Rupert Murdoch Backs Guy Pearce Casting in Danny Boyle’s Venice-Premiering ‘Ink’

← Back to the feed

Rupert Murdoch Backs Guy Pearce Casting in Danny Boyle’s Venice-Premiering ‘Ink’

Developing story first seen 1 hour ago

· 1 hour ago

Danny Boyle has given further details about "Ink" at its Venice press conference, revealing a fuller cast beyond Guy Pearce's Rupert Murdoch, including Jack O'Connell as editor Larry Lamb and Claire Foy as Jules Davies, a new composite character based on female executives at The Sun. Boyle said he deliberately avoided "monsterising" Murdoch, arguing that in 1969 he represented "a breath of fresh air" against a rigid British establishment, while writer James Graham confirmed Murdoch had seen the original stage play twice without revealing his opinion of it. Boyle also used the platform to warn about AI's threat to journalism, questioning whether an AI-generated news outlet could ever "speak truth to power".

The film, adapted from Graham's play, dramatises Murdoch's 1969 takeover of the failing Sun and his partnership with Lamb, whose populist formula later shaped Murdoch's US ventures including the New York Post and Fox News. It is screening in competition for the Golden Lion at the 83rd Venice Film Festival, having opened the event on Tuesday. Studiocanal will release it theatrically in the US on 11 December, followed by Netflix streaming there and in Latin America from 8 January, while UK cinemas will get the film the same day, alongside releases in France, Germany, Poland, Australia and New Zealand.

  • Full "Ink" cast revealed: O'Connell as Lamb, Foy as new character Jules Davies
  • Boyle says he avoided portraying Murdoch as a villain
  • Murdoch saw the stage play twice; UK cinema release set for 8 January

New here? Start with this

Rupert Murdoch bought The Sun newspaper in 1969, when it was struggling, and rebuilt it with editor Larry Lamb using a populist style that later shaped his American ventures, including the New York Post and Fox News. That takeover is the subject of "Ink", a stage play by James Graham now adapted into a film directed by Danny Boyle, with Guy Pearce playing Murdoch and Jack O'Connell playing Lamb.

The film had its premiere at the Venice Film Festival, one of the world's leading film events, where it is competing for the festival's top prize, the Golden Lion. Murdoch himself, now in his nineties and one of the most influential media proprietors of the past century, is known to have seen the original play twice.

The story matters because it dramatises the origins of a media approach that went on to shape tabloid journalism and, eventually, major US news outlets, at a time when the industry itself is being reshaped by new pressures such as artificial intelligence. The film is due for cinema and streaming release in several countries, including the UK and US, later this year and into January.

Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Those sympathetic to Boyle's approach argue that a nuanced, non-caricatured Murdoch makes for better history and better drama, noting that in 1969 he genuinely was an outsider shaking up a hidebound, class-bound Fleet Street establishment. They contend that the populist journalism he and Larry Lamb pioneered gave working-class readers a voice and stories they cared about, rather than dictating from on high, and that reducing a complex, consequential figure to a pantomime villain would be both lazy storytelling and poor history. Refusing to "monsterise" him, on this view, respects audiences enough to let them draw their own conclusions.

The case against

Critics of this softer portrayal argue that Murdoch's legacy cannot be honestly separated from the tabloidisation of the press, the erosion of journalistic standards, and the populist formula that later fed into Fox News and its role in political polarisation and misinformation. They would say that framing his 1969 takeover primarily as a plucky challenge to a stuffy establishment risks whitewashing decades of subsequent harm, including phone hacking and the concentration of media power, and that sympathetic treatment of a still-living, still-influential figure carries real responsibility. For them, artistic nuance should not tip into softening accountability for lasting damage to public discourse.

Coverage

Celebrity Entertainment Film UK World

Read the full article at the source →