15/01/2014 The One Show

3.00pm now. By tonight's show these three vans will be works of art.

Your canvasses await. Hello and welcome to The One Show

with Alex Jones and Matt Baker. Since then the vans have been

finished. Joining us tonight, someone who appreciates art on the

road, as well as antiques, it's Fiona Bruce. Nice to see you, Fiona.

Let us talk about the Antiques Roadshow quickly. There is a priest

sat out there, he is watching right now. Faipter Jamie. Delighted that

you know your Van Dycks? Well, listen, I've no Van Dyck expert,

that is for sure. You had a hunch? I was standing at the roadshow, I was

waiting to leave. I had finished working at the end of the day, he

came up for a chat. I asked him what he had on this big kind of thing

wrapped up in paper. The I was making a programme about Van Dycks

and doing nothing butting at Van Dycks. I thought - it looks like the

paintings I have been looking at for the last few months. Let's see. You

made a few calls there was a bit of investigation. I did investigation

it was restored. An independent expert came and looked at it, a

renowned expert on Van Dyck whoed said, yes, it is by Van Dyck. He

bought it with his own money? He did. Yet, if and when it is sold for

?400,000? He bought it for ?400. It's worth about ?400,000, possibly

more actually. He's going to use the money to buy new bells for his

church. He wants them to ring out for the centenary of the First World

War. You couldn't get a nicer end. He looks delighted. He was. Let us

look at these. From the perspective of an art appreciator what do you

make of the money the MPs have made on portraits of themselves. Diane

Abbott there, ?11,750. When I saw that, when I first saw it was a

crease in the middle of my newspaper. I thought it wasn't a

good look. Having spent a bit of time looking at it I've warmed

warmed to that picture of Diane. I can see why that was done, first

woman black MP. Photograph cheaper A photograph would be cheaper. Paul

O'Grady won't buy it. A well-known artist. When everyone is tightening

their belts it's controversial. It is. Also coming up tonight, lots of

stuff. They are all for one, and one for all, we will be joined by the

stars of The Musketeers. Now conditioning our art theme, Tuffers

has been given special access to a series of paintings that were the

last things Charles I saw on the way to the scaffold. There is a scaffold

involved, a very different one, isn't that right, Phil? Yes. I'm

here at Banqueting House in Whitehall. Have I got a special

little treat for you. Later on I'm going to be coming up close and

personal with the last remaining painted ceiling done by Rubens. I

said we will get close, we are. We will be going up there! I don't

really like heights. That's going to be a little bit tricky. It's going

to be fantastic. I will get my climbing gear on. We will be up

there in 20 minutes. Tuffers will get up and close with Rubens in half

an hour. One of the best ways to see the great British countryside in all

of its glory is of course on foochlt which path to take is proving to be

a contentious issue as Joe Crowley discovers. In some of the most

picturesque parts of the country a bitter power struggle is taking

place between those who own private land and those who want the right to

walk or ride over it. David has a 400 acre farm which has been in his

family for over 70 years. 18 months ago he suddenly discovered that

seven applications had been made for public horse paths or bridal ways

over his land. This is my farm. This is where our property starts, when

you come off the public highway. Yes. This is where I found the

notice stuck on a fence. Rather than just walk through and knock-on our

door. How did you feel? Really angry. It's our private property.

They are taking away your privacy. It Duval -- Duval use your home by

40%. Running your business, security. Everything. That train is

why you don't think this would be a suitable bridal way? If you stood

underneath there, the rumble in there is tremendous. The application

was made by the south Somerset bridal ways association. Under the

1981 Wildlife and Country Colonel Gaddafi side Act anyone can register

for a path through someone's land if it existed before on historical

documents or if there has been access for 20 years or more. How do

you feel about the people who put in the applications? Fanatical on the

cause. There is probably more bridal way applications in than there are

horses. Horse riders and walkers and cyclists need the routes to get off

the local road network which are increasingly heavily trafficked and

the traffic on them is becoming faster. It's not always a safe

place. It costs nothing toic fake the application. If David wants to

fight it he will incur legal costs. Marlene Masters has spent 23 years

fighting against a right of way on her land. The bikers in this footage

have every right to ride straight through her dairy farm. You have

been fighting the public access to your land. How much has it cost you?

It has to be ?100,000 plus, definitely. You went all the way to

the Court of Appeal? Yes. In the end, you lost your case. This is a

public right of way still. You are using that experience to help people

like David? Absolutely. I can point him to the correct case law. I can

show him how it should be correctly interpreted. I can suggest that he

gets legal professional advice if he wants to pay some money to give him

some satisfaction. Application can take years to resolve. Now the

Government wants to make things quicker. Under the new deregulation

bill proposals, local authorities will inform landowners directly as

soon as an application is made and give them a chance to negotiate. The

council will need to accept or reject the application within a

certain time frame. All right, guys, we are going to look today at a

footpath that runs along this field here and joins up by the river. For

the rambling association this is not about creating new routes, it's

about opening up old ones. Some landowners are reluctant they don't

like new footpaths cropping up as they see it on their land? It's

human nature though. You can't please everybody. No. You are

obviously, all you guys are believers in people having access to

the green spaces in our country? You think about it. This is part of our

heritage. It's... If we were looking at a historic building, and you are

proposing to just knock it down, there would be a huge outcry. We're

talking here of something which has been in existence for hundreds of

years. You know, why would we not treat it in exactly the same way as

one of those buildings? The ramblers say they have history on their side.

Landowners like David dis with opening long-forgotten routes.

Compromise won't be easy. Joe joins us now. He is taking the weight off

his feet, good lad. I witnessed many a dispute between ramblers and

landowners, do you think this new bill will mean fewer disputes? I

don't think it will actually. It's a contentious area. People feel

strongly on both sides. What the bill will do is speed up the

process. Is might bring things to a head a bit quicker. You might get to

the dispute quicker. It won't mean there are fewer disputes. In this

country we are trying to create a definive map of the whole of the

British isles Webb want to show where the public rights of ways are.

We haven't got there yet. Lots of people aric making applications.

There is a cutoff date by which all new applications for historic routes

have to be on this map. There is a rush at the moment as they can take

years to process, thus all the disputes. The new bill will include

more negotiations between the landowner and the people who want

the right of way. Do we think that can work. Going by what we saw

there, it will be tough, isn't it? Certainly, negotiation will happen

sooner. That is a really good thing. Landowners will be involved from the

start. David wasn't told about it for a while. He can get involved,

which will help. Where whether people negotiate, I don't know.

David the landowner and Mark who met the application never met. We

brought them together for the first time. It got a bit heated. It didn't

look like a great meeting of the minds, I have to say. Look at this.

Mark, applicant, meet David, farmer. No thank you. No shaking of hands.

No, shaking of hands. No thank you. OK. Tell Mark what your problem is

with the applications? My problem is, first of all, you want to have

the decency to inform the land own. There are two ways the legislation

says you have to notify the landowner is serving notice on their

address. If you can't ascertain who a landowner is or occupier is the

council can authorise you to put notices up. That happened here. I

think maybe communications and relationships break down here if

things are seen to be under hand. Could it not have been face-to-face

note vie caution? The communication was not under hand. It complied with

the legislation. We are quite happy to discuss with David the

applications. Haven't you got enough places to ride your horses? More

rights of way are needed, there aren't the places to walk, cycle and

ride. As for the footpaths one 50 yards outside of the river, one 100

yards that side. Now you one want one up through the middle soo. Horse

riders aren't allowed footpaths. People are furious with what you are

doing. For you not to recognise it is seen worse. I think it's sheer

arrogance. Sheer arrogance. Do you feel for people like David,

landowners, who suffer stress through this process. It seems tough

on them? I understand that some people can feel stressed about. It I

don't think there is any need. It's... They have valid

applications. You can sit there and smirk about it because you know that

it costs you nothing, and it's draining my finances all the time.

It's very simple to say, oh, the farmers shouldn't worry. You're on

another planet. That is the way out, the quicker you

(BLEEP) off of my property, the better. All

right. I spoke to Mark after that, he was unapologetic, didn't feel

they he had done anything wrong. Abided by the law and did everything

he had to legally. You understand why David is upset. He think it is

has come out of nowhere. They exist on a historic map. He feels put

upon. You can't ride a horse on a footpath. You are a keen walker? The

chap in the red jacket not shaking hands is not doing any favours...

Farmer wouldn't shake his head. You just saw that and thought, ah...

through the open field so you can see what is coming? They said, yes

and the footpath was diverted. You can say, how about if you go round

it? That is the negotiation we are talking about it. In this case it

doesn't work. David, the landowner, that is too excessive to have seven

rights of way. The landowner locks the gate even though it's my right

to walk down it. That is absolutely wrong. Styles and gates are

responsibility of landowners. Local authority should keep other parts of

the path way open. Don't lock the gate. Tuffers has been a busy boy.

Yesterday we asked him to check out a problem that has been causing a

bit of a stink at a national monument. He set off promising to

leave no stone unturned. 5000 -year-old Stonehenge is one of

the most puzzling prehistoric monuments in the world. Just how did

these stones get here? Well, actually, there has been a much more

burning question on the lips of recent visitors, just how do we get

to see the stones from the new visitor centre a mile and a half of

there? The visitors centre is a mixture of old and new, mixing

bronze or Neolithic age objects with a 360 degrees virtual experience.

But when the ?27 million centre was opened, it was beset by problems.

The system of transporting people to Stonehenge is extremely inefficient.

There were car park use, ticketing Jews, and people were exposed to the

weather. Too few buses meant that they had to risk life and limb to

walk down to the site. We spend exactly seven minutes out of an hour

and a half on the site at Stonehenge. I am going to do the

journey with centre manager Kate and put some more questions to her as we

go. First up, I have got my pass, Mike wants to know why millions was

spent on the cafe but visitors were left queueing out in the elements,

in the cold and rain. Well, we had a very busy few weeks when we opened

and at busy times we did have queues of people waiting longer than we

would have liked. But we have put more ticket machines in place, and

from February people will be able to book in advance and print their

ticket out at home before they arrive, so hopefully that will

reduce queues. And if you are coming in the winter time, it is an outdoor

attraction. We have plenty of indoor space, but Stonehenge is outdoors,

so we hope that people dress up warm and ready for the weather. OK, let's

get a ticket. Two tickets for the stones, please.

While we are at the ticket booth, Jenny McGowan wants to know if you

would consider lowering the cost, because it is expensive. Well, we

researched what prices other attractions in the same sector

charge, and we think we are competitively priced. We have so

much more on offer now at the visitor centre and our fantastic

exhibition. There you go. Nice and warm!

I have got another question, this is from Maureen, and she asks, why is

there no separate pathway for pedestrians who want to walk to the

stones? We plan to have a laying down the road so that people can

walk from the visitor centre. Why is it a mile and a half away? We are

working to remove the modern intrusions and clutter found at

Stonehenge, reconnected with the landscape so that people can

understand the wider context of Stonehenge and the area in which it

is based. We thought it was important to remove the visitor

centre and put it away. You will be putting on more buses, so it will be

quicker. Right, we had better get off! Are you going to be doing any

work up this end of the site? We have closed the road and got rid of

this, and our next priority is to get rid of all the old visitor

facilities. Will this be ready for the spring-summer onslaught? We will

be finished by July, we will be ready for the business summer

period. -- busy summer period. However you get there, don't bother

taking Eric Shaw, it is rock-hard! We are joined by Philip Mould,

Wellcome. It is the third series of Fake Or Fortune, why is it so

popular? It brings the work of the art detective to the high-stakes,

glamorous art world. Risks can be very expensive. We throw everything

at it, forensics, problems, history, looking at the brushstrokes, it is

like a crime scene. And it is massive stakes, a painting could be

worth millions or nothing! You always say, this potentially could

be half a million. We don't know. No idea. Even if we are both convinced

it is the work of a great artist, the powers that be, you know, might

have food poisoning that morning and say no. You go on this incredible

journey with the owner of a painting, and in the first programme

we need Keith, who I think has invested a lot of money already, but

in a beautiful painting. Give us his back story. Keep is a great fan of a

postimpressionist artist called Vuillard, and he saw a painting at

an auction, was it in Norfolk? I think it was. It said Vuillard on

the frame, but there was no proof that it was by him. He saved up and

managed to get this painting and set about trying to prove that it was by

this painter that he loves so much. But he kind of got stuck and

couldn't take it any further, and that is where we took it on. It is

part of a series of paintings, and this is the key to you working out

whether or not it is a fake or a fortune. It is such a joy, the

process of trying to work it out, when you have got something else you

can exactly compare it to, and in the case of 's picture, Keithwe have

this wonderful painting from a basement in Geneva. If it is by

Vuillard, we can actually match everything we see in that picture.

It is a gift in television terms. And you do go to extraordinary

lengths to prove and authenticate the painting, let's have a look from

Sunday's programme. In order to find out exactly how

this was made, she is removing tiny flecks of paint which contain a vast

amount of information about the materials the artist used. She can

compared these samples with Keith's picture to see if the mixture is the

same. The back of the canvas can also provide vital clues in our

quest to prove that Keith's painting is genuine. So we are looking at the

original canvas, are you able to relate it to Keith's canvas? That

would be an interesting and useful thing to do. I can try to measure

the density of the Reds that was used to weave this canvas.

So you are analysing, in minute detail, even though you have come up

with all this evidence, you have to go to a group of folk who may say,

yeah one no! The Roman Emperor moment. With this painting, it had

to be approved by an August body in Paris, we have dealt with them

before, and in our first series we came across a lovely man who owned

what he believed was a painting by Monet... It was a Monet! Absolutely

convinced, absolutely gorgeous, and all sorts of people around the world

were convinced. The institute, in their wisdom, decided it was not. I

have to say, every time I see that painting and think about the man who

owned it, a little bit of me wants to cry. I was so shocked, all I

could do was swept in response, words failed me. They never fail

you! We have to take 's painting Keith'sto the Institute they

probably hate as now! We will not tell everyone what happens. But the

thing with Keith's painting, though, it is part of a pair, the lovely

oval shape. That is the thing, you saw the painting in Geneva, which is

by Vuillard, the interior of a cafe, put in a cafe in Paris in the Jazz

age, 1918, 1920, that kind of time. Two other ones were painted at the

same time, Keith hopes one of them is his. We know there is another

oval out there by Vuillard, we are on the trail of it, but someone

somewhere has this oval, which would be worth a small fortune. For anyone

who might be out, is it all right if we put it up, if recognise this

painting, have a look? I think we should hold it back. We can't show

the picture! You hate me now! We thought we would give you the

option. Thank you for coming in. The first episode of Fake Or Fortune is

on BBC One this Sunday at six o'clock. If you live in Scotland, it

is on at 4:30. If you are out on Sunday, you had better take that!

Earlier we showed you three muddy vans, so let's see how our resident

artist is getting on. Lucy has popped outside.

I am here with Ruddy Muddy, how on earth did you begin doing this and

wide? I have always enjoyed drawing, and we have to pull over and have a

break when I work with a van. So to fill the time, I started drawing on

them. There is a world of difference between flicking through a paper and

having a cup of tea, and creating masterpieces on the side of a van,

isn't there? Yes, I suppose, when you put it like that. What do you

use? The first pictures I did, it was just my finger. Since then, I

have moved onto toothpicks, cotton wool buds and tissues. Just using

the dirt on the side of the van? Just the dirt. It is amazing. We are

going to have a look at some of the grandmasters that Ruddy Muddy has

been doing, we have got three vans. The owner, inevitably, there is a

quiz, are you ready? -- Fiona. First of all, the reveal, stand-by, this

is number one. You know what that is, obviously. That is Edvard

Munch's The Scream. For your point, Edvard Munch created four of these,

but how much did the privately owned oneself or when it was auctioned in

May 2012? You can tell me in dollars or sterling! This, actually, was a

really big story, because I remember this, we did it on the news, and

tell me if I am wrong, Philip, it was 70 or ?80 million, something

like that. I'm going to let you have it, it was ?74 million. Yes! Well

done, very impressive. Brilliant. More coming up later, you will be

delighted to hear! I am thrilled, very good, though! More art and more

questions. It is awards season, and tomorrow the Oscar nominations are

announced, and one legendary film producer says it is the most

competitive year ever. It is the first year when the biggest grossing

films have passed the Bechdel test, the what? Here is film critic

Antonia Quirke to explain all. Big roles for blokes equal big bucks

for box offices, a rule that Hollywood has followed religiously

for years. But with films like Blue Jasmine and Philomena and The Hunger

Games proving to be huge with audiences, is its time for Hollywood

to revolutionise its gender policy? One way to gauge the active presence

of female characters in a film is the Bechdel test. It consists of

three simple questions. Our there two or more women in the film? Do

they talk to each other? Crucially, do they talk about something other

than a man? You would not believe how many movies fail that test. This

is the greatest company in the world! For example, The Wolf Of Wall

Street, fail! A fun film, but women are portrayed very much as objects.

Monsters university, there are not any women. Oblivion does have two

women, but they only chat about a man. Everything good between you

two? Of course. Fail! And the trend carries on throughout the years, but

this is the twist - this year, box office figures show that films which

features strong, feisty, creative female leads are grossing far higher

than the movies that fail the Bechdel test. Our audiences finally

voting with their purses? For bigger, better, braver roles for

women on the silver screen? Actress and writer Tracy and Olbermann has

played both damsels in distress and empowered women. Most of my friends

were actresses have the same complaint, the script arrives, and

you are reading the same character again and again and again. You have

to find ways as an actor and a performer to flesh those characters

out. Very few lines and often not much thought behind them. Doesn't

that make you angry? We used to stories that are told to us from a

little age being very male lead, male heroes, the females often

playing a very passive part in those stories, and the more writers and

directors and producers we get to women, that will hopefully change

that, because we have experience is that never seen on screen. Is the

director behind box office is favourite such as Calendar Girls and

Made In Dagenham. I do not think it is just meant choosing to do this,

it is society, it is a reflection of the way that women are marginalised

generally in society. What is a shame is that if you want to make

films with lots of women in them, you have to make them about female

empowerment, like Made In Dagenham, or coming to terms with your body,

like Calendar Girls. It is a shame we cannot just take great stories

that happened to have women. Has it ever crossed your mind that there

are far fewer good roles for women than men? If it is an action film,

you presume it is more men based than strong female roles. Wood you

like to see stronger women roles in movies? Not particularly! That

wouldn't get you through the door? No! It is more what the movie is

about, the storyline and the plot. Would you go and see a movie because

it featured a strong female character in the lead? Would you go

for that? Probably not. Really? I think I would.

Films for younger people are much more for females, Hunger Games,

Twilight, films like that are about young girls, strong girls who push

the story forward, who make decisions, who change things. I

think there is a see change. I think it will happen too slow for many

people. You know, we'll have a go. We will go and make some more movies

featuring women. You had better have a go! I will put every film I see

now through this Bechdel Test. It will drive you crazy when do you

that. You three failed the Bechdel Test as soon as the Three Musketeers

walks in Ah! Matt, you have let the side... Totally. That is to remain

private. That's it. We will talk amongst yourselves. -- ourselves.

This be the year, Antonia, that everything changes? Box office

talks. People are going to see these movies. Talks louder than anything

else in Hollywood is the money. Meryl Streep last week got exercised

about Walt Disney. He clearly didn't like women. He never liked women,

wasn't Cats as well, didn't like women in Cats. No mercy at all. The

spotlight is on this issue right now, more than ever before. You said

you enjoyed Gravity, one of the big films at the moment. Strong lead for

Sandra Bullock. She was fabulous. I loved it. My heart slightly sank

when she sort of stripped off inside the capsule and in amazing hotpants.

I just thought... You look amazing, it's so obvious why they are there.

She had been a real astronaut she would have been wearing a nappy. Not

even Sandra Bullock could carry off that look. A female astronaut to

say, I have never worn pants like that in space before. She looked

amacing. When she took the helmet off there wasn't that lore e moment

that we could have been subject to. We will see Meryl Streep, Dame Judi

Dench, Emma Thompson. It reminds me of the 1940s, the great era of the

actress. This was Hepburn and Joan Crawford, definitive strong women.

The reason those parts happened at that time was that studio bosses at

that time understood clearly that many more women went to the movies

than men. They went to triple bills. Would serve tea and biscuits and

take their kids. They had to give them varied female parts. It tailed

off over the years. In the 1980s it was all totty and nothing else,

apart from Thelma and Louise. Who do you think will get take Best Actress

on the night? Cate Blanchett will probably walk away with it. The part

she is playing, they said it wasn't inspired by Street Car Named Desire.

Isn't it interesting this magnificent performance nods again

to the great black-and-white era of those actresses. Good luck to all of

them. Thank you so much. We can't get through the next thing without

mefrjing someone pumped with testosterone we go back to Tuffers.

Luckily, he has a head for heights as well as artment We have made --

art. We have made it up here. 50 feet up in the air, it is swaying a

little bit. Great to be up here. I have Kate here to hold my hand. What

is your involvement with the project? I'm head of the

conservation team of