:00:16. > :00:19.3.00pm now. By tonight's show these three vans will be works of art.
:00:20. > :00:34.Your canvasses await. Hello and welcome to The One Show
:00:35. > :00:37.with Alex Jones and Matt Baker. Since then the vans have been
:00:38. > :00:42.finished. Joining us tonight, someone who appreciates art on the
:00:43. > :00:46.road, as well as antiques, it's Fiona Bruce. Nice to see you, Fiona.
:00:47. > :00:49.Let us talk about the Antiques Roadshow quickly. There is a priest
:00:50. > :00:56.sat out there, he is watching right now. Faipter Jamie. Delighted that
:00:57. > :01:01.you know your Van Dycks? Well, listen, I've no Van Dyck expert,
:01:02. > :01:04.that is for sure. You had a hunch? I was standing at the roadshow, I was
:01:05. > :01:08.waiting to leave. I had finished working at the end of the day, he
:01:09. > :01:14.came up for a chat. I asked him what he had on this big kind of thing
:01:15. > :01:20.wrapped up in paper. The I was making a programme about Van Dycks
:01:21. > :01:24.and doing nothing butting at Van Dycks. I thought - it looks like the
:01:25. > :01:29.paintings I have been looking at for the last few months. Let's see. You
:01:30. > :01:33.made a few calls there was a bit of investigation. I did investigation
:01:34. > :01:37.it was restored. An independent expert came and looked at it, a
:01:38. > :01:41.renowned expert on Van Dyck whoed said, yes, it is by Van Dyck. He
:01:42. > :01:49.bought it with his own money? He did. Yet, if and when it is sold for
:01:50. > :01:54.?400,000? He bought it for ?400. It's worth about ?400,000, possibly
:01:55. > :02:00.more actually. He's going to use the money to buy new bells for his
:02:01. > :02:05.church. He wants them to ring out for the centenary of the First World
:02:06. > :02:12.War. You couldn't get a nicer end. He looks delighted. He was. Let us
:02:13. > :02:18.look at these. From the perspective of an art appreciator what do you
:02:19. > :02:24.make of the money the MPs have made on portraits of themselves. Diane
:02:25. > :02:28.Abbott there, ?11,750. When I saw that, when I first saw it was a
:02:29. > :02:32.crease in the middle of my newspaper. I thought it wasn't a
:02:33. > :02:37.good look. Having spent a bit of time looking at it I've warmed
:02:38. > :02:44.warmed to that picture of Diane. I can see why that was done, first
:02:45. > :02:51.woman black MP. Photograph cheaper A photograph would be cheaper. Paul
:02:52. > :02:55.O'Grady won't buy it. A well-known artist. When everyone is tightening
:02:56. > :03:00.their belts it's controversial. It is. Also coming up tonight, lots of
:03:01. > :03:09.stuff. They are all for one, and one for all, we will be joined by the
:03:10. > :03:12.stars of The Musketeers. Now conditioning our art theme, Tuffers
:03:13. > :03:18.has been given special access to a series of paintings that were the
:03:19. > :03:21.last things Charles I saw on the way to the scaffold. There is a scaffold
:03:22. > :03:26.involved, a very different one, isn't that right, Phil? Yes. I'm
:03:27. > :03:30.here at Banqueting House in Whitehall. Have I got a special
:03:31. > :03:35.little treat for you. Later on I'm going to be coming up close and
:03:36. > :03:39.personal with the last remaining painted ceiling done by Rubens. I
:03:40. > :03:44.said we will get close, we are. We will be going up there! I don't
:03:45. > :03:51.really like heights. That's going to be a little bit tricky. It's going
:03:52. > :03:59.to be fantastic. I will get my climbing gear on. We will be up
:04:00. > :04:04.there in 20 minutes. Tuffers will get up and close with Rubens in half
:04:05. > :04:08.an hour. One of the best ways to see the great British countryside in all
:04:09. > :04:13.of its glory is of course on foochlt which path to take is proving to be
:04:14. > :04:19.a contentious issue as Joe Crowley discovers. In some of the most
:04:20. > :04:22.picturesque parts of the country a bitter power struggle is taking
:04:23. > :04:28.place between those who own private land and those who want the right to
:04:29. > :04:32.walk or ride over it. David has a 400 acre farm which has been in his
:04:33. > :04:36.family for over 70 years. 18 months ago he suddenly discovered that
:04:37. > :04:42.seven applications had been made for public horse paths or bridal ways
:04:43. > :04:46.over his land. This is my farm. This is where our property starts, when
:04:47. > :04:52.you come off the public highway. Yes. This is where I found the
:04:53. > :04:58.notice stuck on a fence. Rather than just walk through and knock-on our
:04:59. > :05:04.door. How did you feel? Really angry. It's our private property.
:05:05. > :05:10.They are taking away your privacy. It Duval -- Duval use your home by
:05:11. > :05:14.40%. Running your business, security. Everything. That train is
:05:15. > :05:17.why you don't think this would be a suitable bridal way? If you stood
:05:18. > :05:22.underneath there, the rumble in there is tremendous. The application
:05:23. > :05:28.was made by the south Somerset bridal ways association. Under the
:05:29. > :05:32.1981 Wildlife and Country Colonel Gaddafi side Act anyone can register
:05:33. > :05:36.for a path through someone's land if it existed before on historical
:05:37. > :05:41.documents or if there has been access for 20 years or more. How do
:05:42. > :05:47.you feel about the people who put in the applications? Fanatical on the
:05:48. > :05:58.cause. There is probably more bridal way applications in than there are
:05:59. > :06:03.horses. Horse riders and walkers and cyclists need the routes to get off
:06:04. > :06:06.the local road network which are increasingly heavily trafficked and
:06:07. > :06:10.the traffic on them is becoming faster. It's not always a safe
:06:11. > :06:16.place. It costs nothing toic fake the application. If David wants to
:06:17. > :06:20.fight it he will incur legal costs. Marlene Masters has spent 23 years
:06:21. > :06:25.fighting against a right of way on her land. The bikers in this footage
:06:26. > :06:28.have every right to ride straight through her dairy farm. You have
:06:29. > :06:35.been fighting the public access to your land. How much has it cost you?
:06:36. > :06:38.It has to be ?100,000 plus, definitely. You went all the way to
:06:39. > :06:43.the Court of Appeal? Yes. In the end, you lost your case. This is a
:06:44. > :06:46.public right of way still. You are using that experience to help people
:06:47. > :06:51.like David? Absolutely. I can point him to the correct case law. I can
:06:52. > :06:55.show him how it should be correctly interpreted. I can suggest that he
:06:56. > :06:59.gets legal professional advice if he wants to pay some money to give him
:07:00. > :07:02.some satisfaction. Application can take years to resolve. Now the
:07:03. > :07:08.Government wants to make things quicker. Under the new deregulation
:07:09. > :07:12.bill proposals, local authorities will inform landowners directly as
:07:13. > :07:16.soon as an application is made and give them a chance to negotiate. The
:07:17. > :07:20.council will need to accept or reject the application within a
:07:21. > :07:25.certain time frame. All right, guys, we are going to look today at a
:07:26. > :07:30.footpath that runs along this field here and joins up by the river. For
:07:31. > :07:36.the rambling association this is not about creating new routes, it's
:07:37. > :07:40.about opening up old ones. Some landowners are reluctant they don't
:07:41. > :07:43.like new footpaths cropping up as they see it on their land? It's
:07:44. > :07:47.human nature though. You can't please everybody. No. You are
:07:48. > :07:51.obviously, all you guys are believers in people having access to
:07:52. > :07:58.the green spaces in our country? You think about it. This is part of our
:07:59. > :08:02.heritage. It's... If we were looking at a historic building, and you are
:08:03. > :08:07.proposing to just knock it down, there would be a huge outcry. We're
:08:08. > :08:11.talking here of something which has been in existence for hundreds of
:08:12. > :08:16.years. You know, why would we not treat it in exactly the same way as
:08:17. > :08:24.one of those buildings? The ramblers say they have history on their side.
:08:25. > :08:28.Landowners like David dis with opening long-forgotten routes.
:08:29. > :08:32.Compromise won't be easy. Joe joins us now. He is taking the weight off
:08:33. > :08:36.his feet, good lad. I witnessed many a dispute between ramblers and
:08:37. > :08:40.landowners, do you think this new bill will mean fewer disputes? I
:08:41. > :08:43.don't think it will actually. It's a contentious area. People feel
:08:44. > :08:47.strongly on both sides. What the bill will do is speed up the
:08:48. > :08:51.process. Is might bring things to a head a bit quicker. You might get to
:08:52. > :08:56.the dispute quicker. It won't mean there are fewer disputes. In this
:08:57. > :09:01.country we are trying to create a definive map of the whole of the
:09:02. > :09:05.British isles Webb want to show where the public rights of ways are.
:09:06. > :09:12.We haven't got there yet. Lots of people aric making applications.
:09:13. > :09:16.There is a cutoff date by which all new applications for historic routes
:09:17. > :09:20.have to be on this map. There is a rush at the moment as they can take
:09:21. > :09:24.years to process, thus all the disputes. The new bill will include
:09:25. > :09:28.more negotiations between the landowner and the people who want
:09:29. > :09:32.the right of way. Do we think that can work. Going by what we saw
:09:33. > :09:37.there, it will be tough, isn't it? Certainly, negotiation will happen
:09:38. > :09:40.sooner. That is a really good thing. Landowners will be involved from the
:09:41. > :09:45.start. David wasn't told about it for a while. He can get involved,
:09:46. > :09:50.which will help. Where whether people negotiate, I don't know.
:09:51. > :09:53.David the landowner and Mark who met the application never met. We
:09:54. > :09:57.brought them together for the first time. It got a bit heated. It didn't
:09:58. > :10:04.look like a great meeting of the minds, I have to say. Look at this.
:10:05. > :10:09.Mark, applicant, meet David, farmer. No thank you. No shaking of hands.
:10:10. > :10:13.No, shaking of hands. No thank you. OK. Tell Mark what your problem is
:10:14. > :10:20.with the applications? My problem is, first of all, you want to have
:10:21. > :10:25.the decency to inform the land own. There are two ways the legislation
:10:26. > :10:30.says you have to notify the landowner is serving notice on their
:10:31. > :10:34.address. If you can't ascertain who a landowner is or occupier is the
:10:35. > :10:37.council can authorise you to put notices up. That happened here. I
:10:38. > :10:41.think maybe communications and relationships break down here if
:10:42. > :10:45.things are seen to be under hand. Could it not have been face-to-face
:10:46. > :10:50.note vie caution? The communication was not under hand. It complied with
:10:51. > :10:54.the legislation. We are quite happy to discuss with David the
:10:55. > :10:58.applications. Haven't you got enough places to ride your horses? More
:10:59. > :11:04.rights of way are needed, there aren't the places to walk, cycle and
:11:05. > :11:09.ride. As for the footpaths one 50 yards outside of the river, one 100
:11:10. > :11:15.yards that side. Now you one want one up through the middle soo. Horse
:11:16. > :11:18.riders aren't allowed footpaths. People are furious with what you are
:11:19. > :11:24.doing. For you not to recognise it is seen worse. I think it's sheer
:11:25. > :11:27.arrogance. Sheer arrogance. Do you feel for people like David,
:11:28. > :11:32.landowners, who suffer stress through this process. It seems tough
:11:33. > :11:36.on them? I understand that some people can feel stressed about. It I
:11:37. > :11:41.don't think there is any need. It's... They have valid
:11:42. > :11:45.applications. You can sit there and smirk about it because you know that
:11:46. > :11:50.it costs you nothing, and it's draining my finances all the time.
:11:51. > :11:54.It's very simple to say, oh, the farmers shouldn't worry. You're on
:11:55. > :11:56.another planet. That is the way out, the quicker you
:11:57. > :12:01.(BLEEP) off of my property, the better. All
:12:02. > :12:06.right. I spoke to Mark after that, he was unapologetic, didn't feel
:12:07. > :12:11.they he had done anything wrong. Abided by the law and did everything
:12:12. > :12:18.he had to legally. You understand why David is upset. He think it is
:12:19. > :12:28.has come out of nowhere. They exist on a historic map. He feels put
:12:29. > :12:34.upon. You can't ride a horse on a footpath. You are a keen walker? The
:12:35. > :12:38.chap in the red jacket not shaking hands is not doing any favours...
:12:39. > :13:14.Farmer wouldn't shake his head. You just saw that and thought, ah...
:13:15. > :13:19.through the open field so you can see what is coming? They said, yes
:13:20. > :13:22.and the footpath was diverted. You can say, how about if you go round
:13:23. > :13:27.it? That is the negotiation we are talking about it. In this case it
:13:28. > :13:40.doesn't work. David, the landowner, that is too excessive to have seven
:13:41. > :13:46.rights of way. The landowner locks the gate even though it's my right
:13:47. > :13:52.to walk down it. That is absolutely wrong. Styles and gates are
:13:53. > :13:56.responsibility of landowners. Local authority should keep other parts of
:13:57. > :14:02.the path way open. Don't lock the gate. Tuffers has been a busy boy.
:14:03. > :14:05.Yesterday we asked him to check out a problem that has been causing a
:14:06. > :14:07.bit of a stink at a national monument. He set off promising to
:14:08. > :14:19.leave no stone unturned. 5000 -year-old Stonehenge is one of
:14:20. > :14:25.the most puzzling prehistoric monuments in the world. Just how did
:14:26. > :14:30.these stones get here? Well, actually, there has been a much more
:14:31. > :14:33.burning question on the lips of recent visitors, just how do we get
:14:34. > :14:39.to see the stones from the new visitor centre a mile and a half of
:14:40. > :14:43.there? The visitors centre is a mixture of old and new, mixing
:14:44. > :14:51.bronze or Neolithic age objects with a 360 degrees virtual experience.
:14:52. > :14:58.But when the ?27 million centre was opened, it was beset by problems.
:14:59. > :15:04.The system of transporting people to Stonehenge is extremely inefficient.
:15:05. > :15:08.There were car park use, ticketing Jews, and people were exposed to the
:15:09. > :15:13.weather. Too few buses meant that they had to risk life and limb to
:15:14. > :15:16.walk down to the site. We spend exactly seven minutes out of an hour
:15:17. > :15:22.and a half on the site at Stonehenge. I am going to do the
:15:23. > :15:31.journey with centre manager Kate and put some more questions to her as we
:15:32. > :15:35.go. First up, I have got my pass, Mike wants to know why millions was
:15:36. > :15:41.spent on the cafe but visitors were left queueing out in the elements,
:15:42. > :15:46.in the cold and rain. Well, we had a very busy few weeks when we opened
:15:47. > :15:50.and at busy times we did have queues of people waiting longer than we
:15:51. > :15:54.would have liked. But we have put more ticket machines in place, and
:15:55. > :15:57.from February people will be able to book in advance and print their
:15:58. > :16:01.ticket out at home before they arrive, so hopefully that will
:16:02. > :16:06.reduce queues. And if you are coming in the winter time, it is an outdoor
:16:07. > :16:10.attraction. We have plenty of indoor space, but Stonehenge is outdoors,
:16:11. > :16:18.so we hope that people dress up warm and ready for the weather. OK, let's
:16:19. > :16:21.get a ticket. Two tickets for the stones, please.
:16:22. > :16:26.While we are at the ticket booth, Jenny McGowan wants to know if you
:16:27. > :16:31.would consider lowering the cost, because it is expensive. Well, we
:16:32. > :16:34.researched what prices other attractions in the same sector
:16:35. > :16:40.charge, and we think we are competitively priced. We have so
:16:41. > :16:44.much more on offer now at the visitor centre and our fantastic
:16:45. > :16:50.exhibition. There you go. Nice and warm!
:16:51. > :16:56.I have got another question, this is from Maureen, and she asks, why is
:16:57. > :17:01.there no separate pathway for pedestrians who want to walk to the
:17:02. > :17:06.stones? We plan to have a laying down the road so that people can
:17:07. > :17:12.walk from the visitor centre. Why is it a mile and a half away? We are
:17:13. > :17:15.working to remove the modern intrusions and clutter found at
:17:16. > :17:20.Stonehenge, reconnected with the landscape so that people can
:17:21. > :17:23.understand the wider context of Stonehenge and the area in which it
:17:24. > :17:28.is based. We thought it was important to remove the visitor
:17:29. > :17:33.centre and put it away. You will be putting on more buses, so it will be
:17:34. > :17:42.quicker. Right, we had better get off! Are you going to be doing any
:17:43. > :17:48.work up this end of the site? We have closed the road and got rid of
:17:49. > :17:53.this, and our next priority is to get rid of all the old visitor
:17:54. > :17:58.facilities. Will this be ready for the spring-summer onslaught? We will
:17:59. > :18:05.be finished by July, we will be ready for the business summer
:18:06. > :18:09.period. -- busy summer period. However you get there, don't bother
:18:10. > :18:21.taking Eric Shaw, it is rock-hard! We are joined by Philip Mould,
:18:22. > :18:26.Wellcome. It is the third series of Fake Or Fortune, why is it so
:18:27. > :18:31.popular? It brings the work of the art detective to the high-stakes,
:18:32. > :18:39.glamorous art world. Risks can be very expensive. We throw everything
:18:40. > :18:43.at it, forensics, problems, history, looking at the brushstrokes, it is
:18:44. > :18:49.like a crime scene. And it is massive stakes, a painting could be
:18:50. > :18:55.worth millions or nothing! You always say, this potentially could
:18:56. > :18:59.be half a million. We don't know. No idea. Even if we are both convinced
:19:00. > :19:04.it is the work of a great artist, the powers that be, you know, might
:19:05. > :19:09.have food poisoning that morning and say no. You go on this incredible
:19:10. > :19:13.journey with the owner of a painting, and in the first programme
:19:14. > :19:17.we need Keith, who I think has invested a lot of money already, but
:19:18. > :19:23.in a beautiful painting. Give us his back story. Keep is a great fan of a
:19:24. > :19:27.postimpressionist artist called Vuillard, and he saw a painting at
:19:28. > :19:34.an auction, was it in Norfolk? I think it was. It said Vuillard on
:19:35. > :19:39.the frame, but there was no proof that it was by him. He saved up and
:19:40. > :19:43.managed to get this painting and set about trying to prove that it was by
:19:44. > :19:46.this painter that he loves so much. But he kind of got stuck and
:19:47. > :19:52.couldn't take it any further, and that is where we took it on. It is
:19:53. > :19:56.part of a series of paintings, and this is the key to you working out
:19:57. > :20:01.whether or not it is a fake or a fortune. It is such a joy, the
:20:02. > :20:05.process of trying to work it out, when you have got something else you
:20:06. > :20:11.can exactly compare it to, and in the case of 's picture, Keithwe have
:20:12. > :20:15.this wonderful painting from a basement in Geneva. If it is by
:20:16. > :20:23.Vuillard, we can actually match everything we see in that picture.
:20:24. > :20:26.It is a gift in television terms. And you do go to extraordinary
:20:27. > :20:31.lengths to prove and authenticate the painting, let's have a look from
:20:32. > :20:37.Sunday's programme. In order to find out exactly how
:20:38. > :20:41.this was made, she is removing tiny flecks of paint which contain a vast
:20:42. > :20:44.amount of information about the materials the artist used. She can
:20:45. > :20:51.compared these samples with Keith's picture to see if the mixture is the
:20:52. > :20:55.same. The back of the canvas can also provide vital clues in our
:20:56. > :21:02.quest to prove that Keith's painting is genuine. So we are looking at the
:21:03. > :21:05.original canvas, are you able to relate it to Keith's canvas? That
:21:06. > :21:11.would be an interesting and useful thing to do. I can try to measure
:21:12. > :21:17.the density of the Reds that was used to weave this canvas.
:21:18. > :21:21.So you are analysing, in minute detail, even though you have come up
:21:22. > :21:27.with all this evidence, you have to go to a group of folk who may say,
:21:28. > :21:33.yeah one no! The Roman Emperor moment. With this painting, it had
:21:34. > :21:39.to be approved by an August body in Paris, we have dealt with them
:21:40. > :21:49.before, and in our first series we came across a lovely man who owned
:21:50. > :21:53.what he believed was a painting by Monet... It was a Monet! Absolutely
:21:54. > :22:00.convinced, absolutely gorgeous, and all sorts of people around the world
:22:01. > :22:04.were convinced. The institute, in their wisdom, decided it was not. I
:22:05. > :22:07.have to say, every time I see that painting and think about the man who
:22:08. > :22:13.owned it, a little bit of me wants to cry. I was so shocked, all I
:22:14. > :22:18.could do was swept in response, words failed me. They never fail
:22:19. > :22:24.you! We have to take 's painting Keith'sto the Institute they
:22:25. > :22:33.probably hate as now! We will not tell everyone what happens. But the
:22:34. > :22:39.thing with Keith's painting, though, it is part of a pair, the lovely
:22:40. > :22:44.oval shape. That is the thing, you saw the painting in Geneva, which is
:22:45. > :22:52.by Vuillard, the interior of a cafe, put in a cafe in Paris in the Jazz
:22:53. > :22:56.age, 1918, 1920, that kind of time. Two other ones were painted at the
:22:57. > :23:00.same time, Keith hopes one of them is his. We know there is another
:23:01. > :23:05.oval out there by Vuillard, we are on the trail of it, but someone
:23:06. > :23:10.somewhere has this oval, which would be worth a small fortune. For anyone
:23:11. > :23:18.who might be out, is it all right if we put it up, if recognise this
:23:19. > :23:25.painting, have a look? I think we should hold it back. We can't show
:23:26. > :23:29.the picture! You hate me now! We thought we would give you the
:23:30. > :23:33.option. Thank you for coming in. The first episode of Fake Or Fortune is
:23:34. > :23:39.on BBC One this Sunday at six o'clock. If you live in Scotland, it
:23:40. > :23:45.is on at 4:30. If you are out on Sunday, you had better take that!
:23:46. > :23:49.Earlier we showed you three muddy vans, so let's see how our resident
:23:50. > :23:55.artist is getting on. Lucy has popped outside.
:23:56. > :24:00.I am here with Ruddy Muddy, how on earth did you begin doing this and
:24:01. > :24:06.wide? I have always enjoyed drawing, and we have to pull over and have a
:24:07. > :24:10.break when I work with a van. So to fill the time, I started drawing on
:24:11. > :24:15.them. There is a world of difference between flicking through a paper and
:24:16. > :24:20.having a cup of tea, and creating masterpieces on the side of a van,
:24:21. > :24:26.isn't there? Yes, I suppose, when you put it like that. What do you
:24:27. > :24:30.use? The first pictures I did, it was just my finger. Since then, I
:24:31. > :24:37.have moved onto toothpicks, cotton wool buds and tissues. Just using
:24:38. > :24:43.the dirt on the side of the van? Just the dirt. It is amazing. We are
:24:44. > :24:48.going to have a look at some of the grandmasters that Ruddy Muddy has
:24:49. > :25:00.been doing, we have got three vans. The owner, inevitably, there is a
:25:01. > :25:06.quiz, are you ready? -- Fiona. First of all, the reveal, stand-by, this
:25:07. > :25:14.is number one. You know what that is, obviously. That is Edvard
:25:15. > :25:18.Munch's The Scream. For your point, Edvard Munch created four of these,
:25:19. > :25:24.but how much did the privately owned oneself or when it was auctioned in
:25:25. > :25:29.May 2012? You can tell me in dollars or sterling! This, actually, was a
:25:30. > :25:35.really big story, because I remember this, we did it on the news, and
:25:36. > :25:39.tell me if I am wrong, Philip, it was 70 or ?80 million, something
:25:40. > :25:50.like that. I'm going to let you have it, it was ?74 million. Yes! Well
:25:51. > :25:54.done, very impressive. Brilliant. More coming up later, you will be
:25:55. > :26:01.delighted to hear! I am thrilled, very good, though! More art and more
:26:02. > :26:06.questions. It is awards season, and tomorrow the Oscar nominations are
:26:07. > :26:10.announced, and one legendary film producer says it is the most
:26:11. > :26:13.competitive year ever. It is the first year when the biggest grossing
:26:14. > :26:22.films have passed the Bechdel test, the what? Here is film critic
:26:23. > :26:26.Antonia Quirke to explain all. Big roles for blokes equal big bucks
:26:27. > :26:31.for box offices, a rule that Hollywood has followed religiously
:26:32. > :26:34.for years. But with films like Blue Jasmine and Philomena and The Hunger
:26:35. > :26:40.Games proving to be huge with audiences, is its time for Hollywood
:26:41. > :26:46.to revolutionise its gender policy? One way to gauge the active presence
:26:47. > :26:51.of female characters in a film is the Bechdel test. It consists of
:26:52. > :26:56.three simple questions. Our there two or more women in the film? Do
:26:57. > :27:00.they talk to each other? Crucially, do they talk about something other
:27:01. > :27:08.than a man? You would not believe how many movies fail that test. This
:27:09. > :27:13.is the greatest company in the world! For example, The Wolf Of Wall
:27:14. > :27:16.Street, fail! A fun film, but women are portrayed very much as objects.
:27:17. > :27:26.Monsters university, there are not any women. Oblivion does have two
:27:27. > :27:38.women, but they only chat about a man. Everything good between you
:27:39. > :27:42.two? Of course. Fail! And the trend carries on throughout the years, but
:27:43. > :27:46.this is the twist - this year, box office figures show that films which
:27:47. > :27:50.features strong, feisty, creative female leads are grossing far higher
:27:51. > :27:55.than the movies that fail the Bechdel test. Our audiences finally
:27:56. > :28:00.voting with their purses? For bigger, better, braver roles for
:28:01. > :28:04.women on the silver screen? Actress and writer Tracy and Olbermann has
:28:05. > :28:09.played both damsels in distress and empowered women. Most of my friends
:28:10. > :28:12.were actresses have the same complaint, the script arrives, and
:28:13. > :28:18.you are reading the same character again and again and again. You have
:28:19. > :28:21.to find ways as an actor and a performer to flesh those characters
:28:22. > :28:26.out. Very few lines and often not much thought behind them. Doesn't
:28:27. > :28:30.that make you angry? We used to stories that are told to us from a
:28:31. > :28:34.little age being very male lead, male heroes, the females often
:28:35. > :28:38.playing a very passive part in those stories, and the more writers and
:28:39. > :28:42.directors and producers we get to women, that will hopefully change
:28:43. > :28:46.that, because we have experience is that never seen on screen. Is the
:28:47. > :28:58.director behind box office is favourite such as Calendar Girls and
:28:59. > :29:02.Made In Dagenham. I do not think it is just meant choosing to do this,
:29:03. > :29:07.it is society, it is a reflection of the way that women are marginalised
:29:08. > :29:10.generally in society. What is a shame is that if you want to make
:29:11. > :29:20.films with lots of women in them, you have to make them about female
:29:21. > :29:27.empowerment, like Made In Dagenham, or coming to terms with your body,
:29:28. > :29:31.like Calendar Girls. It is a shame we cannot just take great stories
:29:32. > :29:35.that happened to have women. Has it ever crossed your mind that there
:29:36. > :29:40.are far fewer good roles for women than men? If it is an action film,
:29:41. > :29:44.you presume it is more men based than strong female roles. Wood you
:29:45. > :29:51.like to see stronger women roles in movies? Not particularly! That
:29:52. > :29:57.wouldn't get you through the door? No! It is more what the movie is
:29:58. > :30:00.about, the storyline and the plot. Would you go and see a movie because
:30:01. > :30:08.it featured a strong female character in the lead? Would you go
:30:09. > :30:14.for that? Probably not. Really? I think I would.
:30:15. > :30:19.Films for younger people are much more for females, Hunger Games,
:30:20. > :30:22.Twilight, films like that are about young girls, strong girls who push
:30:23. > :30:26.the story forward, who make decisions, who change things. I
:30:27. > :30:31.think there is a see change. I think it will happen too slow for many
:30:32. > :30:36.people. You know, we'll have a go. We will go and make some more movies
:30:37. > :30:42.featuring women. You had better have a go! I will put every film I see
:30:43. > :30:48.now through this Bechdel Test. It will drive you crazy when do you
:30:49. > :30:56.that. You three failed the Bechdel Test as soon as the Three Musketeers
:30:57. > :31:06.walks in Ah! Matt, you have let the side... Totally. That is to remain
:31:07. > :31:09.private. That's it. We will talk amongst yourselves. -- ourselves.
:31:10. > :31:14.This be the year, Antonia, that everything changes? Box office
:31:15. > :31:19.talks. People are going to see these movies. Talks louder than anything
:31:20. > :31:25.else in Hollywood is the money. Meryl Streep last week got exercised
:31:26. > :31:30.about Walt Disney. He clearly didn't like women. He never liked women,
:31:31. > :31:35.wasn't Cats as well, didn't like women in Cats. No mercy at all. The
:31:36. > :31:40.spotlight is on this issue right now, more than ever before. You said
:31:41. > :31:43.you enjoyed Gravity, one of the big films at the moment. Strong lead for
:31:44. > :31:48.Sandra Bullock. She was fabulous. I loved it. My heart slightly sank
:31:49. > :31:53.when she sort of stripped off inside the capsule and in amazing hotpants.
:31:54. > :31:58.I just thought... You look amazing, it's so obvious why they are there.
:31:59. > :32:04.She had been a real astronaut she would have been wearing a nappy. Not
:32:05. > :32:10.even Sandra Bullock could carry off that look. A female astronaut to
:32:11. > :32:16.say, I have never worn pants like that in space before. She looked
:32:17. > :32:24.amacing. When she took the helmet off there wasn't that lore e moment
:32:25. > :32:31.that we could have been subject to. We will see Meryl Streep, Dame Judi
:32:32. > :32:40.Dench, Emma Thompson. It reminds me of the 1940s, the great era of the
:32:41. > :32:42.actress. This was Hepburn and Joan Crawford, definitive strong women.
:32:43. > :32:48.The reason those parts happened at that time was that studio bosses at
:32:49. > :32:52.that time understood clearly that many more women went to the movies
:32:53. > :32:57.than men. They went to triple bills. Would serve tea and biscuits and
:32:58. > :33:03.take their kids. They had to give them varied female parts. It tailed
:33:04. > :33:10.off over the years. In the 1980s it was all totty and nothing else,
:33:11. > :33:15.apart from Thelma and Louise. Who do you think will get take Best Actress
:33:16. > :33:19.on the night? Cate Blanchett will probably walk away with it. The part
:33:20. > :33:26.she is playing, they said it wasn't inspired by Street Car Named Desire.
:33:27. > :33:30.Isn't it interesting this magnificent performance nods again
:33:31. > :33:34.to the great black-and-white era of those actresses. Good luck to all of
:33:35. > :33:44.them. Thank you so much. We can't get through the next thing without
:33:45. > :33:53.mefrjing someone pumped with testosterone we go back to Tuffers.
:33:54. > :33:58.Luckily, he has a head for heights as well as artment We have made --
:33:59. > :34:03.art. We have made it up here. 50 feet up in the air, it is swaying a
:34:04. > :34:06.little bit. Great to be up here. I have Kate here to hold my hand. What
:34:07. > :34:10.is your involvement with the project? I'm head of the
:34:11. > :34:14.conservation team of