Celebrated film critic David Stratton has died at the age of 85. He leaves an indelible mark on Australian film culture, and Australian film culture left an indelible mark on him.

Over a long career, he had an intimate relationship with cinema, finding it a place of connection and a kind of shelter. It was where he spent time with his grandmother and time away from the family grocery business that loomed large over his future.

Stratton’s migration to Australia in 1963 as a 10 pound pom became permanent as he took on the role of director of the Sydney Film Festival from 1966 to 1983.

In that role, he shaped a generation of young filmmakers who would come to define the Australian New Wave. He found a new sense of belonging.

His 1980 book, The Last New Wave, is explicitly a homage to

the men and women who work in the Australian film industry [who] make up as fine a group of people as anyone would want to know.

Becoming a critic

The festival director role led to his relationship with SBS, who hired Stratton as a part-time feature film consultant from 1980 – an arrangement which he translated into on screen introductions for what became Movie of the Week, as well as Cinema Classics in 1983.

Here, he met producer Margaret Pomeranz, who became his professional collaborator, co-presenter and loyal friend. Their on-air partnership, lasting 28 years across the SBS and the ABC program, At the Movies, made them icons of Australian film culture.

In writing my book on At the Movies, I heard numerous versions of the question, “are you a Margaret or a David?” The collection of their reviews on Letterboxd can be searched by the tags “Oh, David” and “Oh, Margaret”.

A cultural icon

The words “cultural icon” can be over-used, but in the case of Stratton, the emphasis was on substance over show. He never finished high school or studied at university, but wrote three books on Australian cinema, two movie guides, and a biography, I Peed on Fellini (2008).

He was passionate and protective of film, no more so than when he was battling censorship. In the case of Ken Park (2002), because of restrictions on the viewing of the film, few could argue with the decision on the facts of the case. However, Stratton, who had seen the film, declared “We’re being lied to”.

Stratton was a seasoned critic and performer, and knew how to manage his persona. He worked as a film reviewer for The Weekend Australian for 33 years, was a regular reviewer for Variety from 1984 to 2003, using the moniker “Strat”, while also making contributions to The Age and segments on radio station 2UE.

Following the end of At the Movies, he ventured into reviewing on the internet through “David Stratton Recommends” a collaboration with art house film exhibitors in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth, and he ran a history of world cinema course at the University of Sydney’s Centre for Continuing Education, which he concluded in 2023.

Underpinning all of this is a commitment to the audience. He noted in interview:

I think everybody who is writing about film or talking about film is doing it for the audience that is reading or listening.

In praise of cinema

When I interviewed Stratton in 2019, giving generously of his time, he established quickly that he would only tolerate so much academic jargon and pretentiousness.

When we did The Movie Show, and I think Margaret would back me up, we were never wanting to intellectualise any of this. We wanted to get across to a wide television audience our love of film, or our disappointment in certain things. We always liked to praise films more than to not praise them, and we didn’t have the time or the inclination to analyse them in too much detail.

A cinephile before the age of DVDs and streaming, Stratton retained a certain puritanical approach to film, guarding its preciousness:

When I was growing up, films were hard to see. I would go to see a film in the cinema and very often that film, if it was not a huge success and therefore would be revived, you might not see it again, ever, unless it came on television.

This led to his famously obsessive system of notetaking and cataloguing.

This informed a certain conservativism, most famously expressed in his dislike of badly used hand-held cameras, but manifested in other ways.

It always amazes me when I see people watching movies on their mobile phone on the train and then they say they’ve seen the film. They haven’t seen the film obviously. If somebody thinks they’ve seen Joker on a phone, well good luck to them but they haven’t.

Stratton increasingly saw television reviewing as a demand on his other pursuits, not to mention his habit of watching a film a day.

A final farewell

We have in a sense been saying an extended farewell since the end of At the Movies in 2014.

Attempting to sum up a career is always difficult, but it is a responsibility Stratton lived with constantly. This is captured in one comment, perhaps the closest we will come to his philosophy of reviewing:

the reviewer has a big responsibility I think, a very big responsibility. Because after all it’s only their opinion, they’re obviously being honest – well they should be honest – with their opinion, but it only is their opinion and you’re talking about possibly destroying something that the people who created it spent years of their lives working on. It’s a pretty big responsibility.

This article draws on the author’s book At the Movies, Film Reviewing, and Screenwriting: Selective Affinities and Cultural Mediation, published by Intellect Press.

Steven Maras, Associate Professor in Media and Communication, The University of Western Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Alzheimer’s disease steals memories and devastates lives. Yet despite an abundance of research, the earliest brain changes that trigger this disease still remain unclear, making it challenging to find effective treatments.

But could lithium – a metal most of us know better for its use in batteries or as a treatment for mood disorders – play a role in cognitive health? New research shows that this mineral may play a key role in protecting against Alzheimer’s disease.

Alzheimer’s is linked to the buildup of two harmful proteins: amyloid-beta and tau. Amyloid-beta clumps outside brain cells (neurons), forming sticky plaques that block communication. Tau twists into tangles inside cells, disrupting their structure and function. Together, they damage the delicate network of neurons that supports memory and thinking.

But for nearly a decade now, scientists from Harvard University have also been uncovering lithium’s unexpected importance in the brain.

Lithium is naturally present in small amounts in the brain. This lithium comes from our diet, where it’s transported through the bloodstream to the brain’s cells. But researchers have found that as people move from mild cognitive impairment – a stage often seen as a warning sign for Alzheimer’s – to full Alzheimer’s disease, their lithium levels drop. This loss of lithium appears to set off the cascade of changes that lead to memory loss and confusion.

This recent study now helps to explain why a loss of lithium is linked with Alzheimer’s disease. The study showed that lithium acts as a natural defender – helping to keep amyloid and tau in check. When lithium levels fall, the brain becomes more vulnerable to these toxic proteins.

Researchers uncovered this connection by conducting postmortem examinations of brain tissue taken from people who had been in different stages of cognitive health. Those with mild cognitive impairment had noticeably less lithium in their brains compared to those who had been in good cognitive health. Levels were even lower in Alzheimer’s patients.

Interestingly, they found that the lithium doesn’t just disappear. Much of it becomes trapped within amyloid plaques, which lock it away from the brain cells where it’s needed most. This means even if total lithium levels don’t drop drastically, brain cells may still be starved of its protective effects.

So to explore what happens when lithium is missing completely, the scientists then studied mice – both healthy mice and mice that had been genetically engineered to develop Alzheimer’s symptoms. They cut the mice’s dietary lithium by 50% and observed the results.

The effects were striking. Mice with reduced lithium showed faster amyloid and tau buildup, more brain inflammation and lost connections between neurons – all crucial for learning and memory. The genetically engineered mice also performed worse in memory tests.

At the core of this process is an enzyme called GSK3β. Lithium normally keeps this enzyme under control. But when lithium is low, GSK3β becomes overactive, encouraging tau to behave abnormally and form tangles that damage neurons. This enzyme acts like a switch, tipping brain cells toward disease if unchecked.

The good news is the study didn’t stop at identifying the problem. Researchers treated mice with lithium orotate, a form of the mineral that’s less likely to get trapped by amyloid plaques. This treatment prevented the harmful buildup of amyloid-beta and tau, reduce inflammation, preserved neuron connections and improved memory.

Lithium’s importance

This research recasts lithium as more than a forgotten trace mineral. It appears to be a vital guardian of brain health, protecting neurons and maintaining cognitive function throughout life. Disrupting lithium balance might be one of the earliest steps toward Alzheimer’s – even before symptoms show.

Lithium’s protective role isn’t entirely new. It’s been used in psychiatry for decades, particularly to manage bipolar disorder where it stabilises mood. But medicinal doses are much higher than the tiny amounts naturally present in the brain. This study is the first to reveal that even these small, natural levels have a crucial protective function.

Beyond Alzheimer’s, lithium supports brain growth, shields nerve cells, and calms inflammation, all important for healthy ageing. Keeping lithium levels stable could have wider benefits in preventing dementia and supporting brain resilience.

One reason lithium hasn’t featured prominently in Alzheimer’s research before is its simplicity. It doesn’t target one molecule but acts like a conductor, balancing multiple brain processes. This makes it harder to study but no less important.

The discovery that lithium deficiency worsens Alzheimer’s damage opens new possibilities. Unlike current treatments focusing on removing amyloid plaques or tau tangles, lithium replacement could boost the brain’s defences.

Lithium orotate is especially promising because it doesn’t get trapped by amyloid and delivers lithium where neurons most need it. Lithium salts have long been used safely in medicine, so this approach could be easy and accessible for older adults.

Still, it’s unclear why lithium levels fall in some people. Is it due to diet, genetics or another cause? Could differences in the natural levels of lithium in drinking water worldwide influence Alzheimer’s risk? These puzzles invite future research.

It’s also important to note that much of this work was done in mice. While animal models offer valuable insights, human brains are more complex. Clinical trials will be needed to see if lithium orotate can safely prevent or slow Alzheimer’s in people.

We also don’t yet know how supplements or diet might affect brain lithium levels over time, or if this would be practical as treatment.

Still, the idea that a simple mineral could delay or prevent one of the world’s most devastating diseases is both exciting and hopeful.

Rahul Sidhu, PhD Candidate, Neuroscience, University of Sheffield

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

If Anthony Albanese thought the government’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state would be a relatively smooth operation in terms of politics, he’s had a quick wake-up call.

Following Hamas’ predictable welcoming of his action, the prime minister now finds himself deep in a controversy that has exposed a degree of naivety in how he and his government are conducting foreign policy.

The pros and cons of recognising a Palestinian state at this point always involved matters of judgement rather than being straightforward.

Israel’s appalling overreach in Gaza invited the response from France, Britain, Canada and now Australia. As Chris Luxon, the conservative leader of New Zealand (now also considering recognition) put it, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has “lost the plot”.

On the other hand, it was obvious Hamas could argue recognition of Palestine just showed what its October 2023 attack had achieved. And there was no reason to think Israel would be influenced by what these countries did. After all, most countries globally have already recognised a state of Palestine. It appears only the United States holds the power to sway Israel.

The pressure on Albanese to recognise a Palestinian state mounted over months. It fitted with his own inclinations, held from when he was a young radical, and with Labor’s rank-and-file stance, reflected in the party platform. Foreign Minister Penny Wong had been leaning in for a year.

Crucially, the worse the conflict in Gaza became, the more a sizeable section of the public seemed sympathetic to making the gesture. Then came the stands by the three like-minded countries.

In the end, the prime minister just seems to have wanted to get it done. “We just can’t keep going the same way. The world is watching. People are sick of it. It’s horrific watching that,” he said this week.

The stipulations he spelled out just weeks ago, when he signalled recognition was not imminent, were no longer preconditions.

He’d said then, “How do you exclude Hamas from any involvement there? How do you ensure that a Palestinian state operates in an appropriate way which does not threaten the existence of Israel?”

Instead, in announcing recognition this week, Albanese relied on assurances from the Palestinian Authority, in its public statements and a phone call he had with its leader Mahmoud Abbas. He also took to heart the Arab League backing a call for Hamas to disarm.

Australian recognition, which Albanese said would come at the United nations General Assembly in September, became unconditional.

Here’s where the naivety kicks in. If he’s really relying on the Palestinian Authority’s word, that is flawed, on two grounds.

History indicates its word is hardly its bond. And even if it were, there is no reason to think it could deliver its various undertakings, including its own reform. Moreover, the assumption of its dominance in a post-war Gaza depends on a lot of “ifs”. One of these “ifs” is the expectation of elections. But even then, Hamas might find a way to survive and win.

Things got messy for Albanese when Hamas reacted to his announcement. The prime minister had predicted that “Hamas will be totally opposed to this decision” on the grounds it didn’t support a two-state solution.

That always seemed unlikely. Hamas is taking what it can get at the moment.

The first reaction was from Hamas co-founder Hassan Yousef, who lauded the “political courage” of the decision, in a statement from his office to the Sydney Morning Herald.

Hamas would later deny any statement could have been issued by Yousef, something quickly picked up by Albanese, who warned the media against Hamas “propaganda”.

Then in a formal statement to the ABC, Hamas praised the move (saying it was “better late than never”) but wanted more. “We call on the Australian government to translate this recognition into concrete actions – by exerting diplomatic pressure to end the Israeli occupation.”

This will feed into the calls from the left to impose sanctions on Israel. (The government has already sanctioned two extreme-right Israeli ministers.)

The recognition announcement has closed off one issue, but opened others.

The opposition has been predictable in its rejection of the recognition. But the shadow cabinet’s decision to go further and say that in office it would reverse the recognition, rather than leaving that decision for the future, was unnecessary and unwise. By the time the Coalition finally gets back into power, who knows what the situation will be in the Middle East?

Incidentally, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley’s choice of Michaelia Cash as shadow foreign minister was a strange one. Maybe Cash, who is the Liberal leader in the Senate, pitched very hard for it. Whatever the reason, she is an unnuanced political operator in a portfolio that often requires nuance.

The Albanese government’s decision on recognition has put further distance between Australia and the Trump administration. While the PM might think the dysfunction in this relationship doesn’t matter much because of Australians’ low regard for Trump, it remains important to get it back on an even keel.

That is something Albanese should address when he is in the US in September – when he has promised to meet Abbas – whether or not he lands a meeting with Trump himself.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.