18/05/2012 The Review Show

On the review show tonight, Sasha Baron Cohen is on dictator watch,

is he on the mark or off tart? Laughs of a much older kind, Danny

DeVito's British stage debut in The Sunshine Boys.

Joanne Harris puts Islam in the mix in her latest recipe speaking

success, Peaches for Monsieur Le Cure.

Now they are 56, what do we make of the Child Stars of 7Up.

Joining me in the studio are, Dent, columnist and TV critic of the

Independent. And Anne McElvoy, the public policy editor of the

Economist. And journalist and documentary maker, Sarfraz Manzoor.

And we await Sweet Billy Pilgrim, playing live at the end of the show.

And please let your fingers do the talking, take a Twitter with

bookies and brickbats on Twitter. In a fantastic example of truth

being stranger than fiction, The Dictator has been banned by a

dictator, saying it does not suit the mentally of the people. Tyrants

have been tempting targets for film comedy, from Hitler and ill ill ill,

the dictator -- Kim Jong-Il, The Dictator goes for the deceased.

Colonel Gadaffi has brought something to The Dictator.

Love him or hate him, Sasha Baron Cohen knows how to provoke a

reaction. Not long after his first comic alter ego, Ali G swaggered on

to the TV screens, viewers couldn't decide if they were laughing at the

leader of the West Staines Massive, or he was laughing at him. Ali G

was a hit in the charts, and the wannabe Jamaican gained huge pop

larts. With audacious interviews, he was also criticised for giving a

white audience a license to laugh at a black stereotype. Next Borat,

the stunningly vulgar TV presenter from Kazakhstan, who took a

cultural tour of America in his on mockumentary. Bora it's bigotted

outlook drew gasps from the audience, but also drew out racism

from unsuspecting victims. Do you have slaves here J we wish. It is

It is a shame? A big shame. Pushing the boundaries even further was

Bruno, Sasha Baron Cohen's take on attitudes towards sexuality, made

smug viewing to the by now knowing audience. It is a gay -by. What's

the baby's name? I gave him a traditional Afghan name, OJ.

African name, OJ. With his latest film, Sasha Baron Cohen has dropped

interaction with real people and gone to scripted comedy. The

approach may be more traditional, but Sasha Baron Cohen likes to blur

the boundaries Bihar ranging journalists in character, as the

General, the lifelong leader of fictional north African nation,

Wadiya. For the supposed crime of

embezzling money and a tiny bit of genocide. He arrived flanked by his

on amazon guard, and has launched a Wadiya website, and ad campaign,

showing the country's charms, including retirement homes for the

war criminals and regular arrivals of hijacked airlines. An outrageous

satire of despots, but does he pull it off with the interaction with

the real world -- without the interaction with the real world

which gave Borat and Bruno a satirical edge. From the moment he

insisted on going to the Oscars in character, and dropped the ashes of

Kim Jong-Il, expectations were high, did he fulfil them? I think some of

the stuoints will detract from the film. What I liked about the film

is, as you mentioned, he doesn't interact with real people. Towards

the later films, is because he was interacting with people, the power

relationship was with him, the power of the edit and he had the

power, it made it cringe worthy. The fact it is a fictional

construct, meant you could relax and laugh. This is the best one so

far. Without real people it all rested on him. It all rested on him.

I so disagree with you. I thought this was one of the worst hours I

have spent in a cinema, ever. I didn't laugh at all. The only time

I laughed was right at the end in the outtakes, where that was a

completely different pace and different sense of humour. I think

this is the equivalent of Steve Coog an's Tony Ferino, I don't get

this. I went thinking I would get Four Lions, what I got was Duce

Bigg ilo or third rate Adam sandler film. The people around me in the

cinema, they enjoyed it and were laughing, but they were 16. Do you

think it is a kids movie? Certainly not by some of the references. In

terms of the numbers of references to...I Mean teenagers? I think the

problem with it is it is too stuck together two films. I laughed in

the first hour, when the focus son geopolitics and the Middle East,

you have the nuclear weapon and the determination to have one. All that

stuff, it really relates to dictators, that we have known. We

have seen some fall and they are still there some of them. We are

very engaged. Where it goes wrong, and you showed it in the clip, is

when you get to New York, and you see the panning shot of the ennew

goes to the New York, I thought it was Crocodile Dundee, and all that.

It becomes entirely predictable. The jokes don't come as often. That

is quite a long time I didn't laugh for 15 minutes. He almost has to go

to America? It is a fish out of water film, it has Cock dial Dundee,

and Trading Places. Bottom line I was cracking up the whole time.

Some of it was the gross out stuff, and some of it is satirical. He's

making jokes about well-meaning white liberals, and white racists.

I think he's making interesting satirical points, it is not a

satirical movie. He's not as interesting on America as he is on

the Middle East. The white liberal jokes are pretty lame. It is not

that difficult to send up a woman who works in a health food store

and only ememploys vegans. When he gets to the end to the satirical,

and should be the peak of the movie. You get this muddy mix of America

with dictatorship, he misses the point sat teirically with America.

There are tougher targets. Would it be interesting for him to take on

Israel? He has a go, in an interview he gave, he talked about

a lot of Jewish comedy comes from the persecution. I thought it is

the Muslims who are getting persecuted right now, it would be

braver to do that. The 9/11 thing with the helicopter, where the

Americans are confused about the things, if you find it funny. I

find it hilarious, in the cinema everyone was cracking up. Where he

came off best was when he was doing the double act, with the former

nuclear scientist that had come, who was a terrific actor. I thought

Sasha Baron Cohen, not having to be always the centre of attention, was

much better in that double act and did very well? I think it is

interesting what you are saying, would it be cleverier or funnier if

he did something about Israel. But this isn't a film for him to be

clever in. This isn't Bruno, this isn't Borat, it is his chance to do

the big Hollywood blockbuster, where it is about a flawed man,

goes to America, and then a woman, he experiences thele feelings of

love for the -- the feelings of love for the first time, she sticks

with him. He insults her in a puerile manner. Is it misogynist?

It is so puerile it isn't be offensive. That amount of puerile

can't be offensive. That amount of insulting a woman with hairy

armpits working in a health food store. I can hear that abuse by

liberal women all the time, I'm on Twitter. When she finds out you are

an internationally wanted war cimle that, and he says it never --

criminal, and he says it will never stick! Those lines. Is this not the

right vehicle, should he be doing something else then? I think so,

the real problem was this attempt to move on. I probably disagree

with you on that. This is not in the same catagory of Borat, neither

in terms of script, you are looking sceptical. You are saying it as if

it is a fact? I'm hope to go get away with it. He had control of the

medium. He sometimes looks like he has lost control of the character.

And he looks like he's losing the grip on it. Because the Curb Your

Enthusiasm writers were involved, it felt like that in some ways. If

it makes you laugh it works. I was cracking up when it said at the

beginning "in loving memory of Kim Jong-Il". The four pages in the

Metro was genius. Maybe it is about examining expectations, when I saw

this character, I thought, you know, I actually do find, with gallows

humour, I do find the ideas of dictators, obviously it is awful,

but there is a lot of comedy then. This isn't what I was going there

to get. I thought I would get this beautiful Chris Morris style.

not him. I know, but it is that idea of tackling this big subject,

something quite macabre. There was nothing about it. He likes the

broad brush rather than that kind of forensic thing. It is managing

expectations. You went and had your popcorn and just went for a laugh.

I think he's actually a politically sophisticated bloke, he did want to

make a big statement about it, it fell flat when you have to harness

these things together. There will be The Dictator screening near you

this weekend. For international movie stars, an

appearance on the London stage, seems to become a box to tick on

the acting CV. Following in the steps of many, Danny DeVito is the

latest to test his metal on the boortdz, in a revival of one --

boards, in a revival of one of Neil Simon's hits. The tar of Taxi and

Matilda s making one of his first appearances in Theatreland,

alongside West End regular, Richard Griffiths.

40 years since DeVito last trod the boards, he has been tempted back

for a starring role in Neil Simon's comic play, The Sunshine Boys.

Simon's success with Barefoot in the Park and The Odd Couple, has

dubbed him the most successful playwright in history, The Sunshine

Boys is one of his most enduring works. Griffiths and DeVito play Al

Lewis and Willy Clark, a pair who become estranged when their stars

wane, when asked to reunite for a television special, it is not

certain they will be able to put aside grudges and retake the stage.

It was inspired by real-life double act whose career spanned 20 years.

The original film version starred Walter Matthau as the vaudeville

ian legends. Enter. What do you mean "enter", what happened to

"come in". There is no difference. The difference is we have done the

sketch 20,000 times, you have always said "come in", suddenly it

is "enter", why after all these years did you change it? I'm trying

to freshen up the act. With director Thea Sharrock at the helm,

and starry names on stage, this is sure to be a crowd puller. But four

decades after its premier on Broadway, does the play's nostalgia

feel like ancient history, is it any more than another well

upholstered star vehicle, cruising into the West End.

Grace, the Hollywood star, 40 years since he has been on stage, a 70s

play about something in the 30s. Not very promising? This is it,

talking about managing expectations, I had no expectations of this, I

loved it. I went along, you see the promo for this, it is just two

ageing, slightly rotund men facing each other, that is all it is. Then

I went along, it is an old script, it is from the 70s, but there is

themes going through that, that are pure joy. I particularly enjoyed,

Danny DeVito is fantastic, and this idea, he's this old, retired act to

he's incredibly bad tempered. His nephews comes on to argue. And I

don't know, I have ageing parents, and I just really empathised with

that, that going round and feeling like suddenly, you go round and you

are trying to be the grown up, you are trying to be, and before you

know it you are shouting. And then the laughter comes in, because they

are dropping in a one-liner. I loved it, joy. Did you think

Richard Griffiths was at a disadvantage having to come on

later than Danny DeVito, and DeVito had the stage to himself? The play

is odd, and the first half could have done with a cut for that

rfpblt you know this guy will come on, he's a draw, Richard Griffiths

has been in absolutely everything. Fantastic English comic talent, we

wanted to see how he would transfer, he this delayed it too long before

he came on. I broadly agree, the dialogue is so fantastic, it does

remind you why Neil Simon was at the top of his trade for so long.

The nice thing now is you are looking back at something written

in the 70s about the 30s, you have two lens going on. The plays like

this now, they are feeding into a demographic which will be one that,

that demographic will be going to theatre for a lot more years?

was nostalgic when it first started 40 years ago. It doesn't matter of

being dated in that sense. I wanted to pick up The Simpsons sim thing.

I have seen the film, I knew the -- the Neil Simon thing. I have seen

the film, and there is a scene with Danny DeVito moving a table and the

Richard Griffiths character, it is a power dynamic about where the

table will be in the skrech. There is no -- sketch. There is no words

to it, but it was like a dance. the heart of its about friendship

and growing old and mistakes of the past. In the film you get a sense

of their relationship. Did you get a real sense that these two men had

been friends during their act? I got the sense they had been

friends, but I got the sense that there had always been a massive

things that had never been discussed. The. The whole idea was

he said one day he was retiring, Richard Griffiths said he was

retiring, and Danny DeVito said he thought they were going to get

pizza and he said he was retiring and walked out the door. The whole

idea is there is so much that wasn't said. We are coming to the

point at it, we are watching the play where they are etging to say

all the things to each other -- getting to say all the things to

each other. It is only at the end you get a sense of the tenderness

between them. If these guys had been together for 40 years, you can

understand the bitterness. The residual respect and affection

isn't quite there. Isn't it said that men at a certain point don't

know how to do friendship. There is a difficulty when male friendship

goes awry, and it becomes more bitter and threatened. A lot of

things were driving this, one of the nasism of small differences,

like your -- narcissism of small differences, with the moving of the

table, I will move your cushion. At the same time they can't articulate

what bound them together, and what pushed them apart. Neil Simon does

that brilliantly. What is interesting is the thing they bond

on is who has died. In a sense, because that is the thing they have

kept going, from all the people back in the day, they reflect on

who is no longer around. As regards to the friendship, that is why I

found the end so moving. It is not overplayed, but it is just at the

end, as the curtain begins to go down, you start to see them have

this relaxed conversation. Were you not uncomfortable in the second

half of the role of the black nurse and the Dolly dird. It is very 70s.

It was a touch of Love Thy Neighbour. It wouldn't be now, it

was a bit uncomfortable, the laughter was uncomfortable. They

were very good, the supporting cast was very good. It was hard to fight

your way in as part of the supporting cast, but they did it

brilliant low? That scene between Adam Levy, and Danny DeVito, where

he's talking about the care home he will go to. They start talking and

Danny DeVito is worried his nephew won't visit him. I thought that

tenderness was brilliant. Tickets are expensive, its in the Savoy,

who will go and see it, it is mainly retired, well-off people,

that is a nature of a lot of West End theatre? Is that so bad. How

many great plays have we got about ageing around, apart from King Lear.

You refer to the demographic. There will be so many of us in the

position of these guys. I think so what, if it still feels as fresh as

it does, with the odd quibble. With an ageing audience I think great.

would recommend people to spend their money on that rather than

other things. Spend your money on The Sunshine Boys, it continues

until the 28th of July. Joanne Harris hit the big time with her

third novel, Chocolat, one of the best sellers of 1999. It tells of

the free-spirited Vianne, who sets up a chocolate shop in a sleep

sleep -- sleepy village in lent, with the wrath of the priest

brought down. This time it is in a town where the

river rats arrive and they are north Africans and it is Ramadan.

With Chocolat I was writing about a place which was quite deliberately

not in a specific time. It was generally in the present day. But I

didn't put too much there that was intrusive. My point was that I was

writing about a community that had hardly changed, and where attitudes

had hard low changed. With Peaches I went further -- hardly changed.

With Peaches I went further, I was writing it at a specific time n2010,

during Ramadan, where there was a great deal of debate about the veil,

and whether or not it would be banned in France. I thought how

could she go back there, it is a place that never changes. I what if

it had changed, what if political and social issues have managed to

penetrate this little Brigadoon- like place, where everybody expects

everything to be the same. I thought we will have a Moroccan

community, what sort of difference would it make to have a lot of

immigrants right across the river. I don't feel that just because I'm

writing about characters who happen to be Muslim, I'm tackling Islam in

any way. I didn't set out to do that. What I set out to do was talk

about identity and alienation. And the way people view outsiders.

People have already said to me, this is terribly brave of you

talking about Islam. I think the worst thing to do would be not to

have any Muslim characters in a story which clearly needs them,

just because it is seen to be a thorny subject. It is not a subject

that I'm addressing in any kind of opinionated way, I just wanted

those characters to be there, and they seemed to fit so well. As with

Chocolat, Peaches for Monsieur Le Cure starts with a religious fast,

swapping lent for Ramadan. relationship between fasting and

feasting is sometimes a bit of an uncertain one. Because people fast

so openly in Ramadan, and it is such a strict thing. I got the idea

that it would be interesting to face Vianne with this problem,

whereby the thing she uses to access people, and get to

understand them, food, would just not work. "and you thought what?

Poor,down droden Muslim woman, victimised. Poor frightened widow,

welcoming any offer, however patronising of friendship, or of

chocolate? How they all love the chocolate woman, who thinks because

she once went to Tangier, she understands our culture". Another

recurring theme in Peaches is magic, be it in the air or in the food.

one level it is a fairy story, it has many elements of fairy story in

it, if you can't buy into it, you will have a problem with the book.

Although I have always tried to temper the magic with an element

human psychology. She's just a unique person with a certain charm,

charm and magic is the same thing. It is about being able to effect

change on other people, or change one'sself or the world. That is

magic. Joanne Harris said she had such a big hit with Chocolat, but

said there was unfinished business there, was she right to finish it

with Peaches for Monsieur Le Cure? She kept the sweet tooth in a

literary sense. That trench from Chocolat trying to wrap it all up

with Ramadan and the joint themes of food and fundamentalism is

probably mother of a stretch. I enjoyed Chocolat an awful lot, it

did get the twin themes of the role of the Catholic Church, but also of

the enjoyment and the love of food and wine in France. I did feel this

was more of a stretch. Some of these subjects, they are obviously

related to what is going on in France at the moment n a lot of

comounties. There was a slight Niamhity that one could --

communities, there was a slight naivity that this could be sorted

with jam, that grated. There was a thing that it could be solved

quickly? I didn't read the first book so I didn't have an attachment

to it. It was the idea that the clash of civilisations could be

cured over chocolate. Food as the universal passport, as a theme, one

of the things the book mentions, I thought that was not true. I

thought there is a lot of racists who eat curry. Just because you eat

from a particularly sis keen doesn't mean everything. The

fundamental -- cusine, doesn't mean anything. The fundamental flaw was

that. I think bringing the food into someone's house as a peace

offering? She was rejected in that in a good scene in the book.

Because she couldn't do it because it was a Ramadan was a powerful

idea. The one good thing was it articulated the fears of the other,

and what happens when a small town is changed. It did that really well.

It would have been very easy to set this in an industrial city. By

using this unusual setting, the village, added a dimension.

point you made about the emotional attachment, I hadn't read Chocolat,

I began, I thought I will plough on with this. I got about 50, 70 pages

into it, I thought I'm not feeling this. About her going back to this

village. I don't think that you can read that as a stand alone, had to

go back to Chocolat, crib the whole thing and go back again. It meant

something a bit more. Yeah, even then I was struggling a bit. It is

that idea of kind of, and then I would go back and pick my peaches,

and if you're not going about with that, all can be slightly lost with

this book. How do you think she navigated her way around a small

community. Did you believe in this community? You know, I found her

less magical, and kind of good and all giving, and a bit of an

interferer, I thought she was a bit of a stirrer at times. I thought

something had gone wrong, because when the guy who is the wife beater

appears, and calls her an interfering rude word, I was like,

go on, tell her. She is, there is a lot of times when she's doing

things, which I'm thinking, surely you know how incendiary that is, to

take that person and give them this. And to hide a person in her house,

a young girl. This is the white woman comes, takes the poor Muslim

woman away from these people who are Harrying her, because she has

tried -- harrying her, because she tried to commit suicide? She's

supposed to be a flawed character. Things have unwound since Chocolat,

when she has gone off on the house boat with her handsome gypsy, what

could possibly go wrong. She's come back in and is discombobulated, her

judgment calls are not right. That is the excuse for that. She says

things about never belonging to one tribe, that is why she can so

easily wander. It is like, oh please, that won't be a good start.

She's self-conscious, she is the kind of liberal Sasha Baron Cohen

would have had a got at in The Dictator. There was There was the

sense if you have a novel where you have a beleaguered minority, and

there is some well-meaning white person who rescues and saves them.

That was problematic. The other thing is this idea that the girl,

for her redumb means cutting her hair and changing -- redemption

means cutting her hair and wearing western clothes. I thought that was

patronising, that the personal journaly is getting rid of the

clothe you used to wear and ut can go hair. My other criticism is

Joanne Harris can't come to a strong view about what she thinks

about veils. She thinks you shouldn't wear the nick cab? It is

also because she wants It could be soft and multiculturalism. She

doesn't say the nick qab is the problem. I thought that was one of

the most interesting things about it, I liked the way because she was

telling the story of what she knew of everybody had told her, there

was so many ideas of why women were wearing the veil. When I go around

East London I think that, I think there is so many different

personalities wearing the veil for so many different reasons, and it

doesn't get discussed. That was the lovely thing about the book. Some

people had worn it and this amazing woman had come into town, and some

women had been pressurised. book was written around about the

time. The whole thing about the banning of the face veil. Just to

pick up on what you were talking about, you have to take a line in

the sand and say what do we think about it. The way she gets round it

is by arguing the cause of this is not due to religion, there is

families and other reasons. That is a coppout, you are not getting to

the nub of the fact, this a good or a bad thing. We agree for different

reasons. It is a cop out, but then she comes out with a well-crafted

solution to what is going on with this particular mysterious

character. But doesn't answer the questions for anybody else.

idea that it is slightly magic and real, what do you make of that?

This is what I was going to say, the point is it is not a cop out,

it is meant to be a fairy story and magic realisim, that is what you

are meant to enjoy. All the ideas floating about, and have some

peaches. Do you want jam! Make your own mind up. Give me a child until

he's seven and I will show you the man, the Jesuit motto was the

inspiration for 7Up. The first of its kind television documentary,

but has proved very influential and long running. It was a snapshot of

14 children, chosen to represent life in the 1960s, this week saw

the first episode of 56Up. We spoke to the producer, and one of the

subjects who features in next week's episodes. I think in 1964,

when 7Up was made as a one-off programme, it was made to be a

programme about social class. It was comised by a an Australia --

commissioned by an Australia, who was shocked when he came to Britain

with the social class. I don't like bigger boys hitting us and

prefecting sending us out for nothing. The youngsters, Jackie and

all her friends, who were working- class kid, came out, into a time of

optimisim and full employment, I think if you were to make 7Up now,

I think you would find much, much less opportunity now for today's

seven-year-olds, from that kind of background. The series has not

lasted almost half a century without generating some

controversial over its focus on class and gender balance. One of

the problems with it, and they are happy to admit it, is they didn't

have enough women in the programme at seven. They didn't know

everything would explode, and women would suddenly become executives

and run their own businesses. We were just supposed to be the little

women in the kitchen having the kids, barefoot and pregnant.

participants' concerns about their own representation on screen have

also been long standing. There are a few things I would like to say.

The first thing is there has been tremendous goodwill towards the

series. But I'm not the only participant who wants to set the

record straight in a number of ways. I don't like being pigeonholed, I

have rheumatoid arthritis, and Michael wanted to make quite a show

of that. But I don't want it. It is part of me and I have to live with

it. But it is not taking over my life. It is so important to me,

that we protect people, that we care about them, but as documentary

fill makers, we also represent them fairly and truthfully. That can be

quite difficult. The predestination of our social class was the premise

of 7Up. Now 40 or so years later, has it developed into something

different. Children, who come from hugely different backgrounds.

that at once! It is an accidental series, it was never meant to be a

series. This first episode got 4.8 million, and more than 20% share.

Are you surprised that there has been such a huge interest in it?

Not really, I think there is so much affection for the story, and

the brand, and for a lot of people they have grown up with this. What

I thought was interesting is TV commissioning editors talk so much

about the idea of ambition in TV. Often the ambition is just getting

more ratings. This felt like proper ambition. The idea of properly

trying to work out about class, what makes a man or a woman, class

or character. That is ambition. shows how things have changed, when

they made the selection, Michael Apted said himself, it was meant to

be diverse. Of course it wasn't. It was completely gender skewed, there

was three women, only? Obviously women not being so interesting, you

must know that. Having said that, Apted is very good that he talk

about it openly. Also what you get is a view of social mobility, that

begins in the late 50s, it is between the end of Attlee, and the

rise of the Open University. He's obsessed with whether they are all

going to university or not. There is a perfectly happy family in as

you traily ya, and one is doing well in university, and then the

other is a car mechanic. You hear it in Michael Apted's voice, he is

a mechanic. It is rooted in the view of what he want social

mobility to be. That is why it opens up interesting questions now.

What is honest about it, is the way people object to the way they are

portrayed are able to say it. There is no subterfuge, including the man

who went back. He left at 28, and is back for 56 to promote his

music? You would have to have a heart of stone not to enjoy this.

It was when he came back to promote his song. I would have cut that bit,

I don't think I would have let him do his and western song. We are

used to much more intrusive television now. We almost wait for

it doesn't we. But the character of Neil, Michael Apted pushes him

quite hard on his illness, his mental illness he has been through.

How did you feel about that? that 20 and 35 he was homeless. He

couldn't get think worse, and he was a Lib Dem councillor. You need

that moment of penetration, you only see the people every seven

years. And also Apted has a relationship with these people

going back. He also challenges the social determinism, which is the

way it started out. Give us the child when seven and we will

predict. He came from a suburban background and not a poor back

group, he had a terrible struggle with life, and was still struggling

with life, and the children that came out of the care homes, the one

one seen so far had created an incredibleably stable life for

themselves. It was a cut and dried post-war socialist view what was

going to happen, and that didn't happen, interestingly. I was going

to say, even at 14 people were watching The Seven, so it has

become a conversation amongst themselves. It is interesting that

you have the guy who wants to promote his music. Neil who wants

to promote his writing, and something else who wants to promote

charity. The power seems to be with the people featured. It is not just

making those excuses the, want to go back and do that again -- that

they want to go back and do it again. They are coming back with

the excuses saying they would only do it for the charity. The one

person not appearing is Charles, and he's documentary producer.

starts when they are seven, it is black and white and feels like a

different era. I know there is the Ray Winston one that started in

2000, Child Of Our Time. You would be filming people every five

minutes, you would have to be disciplined to get a trail of their

life. People will be communicating themselves. This relies on the

discretion of the participants themselves. They are not tweeting

every week what they are up to. There is the sense which time is

different in epox. This is so lovely, it shows you, every seven

years and they largely play by the rules. That is not possible now. It

will be special television forever. It is interesting TV wants instant

transformation, 24 hours, a week, the idea you transform over 56

years. That is the point about ambitious television, it is

ambitious because you are doing this amazing thing. Nowadays it

would be loads of footage. Episode two of 56Up on ITV1 on Monday.

Today is national museum day, hundreds of museums didn't lock

their doors tonight. They stayed open for special events and

performances, even camping in for all the fafplly. Museums at Night

is late night opening, to get museums and galleries and art

centres to do something different, by opening late and do something

different. By doing something different they can attract new

people into the venue and explore a different way to look at the

collection, and a different way to look at the building. People really

like the idea of going into a museum or gallery space at night,

seeing the paintings in a different way. A lot of the venues,

particularly the heritage houses actually do light the venues

differently, they do candlelit tours and ghost walks, they are

playing with the idea of nightime. Other venues are going for the

social part of nightime, it might be about live music or interacting

or participating. That captures people's imaginations. In London

some of the national museums have set a trend of not opening. Museums

and galleries have to compete in a different kind of world now, where

there is a lot more to do. Opening at night, they can start to be part

of the nightime economy. One of the lovely things about museums at

night, is it involves some of the big national museums in London, but

also the tiny museums all over the country.

We have been amazed at the take-up of the number of venues taking part.

We have 5,000 venues in our network, there is an opportunity for Museums

at Night to grow. We want to make it one of the biggest celebrations

of culture in the UK. Museums at Night continues until Sunday and

there are more details about that and everything we have featured

tonight in the website. Do take a look. Thanks to tonight's panel,

But we won'ting here next week, we will review Ridley Scott's return.

And Tracy Emin's return to Martin McGuinness gate. This is Sweet

Billy Pilgrim with joy -- return to Margate. This is Sweet Billy

Pilgrim with Joyful Reunion. # Started in the city

# Far beyond the reach of memory # Where I was the word breaking

# Out of the par enthesis # You summoned the spark

# Before the cigarette was in my mouth

# The inconsolable wind # Just enough to make it flicker

# So let it all come down M explode without a sound

# And the sigh lens seems # Much louder than it ever did

# When all we have to measure it # Is time

# We tear the pages out # But we ride from faster

# Ride them faster # We tear the pages out

# But we ride them faster # Ride them faster

# We try to look away # But we are dazzled by this

cemetery # We tear the pages out

# But we ride them faster # Ride them faster

# So let all come down # Explode without a sound

# Oh # We tear the pages out

# Oh come down # But we ride them faster

# Oh come down # Explode without a sound