President Trump is very keen to be seen as the peacemaker. Clearly, we have now a huge body of evidence suggesting this in his own statements, but he will be keen to get further UK support and the perception of alignment. And it's this inconsistency between the US position and Europe, of course, this divergence of views and willingness to act in Ukraine, the extent to which that's there, I think that plays into the hands of Putin's Russia and that that is exactly what they want to see. Is this division, this lack of a united front, and will this visit be enough to begin to close that gap? I think it's very unclear, particularly given the recent challenges that the government here in the UK has been facing as well.
- [16:26]
B
Antonio? I think it's worth passing, or trying to pass to the extent that it's ever possible. Trump's recent statements about what he want from Europe, he has said that Europe needs to stop buying any oil, any energy from Russia. And I think that is one of those things where we have to acknowledge that just because Donald Trump says it doesn't mean it isn't true. I think it would strike most people as ridiculous that at this point, any European countries are still buying any energy from Russia and therefore underwriting its war in Ukraine. But several European countries are, except the two primary offenders here are, of course, Trump's two favorite European countries, which, or at least his countries run by his two favorite prime ministers. Viktor Orban of Hungary, Robert Fico in Slovakia. Does Trump kind of know that? And so he therefore knows that he's asking for something impossible, so he's not going to have to do anything.
- [17:18]
C
I think that Trump will, as usual, attempt to put a strong showing of pressure towards Europe, but in practical terms, I think his advisors must be telling him that Europe has already moved a long, long way towards separating itself from Russia and towards the pressure towards more defence spending that has cost a lot to budgetary deficits and balances here in the UK and in other countries. So I think that he must be advised of the realistic goals that he must achieve. But I think that his sort of nationalistic and peacemaking rhetoric will come just.
- [18:06]
B
Before we move off this one. Bertu, Leaving aside the content of what might actually get discussed between Trump and Starmer, what's your sense of how very much or otherwise both the British government and the royal family are looking forward to the next few days?
- [18:21]
D
Not very much.
- [18:22]
B
Can I say that? I think you can say that without too much fear of contradiction, because what they're obviously hoping for is that they can somehow get through this without Donald Trump seeing anybody or seeing any members of the general public among whom in this country he is not a terribly popular man.
- [18:41]
D
That's right. And you know what as well that the bar has been set so low in that in terms of what to expect, what counts as a good visit or a good bilateral meeting? I think the Zelenskyy debacle in the Oval Office, I think any visit where something even remotely close to that does not happen will count as, you know what, this didn't go off too terribly.
- [19:05]
B
So that they'd settle for not a total disaster.
- [19:07]
D
Yes. Y. To put that in sort of a British way. Yes.
- [19:11]
B
It's nice to have something to aim at. We should look now at the United States, which for the second time this month has conducted a strike against what it claims was a Venezuelan ship transporting drugs. The first such raid killed 11 people. This latest one, three. US President Donald Trump claimed once again a great triumph in the war on drugs, although once again without presenting much in the way of evidence that the targeted vessel was carrying what and who he said it was. By way of wider context, the the U.S. military presence off the coast of Venezuela still looms, consisting of the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready group and the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, nearly 7,000 troops in total. Antonio, is it actually clear what is on these boats or who was on them? Is there basically, I guess what I'm asking. Any chance that they are what Donald Trump says they were?
- [20:04]
C
Well, the reason it's not clear what was in the boats is they were blown out of the water. Right. And that's part of the whole point. Point that the discussions around the legality of these actions basically go back to the point that strikes against perceived enemies that are not states that you are war with need to be proportional and needs to be a last resort. And it seems that in the first strike, even the U.S. defense State Secretary Rubio said that one of the ships, the first ship, was turning back. So it seems to imply very clearly that it wasn't a last resort, that it was a self defense act. And why not, you might ask, arrest those ships or use the National Guard, follow it with the amazing US Intelligence system that Trump has been bragging about that they knew exactly what was in the ship, why not follow it or track it or arrest it in international waters? But there is substance, of course, to the, you know, the statements made by the US Government, not just Trump, but others, about the Trender Agua, the organized criminal group in Venezuela that is very much active and exists and operates in illegal mining also in the Brazilian Amazon and in Colombia, human trafficking and also drug trafficking. And it does have members in the US Although it's not clear if they are just loosely associated or they're really. So there is an element there. But the tool to fight these things is not blow the ships out of the water, you know, without attempting some type of cooperation, collaboration.
- [21:48]
B
Is it possible virtue that people involved with these operations may end up living to regret it? Because President Trump is acting with the backing of a Supreme Court which has pretty much said, do what you like, you're the president, it doesn't matter. But that does not apply to everybody below him in the chain of command. It is not impossible, is it, that at some point they might have bought themselves some legal jeopardy?
- [22:15]
D
I would imagine so, yes, unless they receive a Trumpian pardon at some point. But I think the longer term consequences of this type of action, that is certainly in the gray area of what counts as permissible under customary international law and the law of the high seas. Yes. I think the thread that ties our conversation together, I think across these topics is, is international law and retreat. It's certainly being challenged. I mean, we talked about issues of genocide and war crimes, about sovereignty of states and strikes in Qatar and now this as well. And President Trump has called the Venezuelan cartels narco terrorists. The question is, if we're talking in the framework of international law, does this now set a precedent? Can another state in hot pursuit of any type of terrorist or criminal activity that it says poses a threat, threat to its national security and its peoples? Can they now proceed in the similar vein, or does this only apply to the United States? Can only President Trump and his apparatus get away with it? So the question of precedent here in counterterrorism, counternarcotics operations, I think is an important one, and we just do not know. But to get back to your question, yes, I think there can be and should there likely be consequences for those carrying out such actions, especially as it's led to casualties? It's likely, but we just don't have enough information. Despite President Trump assuring or trying to assure the media that the vessels were in fact carrying narcotics, Antonio, there's hints.
- [24:02]
B
I guess, of the US Trying to buy itself a certain amount of legal cover. We've seen this week Trump designating Venezuela and Colombia, among others, as countries which have, quote, failed demonstrably on counter narcotics agreements. If we attach that to this American presence off the coast of Venezuela, does that start to look to you like a serious threat? Are they going to try and rerun Bay of Pigs or something?
- [24:29]
C
I think that Trump ran, especially in his first term, strongly against military intervention outside. However, at the same time, you know, he's clearly playing this strong hand, the sort of national security card, and therefore I think that it is very useful to maintain this sort of especially naval operation. It's very convenient. And Trump emphasized in his two social polls that it was international waters and that they were narco terrorists. But this paves the way for a very, a much more structural problem. Fortunately, not a military intervention, I think, but a more structural problem which is the type of cooperation that the US has had, especially with Colombia. It's been such a long time ally of the U.S. one of the strongest international allies, especially in security terms. In response to Trump's announcement, Gustavo Petro, the left president of Colombia, has announced that it is now seizing military cooperation with the United States and will now not accept any more weapons from the United States and will buy everything by itself. This is a major, major in a for the US in terms of the influence and the military cooperation it has with Colombia, which is one of the main sources of cocaine for the entire world. So it's losing a lot of influence and a lot of opportunity to collaborate and collect intelligence with alongside the Colombian authorities.
- [25:59]
B
Well, to Italy now, specifically, Brescia blighted, like many cities, with the witless, ugly daubs of graffitists. Brescia, however, has a literally secret weapon in the fight against such vandalism. It is the anonymous superhero as Ghost Painter, believed to be a decorator by day, doubtless mild mannered, who by night covers Brescia's chronic graffiti with paint matching the original wall colors and leaves at the site of each such act a note reading questo en un ato de amore obano or this is an act of urban love. Brescia's graffitists have reportedly taken umbrage, spraying the ghost painters repairs with such dopey slogans as clean walls mute society. Rather than attempting to improve their works to the extent that anybody would look at them. Volun voluntarily. Butchu, whose side are you on here? And you may have noticed that I'm leading the witnesses in a certain direction.
- [26:54]
D
I do. Can I just pause and say that I like what you've done here on this episode that you've taken us from urban war to urban love. So nice work there.
- [27:04]
B
Due credit to the producer, Laura, who stitched this all seamlessly together.
- [27:08]
D
Beautifully done. I hadn't noticed that when I first got these. Great. Gosh. When did graffiti stop being a form of art?
- [27:18]
B
I feel like stop or start.
- [27:21]
D
Oh, boy, oh, boy. What I did appreciate about the story is that apparently they're meticulously painted. These are historic buildings, and the colors, tones matching the original paint of the historic buildings. I think that that is quite admirable. Is that. Does that help sort of go in the right direction?
- [27:45]
B
I suspect I may have myself slightly more robust views on the subject. My views, Antonio, involving stocks and big baskets of last week's groceries, which the passing citizen will be encouraged to fling at the graffitists. Where are you on this? Are you hoping others follow the ghost painters exist?
- [28:07]
C
Well, my number one opinion on this, and it's a very strong one, is that my owl costume would be a very strong act of urban love as well. And I would go around and flout my costume to everybody, but tricky to.
- [28:23]
B
Hold a paintbrush in one of those wings. Now that I think. Anyway, carry on.
- [28:27]
C
Yeah, it's just an urban intervention, right. It's an act of, you know, disrupting or interrupting the concrete, you know, boredom or continuity. Continuity of the city with art. And it's funny how it often threads on dubious ground in terms of its legality because citizens often like it. But then authorities fear the consequences and the disorder that may inspire others to act. But it's part of the negotiation about the city, that the city is not just a place of physical space. It's made of these social and cultural interactions that make cities alive, especially in and era with artificial intelligence and all of that. You know, what makes us human, I think is very important to display that the city as, you know, as a canvas for human artists.
- [29:22]
B
These are some dismally liberal opinions I'm hearing from around.
- [29:26]
D
We may have over romanticized what the graffiti in this town may look like.
- [29:30]
C
And that comes from security geeks, but the graffiti.
- [29:35]
B
Is there not an argument? Cause it's certainly one I would make, Bertu, that it is mostly just objectively just ugly and stupid. There it is. People literally marking their territory in a matter barely elevated from the fashion in which dogs do it.
- [29:48]
D
Oh, wow. You went there.
- [29:51]
B
I did.
- [29:52]
D
I will agree with that. I think what. I suppose the context matters. I think the nature of the graffiti, which used to be sort of recognized as street art. I think that matters if it's a form of resistance, the kind of statement that it's making. I was wondering if this conversation was going to. To lead us to Banksy's work. And that's a different direction altogether. And I believe that has also been painted over. So different type of architecture.
- [30:25]
B
It has been painted over. I would argue with paint not nearly thick enough. But, Antonio, just finally, on this one, is it just not a thing where. Where this would be my argument, I think fundamentally that graffitists are breaking the key social contract of life in a city, which is that you have to. The only way it functions is if nobody gets to impose their view or what they want on everybody else. And a graffitist is by definition imposing what they want to do on everybody else, whether everybody else wants to look at it or not.
- [31:02]
C
Yeah, I agree with that in general terms. And I think that when a new artist or a new trend or a new group starts to do graffiti, there is a media sensation. And when it's good art, I think it starts like this celebratory atmosphere. But at some point, I think there needs to be again, the negotiation between the authorities and the graffiti artist. Otherwise it might inspire others to do less artistically endowed interventions. So there needs to be a limit. So this negotiation, the urban chaos, can happen at the beginning, but then there needs to be a moment in which we reach a common ground. That's, I think, the urban society in action.
- [31:45]
B
We'll do buskers next time. Antonio Sampaio and Bertu Ersholik, thank you both for joining us. Finally on today's show, Robert Redford has died at the age of 89. His career as an actor or as a director or as a festival convener and auteur would have earned him a lofty place in the pantheon. He was all of the above. I'm joined with more on his life and legacy from Chicago by the film critic and Monocle Radio regular, Karen Krasanovich. Karen, It's. It's one of those ones where it's kind of tough to know where to start.
- [32:17]
A
It's really hard to know where to start. It's. It's. I was listening to one biography this morning. He said he was born way back in 1936. Okay. You know, Robert Redford has been with. With the film industry seemingly forever, and his career has been extraordinary. And his effect has been so various that it is very difficult to know where to start. People know him, I think, as a handsome leading man in things like the Great Gatsby, the one that happened in the 70s or the Sundance Kid, but he was so much more.
- [32:51]
B
Well, he was a handsome leading man obviously and generations of journalists owe him. Thanks for giving any impression at all that any of us look even slightly like that. I'm thinking of all the President's Men, of course. But how early did it become clear that he was, was well, if you like, more than just a pretty face and was actually quite an unusual and significant actor?
- [33:12]
A
That's a really good question. I would say probably more around the 80s. Although he always felt he was an outsider and although he was extremely. The camera loved him and although he did have the heartthrob status, the leading man status, he always felt that he was more than that or that wasn't really what he was. And so he went through, he had a very, very long career. He started, started off winning a Golden Globe and then ending up with Butch Cassidy which was sort of mid-60s and just a huge box office success. And from there on paired with Jane Fonda early on and Paul Newman just became kind of the person that you would point at for not only being beautiful to look at, great to look at. Cameron loved him, but also substance. There was somebody in there, it wasn't just a pretty face.
- [34:06]
B
Was that substance at least part of the secret of the success of those partnerships in particular you mentioned the ones with Jane Fonda and Paul Newman. That's not really the kind you, it's difficult I'm assuming to carry off that sort of two hander if you don't have anything going on behind the eyes.
- [34:24]
A
Well that's exactly right. And, and we have to remember that, that when, when Redford started out, stars were just stars. They were just coming out of the studio period where stars lives were really controlled so they couldn't have political opinions really. And also who they hung around with and how they were photographed was. So the fact that he had lasting and real relationships with huge stars such as Jane Fonda or, or Paul Newman meant that there was a genuine friendship there. And we don't really see that these days because of pressures of, of I don't know, social media or whatever you might want to call it. But it was almost like there was some, there was, there was a real life going on behind the cameras and that made what they did somehow more important. There was a resonance there. It wasn't just entertaining.
- [35:11]
B
You mentioned there, the political views and it being more than just entertainment. And this becomes, I think reasonably apparent by, certainly by the time of all the President's men. So early 70s or so. But how unusual was that at the time? The idea that not just film, but mainstream, popular, you know, commercial Hollywood film should be about more than just entertaining people for a couple of years. Hours.
- [35:37]
A
Extremely rare. Extremely rare. I mean, even. Even today, it's very difficult to get a film about an important topic, important quote, unquote, into the mainstream consciousness. And Redford saw this and. Which is one of the reasons why he started the Sundance Film Festival, and we will get on to that. But he felt. I mean, he bought the. The book of all the President's Men before it was finished. And he felt so passionately about the freedom. Freedom of press and the dynamism and also working together with. Because they're very unlikely. The characters that Dustin Hoffman and he played were very unlikely teamworkers. You know, one was intuitive, the other one very analytical. And it almost was like a lesson. Intolerance, freedom. That's this movie. And it was a huge hit and made a lot of people become journalists in the 70s and further on, he.
- [36:29]
B
Could have made obviously, well, and did make obviously an entirely pleasant and profitable life in front of the camera, but he. He wanted to be behind the camera as well. And clearly he was every bit as natural a director as he was an actor. But if you think about the films he directed and the way he directed them, where do you see his strengths?
- [36:51]
A
I think his sensitivity. His sensitivity as an actor, and also his deep understanding of the industry, knowing that it's important. There's so many stresses to get a film made. And I just think that he knew. Knew the ins and outs intimately and understood acting, and I think that's what made him great. And also, let's say. Let's. Let's look at his. His Best director Oscar in 1981, excuse me, which is about ordinary people, about the loss of a son. He actually had lost two children himself in his marriage. So he was bringing something of himself to all of the things that he was making.
- [37:29]
B
You earlier mentioned the Sundance Film Festival, and we do live in a world now, as I think you, Karen, know better than most, in which you could spe your entire life hopping from one film festival to another if you really felt like it. But how did Sundance stand out in the calendar?
- [37:47]
A
It was a. I mean, this is. This is what I'm trying to. To get my head around. It was such a huge anomaly at the time because film festivals were either sort of glitzy affairs that seemed quite alien to ordinary people or. Or they were these little bumpy things. That were, were small and not very well arranged. And he took over a film festival in Utah and, and just kicked it into touch with independent film that he felt passionately about, that these are not only good films, entertaining films, but also films that were more than just fluffy romances, that they actually spoke to our lives as they were. And he really put his star power behind that. Now, he also was a very private man, and he used his star power in a way that was almost like a stealth weapon. I mean, if he was behind it, people took notice.
- [38:38]
B
And just finally, Karen, I think a lot of people around the world today, and certainly many of our listeners, will be at some point firing up their particular favorite, Robert Redford. Which one would you pick?
- [38:51]
A
Well, you have to choose which Redford you want. Do you want the Big Romance? You want the Great Gatsby, which is difficult to watch but beautiful? Do you want the exciting one, you know, Sundance Kid? Do you want the important one, all the President's Men? I'll tell you, the one that filmmakers really like is Jeremiah Johnson. And that one often goes under the radar, but he made so many terrific films. I mean, Electric Horseman. Have a look. Spin the tombola and take a grab. You won't be disappointed.
- [39:23]
B
Karen Krasanovich, thank you for joining us. That is all for this edition of the Monocle Daily. Thanks to our panelists today, Bertu Urshelik and Antonio Sampaio. Today's show was produced by Laura Kramer and researched by Daniela Brossard Smith. Our sound engineer was Elliot Greenfield. I'm Andrew Muller here in London. The Daily is back at the same time tomorrow. Thanks for listening.