MIL-OSI Export

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brittany Johnson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University

Most Australian children bring their lunch to school through a “lunchbox system”. But there is a growing push for schools to provide students with lunch.

Despite decades of efforts to promote better nutrition, it is estimated nearly half (44%) of the foods Australian children eat at school are energy-dense and nutrient-poor (or “discretionary foods”). This is alarming as our previous research with children aged nine to eleven shows an association between a poor diet and lower NAPLAN scores.

School programs providing students with a nutritious lunch are common around the world. Research shows school-provided lunches can increase social equity and improve nutritional, health and learning outcomes.

Pilot school lunch programs have begun in Australia, including Tasmania, New South Wales and Victoria.

But wider school lunch programs would be a significant change to how children access food at school in Australia.

In our new research, we look at what parents think about school lunch programs. If school lunch programs are going to work in Australia, families’ support will be crucial.

Our research

In our study, we surveyed almost 400 parents of primary school students across Australia, to seek their views about school lunch programs. We recruited parents through paid social media advertisements. They came from a range of backgrounds and household incomes.

Based on different school food programs in the United Kingdom, France, Sweden and Australia, we tested six key components of a school-provided lunch model:

• cost

• nutrition and quality

• environmental sustainability

• menu options

• access (should programs be optional or provided to all students regardless of their background)

• a whole-school approach (is the lunch program integrated with classroom learning and other school messaging).

We also asked parents how much they would be willing to pay for different lunch approaches.

Most parents are keen on school lunch programs

We found 93% of parents surveyed were interested in school-provided lunches.

Parents told us nutrition and food quality was the key driver of their interest in a school lunch program. It was also the most important consideration when designing a school program.

Menu variety was the next most important consideration, with a strong preference for having two meal options. This was similar to our previous findings, which show parents and children value choice for school-provided lunches. Parents in the new study also expressed an interest in children trying a wider range of foods.

The next most important consideration for parents was taking an environmentally sustainable approach to the food program, followed by integrating food education and healthy eating across the school day.

Many parents in our survey were also motivated by the idea all children would have access to the same meal, with 70% saying they valued the potential for equal and stigma-free food provision.

Parents would pay about $6 per day

Globally, national school meal programs vary in payment models, ranging from free to subsidised/means tested or fully paid by students and families.

Parents unsurprisingly preferred lower-cost options over higher-cost options. But they also showed a willingness to pay more for programs that focused on food quality, sustainability and links to the curriculum – not just filling bellies.

Parents in our study currently spent around A$6 per day on lunchboxes (most spent between $4–10). They said they were happy to pay a similar amount for a school-provided lunch.

Most were even willing to pay a little more to subsidise lunches for others to ensure all children receive a meal or larger portions for older children.

Why this matters

Packing lunchboxes can be a real slog, putting lots of pressure on families.

---

Read more:
Swap muesli bars for homemade popcorn: 5 ways to pack a lower-waste lunch box

---

In another study we did, parents have talked openly about their “lunchbox guilt”. Parents have to pack lunchboxes as they balance busy work and family lives, children’s preferences and social expectations of “what’s OK to send to school”.

We also know many kids end up at school with food that is not healthy.

Our research suggests Australian parents are willing to invest in a different approach to school food. By highlighting what matters most to them – food quality – we get an important insight into what is more likely to make new programs successful and sustainable.

These results give policymakers valuable guidance on what families consider essential for a school-provided meal program.

Brittany Johnson receives funding from The Hospital Research Foundation Group, the Australian Research Council (LP240200796) and The Channel 7 Children’s Research Foundation for a project that involves School Food Matters (Tasmania) and The School Food Project (NSW) as partner organisations.

Alexandra Manson has received funding from the Australian government Research Training Program Scholarship and the King and Amy O’Malley Trust Postgraduate Research Scholarship, and receives funding from the Heart Foundation South Australian Kick Start Fellowship.

Rebecca Golley receives funding from The Australian Research Council (LP240200796) and The Channel 7 Children’s Research Foundation for a project that involves School Food Matters (Tasmania) and The School Food Project (NSW) as partner organisations.

– ref. How much would you pay for school to provide your child with lunch every day? – https://theconversation.com/how-much-would-you-pay-for-school-to-provide-your-child-with-lunch-every-day-274513

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/29/how-much-would-you-pay-for-school-to-provide-your-child-with-lunch-every-day-274513/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shane Rogers, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Edith Cowan University

You might say you have a “bad memory” because you don’t remember what cake you had at your last birthday party or the plot of a movie you watched last month. On the other hand, you might precisely recall the surface temperature of the Sun any time when asked.

So, is your memory bad, or just fine? Memory is at the very heart of who we are, but it’s surprisingly complex once we start looking at how it all fits together.

In fact, there’s more than one type of memory, and this determines how we recall certain facts about the world and ourselves.

How do we classify memory?

Cognitive psychologists distinguish between declarative memory and non-declarative memory. Non-declarative memories are expressed without conscious recollection, such as skills and habits like typing on a keyboard or riding a bike.

But memories you’re consciously aware of are declarative – you know your name, you know what year it is, and you know there is mustard in the fridge because you put it there.

However, not all of our memories are stored in the same way, nor in the same place in our brains. Declarative memory can be further broken down into semantic memory and episodic memory.

Semantic memory refers to general knowledge about the world. For example, knowing that cats are mammals.

Episodic memory refers to episodes of your life, typically with elements of “what”, “where” and “when”. For example, I remember cuddling my pet cat (what) in my home office (where) just before sitting down to write this article (when).

A sense of self-awareness is strongly involved in episodic memory. It’s the feeling of personally remembering.

For semantic memories, this sense is not as strong – you can have detached knowledge without the context of “how” and “when”. For instance, I know that Canberra is the capital city of Australia (semantic memory), yet I can’t remember specifically when and where I learnt this (episodic memory).

Lessons from amnesia

In the mid-20th century, famous case studies of amnesic patients were the early evidence of this distinction between semantic and episodic memory.

For example, Henry Molaison and Kent Cochrane both experienced brain damage that severely impacted their episodic memory abilities.

They couldn’t recall events from their lives, but knew many things about the world in general. In effect, their personal past had vanished, even though their general knowledge remained intact.

In one interview after the accident that caused his brain damage, Cochrane was able to describe how to change a flat tire in perfect detail – despite not remembering having ever done this task.

There have also been reports of cases of people whose ability to recall semantic memories is largely impaired, while their episodic memory abilities seem mostly fine. This is known as semantic dementia.

Your age affects how your memory works

Young children have both memory systems, but they develop at different rates. The capacity to form strong semantic memories comes first, while episodic memory takes longer.

In fact, true episodic memory ability may not fully develop until around the age of three or four years. This helps explain why you have scant memories of your earliest childhood. We gain greater self-awareness around the same age too.

While episodic memory ability develops more slowly in early life, it also declines more quickly in old age. On average, older adults tend to remember fewer episodic details compared to younger adults in memory recall assessments.

In older adults with more severe cognitive decline, such as dementia, the ability to recall episodic memories is typically much more affected, compared to semantic memories. For example, they might have difficulty remembering they had pasta for lunch the day before (episodic memory), while still having perfect knowledge of what pasta is (semantic memory).

Ultimately, it all works together

Brain imaging studies have actually revealed that overlapping areas of the brain are active when recalling both semantic and episodic types of memories. In a neurological sense, these two types of memory appear to have more similarities than differences.

In fact, some have suggested episodic and semantic memory might be better thought of as a continuum rather than as completely distinct memory systems. These days, researchers acknowledge memory recall in everyday life involves tight interaction between both types.

A major example of how you need both types to work together is autobiographical memory, also called personal semantics. This refers to personally relevant information about yourself.

Let’s say you call yourself “a good swimmer”. At first glance, this may appear to be a semantic memory – a fact without the how, why, or when. However, recall of such a personally relevant fact will likely also produce related recall of episodic experiences when you’ve been swimming.

All this is related to something known as semanticisation – the gradual transformation of episodic memories into semantic memories. As you can imagine, it challenges the distinction between semantic and episodic memory.

Ultimately, how we remember shapes how we understand ourselves. Episodic memory allows us to mentally return to experiences that feel personally lived, while semantic memory provides the stable knowledge that binds those experiences into a coherent life story.

Over time, the boundary between the two softens as specific events are condensed into broader beliefs about who we are, what we value, and what we can do. Memory is not simply a storehouse of the past. It’s an active system that continually reshapes our sense of identity.

Shane Rogers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Your sense of self is deeply tied to your memory – here’s how – https://theconversation.com/your-sense-of-self-is-deeply-tied-to-your-memory-heres-how-241261

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/29/your-sense-of-self-is-deeply-tied-to-your-memory-heres-how-241261/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lakshini Gunasekera, PhD Candidate in Neurology, Monash University

For people with migraine, summer can be a double-edged sword. You may be able to relax more, sleep in, enjoy the sunshine, and spend time with family and friends.

But other factors – such as glare, heat, and changes to sleeping and diet – can make migraine attacks more likely or more severe.

Migraine is a disabling neurological disorder affecting 5 million Australians. In addition to a throbbing headache, it can cause hypersensitivity to light, sound, smells or movement.

Triggers for attacks vary from person to person and seasonal changes don’t affect everyone. But if you find your migraine attacks are worse or more likely in summer, knowing why can help you prepare.

The effect of hot weather

Normally when it is hot, you sweat more to regulate your core temperature. Your body becomes cooler when sweat evaporates off your body.

In summer when the air is hotter and there is more humidity, your brain’s hypothalamus causes blood vessels close to the skin to dilate so that heat can escape.

But people with migraine often have hypersensitive nerves and blood vessels. When blood vessels dilate in the heat, it can irritate nearby nerves and cause inflammation, which the migraine brain interprets as pain. This is due to the brain’s stress response, not an infection.

Dehydration

Sweating helps regulate your core body temperature, cooling you down as the sweat evaporates off your skin. But when the air is hot and humid, it’s harder for the sweat to evaporate and cool us down.

This can lead to dehydration – another potent trigger.

Why is dehydration so bad?

Imagine your brain like a sponge that is floating in spinal fluid within your skull. If you are dehydrated, the brain shrinks like a dry sponge and pulls on the attachments to the skull, which can trigger pain.

If you are well hydrated, the brain can expand to fill the space within the skull so there is less “pulling” and therefore less pain.

Sensitivity to light

For many people with migraine, glare is more than a minor annoyance – bright lights and reflection can cause pain and trigger attacks.

When light enters the back of the eye, special cells (retinal ganglion cells) process this signal and send messages to the brain’s sensory centre (the thalamus).

In migraine, these sensory pain pathways involving the thalamus are hypersensitive. Any extra light – or flickering or moving lights – is perceived as pain, rather than merely brightness, and can also lead to dizziness.

Glare also reduces the contrast of incoming light signals, so the brain’s visual centre (the visual cortex) needs to work extra hard to process signals. Certain wavelengths can also be harder to process (including blue and fluorescent light, or sunlight reflecting off screens). This can cause pain.

Disrupted routines

The migraine brain does not like change. But longer days in summer can mean changes to our routines.

Changes that might trigger a migraine include sleeping at inconsistent times on holidays, skipping or delaying meals, or changes in stress levels. This means new stress, increased stress – or even relaxing after a stressful period.

Changes in sensory information that the brain processes can also worsen migraine. This may include new smells (such as sunscreen or insect repellent), louder noises (excited children on holidays), and brighter light or glare.

Even exercising more than usual may be a trigger for some people.

Thunderstorms

Pollen, humidity and thunderstorms trigger allergy flares in people with asthma, hayfever and eczema. This makes the immune system release chemicals called histamine, which can trigger migraine attacks in some people.

Asthma and allergy action plans are doubly important for wellbeing in this group.

Sudden changes in air pressure (in aeroplanes and during storms) can also be a strong trigger for some people. Your friend who says they can predict the weather by their migraine symptoms may be right.

Know your triggers

Regardless of the season, being prepared is the key.

Keep a diary of your headache days and impacts of weather (temperature, humidity, glare) or activities (for example, how much you’re socialising or exercising). Headache neurologists can use this data to give you a targeted migraine plan.

In summer, you can also:

• plan outings for cooler days of the week or times of day

• limit sun and pack a hat and sunglasses. Lenses that are polarised or FL41-tinted may help beat glare

• carry water bottles and electrolyte-rich fluids to avoid dehydration

• set phone alarms so that you go to bed and wake up at consistent times

• try to maintain regular balanced meals, without excess sugar, alcohol and processed foods.

Taking care of your medication

It’s also important to plan and correctly store your migraine medication, especially if you’re going on a trip. You should:

• take acute migraine medications with you and make sure they’re up-to-date

• check your scripts are current and you have repeats left

• protect medications from heat. Don’t store them in the glovebox or bag in the sun for long periods. Injectable medications should be stored in the fridge below 4°C until use.

When travelling, you may need to adjust timing of doses or use a cooler bag to keep medication cool.

If you think you’re sensitive to seasonal changes, it’s best to talk to your neurologist about a migraine management plan. This can help you identify and manage key triggers and prevent and treat acute attacks.

Dr Lakshini Gunasekera receives funding from the Victorian Government Catalyst grant program to investigate hormonal therapies for menstrual migraine.

Dr Elspeth Hutton works for Alfred Health, is the President of the Australian & New Zealand Headache Society and has collaborated with Migraine and Headache Australia and Migraine Australia. She has previously served on advisory boards for Abbvie, TEVA, Lundbeck and Novartis, and received funding for an investigator-led study from Ipsen, as well as engaging in industry-sponsored clinical trials. She receives no current funding outside of salary.

– ref. Why is my migraine worse in summer? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-my-migraine-worse-in-summer-268088

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/29/why-is-my-migraine-worse-in-summer-268088/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

The past three years have been the world’s hottest on record. In 2025, Earth was 1.44°C warmer than the long-term average, perilously close to breaching the Paris Agreement goal of 1.5°C.

This warming is fuelling Australia’s current record-breaking heatwave. Other consequences are visible globally, from Iran’s crippling drought to catastrophic wildfires and unprecedented floods in the United States to deadly cyclones hitting southern Asia.

We know what to do to tackle the climate crisis: replace fossil fuels with clean energy technologies such as solar, wind, electric vehicles and batteries. We are well on our way. Globally, the power produced by renewables overtook coal last year.

Petrostates such as Saudi Arabia and the US have made trillions from oil and gas. Now they are fighting a rearguard action to prolong fossil fuels. The US is pushing European nations to buy its gas, for instance.

But most countries have seen the writing on the wall. In November, the COP31 climate talks in Turkey are expected to deliver a global roadmap away from fossil fuels. Dozens of countries will meet in Colombia in April to fast-track the transition. The road ahead is bumpy. But the end of fossil fuels may finally be coming into view.

No holding back clean energy

There’s no one trying harder to slow the clean energy transition than US president Donald Trump. During his bid to return to the White House, Trump pressed oil executives for US$1 billion (A$1.4 bn) in campaign finance, promising a windfall in return.

In 2025, he increased subsidies for fossil fuel producers, weakened environmental laws, gutted Biden-era support for clean energy and moved to block clean energy projects, even some near completion. The US is now one of the world’s biggest exporters of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and oil.

But clean energy growth has proved difficult to kill. Despite Trump’s efforts, domestic solar generation is still expected to grow 46% in the next two years while electricity output from fossil fuel plants falls.

Trump is betting fossil fuels are the key to future American power. He made no secret of the fact the US military raid on Venezuela earlier this month was aimed at increasing oil production. He has implored US oil companies to invest billions to revive the country’s battered oil infrastructure. The response was lukewarm. ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods said Venezuela was “uninvestable”.

Developing Venezuela’s oil reserves assumes there will be demand for decades to come. But the world now faces an oversupply of oil, even as sales of electric vehicles grow strongly in many countries. Last month, battery electric vehicles outsold petrol cars for the first time in Europe.

Electrostates rising

While the US doubles down on 20th century fossil fuels, China is betting on an electric 21st century. It is emerging as the first electrostate, dominating production and export of solar, wind, batteries and EVs. China is now the world’s biggest car exporter. Most new Chinese cars are powered by batteries, not oil.

China’s manufacturing might has driven down the price of batteries, the main cost of EVs. As EVs get cheaper, emerging economies are finding they can leapfrog fossil fuels and move straight to solar panels and EVs – even if the national power grid is limited or unreliable.

Commodity price trends show surging global demand for copper, silver and other metals needed for mass electrification. Worldwide, investment in clean energy technologies first overtook fossil fuel investment ten years ago. In 2025, clean investment was more than double the investment in coal, oil and gas. Clean energy is where the world is headed, whether Trump likes it or not.

China, India and Pakistan are rapidly making the shift to renewable power. Developing nations from Nepal to Ethiopia are taking up electric transport to slash the cost of importing fossil fuels.

A new roadmap away from fossil fuels

This week, the US formally withdrew from the Paris Agreement. But no other country has followed.

For decades, the COP talks have focused on “cutting emissions” without dealing directly with the use of coal, oil and gas. But at the 2023 talks, nearly 200 countries agreed to “transition away from fossil fuels”.

At last year’s COP30 talks, host nation Brazil proposed a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels. More than 80 countries backed the idea, including Australia, but pushback from Saudi Arabia and Russia kept it out of the final outcomes.

In response, Brazil is working to develop a roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels. This – or something similar – may be formally adopted at the next climate talks in November.

While COP31 will be held in Turkey, Australian climate minister Chris Bowen will have a key role as “President of Negotiations” and will steer global discussion ahead of the summit.

Bowen plans to lobby petrostates to support a managed shift away from fossil fuels, drawing on Australia’s experience as a major exporter of coal and LNG facing its own transition. Korea – Australia’s third largest market for thermal coal – will retire its entire coal fleet by 2040.

Government modelling suggests Australia’s coal and gas exports could plummet 50% in value in five years as global demand falls. Independent modelling suggests the decline for coal could happen even faster if countries meet their climate targets. Policymakers must plan to manage this transition.

Coalitions of the willing?

Frustrated by slow progress, a coalition of nations is separately discussing how to phase out fossil fuels. The first conference will take place in April in Colombia. Here, delegates will discuss how to wind down fossil fuels while protecting workers and financial systems. Some nations want to negotiate a standalone treaty to manage the phase-out. Conference outcomes will also feed back into the UN climate talks.

Pacific island nations aim to be the world’s first 100% renewable region. Ahead of COP31, Australia and island nations will meet to progress this.

Progress is happening

In an ideal world, nations would rapidly tackle the existential threat of climate change together. We don’t live in that world. But it may not matter.

The shift to clean electric options has its own momentum. The question is whether the shift away from coal, oil and gas will be orderly – or chaotic.

Wesley Morgan is a fellow of the Climate Council of Australia

– ref. Fossil fuels are doomed – and Trump can’t save them – https://theconversation.com/fossil-fuels-are-doomed-and-trump-cant-save-them-273798

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/29/fossil-fuels-are-doomed-and-trump-cant-save-them-273798/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brittany Johnson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University

Most Australian children bring their lunch to school through a “lunchbox system”. But there is a growing push for schools to provide students with lunch.

Despite decades of efforts to promote better nutrition, it is estimated nearly half (44%) of the foods Australian children eat at school are energy-dense and nutrient-poor (or “discretionary foods”). This is alarming as our previous research with children aged nine to eleven shows an association between a poor diet and lower NAPLAN scores.

School programs providing students with a nutritious lunch are common around the world. Research shows school-provided lunches can increase social equity and improve nutritional, health and learning outcomes.

Pilot school lunch programs have begun in Australia, including Tasmania, New South Wales and Victoria.

But wider school lunch programs would be a significant change to how children access food at school in Australia.

In our new research, we look at what parents think about school lunch programs. If school lunch programs are going to work in Australia, families’ support will be crucial.

Our research

In our study, we surveyed almost 400 parents of primary school students across Australia, to seek their views about school lunch programs. We recruited parents through paid social media advertisements. They came from a range of backgrounds and household incomes.

Based on different school food programs in the United Kingdom, France, Sweden and Australia, we tested six key components of a school-provided lunch model:

• cost

• nutrition and quality

• environmental sustainability

• menu options

• access (should programs be optional or provided to all students regardless of their background)

• a whole-school approach (is the lunch program integrated with classroom learning and other school messaging).

We also asked parents how much they would be willing to pay for different lunch approaches.

Most parents are keen on school lunch programs

We found 93% of parents surveyed were interested in school-provided lunches.

Parents told us nutrition and food quality was the key driver of their interest in a school lunch program. It was also the most important consideration when designing a school program.

Menu variety was the next most important consideration, with a strong preference for having two meal options. This was similar to our previous findings, which show parents and children value choice for school-provided lunches. Parents in the new study also expressed an interest in children trying a wider range of foods.

The next most important consideration for parents was taking an environmentally sustainable approach to the food program, followed by integrating food education and healthy eating across the school day.

Many parents in our survey were also motivated by the idea all children would have access to the same meal, with 70% saying they valued the potential for equal and stigma-free food provision.

Parents would pay about $6 per day

Globally, national school meal programs vary in payment models, ranging from free to subsidised/means tested or fully paid by students and families.

Parents unsurprisingly preferred lower-cost options over higher-cost options. But they also showed a willingness to pay more for programs that focused on food quality, sustainability and links to the curriculum – not just filling bellies.

Parents in our study currently spent around A$6 per day on lunchboxes (most spent between $4–10). They said they were happy to pay a similar amount for a school-provided lunch.

Most were even willing to pay a little more to subsidise lunches for others to ensure all children receive a meal or larger portions for older children.

Why this matters

Packing lunchboxes can be a real slog, putting lots of pressure on families.

---

Read more:
Swap muesli bars for homemade popcorn: 5 ways to pack a lower-waste lunch box

---

In another study we did, parents have talked openly about their “lunchbox guilt”. Parents have to pack lunchboxes as they balance busy work and family lives, children’s preferences and social expectations of “what’s OK to send to school”.

We also know many kids end up at school with food that is not healthy.

Our research suggests Australian parents are willing to invest in a different approach to school food. By highlighting what matters most to them – food quality – we get an important insight into what is more likely to make new programs successful and sustainable.

These results give policymakers valuable guidance on what families consider essential for a school-provided meal program.

Brittany Johnson receives funding from The Hospital Research Foundation Group, the Australian Research Council (LP240200796) and The Channel 7 Children’s Research Foundation for a project that involves School Food Matters (Tasmania) and The School Food Project (NSW) as partner organisations.

Alexandra Manson has received funding from the Australian government Research Training Program Scholarship and the King and Amy O’Malley Trust Postgraduate Research Scholarship, and receives funding from the Heart Foundation South Australian Kick Start Fellowship.

Rebecca Golley receives funding from The Australian Research Council (LP240200796) and The Channel 7 Children’s Research Foundation for a project that involves School Food Matters (Tasmania) and The School Food Project (NSW) as partner organisations.

– ref. How much would you pay for school to provide your child with lunch everyday? – https://theconversation.com/how-much-would-you-pay-for-school-to-provide-your-child-with-lunch-everyday-274513

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/29/how-much-would-you-pay-for-school-to-provide-your-child-with-lunch-everyday-274513/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Oscar Bloomfield, PhD Candidate in Film Studies, Deakin University

Marty Supreme is a frenetic tale inspired by Marty Reisman, the charismatic American table tennis champion of the 1950s.

Charged by Timothée Chalamet’s electric lead performance – alongside a stellar supporting cast (including Gwyneth Paltrow), and director Josh Safdie’s signature, anxiety-inducing aesthetic – the film captures a young man’s all-or-nothing quest for greatness.

Marty Mauser is a morally ambiguous protagonist with a sociopathic, self-obsessed pursuit of glory. But Safdie invites the audience to champion his quest. In this, Marty emerges as a particularly compelling entry into Hollywood’s longstanding tradition of unlikable heroes.

Marty follows in the footsteps of other Safdie antiheroes – the reckless Howard Retnar (Adam Sandler) of Uncut Gems (2019) and the manipulative Connie Nikas (Robert Pattinson) of Good Time (2017). His do-or-die attitude stems from the ambition to escape his circumstances.

A Jewish kid from New York’s Lower East Side, he works at his uncle’s shoe store in order to fund his global table tennis ambitions. Refusing to listen to those around him, Marty seems aware that his self-delusion and performativity will ultimately propel him to success.

Marty compulsively lies, commits petty theft and willingly disregards the wellbeing of those close to him to fulfil what he believes to be his destiny.

Despite his problematic moral compass, Safdie’s protagonist ultimately wins over the audience’s support.

The Hollywood antihero

Hollywood is no stranger to popular antiheroes, from Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver (1976) to Arthur Fleck in Joker (2019). The Safdie brothers focus on recognisably ordinary characters caught in the chaos of their everyday existence.

Marty Supreme is Josh Safdie’s first solo directorial project since parting ways with his brother Benny. The pair have long been fascinated with figures who, despite their moral shortcomings, are inherently human.

The signature Safdie arc appeared in their indie film Daddy Longlegs (2009). Loosely based on Josh and Benny’s own experiences with their divorced father, the film crafts an honest, sympathetic portrait of a highly irresponsible (yet loving) parent trying to do his best.

In an emblematic action, Lenny (Ronald Bronstein) gives one of his sons a sleeping pill in order to allow him to return to his job at a local cinema. The misguided and neglectful act is still shown as a genuine attempt to keep his son safe and out of harm’s way.

Lenny’s traits of misdirected affection are observed throughout the Safdie protagonists.

Following an unsuccessful robbery, Good Time’s Connie frantically attempts to break his developmentally disabled brother, Nicky (Benny Safdie), out of prison and a psychiatric facility.

In Uncut Gems, Howard is driven by greed and lust but demonstrates a genuine care for his family, repeatedly insisting his ambitions are guided by the need to provide for them.

Like Lenny, Howard and Connie, Marty has the capacity to do what is right and care for those he loves. But his egotistical, self-absorbed quest to gain status ultimately clouds his ability to comprehend the consequences of his actions.

The universality of struggle

How does Josh Safdie succeed in creating a protagonist who – despite lying that his mother died during childbirth and neglecting his pregnant girlfriend – nonetheless wins the audience’s support?

Marty’s championing is undoubtedly in part due to Chalamet’s star-image and onscreen charisma. And his quest for greatness depicts the triumphant tale of a figure who, against all odds, continues to pursue his dreams with obsessive belief.

At its core, Marty Supreme is a stylised, high-octane reworking of the familiar “David versus Goliath” narrative.

Here, “Goliath” evokes both the American Dream and the Immigrant Dream, uphill battles where the odds are stacked against the individual.

This idea is prominent across other Safdie brothers films. In Good Time, “Goliath” is the criminal justice system, shown as a particularly dehumanising institutional structure for marginalised individuals. In Heaven Knows What (2014) – a gritty tale based on Arielle Holmes’s autobiography of addiction, love and struggle – substance dependency is presented as the ultimate obstacle.

Marty’s ambitions of table tennis stardom are neither recognised nor respected by those around him. This drives him to go to greater lengths in order to fund his career.

While his extreme measures may be unsympathetic – and perhaps unforgivable – Marty’s fundamental desire to transcend his circumstances remains relatable.

Within the film’s spiralling chain of events, Marty Supreme captures the hardship of pursuing a dream only you recognise.

Marty is neither one-dimensional nor simplistic. Rather, the film allows his humanity to surface throughout his self-absorbed and destructive journey.

Marty’s unrelenting commitment to his dream catalyses his moral failing. But he is nonetheless a figure capable of tenderness. Far from a role model, Marty is a complex character. Despite being capable of caring for those he loves, he blindly priorities the fierce pursuit of his dreams.

Marty’s antihero persona reflects not only the lengths required to realise one’s aspirations, but also the consequences of pursuing those dreams at any cost.

While Marty Supreme dramatises the egotistical pursuit of its flawed protagonist, it ultimately explores the universal ambition to dream big – and questions what is worth sacrificing in order to achieve success.

Oscar Bloomfield does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Antihero Marty Supreme is sociopathic in his pursuit of glory. Why do we want him to win? – https://theconversation.com/antihero-marty-supreme-is-sociopathic-in-his-pursuit-of-glory-why-do-we-want-him-to-win-274418

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/29/antihero-marty-supreme-is-sociopathic-in-his-pursuit-of-glory-why-do-we-want-him-to-win-274418/