08/07/2011 The Review Show

Download Subtitles




Round table arts and culture discussion programme. Kirsty Wark is joined by guests including Paul Morley and Natalie Haynes to discuss the Magritte exhibition at Tate Liverpool.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 08/07/2011. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight on the review show, the world but not as we all know it.


Spiritual, venal, surreal and Terrence Malick's personal,


emotional Palme d'Or winning, The Tree Of Life, will it capture a new


audience. Some day we will fall down and weep. Sam Mendes and Kevin


spacey together again n a modern setting of Richard III, is there


sympathy for this devil? Hats, pipes and trains, is the


Magritte exhibition at Liverpool suitably surreal. Love, loss and


libido in the devastation of war in the adaptation of Sarah Waters's


novel, The Night Watch. I think it is easy to be brave in war time.


Plus, folk rock taub dor - Troubadour performing.


Joining me to chew over the cultural week are Sarah Churchwell,


writer and broadcaster, Paul Morley, comedian and writer, Natalie Haynes,


and last but not least, film historian, Matthew Sweet. And as


ever, we look forward to hearing from your tweets too.


In a movie career spanning four decades, reclusive author, Terrence


Malick, has directed five films, beginning with the ground-breaking


Badlands in 1973, we propelled Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek to


stardom. His latest people, The Tree Of Life was releeld to the


Cannes Film Festival to standing ovations and a few boos, and walked


off with the Palme d'Or prize. Has it been worth the wait for this


highly anticipated movie. Some day we will fall down and weep. We


won't understand at all. We will understand all things. Starring


Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain and Sean Penn, The Tree Of Life looks


into human existence, through the film lens of a 1950s family,


focusing on Jack, the eldest of three brothers.


Amidst the golden glow of endless summer, we follow Jack's journaly


through childhood innocence, witnessed in a series of stylised


shots, his angelic bond with his loving mother, but a more complex


relationship with his disciplinarian father. What are you


doing son. The adult Jack is played by Sean


Penn, a disillusioned man, cast adrift amongst the steel and glass


of the modern world, looking back on the lessons of his childhood.


Father, mother, always you wrestle inside me. Although framed by the


death of one of Jack's younger brothers, the film has an


impressionistic, non-linear narrative that operates on an ind


mit and panoramic scale, exploring metaphysical questions of life and


death. With dramatic scenes on the origin of the planet and the huge


Cosmos. Malick also employs his characteristic signatures of


imagery, sweeping music score and internal monolougue. Unless you


love, your life will flash by. such immense themes, big questions


and painter's canvas, has he created a film that will appeal


broader than his loyal and patient fan base. Lots of patience, because


it was ready in 2008, it is six years since his last film, one


senses Malick has been thinking about this since he was a little


boy. I have a lot of time for Terrence Malick, you need to,


because the films are so long and the gaps between them are so huge.


All the other films are masterpiece, I wauted for this one to overwhelm


- I waited for this one to overwhelm me, it didn't happen.


Despite the beautiful images there are vulgar things in it, the CGI


dinosaurs down the river. Is it creationism? It is a religious film


too, this is where some of the vulgarity comes from. We get this


image of the afterlife that looks like something from the Halifax


advert. Sean Penn wandering around on the beach with families being


reunited. Or something from the cover of a Christian self-help book.


Do you really have to have something that's cut and dried.


Terrence Malick's films aren't cut and dried, there is room for lots


of interpretation in this, you don't have to have a big storyline?


There is room for lots of interpretation, read the reviews.


Some people think he's an architect and engineer, Sean Penn, some think


he's the darker and light child. Whose bedroom is he in when he goes


through the underwear drawer, you have to pay attention. That is no


bad thing? That is the thing for me, it looks beautiful, it is a sign of


my vulgarity, this is what I like, a story, a really good story, and


the kind of punch of the story is taken away, we see at the very


beginning, not just the little boy dying, but that information comes


via a telegram, you go OK, so he's away from home when he dies. You


have this incredibly Spence-filled family dynamic. It are too hard


work? We are going to say this film is a difficult thing to watch and


throw out a good bit of thinking. I would rather watch this than


Transformers, when I came out of the film tonight and people going


in for the other showing. The film ended in stunned silence, it is


either good or bad, but it is something. I wanted to say to


people outside, I didn't know if I wanted to say don't go in or go in.


I couldn't make my mind up. Whether it would be something very exciting


or not. That is maybe dialogue Terrence Malick might think of at


10.00 in the morning! It is like a series of high-level home movies,


some happen to be at the beginning of time and the big bang. I'm not


sure if we are being fair, it is a movie that does. That it is two


different movies stitched together, one of the movies is fanttationia,


it is the - Fantasia, it is the origins of man through the


dinosaurs, joined with the story of a coming of age, a very familiar


intimate small story about coming of age with a young man. With an


extraordinary performance by the boy who plays Jack. By all the


children. And Brad Pitt giving a very fine performance. It was to be


Heath Ledger, and Brad Pitt to produce: the beauty of it, we can't


gloss over, that it is spectacularly beautiful. The music


is spectacular but also very over the top. I think another of his


missteps is the music. For something that is meant to be


something like Kubrick, his timing with the use of music is slipshod,


I don't think he does it well. is a very, very fragile film. It is


a film that is really affected by the context in which you watch it.


At the press screening there was an air of difference silence, people


were afraid to swallow their crisps too loudly to disrush those around


him. I saw it in a public - disrupt those around him. I saw it in a


public screening in Paris and people were laughing at it. Hunter


as the older boy, the children hadn't acted before, Terrence


Malick dealt with them in a very interesting way, he told them very


little about what will happen. These are young kids. What they


delivered was something quite mesmeric. He has coaxed something


very wonderful out of them. whole idea that the basis of this


film has something important at the centre. The internal monolougue of


the wife saying is it about grace and nature. She's about grace and


the husband about nature. problem with the film, ultimately,


I felt as if I had assigned to an undergraduate to ask them to


interpret a coming of age story set in Texas. They would have said in


order to do this I must go back to the big bang, go through images of


women and look at religion, I would say, you can, but you don't have to,


it doesn't add too much. We have all done it, I'm reminded of


Charley cough man's adaptation, you go dr Kaufman's adaptation, and you


go further back and further back and further back. To God.


I felt that he was very much, I couldn't work out if he was


completely out of his depth and can only con cinema critics, we are


easy to do that to, because we are always looking, I'm thinking of you


as a film historian. Does this make him the auteur's autuere. He's so


venerated it is difficult to criticise him. He's very


pretentious, it is philosophically pretentious, but asthetically


gorgeous, that is why people still love him. He doesn't always hold up


to the veneration he's given. don't know what you take from Paul


Morley's go or don't go, if you want to go The Tree Of Life is in


cinemas now. Kevin Space is at home on the screen, but his main focus


of the last 12 years has been the Old Vic theatre in London. His day


job there is of artistic director, but he has contorted himself into


the Shakespearian villain of villains, Richard III, in Sam


Mendes's latest production. Richard III has been a frequent presence on


the stage, played by Laurence Olivier and Ian McKellen to name a


few, it is the blueprint for a coup d'etat. One thing that still


commands the imagination is Laurence Olivier's portrayal of the


bad boy on screen and the stage of the Old Vic itself. Olivier's


theatre has welcomed back the play, this time under the direction of


Sam Mendes, and the Old Vic's artistic directsor, Kevin Space,


taking the lead role. The last time they worked together was on the


1999 Oscar Garlanded film, American Beauty. They have both previous


experience of the play. Mendes directed a production in 1992, and


Space played Buckingham opposite Al Pachino's Richard on screen. This


comes to the end of a three-year victory, with Sam Mendes bringing


much screen talent to the play. Space joins a leg caliper, a claw-


like glove for a hand, and a military uniform with echos of


dictators. Richard meets the force of royal and regular GAL, Gemma


Jones's Annabel Scholey and Niall Quinn give as good as they get.


Does Space steal the show? Did he steal the show? He did for


me, he's a cerebral actor and he liked it. It works very well with


the role it's the arch manipulator, that is the point. I spoke to a few


people who said he didn't emotionally inhabit the role.


Richard III, it is a post fraudian idea to think we need to know his


emotional ambition, we see in the news this week that material


motivation is enough to make people do bad things and he wants the


Crown. He plays all the layers of Richard's man nip laigs and comedy


and shifting and his anger - man nip laigs and comedy and shifting


and his anger. When he's offered the crown three times we see close


ups on the screen. What about the cinematography, that is great?


is an interview, it seems to be a live relay, this isn't some kind of


dangerous work they are doing with recording material. I wondered


about, Spacey, this is inevitable in a production, but he dwarfs


everybody, apart from the women. I wonder, I hate to blame the


Americans, because they have to take the blame for everything, but


there is something about an American actor saying the word


"Tamworth", or "Leicester", that I can't quite take seriously! On a


serious point of Tim dwarfing the other actors - him dwarfing the ear


actors, in the very long - the other actors, in the very long


first half the other actors don't seem to figure. It is Spacey's show,


it all falls away behind him, he's constantly on, he's thinking, the


extraordinary energy he emits. It is the cinematic Richard III.


his cinema career, it is the twisted leg to remind us of the


Union Suspects,s had the head in the box we reminds us of Seven.


There is a small homage to all the films he has been in. It is


brilliantly clever. I have said it before, Shakespeare is a very good


HBO box-office writer. That constant sense of drama. Spacey has


elevated it above any problems of Tudor propaganda or the cripple


being made out to be evil. It is sheer performance, it is not even


history just sheer performance. a sense it was a shame in the first


half, I thought, that the relationship with Buckingham


couldn't be intense enough to actually bring that alive as


someone else that was acting alongside him? Spacey seemed to act


as if Buckingham was OK. He still seemed to be reacting. In a sense


it works, it is a strange way to look at their relationship, you


don't get the pain of it. You do get the idea as Buckingham as a


spin doctor, it works well, particularly for putting the idea


of the play across to the audience. It is a populist version of the


play. Some purists won't like that, it is playing to a crowd, it is


presuming you don't understand what is happening. I think it works


really well, it is putting across theatrically what the underlining


meanings of the story are. What happens is you have the very long


first half, you are slightly concerned that it is going to be


Spacey, Spacey and Spacey, then the glorious change of gear with Haydn


Gwynne and Annabel Scholey, it is extraordinary how these women can


completely command the stage and challenge him in every way. Haydn


Gwynne especially, the scene where he's Bartering for her daughter's


hand, he's reminding him he has killed everyone else she's related


to apart from this daughter. I was sitting there properly jaw-dropped,


you realise there is someone else on stage who can go toe-to-toe and


jaw-to-jaw. She relished it, and it drew attention to the other guys


not. This first two hours were testing, to choose to break the


show at that point was really quite brilliant. That moment that he's


crowned. To come back from the same scene with a different perspective


altered. There was a good reason for having wimpy men, it works well


with him as a modern dictator, and once again the news this week, we


are sitting thinking, big terrifying significant at the core


and satellite wimpy people around him. Women with wild hair, I'm


feeling this is kind of working for me. Life on Richard III could be


the dramatisation of News of the World. You can't get away from it.


There is a serious point here, I have never seen a production of


Richard III where I thought the women mattered in the way they do


in this production. Things with Queen Margaret, you think actually


she's important here. They overplayed it by the end. They like


decision that is are also very Machiavellian in themselves, I


thought that was really good. brings out the strength of the way


these characters are writen, and they are the - written, they are


tend to be the dopey and wimpy ones, that is a question of direction and


performance. You realise as it is written these people can be


incredibly powerful. A quick word on The Bridge Project, that is


three years, a success? I don't know, I think they have all, they


have all dropped where somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic, these


productions. Something happens when actors from these two different


cultures get together. It slows everything down. Jeff goldbloom and


Sissy Spacek? Some of them have been terribly show. What happens


when critics of different things get together. It is much more


successful, clearly. It continues until September, with handful of


tickets available. Pipes, bowler hats, trains, are some of the every


day objects that Rene Magritte painted over and over again. In


infusing them with new meaning, or maybe not, intentionally, or maybe


not. The Pleasure Principle is the first major British retrospective


of the work of the Belgian surrealist in 20 years. Including


the familiar iconic paintings and little seen photographs, commercial


What we were trying to do in Liverpool is to stage a number of


important exhibitions which look at particular aspects of important


figures in 20th century art, Magritte now, and trying to put a


different angle on well known figures. Magritte is one of the


most popular artists there is. He's a poster boy of Surrealism. What we


tried to do is look behind that facade of normality that he


presented and see how powerful his work still is. Magritte is a


perennially popular artist, but with this appeal comes the risk of


overfamiliarity. In a bid to dispel our preconceptions of the work,


Tate Liverpool has put the show under different headings.


In this show you have all of the iconic works, you have the pipes


and the apple, you have the clouds, you have the train coming out of


the mantlepiece, you have the man in the bowler hats, all the icons


are here. But at the same time you will see the unknown Magritte, the


painter Magritte, the breaks in his work, where he suddenly paints


completely sloppy and expressive, that is what makes his work


interesting. The exhibition also showcases the


commercial work of his advertising days, and surrealist home movies


with his wife and muse, Georgette. Magritte, maybe more than any other


of the surrealist, has created images that are instantly


recoginsable, but they are complex. The dommin I don't know of day and


night, - dommin I don't know of the day and night, perfectly executed,


simple but also intriguing, disturbing, puzzling, that is a


power of his. The excuse is perfect, simple and effective though the


Paul, did you get a sense from this exhibition that although you knew


about Magritte you only had passing acquaintance before? He is one of


my favourite artists, I did think I knew enough. There were surprising


turns. I got the feeling the exhibition was trying to recover


his reputation a bit, he's obviously overexposed, a lot of the


cliches in kitsch world could be sourced back to Magritte, he has a


lesser reputation. I got the impression they were trying to


position him more to DeJomp, I thought if he's more a Bob Dylan! I


got this sense that it is the thing about being overfamiliar with these


exhibitions is will the exhibition itself transform the reputation of


Magritte or will the individual works. Or the shop? The shop is


handily placed at the end of of the familiar paintings. What I found


that was thrilling, frs not so much the exhibition or how it was


curated, and there was a lot of great work, and it made me see how


he thought, I got into the idea of the paintings not the exhibition.


In an exhibition it will deral and desting Surrealism, it - it will


devalue Surrealism. It didn't do that.


I kind of felt like Magritte is one of those people who got turned into


too many posters. The great moment in the Thomas Crown Affair, where


everyone pretends to be somebody from Magritte. I was excite today


see it away from the tea towels and all that, you can see it at the end,


you have the perfect moment of repcation, here are ten or eight


different versions of men in bowler hat, and here you can take your


own! I found it really intriguing, there were lots of paintings I knew,


and far more that I didn't know, especially the comic book of this


figure, the Phantomas, he's a cat burglar and criminal, there he is


suddenly turned into a Magritte. The Basque, the erotica there was


so much, the bad period, the Renoiresque stuff, there was a


complete fabulousness of Magritte in all his periods. I'm not sure if


I felt the fabulousness or much pleasure, frankly. I remember when


they did George Melly on Through The Keyhole, and Lloyd Grossman


went around snooping and it was full of surrealist art, I thought


there was nothing good enough to put in George Melly's bathroom.


think he's amazing. That was the stuff I wasn't nearly as familiar


with as I thought I was. It was one of those exhibitions where I


realised I didn't know Magritte at all. I thought I was passingly


acquainted with him. Particularly he has all these paintings where


he's playing with language and he has all these ideas about


literalism, and then representing what the idea might be in its


relationship to language. Some worked better than others, but the


way in which he was thinking conceptually about what he was


trying to do and questions about ideas and representation. I think


he does the kinds of things that Terrence Malick thinks he does and


doesn't do. There was some things of equisite beauty, hi no idea that


the Domain of Skaf life had been done, 16 times. When you see them


all there. Thu suddenly lit up like Turner, you could see the technique


that was there, that I had also underappreciated, he made it really


beautiful. In a way he withdrew behind the bowler hat and created


this image of himself. But for that anonymity, he was constantly


present, he was sending himself to the future in a way that outdoes


Andy Warhol and Hirst, he was replicating his own reputation.


of the paintings, which until two years ago nobody knew had a mirror


image partner, it was only just found two years ago? Amazing, and


the question of whether he did it because there are two customers.


That is the exact type of anecdote I want to find out at an exhibition.


My problem with the exhibition is I wished because it actually covers


the long career of a man who lived a long time. I actually think they


overegged the pudding, they could have gone for the more straight


forward chronological, so we could see the way his ideas developed.


Here is a painter, I'm grumpy about this, it is a painter playing with


the idea of banality, that is a dangerous game to play. They seem


to be representations of a moment when something was dead pan and


something was cool. I wonder whether the dead bit isn't the bit


that seems most apparent, to my eye. These all seem very flat and


unexcited. I know they play with the idea of flatness, and


unexcitingness. But still for me. There is a lot of value in terms of


the idea of the mystery of appearance. There was all those


things that seemed like cliches before I went and suddenly came


alive again. What excited me was the commercial art, actually. The


vitality of that, the vitality of his film posters, and his orange


juice adverts seemed to be more. was not about designing wallpaper,


the whole exhibition was like a wallpaper sample board, full of


unbelievable images. The back room with porn too. No time for that!


The Pleasure Principle continues at Tate Liverpool until October.


Award-winning author, Sarah Waters is renowned for historical novels,


known as lesbian historical romps. The books have proved popular with


TV audiences, The Night Watch has been adapted for BBC. In a


departure from her usual Irene that it is September after the Second


World War. We spoke to Sarah Waters and about why her new work lends


itself to television. It is like her putting on a display


just for us. Bravo. . I'm pretty much an old fashioned


storyteller. I like plots, characterisation, dialogue. I'm


part of a generation of people who grew up watching an awful lot of


tele, films. I know when I'm writing a scene, usually I


visualise it and write down what I'm seeing in my head. Following


the lives and losses of four Londoner, The Night Watch explores


the convolume luted emotional relationships and seemingly abitary


connection that is interlink the main characters. My starting point


for the novel was writing about relationships that had failed. The


Victorian novels had young women at the start of their lives. For this


I wanted to write about women my own age who had done that and


moving on to something else. And dealing with the problems of


relationships. Anna Maxwell Martin is Kay, an androgynous loner,


scarred by emotional loss and scarred by his experience as an


ambulance driverburg the blitz. were - during the blitz. You were


the bravest person I know. It is easy to be brave in the war.


Duncan, played by Harry Treadaway hides a dark secret, and battles


with his own sexual desires. What so there is no shame in the army


making you into a murderer, as long as for king and country it is OK to


have blood on your hand. You want to talk about shame, you wait until


you are out of here and you can't walk down the street without people


pointing at you. The drama follows the unusual narrative structure of


the novel, beginning during the period of reconstruction in 1947,


and jumping back in time to 1944 and 1941 and the chaos of horrors


of the blitz. As each character's past actions are revealed, their


present and futures are explained. When I was writing The Night Watch,


I thought nobody will want to adapt this. Everyone is a bit glum in it,


for one thing, it has this rather difficult structure where it moves


backwards. It was a technical challenge, but I enjoy that. I do


like figuring out how best to tell a story. So has its film succeeded


in capturing the war and post-war time atmosphere and the emotion of


fraught and fractured lives. They say romance is dead.


Natalie, you have come to this fresh, without reading the book.


Saved myself some time too, well done. Do you get the atmosphere of


the fear and recklessness and excitement and bravery attached to


the war? Yes, all of those things are there. Also it is beautifully


shot. You can feel the fabrics that everyone is wearing t made me feel


strangely closer to the war than the future for the first time in a


really long time. And I think it is really carried by its performers,


Anna Maxwell Martin is just about as good a TV actor that is working


at the moment. She's extraordinary. Once she's on the screen, she eats


it, it doesn't matter how good the people around her are, she's all


I'm focusing on. I never say this, I have been doing this programme


for five years, do you know, it could have gone on longer, what


about two episodes. They short changed the story? I think they


have squadered one of the hottest literary properties that there has


been in a decade or so. Why wasn't this three episodes when we could


have really delved into the world. Given that we are right now airing


Duncan Pearce a very silly novel, given this incredible reverential


treatment. And you think here is a very good novel that deserves that


five hours of attention. That was my problem, it whistles through it.


I'm wondering if the chronological thing needs to work in a complete


space, split over there it would be less. It is great in the book I


love that thing, Terrence Malick has missed a bit of a thing. It has


this sense of after the war, when we find them, everything is


fragmented and broken up. People are broken? Then we go back to


piece it together. It works wonderfully. To an extent it was


sort of experimental in the book, but here it works so well. That may


be why they needed to do it in one space. It is like a cousin to Scott


and Bailey, the detective series set in the north, with the women at


the front and men hin. It is so refreshing. One of the amazing


things, the dialogue is terrific, it is not overblown, not


sentimental it is heart wrenching? It is precisely researched, the


work that went into the novel, the work went in to research war time


prison life, all of that is transferred to the screen, very


effective, the sub cultures between conscientious objectives and that.


The film does this very well, it is a film populated by adults, that is


a good thing, they had the guts to keep it adult. They haven't dumbed


it down or patronised it, except the crucial bit of them deciding


they needed to rewind for those of us who couldn't read 1947 and then


1941. History tends to be sentimentalised


and later in the war and after the war, apart from anything else it


provide as great historical service. I hadn't realised that so many


people actively didn't go to the bunkers, they wanted to see what


was happening, it was almost like come and get me. Everyone was limb


rated from their positions, they could anticipate things.


finally get gay war time London instead of gay war time Berlin.


a sense it wasn't a novel I think about gay love, it was a novel


about a coming of age of women, and very much in the same way of the


munitions with the First World War, in the Second World War they were


taking charge of all sorts. Women's sexuality is at the heart of it,


but it is not always about at the sire, it is certainly not all about


lesbian sexuality, but there is questions about women's rights.


hasn't invented this idea, this is a cue she's taking from the cinema


of the period, when had you a generation of the stars, like


Margaret Lock wood, all appearing in melodramas set on the home


fronts revolving around stories not entirely unlike this one. What was


very brave, not giving away this end, there is only one resolution


regarded as a traditionals re l the unhappiness doesn't get magiced


away. All of that is transferred very precisely from the book. It


has a lovely Mel collie feeling to it. I wond - Mel Len collie feeling


to it - melencholy feel to go it. The budget wasn't big enough to do


the burning London. This isn't Hollywood. It is on next Tuesday


night at 9.00. It is turning into a weekend of farewells, the News of


the World, the space shuttle and Harry Potter, the final film.


You know the stats about Harry Potter, 400 million books sold,


translated into 67 language, including ancient Greek, including


the most lucrative movie franchise of all time. The little wizard has


come into millions of homes and people's careers.


The spotlight tonight is Lizo, the BBC entertainment correspond


department. Which of the Harry Potter books has told the most?


Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2. What two conditions


were imposed on the making of the Royal Hospitals Trust films?


wanted it an all-British cast made in the UK, number two commercial


partners involved in merchandising, putting money into good causes.


was JK Rolling's first choice to direct the movie? Terry Gillingham.


Why did Steven Spielberg turn it down? He wanted it an animated


movie and starring Haley Joel Osmond. Why has it been successful?


People say because it explores folklore and drawing it together.


Correct, it is said one in four American adults have seen a Harry


Potter film, why? There are so many different reasons for that, firstly,


it is because Americans are fascinate bid British culture.


there be any more Harry Potter stories? No. I'm not entirely sure


I agree with that. Excuse me, I have started so I will finish. I


think she will carry on, it is not about money, JK Rolling has plenty


of that, it is about the writer's need to write. She has done perhaps


the most difficult thing, to create characters which mean something to


her readers. They want more. I don't think she will be able to


resist the urge to give it to them. Well, well. What brings you here


Potter? Can you believe it's the Harry Potter final film, in a sense


it has been, what, seven book, set films, in real time. Only eight,


really. It seems like 27 to me. don't mean that. What have they


contributed to the film industry, apart from anything else? Apart


from giving aen to of people a tonne of people a huge tonne of


work. I think they have realised British film makers, they are


British book, set here, there was an option early on made by


Spielberg in America, no, they stayed here, they stayed very


British, it is a positive British brand. A film studio exists in this


country that wouldn't be here if it hadn't been for the Harry Potter


films. That's worth celebrating. I'm glad to see the back of them.


Just before we end this conversation, space shuttle, Harry


Potter, News of the World, what will you miss the most? I'm not


going to miss any of them, never see Harry Potter films unless you


send me, I have never read News of the World, space shuttle maybe, the


only thing at the moment is Wimbledon and the sun. A going


backwards not going to space, we don't read books but strange


screens. I'm always saying goodbye to Harry Potter, if the News of the


World goes permanently that would be a great thing, but it might be


replaced with something that could take us to the past. It has to be


Harry Potter, a true case of plot over everything and working for it.


The shuttle, now I won't get the chance to fly t I thought maybe I


would be able to sort it out as co- pilot. Sorry to leave you on a sad


note. That is almost all for tonight.


Remember we are standing by for your tweets. My thanks to Sarah


Churchwell, Paul Morley, Natalie Haynes and Matthew Sweet, we take a


short break until the Edinburgh Festival next month, but it is


entertainment galore on The Culture Show on Wednesday at 7.00 BBC Two.


We leave you with Frank Turner from the album Peggy Sings the Blue,


# Peggy came to me # In my sleep


# In the middle of the night # On a Friday night last week


# She whispered hot shot # Now don't be scared


# Got me through words of wisdom # I came back to share


# She said # It doesn't matter where you come


from # It matters where you go


# I said Peggy won't you stay here for a while


# We could drink whiskey # We could play cards


# We could get wild # She said we'll play poker


# Play for keeps # I only play angels


# They never let me cheat # She said


# It doesn't matter where you come from


# It matters where you go # No-one gets remembered


# In this senseless life # For the things they didn't do


# You could say you had a good start


# You could say I had class # You could say I was born beneath


# The ceiling made of glass # I always kept an open house


# And always do right by my friends # And when I got to St Peter's gate


# I told the keeper # I'm not the one


# Who needs to make amends # Because better times are coming


# Bad times ahead # No-one gets remembered


# My death is # To rest too long in # Peggy said


# It doesn't matter where you come from


# It matters where you go # No-one gets remembered


Kirsty Wark is joined by guests including Paul Morley and Natalie Haynes to discuss the Magritte exhibition at Tate Liverpool; Terrence Malick's film The Tree of Life, winner of the Cannes Film Festival's prestigious Palme d'Or; and the partnership between Kevin Spacey and Sam Mendes in Richard III at the Old Vic.