:00:19. > :00:25.On Review tonight. When it was made into a musical,
:00:25. > :00:29.the crickets panned it, now with its hall of Oscar and BAFTA nods,
:00:29. > :00:33.is Les Miserables the movie going to move millions too.
:00:33. > :00:38.BBC One has dusted down PG Wodehouse, and sprinkled in
:00:38. > :00:44.Jennifer Saunders and Timothy Spall. But will it have a 21st century
:00:44. > :00:49.audience spliting its sides. rather! A story of meat, meat and
:00:49. > :00:53.more meat, and the corruption it breeds in modern China. In the
:00:53. > :00:57.newly-translated novel, by the winner of the Nobel Prize for
:00:57. > :01:02.Literature, Mo Yan. Move over Modern Family, the The New Normal
:01:02. > :01:06.is snapping at your heels, with a slightly different edgier dynamic.
:01:06. > :01:14.Those are ugly men. What happens when you take a successful brand
:01:14. > :01:19.and imitate it. Derry is the first UK City of Culture.
:01:19. > :01:22.I'm joined tonight by Anne McElvoy the Public Policy Editor of the
:01:22. > :01:27.Economist. John Mullan Professor of English at University College
:01:27. > :01:32.London, and the actor and director David Hayman. Victor Hugo's epic
:01:32. > :01:38.novel, Les Miserables, may be an unlikely choice for a stage musical.
:01:38. > :01:41.Since it opened in the West End in 1985, the show has been seen by 60
:01:41. > :01:44.million people in 42 countries around the world. The long-awaited
:01:44. > :01:50.film version opened today, and is already in the running for eight
:01:51. > :01:53.Oscars and nine BAFTAs. # Your time is up and your parole
:01:53. > :01:58.has begun # You know what that means
:01:58. > :02:02.Yes, it means I'm free At the heart of Les Miserables is
:02:02. > :02:08.the long-running conflict between the convict Valjean, played by Hugh
:02:08. > :02:12.Jackman, and the policeman, Javert, played by Russell Crowe. Their
:02:12. > :02:19.struggle begins after Valjean is released after 19 years of hard
:02:19. > :02:26.labour. 24601. # My name is Jean Valjean # And I'm Javert
:02:26. > :02:30.# Do not forget my name # Do not forget me
:02:30. > :02:35.# 24601 Director Tom Hooper made the brave decision to have his cast
:02:35. > :02:40.sing live on camera, rather than mime to a prerecorded soundtrack.
:02:40. > :02:44.You can tell in your bones there is something false or unreal to people
:02:44. > :02:49.singing to playback. For the audience singing live has a
:02:49. > :02:53.profound affect on the power and realism of the story. The cast
:02:53. > :02:58.includes Ricky Hatton as the downtrodden Fantine, and Sacha
:02:58. > :03:05.Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as Monsieur and Madame. On
:03:06. > :03:14.the eve of the uprising, Valjean is living with his ward Cosette, she
:03:14. > :03:22.falls in love with the young student, Marius, played by Eddie
:03:22. > :03:27.Redmayne. # My name is Cosette # Cosette I don't know what to say
:03:27. > :03:30.# Then make no sound # I am lost
:03:30. > :03:35.Can the screen version have the same impact as the stage show. Does
:03:35. > :03:41.it point to a more innovative way to turn hit stage shows into
:03:41. > :03:46.successful movies. David, do you think it is a big
:03:46. > :03:52.change. Because we have never seen this, as it were, sung through from
:03:52. > :04:00.a musical to a movie? It is, but it works beautifully. I
:04:00. > :04:06.think it is a big-hearted, bold, courageous, seductive piece of work.
:04:06. > :04:10.I think it is terrific. The major jump is Tom Hooper going from his
:04:10. > :04:14.previous movie, The King's Speech, very much a domestic. He hasn't got
:04:14. > :04:21.an Oscar nod for director, and he did get it for The King's Speech?
:04:21. > :04:26.love it, he has done a superb job with a sweeping vision. He's ablely
:04:26. > :04:30.backed by his cinematographers and others, and by the actors. He
:04:30. > :04:35.managed to produce a level of raw, intense emotion that permeates the
:04:35. > :04:38.film, unlike anything I have ever seen before. To do that by opening
:04:39. > :04:42.up your mouth by singing live, in front of a cast and crew, must have
:04:42. > :04:49.been one of the most terrifying experience for all of them. I took
:04:49. > :04:53.my hat off to all of them. I had a squeaky bum time. Does it matter
:04:53. > :04:58.that some are better singers than others? You have to factor it in.
:04:58. > :05:03.You could see it from the clip, Russell Crowe doesn't have such a
:05:03. > :05:09.big or rich voice. Some have a big chest voice, you can get that going
:05:09. > :05:12.quickly, but not the depth in like in a real singer. Then you come
:05:12. > :05:17.across with Amanda Seyfried as the young girl, she thrills a bit, she
:05:17. > :05:20.has a beautiful voice. At first it annoyed me. After a while, I take
:05:21. > :05:24.David's point. This is an amazing achievement, to sing your way
:05:24. > :05:28.through this improbable story, that goes on for far too long. There it
:05:28. > :05:31.is, that was the way it was conceived. It stopped bothering me.
:05:31. > :05:38.It stopped national curriculuming on. I don't think it mattered that
:05:38. > :05:42.Russell Crowe couldn't sing. buys into it. The fact that he
:05:42. > :05:46.can't sing is quite good. I think absolutely, the redeeming thing
:05:46. > :05:50.about the film, is the effort that the actors are clearly puting into
:05:50. > :05:54.it. He wants you to notice the effort, because the camera, in a
:05:54. > :05:58.way, that I found a bit much after a while, really goes in on
:05:58. > :06:08.everybody's face. Fishly Ricky Hatton, The Phantom Menace, that is
:06:08. > :06:12.-- particularly Anne Hathaway, Fantine, particularly it is in her
:06:12. > :06:16.face? I admire the courage and I could see that of the actors doing
:06:16. > :06:21.it live, that gave an electricity to the film. Why did it move you?
:06:21. > :06:27.Because it is sentimental. What is wrong with a big dose of sentiment.
:06:27. > :06:36.Nothing wrong with it ifs had leavened. But, -- If it is leavened.
:06:36. > :06:42.Is the leverageed not the whole Thenardiers? That is an alternation
:06:42. > :06:45.of grotesque comedy and it is a great relief. But it is not, the
:06:45. > :06:50.sentimentalality is bad, I think, it is not the film's fault, it is
:06:50. > :06:55.there in the score and the script, because it comes with this
:06:55. > :06:58.crushingly simple psychology, the only interesting character, Javert,
:06:59. > :07:03.a guy who does bad things out of rectitude. He's mildly interesting,
:07:03. > :07:08.everything else is so simple. and dried, everybody is either good
:07:08. > :07:11.or bad and never has a move from good to bad? The great evil is what
:07:11. > :07:18.they are revolting against, but what is that. In Victor Hugo you
:07:18. > :07:23.know, goes on and on about it. the point it is they fail, the
:07:23. > :07:29.uprising fails. Hugh Jackman, you talk about emotion, this is Hugh
:07:29. > :07:33.Jackman trying to work out who he # How can I face my fellow man
:07:33. > :07:38.# How can I ever face myself again # My soul belongs to God
:07:38. > :07:47.# I know I made that bargain long # He gave me hope
:07:47. > :07:53.# When hope was gone # He gave me strength to journey on
:07:53. > :07:59.# Who am I? # # Who am I?
:07:59. > :08:04.# I'm Jean Valjean Ann? Hugh Jackman, he can sing,
:08:04. > :08:07.though? He can sing. OK the hair is a bit David Essex. There is lots of
:08:07. > :08:11.things you have to get used to. You have to think this is awful, I was
:08:11. > :08:15.like, chewing at my sleeve for 20 minutes, then I relaxed into it,
:08:15. > :08:20.and I enjoyed it much more than the musical I saw many years ago. I'm
:08:20. > :08:23.not one of those people queuing up for the musical. Despite it I fell
:08:23. > :08:26.for it. It is interesting in the clip at the beginning the colours
:08:26. > :08:33.of the outside scenes, how the screen loves a revolution. We
:08:33. > :08:37.haven't really been able to have one. The pal lal late is brilliant
:08:37. > :08:42.and the costumes. You don't get a sense that he was trying to make
:08:42. > :08:46.Paris as it was, it is a stylised set. It is clearly good old
:08:46. > :08:51.Greenwich brought in again. Just a quick thing about revolution, it
:08:51. > :08:57.struck me watching it, we know the screen loves revolution, it
:08:58. > :09:03.provides it. It has been difficult since 1989, you look at Reds and
:09:03. > :09:07.Warren Beattie and that overdone commemoration, it feels bad since
:09:07. > :09:10.the fall of the society union, here is a ref lug, we are not sure why
:09:10. > :09:15.they are on the barricades, but they are cheering when he falls out
:09:15. > :09:19.of the window with a red flag. film has a profound affect on
:09:19. > :09:23.millions of people I watched it at 10.30 this morning with my wife and
:09:23. > :09:27.the packed cinema. The instant it ended they burst into applause,
:09:27. > :09:32.that doesn't happen very often. What is it about this very, very
:09:32. > :09:36.slight story that captures people? You say in Hugo it is a big, big
:09:36. > :09:41.story? All the stuff, it is the same story, but you know, the Hugo
:09:41. > :09:45.is well known for the fact that he will say, they are going into the
:09:45. > :09:50.sewers, want to know about that, he will tell you, wanter loo, a battle,
:09:50. > :09:53.he will tell you all about -- Waterloo, a battle, he will tell
:09:53. > :09:58.you about it. All the original information is in the novel. Now we
:09:58. > :10:03.have this one, the whole musical on film come and go, Chicago is a big
:10:03. > :10:11.hit Nine, then Sweeney today, then this sung through. Can you imagine
:10:11. > :10:15.-- then Sweden Todd, this sung through. -- Sweeney Todd, this sung
:10:15. > :10:22.through, I can't imagine VIVA forever going through, will they
:10:22. > :10:26.want Tom Hooper to want to do it, but will they go back? I don't
:10:26. > :10:33.think you can back after that. You have to have an A-list cast and the
:10:33. > :10:37.resources Tom Hooper had. He had $66 million, and already in the two
:10:37. > :10:41.months before Christmas it has taken $67 million. He will get the
:10:41. > :10:46.resources again. As I say, it is in cinemas from today. As all the
:10:46. > :10:50.genres practitioners will tell you, television comedy is knowor ously
:10:50. > :10:55.difficult to nail, particularly on -- notoriously difficult to nail,
:10:55. > :11:00.particularly on the mainstream channels, probably that is why BBC
:11:00. > :11:04.has stayed safe by returning to a known author and a cast of familiar
:11:04. > :11:08.faces. Take one beloved British comic writer, add a Stately Home,
:11:08. > :11:14.and mix thoroughly with the cream of British comedy acting talent.
:11:14. > :11:19.The result is BBC One's brand new period comedy, Blandings. Based on
:11:19. > :11:23.the popular PG Wodehouse stories, set in the fictional castle of the
:11:23. > :11:27.same name. Blandings is aimed squarely at the British family's
:11:27. > :11:31.Sunday teatime. The stories concern the Stately Home's inhabitant, in
:11:31. > :11:40.particular the affable and bumbling Lords Clarence Emsworth, played by
:11:40. > :11:45.Timothy Spall. Bring me a contraption, chain, ding-ding,
:11:45. > :11:50.rubber things that go round and round, bicycle! Clarence's pursuit
:11:50. > :11:56.of happiness is perpetually interrupted by a series of
:11:56. > :11:59.blundering scrape, induced by his dysfuntional -- scrapes, induced by
:11:59. > :12:04.his dysfuntional family and himself. The cast includes David Walliams
:12:04. > :12:10.and Jennifer Saunders at his reproachful sister, Connie. If you
:12:10. > :12:16.wear that hat to the Shropshire show, I shall eviscerate you with a
:12:16. > :12:22.small blunt spoon adapted for the purpose. Hat, patrician-bearing and
:12:23. > :12:27.chop, chop. ITV enjoyed great success with their Wodehouse
:12:27. > :12:32.adaptation, Jeeves and Wooster, back in the 1980s, starring Hugh
:12:32. > :12:35.Laurie and Stephen Fry, which may be why the length of time before
:12:35. > :12:42.revisiting Wodehouse. The decision to return to this rib-tickling
:12:42. > :12:47.writer, could be down to certain other very successful country house
:12:47. > :12:52.dramas. Blandings has car crashes too. But this series aims to soften
:12:52. > :12:56.the stiff upper lip into a smile, so have the makers succeeded in
:12:56. > :13:01.producing a new treat for all the family. Oh rather.
:13:01. > :13:05.Or rather not, which is it for you? Oh rather not, please, please, can
:13:05. > :13:09.we switch over. I thought it was like being trapped in a Boris
:13:09. > :13:13.Johnson joke for 30 minutes. I think there is a way that it can
:13:13. > :13:18.really start to get on your nerves. I like Wodehouse on the page, I do
:13:18. > :13:22.find the adaptations less funny than some people would really
:13:22. > :13:26.acknowledge, many people find it funnier than I do. There was
:13:26. > :13:29.something about this, it was soft round the edges. They had lost the
:13:29. > :13:33.edge and subversiveness in Wodehouse. The blasted big, once
:13:33. > :13:36.you get a pig in English comedy you are lost any way. It was moulding
:13:36. > :13:41.into a private function somewhere, I felt they had lost any spirit
:13:41. > :13:46.that they had set out to capture. Great performances by Spall and
:13:46. > :13:52.Jennifer Saunders, but it couldn't rescue it for me. You are a bit of
:13:52. > :13:57.a Wodehouse officinado on the page, were you worried by this
:13:57. > :14:05.adaptation? I was dreading it, and particularly when I saw it was half
:14:05. > :14:10.an hour long. The Blandings books, the, and there is a lot of them,
:14:10. > :14:14.and there is a spaciousness, Victor Hugo tells you about the sewers,
:14:14. > :14:18.what PG Wodehouse is great, he tells you about some people having
:14:18. > :14:22.a drink before dinner, then you get a wonderful page about what is the
:14:22. > :14:25.best thing to drink before dinner. The best thing about Wodehouse is
:14:25. > :14:31.the sentences, he writes brilliantly well. I was slightly
:14:31. > :14:38.dreading it. But actually I really enjoyed it. I enjoyed it as I think
:14:38. > :14:42.it is being broadcast, as kind of family entertainment. There was
:14:42. > :14:46.just enough of slapstick, it isn't very funny, there was just enough
:14:46. > :14:51.of the dialogue left in it. much of Wodehouse is actually left
:14:51. > :14:58.in it? The best lines in it, and the things that made me laugh out
:14:58. > :15:04.loud, "Harrow, I thought he must have suffered corruption in his
:15:04. > :15:09.youth" said by somebody who must have gone to Eton. God how we
:15:09. > :15:13.laughed! This is BBC One fare on a Sunday night, you talk about family,
:15:13. > :15:18.I'm really not sure. Is it because people think there is a huge
:15:18. > :15:21.appetite for costume. You have just done Paradise, and you are doing it
:15:22. > :15:25.again, for the Downton crew, do they think because you dress people
:15:25. > :15:30.in costumes and give them funny lines it will work. For me it
:15:30. > :15:37.doesn't have the bite of the early car Michael, and the Stephen Fry
:15:37. > :15:40.and Hugh Laurie? That was partly a compression thing, that these plots,
:15:40. > :15:43.these absurd plots, that always involved somebody getting into a
:15:43. > :15:49.Skype, and somebody else trying to get them out of it. They just
:15:49. > :15:52.didn't have room to do that. Do you think the characterisations weren't
:15:52. > :15:57.allowed to breathe? They were allowed to breathe, but they come
:15:57. > :16:01.across as a bunch of people who have 200 years of inbreeding from a
:16:01. > :16:06.small gene pool, it probably isn't far from the truth. They are all
:16:06. > :16:11.barking mad. It is delightful, it is light-hearted, it is completely
:16:11. > :16:15.inoffensive, I think it is quite right for 6.00pm on a Sunday
:16:15. > :16:20.evening. I wonder if it is, I had this throwback feeling, it belonged
:16:20. > :16:24.to thater rar and for me, the 90s one, which was rather better, to
:16:24. > :16:29.the Manor Born, I wonder if people watch television in the same way at
:16:29. > :16:32.the same time, whether that family slot will be charming them. That is
:16:32. > :16:39.what they are hoping and expecting. That is a cruel and unusual
:16:39. > :16:45.punishment for your kids. We have David Walliams, Paloma *Faith, they
:16:45. > :16:50.are throwing great actors at this and a lot of money at it too?
:16:50. > :16:53.can't complain. The acting is very good. I empathise madly with
:16:53. > :16:56.Jennifer Saunders. The slapstick is too self-conscious for me. It is
:16:57. > :17:00.soft as well, it is just a little bit muddy at the edges I think, as
:17:00. > :17:08.well, even though the cast is strong. Let's face it, there could
:17:08. > :17:12.be 23 episodes. 23? It is very much defined of what you are about to
:17:12. > :17:15.see by the music and style of all the graphics, do you think that
:17:16. > :17:21.sends the right signal? The music was the one thing I didn't like.
:17:21. > :17:31.That was trying to sort of some how jazz and jogle you along into
:17:31. > :17:33.
:17:33. > :17:38.seeing how whacky and Zaney it was. It was too much a would-be
:17:38. > :17:41.assistance. I have reminded that Jeeves and Wooster had 23 episodes,
:17:41. > :17:44.and Blandings could go on for a while. When you have something like
:17:44. > :17:49.this you have to throw your back into it to help people understand
:17:49. > :17:53.what it is. What is the audience at 6.00pm on a Sunday night. Will it
:17:53. > :18:01.be the audience that will sit there together and say let's watch
:18:01. > :18:09.Blandings? It is a strange beast? It is a strange beast. It is not a
:18:09. > :18:14.drama. It is not Paradise and Downton, it is not laugh-out-loud
:18:14. > :18:20.funny? It is not funny enough. John knows it better than I do. I didn't
:18:20. > :18:25.feel when they had a great line you didn't feel it came with a
:18:25. > :18:28.whipcrack. You it felt Wodehhousian, but not cracking great Wodehouse.
:18:28. > :18:32.Do you feel it is that it will bring Wodehouse back into fashion?
:18:32. > :18:35.I don't know, it might make people, I think the Blandings books aren't
:18:35. > :18:40.read very much, they are very enjoyable, and probably if it is on
:18:40. > :18:46.TV more people will read them. It is clear that Ann thinks that he
:18:46. > :18:50.actually will survive this, rather than prosper from it. You want
:18:50. > :18:54.Boris Johnson instead. He's a huge master of the English language, I
:18:54. > :19:00.will give that to Wodehouse. first episode of Blandings is on
:19:00. > :19:06.BBC One at 6.30pm. The award of the Nobel Peace Prize in literature
:19:06. > :19:11.last year to Ai Weiwei was a controversial one. While -- Mo Yan,
:19:11. > :19:18.is a controversial one. Salman Rushdie and Ai Weiwei criticised
:19:18. > :19:25.the award to a man who has refused to condemn state cens sorship in
:19:25. > :19:29.China, and others praising him. It raised his profile in the west, and
:19:29. > :19:35.his 2003 novel, Pow!, has just been published in English. Pow!, set in
:19:35. > :19:38.the Chinese countryside in the late 1980s on wards, is an absurdly
:19:38. > :19:42.comic tale of capitalism and corruption intruding on the values
:19:42. > :19:49.of rural life. The central character recounts the story of his
:19:49. > :19:56.childhood to a wise old monk. As a boy Xiaotong is renowned for his
:19:57. > :20:00.huge appetite for meat. "To be a carnivore you must have a
:20:00. > :20:04.prodigious stomach, and you were born with the smom McOf a tiger or
:20:04. > :20:10.wolf. The heavens have sent you down, my friend, for one purpose
:20:10. > :20:17.only, that is to eat meat". Meat is way of life in Xiaotong's village,
:20:17. > :20:23.where a temple honours the Meat God, and a carnivore festival is held.
:20:23. > :20:29.The opening of a new meat plant brings prosperity to former farm
:20:29. > :20:32.workers. I hear the Government has brought Slaughterhouse as an
:20:32. > :20:37.enterprise zone to attract foreign investment, high rise buildings and
:20:37. > :20:41.factories are popping out of the land, a vast man made lake has
:20:41. > :20:45.appeared out of nowhere, and quickly become home to tourists
:20:45. > :20:51.skiffs, shaped like docks. Fancy new villas are springing up
:20:51. > :20:57.creating a sort of fairyland. The men who live in them drive fancy
:20:57. > :21:01.cars, Mercedes, Lexus s or at least Redmayne. The new factory success
:21:01. > :21:07.relies on unscrupulous methods of production, and money made by any
:21:07. > :21:10.means possible. As a satire on greed and gluttony, Mo Yan's Pow!
:21:10. > :21:14.Contains many memorable visceral descriptions. As an examination of
:21:15. > :21:24.the changing face of China, is it spicy enough? Or some what bland
:21:24. > :21:28.fare? So, John, two narratives in this book, one in ittalics, which
:21:28. > :21:38.is magic realist, they are in a temple with an old monk, and the
:21:38. > :21:40.
:21:40. > :21:44.other is this story of this boy, who adores meat. Do they drive the
:21:44. > :21:48.story on, one on to each other? It is interesting right at the end of
:21:48. > :21:52.the novel, author and then afterwards, explicitly says what
:21:52. > :22:00.his model has been for this book, which is Gunter Grass's Tiananmen,
:22:00. > :22:07.which is, I think, a wonderful novel. In which, a certain kind of
:22:07. > :22:13.very -- Tin Man, which I think is a wonderful novel. In which a certain
:22:13. > :22:16.kind of autobiograical novel, which is twined in telling the story of
:22:16. > :22:22.Germany as part of its history. Here he has separated those out. I
:22:22. > :22:27.think, I suppose I think that is a bad decision. They don't enliven it.
:22:27. > :22:32.They are brought together at the end formally speaking. They don't
:22:32. > :22:37.enliven each other at all. You get no sense of any, well, you don't
:22:37. > :22:41.desperately look forward at looking at the next one. You know the one
:22:41. > :22:45.in eyalic, will never really change that -- itallics will never change
:22:45. > :22:49.very much, or take you anywhere? is an extraordinary piece of
:22:49. > :22:54.imagination, but seriously indigestible. About three-quarters
:22:54. > :22:59.of the way through, I had had to take a break for a few day, I
:22:59. > :23:03.thought I couldn't stomach any more. Did you not go out for Chinese!
:23:03. > :23:08.I didn't. Every character is stinking of blood and guts and
:23:08. > :23:11.offal. It is an extraordinary heady, heady rich, rich piece. You were
:23:11. > :23:19.talking about it at the end, what he was doing in this post script
:23:19. > :23:24.saying it was about the telling of a story, rather than a story itself.
:23:24. > :23:30.It was the reputation, like an oral tradition, one long story about
:23:30. > :23:34.meat? I think it meant a bit more, you suggest there. I had returned
:23:34. > :23:39.from China a little while ago, I just happened to be there for work
:23:39. > :23:46.for a couple of week. Everyone who goes there are from the west says
:23:46. > :23:50.the same thing, this society is developling so fast. I couldn't put
:23:50. > :23:55.my finger on it, there is an overfaith in the young that they
:23:55. > :23:59.will take them to the dawn of technological change. The young
:23:59. > :24:03.person in the book ends up in this horrible meat factory and has to
:24:04. > :24:09.inject the cows with water, it is gross. I saw what he was doing
:24:09. > :24:12.there. You see it in the academic pushing the kids, I wondered if
:24:12. > :24:14.there was not a metaphor there the way they are pushing the generation,
:24:14. > :24:18.in order to get something for themselves. It doesn't feel right,
:24:18. > :24:24.it feels a bit unwholesome. That is what all that meat imagery was
:24:24. > :24:28.about. The other thing was about this eating and meat. Consumption?
:24:28. > :24:31.You realise consumption is massive, they are always trying to force you
:24:31. > :24:35.to sit down and eat. There is something at first that is nice and
:24:35. > :24:39.and friendly, it also becomes a pressure point, it is about proving
:24:39. > :24:43.what you have and how rich you are getting. I think he evoked that
:24:43. > :24:46.really well. Did you get a sense in which he was being in any way
:24:47. > :24:50.critical of the particular, or he was making a bigger point about
:24:50. > :24:54.corruption and consumption and so forth. This is the Ai Weiwei point,
:24:55. > :24:59.that he's not actually writ kal of his own country? I don't think he -
:24:59. > :25:03.- critical of his own country? I don't think he has a duty to be
:25:03. > :25:08.critical at all. The trouble with what Ann says, he would want us to
:25:08. > :25:12.think that, that it is all a metaphor. But is it? A metaphor for
:25:12. > :25:16.what? One thing I felt, which perhaps, I started by thinking this
:25:16. > :25:20.was my ignorance, but I ended up thinking it was part of what the
:25:20. > :25:28.book was doing. I was thinking, when is this set, where is this
:25:28. > :25:33.set? Are we, what bits of history have we gone through? I'm reading,
:25:34. > :25:40.I'm in a medieval Chinese world, suddenly in come TV vans with
:25:40. > :25:45.satellite, and motorcycle gangs and Chinese guys in suits and shades.
:25:45. > :25:54.It is the whole corruption of meat pumping it full of formaldehyde and
:25:54. > :25:58.water, it must be a metaphor for corruption in China, but -- is it.
:25:58. > :26:03.He has the corruption in the local big wig who gets to sleep with
:26:03. > :26:07.anyone he wants to, who has made a lot of money from injecting water
:26:07. > :26:10.into meat. Where does it take us? There is a weakness in him that he
:26:10. > :26:17.isn't a dissident writer. He doesn't stand up to the authorities,
:26:17. > :26:20.he says some pretty duff things about censorship being the same as
:26:21. > :26:26.anti-terror measures at airports. In that way he's reprehensible,
:26:26. > :26:30.he's not a Weiwei, but he is a juvenile of satire on China. That
:26:30. > :26:36.is the way he's presenting his critque, I wish he would go further,
:26:36. > :26:40.but it is better than you are subjecting. It is a very complex
:26:40. > :26:46.metaphor. Clearly it was decided he should get it for literature?
:26:46. > :26:50.don't really give it for literature. I think formal, just judging it on,
:26:50. > :26:54.I agree that some of our judgments cannot be separated from the
:26:54. > :26:58.political one, and I share Ann's political thoughts about him.
:26:58. > :27:04.the question of literature? Formally, I think that the novel is,
:27:04. > :27:10.as David describes it, it is a really difficult novel to like. Not
:27:10. > :27:14.because you are being showing a grim experience and you are being
:27:14. > :27:19.made to go through it, but because it is incredibly repetitive, and
:27:19. > :27:23.the structure makes it so. And very dense, he creates a very, very cold
:27:23. > :27:27.icey world, no human beings have any redeeming features at all, but
:27:27. > :27:32.there are moments of tenderness, particularly early in the book. The
:27:32. > :27:36.scene where he goes with his sister to the station to find the father,
:27:36. > :27:39.that is moving, but then it disappears. Everybody else is on
:27:39. > :27:43.the make. It is like the satires in Russia about the new economic
:27:43. > :27:46.period, they have done the communism and go into this mad,
:27:46. > :27:50.hypercapitalism, to try to overcompensate, and they get it all
:27:50. > :27:54.wrong. That is the point, of course they are not endearing. Do you
:27:54. > :27:57.think there is a slight loss in translation. This is his regular
:27:57. > :28:02.translator. Do you think that perhaps what we are reading when we
:28:02. > :28:08.are talking about the way he actually writes, we are getting it
:28:08. > :28:18.in translation? I wondered a lot about that. They are even the same
:28:18. > :28:22.
:28:22. > :28:26.phrases and simplys used. I thought is this -- I thought this is it,
:28:26. > :28:29.who are we to criticise the translation. You didn't get the
:28:29. > :28:33.richness of prose writing here. It is simply impossible to know
:28:33. > :28:38.whether that is because we will never be able to get at it. And so
:28:38. > :28:43.on to your second sitcom of the night. In shows such as 2Point4
:28:43. > :28:49.Childre, My Family, and In With The Flynns, the traditional family are
:28:49. > :28:54.an instantly familiar precinct for mainstream comedy. A new series
:28:54. > :28:59.from Ryan Murphy, the creator of Nip/Tuck and Glee, it follows the
:28:59. > :29:04.steps of the modern family, by taking a more flamboyant family
:29:04. > :29:10.unit. The New Normal is based on Murphy's own experience of having a
:29:10. > :29:15.child by surrogate mother, it stars Justin Bartha from The Hangover as
:29:15. > :29:19.an odd couple, daifld and Bryan, who discover one thing missing from
:29:19. > :29:23.their life. I saw the minature person, whose skin was flawless by
:29:23. > :29:27.the way, I really got it, I want us to have baby clothes and a baby to
:29:27. > :29:30.wear them. After a series of disasters in the search for
:29:30. > :29:36.possible surrogates, including a cameo from Gwyneth Paltrow, they
:29:36. > :29:41.end up meeting Goldblatt, a down- on-her-luck single mum, who is
:29:41. > :29:45.looking to fund her long life ambition. Before you and daddy
:29:45. > :29:50.accidentally had me, what did you want to be? I wanted to be a lawyer.
:29:50. > :29:53.They all come together to form a new normal family unit, but
:29:53. > :29:59.Goldblatt's bigotted grandmother, played by Ellen Barkin, does her
:29:59. > :30:07.best to get in the way. With her racist retorts and homophobic
:30:07. > :30:14.outbursts, she's the show's outlook for criticism of same-sex attitudes.
:30:14. > :30:18.Seems like they love each other. Now with the PDA, those ass campers
:30:18. > :30:25.are there. Those are lesbians. Jueingly men. Although it is
:30:25. > :30:28.stirring up controversial in the states, one channel refused to run
:30:28. > :30:33.the show, the campaign of One Million Moms is running a campaign
:30:33. > :30:37.against the network. Do you think it is a good idea to bring a kid
:30:37. > :30:41.into the world from a non- traditional family. I know another
:30:41. > :30:49.one, an African-American raised by a grandma, that person seems to be
:30:49. > :30:56.doing fine. Barack Obama. No Mariah Carey, your example works too.
:30:56. > :31:00.this sitcom of traditional values in an unveingsal family, or has it
:31:00. > :31:10.taken a liberal step too far to take the audience with it. Face it,
:31:10. > :31:12.
:31:12. > :31:19.abnormal is the new normal. Yes, but, Ann, you know, My Family,
:31:19. > :31:23.this is his own experience of what is happening here, Modern Family
:31:23. > :31:27.that is good, now they are thinking let's do it and make it tougher.
:31:27. > :31:33.You give Ellen Barkin lots of racist hope folkic lines, right up
:31:33. > :31:37.there, nowhere to go from there -- homophobic lines right up there,
:31:37. > :31:42.nowhere to go from there? It can't decide to preach at you or sniing
:31:42. > :31:47.certificate at what left-leaning Americans any of as bad. It is an
:31:47. > :31:51.inverse tea party. She's set up so much as the homophobic hate-filled
:31:51. > :31:55.figure, at one point she is told to go back to the south. It is like
:31:55. > :32:00.why not slag off half the country while you are at it. It can't stop
:32:00. > :32:04.preaching at you, it has some funny lines, and in the clip there, it
:32:04. > :32:11.has that ping-pong, that great facility of ironic modern American
:32:11. > :32:15.wit. It undermines. It is too certain of its thesis. Which is
:32:15. > :32:20.called "abnormal" gays with children is a great children.
:32:20. > :32:25.are such good guys. Exactly. There is no complexity. Modern Family are
:32:25. > :32:30.stupid and bitchy and make mistakes, it is genius writing, this just
:32:30. > :32:36.feels locked together like Lego. thought it was terrible. Given that
:32:36. > :32:40.it has that sort of patterner of ping-pong wit, I'm mixing my
:32:40. > :32:44.metaphors. It has the high production value American sitcom
:32:44. > :32:49.thing, if it was British it would be shambolic, no it is American, it
:32:49. > :32:55.will be very crisp. But, beneath that, they have separated out the
:32:55. > :33:04.sort of biley stuff and given them all to the grandmother and made her
:33:04. > :33:08.just abusive, and then everybody else is smug, self-regarding,
:33:08. > :33:13.centencious, just be who you are. It is a powerful tool for
:33:13. > :33:17.recruiting for the Tea Party. Count me in. All this idea Gwyneth
:33:17. > :33:20.Paltrow she's not good enough, whatever, the idea you just want a
:33:20. > :33:24.kid, just get the surrogate. You have lots of money, and send her to
:33:24. > :33:29.law school as well, it will be fine. Its a bit ridiculous. I had to
:33:29. > :33:33.watch it twice. First time through I thought I don't like it, it is
:33:33. > :33:37.too two dimensional for me I watched it again and got more from
:33:37. > :33:40.it. It doesn't know quite what it is. Is it a liberal comedy about
:33:40. > :33:46.contemporary matters, or does it have a genuine black edge that is
:33:46. > :33:49.really hitting its target. I think it falls between more than two
:33:49. > :33:55.stools. Even a liberal comedy needs to do the screw ups of liberalism,
:33:55. > :34:01.these guys aren't screwed up at all. It makes you feel how great social
:34:01. > :34:07.comedy is about difficulties, that goes back from Steptoe and Sons and
:34:07. > :34:11.Girls. There is no difficulty here. It is just like, yeah she can go
:34:11. > :34:16.into Legally Blonde, the little girl from Little Miss Sunshine.
:34:16. > :34:20.Everyone will be slotted into mice world. You lose any sense it has a
:34:20. > :34:25.driving message, if it has. On some of the individual performances, you
:34:25. > :34:29.talk about the little girl, what is great about her? She's wonderful.
:34:29. > :34:33.You are right, just like Little Miss Sunshine, she has a moral
:34:33. > :34:37.voice, where she will make judgment on people. If there is any
:34:37. > :34:41.character development it might be with her. That is bad, if you are
:34:41. > :34:45.relying on, however talented. eight-year-old. If things are gone
:34:45. > :34:50.wrong home at home when the kids are right. One moment's hope when
:34:50. > :34:55.we thought she had written on the furniture, the child had written on
:34:55. > :34:59.the furniture, that was great, there would be an anarchic strain,
:34:59. > :35:03.no, guess who had written on the furniture, no, it was nasty Granny
:35:03. > :35:07.as well. That keep going. We are in a situation where you have all
:35:07. > :35:11.these hits like Modern Family, it spins out something like this, and
:35:11. > :35:17.Glee something he will. Where is this writing, is it team writing. I
:35:17. > :35:25.used to think team writing is a great idea. I hate team writing. It
:35:25. > :35:30.just produces endless episodes of endlessly short of polished,
:35:30. > :35:38.immaculate ping-pong, contentless, and often really totally unrisky
:35:38. > :35:42.comedy. You read my mind. One of the characters being abused by
:35:42. > :35:47.Ellen Barkin? She has wandered in, she says funny things. But, there
:35:47. > :35:50.again, if you want to have the properly preachy liberal comedy,
:35:50. > :35:54.she's in an odd position. It seems uncertain about what it wants to do.
:35:54. > :35:57.It is interesting, these long- running, team-scripted comedies,
:35:57. > :36:05.they do have difficulty. If you look at the fall off in Glee, there
:36:05. > :36:09.is a hardcore of glee fans, it is a-- Glee fans, people get used to
:36:09. > :36:13.it. You can see a few of these you can think that is it for me, you
:36:14. > :36:19.don't have to see it through to the end, there is no investment in the
:36:19. > :36:26.characters, they may fall off a cliff. They may, but episode two is
:36:26. > :36:31.on E4 next Thursday at 9.00pm. After the back of Liverpool's
:36:31. > :36:33.European City of Culture in 2008, and Glasgow back in 1990. The
:36:33. > :36:38.Department of Culture, Media and Sport launches a new initiative
:36:38. > :36:43.this year, the first UK City of Culture.
:36:43. > :36:48.The new year announced a new chapter the City of Derry, which in
:36:48. > :36:53.2013, celebrate not only its 400th anniversary, but also its status as
:36:53. > :36:58.the first ever UK City of Culture. The idea for this new accolade came
:36:58. > :37:02.back in 2008, when Liverpool spent a year as the European Capital of
:37:02. > :37:06.Culture, with great success. The year was filled with spectacular
:37:06. > :37:10.events, and an enviable cultural cast list that brought in millions
:37:10. > :37:14.of extra visitors, and a 500% return on investment. Liverpool
:37:14. > :37:18.will never be the same again. the tide of enthusiasm, and figures
:37:18. > :37:28.that were hard to ignore, the Government capitalised swiftly,
:37:28. > :37:33.announcing a UK version of the prize. The conversations -- the UK
:37:33. > :37:37.City of Culture capital is Derry. Derry, also known as London Derry,
:37:37. > :37:41.is determined to make an impact. With a �16 million programme of
:37:41. > :37:45.some 40 events, which includes the London Symphony Orchestra, the
:37:45. > :37:51.Royal Ballet and the Turner Prize. Can this politically divided city
:37:51. > :37:56.come together to produce a real economic and cultural legacy?
:37:56. > :38:00.We can go back to Liverpool, just to get a couple of Liverpool
:38:00. > :38:04.statisticss, three million first- time visitors to Liverpool, 66% of
:38:04. > :38:08.residents took part, visitor numbers are up by 50%. That doesn't
:38:08. > :38:12.even take us back as far as Glasgow, a huge success. It was the greatest
:38:12. > :38:15.success, I was involved in it. It was fantastic and put the city on
:38:15. > :38:20.the map. I think this is great initiative, by the way. Anything
:38:20. > :38:25.that pumps money into the arts, or artistic endeavour has to be
:38:25. > :38:29.alloweded, it is great going to Derry. Hopefully it will put the
:38:29. > :38:36.divide -- applauded, it is great going to Derry, hopefully it will
:38:36. > :38:39.put the divided city on the pap. extraordinary leg -- The map.
:38:39. > :38:44.extraordinary legacy in Glasgow? There was extraordinary figures. A
:38:44. > :38:47.lot of companies were created that are still in existencement we are
:38:47. > :38:51.still benefiting from the legacy. Suddenly it freed people up. There
:38:51. > :38:55.was no longer shameful in any way to be involved in the arts. It was
:38:55. > :38:59.sexy, the feminine side of the city came to the fore. The big thing for
:38:59. > :39:03.me travelling around Europe, the notion of Glasgow, and how it was.
:39:03. > :39:08.The old fashioned notions of what Glasgow was like had started to go,
:39:08. > :39:11.it was not a mean city any more, or the knife capital of the world,
:39:11. > :39:16.people came, lots of short-haul flights. Peter Brook was here,
:39:16. > :39:21.there was lots and lots of work. The difference is, though, that the
:39:21. > :39:25.UK City of Culture won't be advertised presumably in the world?
:39:25. > :39:29.They will have a marketing tool. A note of scepticism on the
:39:29. > :39:32.expenditure, slightly contrary to David. It is not true that money is
:39:33. > :39:38.always good if it is put in the arts. The money has to come out of
:39:38. > :39:42.the arts in the first place, you have a certain pot, DCMS has it, it
:39:42. > :39:47.is our tax money, call ago spade a spade here. It is coming out of
:39:47. > :39:49.something else, it doesn't exist in thin air. You have to look at the
:39:49. > :39:54.amount of expenditure, many millions to get it off the ground.
:39:54. > :39:58.They hope to recoup them. Some of those calculation are fanciful.
:39:58. > :40:02.Liverpool figures would show it was a huge economic return for the city.
:40:02. > :40:05.I would question some of those figures. Once you have committed
:40:05. > :40:09.money to cultural products in cities, you will be amazed there is
:40:09. > :40:13.always a return on investment, put 40%. I suspect that is slightly
:40:13. > :40:16.high. I'm not very much in favour of them doing in Derry, if you are
:40:16. > :40:21.going to do it is a good thing. There is this problem with what is
:40:21. > :40:26.a City of Culture. Really what we are doing it to places where we
:40:26. > :40:31.have a bad conscious about. It is quite a good thing if it is going
:40:31. > :40:35.to keep going t should go to Durham, unappreciated Cathedral city, my
:40:35. > :40:40.home town, Norwich made a strong bid this year. We can't continue to
:40:40. > :40:46.do the guilt and conscience safling. What is happening with some of the
:40:46. > :40:51.promotion, is it is about different art events coming in to Derry,
:40:51. > :40:56.rather than Derry doing it for itself. What should the mix be, 50-
:40:56. > :41:03.50? Derry is a small town, 1 10,000 people? Looking at the website
:41:03. > :41:07.there did seem to be stuff generated from within the city. It
:41:07. > :41:12.is an interesting, arguably a high- risk choice, you heard the
:41:12. > :41:16.announcement there. Derry, Londonderry. If culture has done
:41:16. > :41:22.one thing in Northern Ireland, Ulster, over the years, it is to
:41:22. > :41:28.separate people, and if you look at the official announcements, some
:41:28. > :41:31.might think propaganda for this event, there is lots of stuff about
:41:32. > :41:35.synergies, connecting, there is whole events called Connecting
:41:35. > :41:39.Communities. If that is going to happen, it would be worth spending
:41:39. > :41:44.a lot of money on it, is that going to happen. It is not universally
:41:44. > :41:48.well received, but the year is young. There is going to be lots of,
:41:48. > :41:52.you were going to be in a Brian Friel play but you can't, there is
:41:52. > :41:55.lots of work going on. The play is coming to Edinburgh, and going to
:41:56. > :42:01.Newcastle and a couple of other cities in England, it is great. It
:42:01. > :42:04.will spread beyond Derry. You might as well be up front and saying you
:42:04. > :42:08.are doing peace process plus or minus. The thing that made me think,
:42:08. > :42:10.you know I'm grudgey about these things, I will back it because the
:42:10. > :42:14.Continuity IRA says it is a terrible thing and you should
:42:14. > :42:18.oppose it. I thought I'm for it now. Then you might as well just say, it
:42:18. > :42:21.is a bit of the chiend of cherry on the cake, and things are -- kind of
:42:21. > :42:25.cherry on the cake and things are difficult in Northern Ireland. We
:42:25. > :42:28.still want the peace process to succeed, you have to be explicit
:42:28. > :42:32.about it. It is wrapped up too much with confusion about whether it is
:42:32. > :42:35.really about culture or, as John says, really about trying to
:42:35. > :42:39.promote cross community understanding. I think the most
:42:39. > :42:42.people it brings into the city, that are not of the city,
:42:42. > :42:47.travelling around, will be fantastic. The huge amount of
:42:47. > :42:50.talent in that area as well. The huge amount of playwrighting,
:42:50. > :42:55.musical talent and so forth. Let's give it a shout out, there is a
:42:55. > :42:59.link for more information about Derry's year-long programme is on
:42:59. > :43:08.the website alongside all the items. My thanks to my guests. Matter that
:43:08. > :43:12.will be here next week to look at Quentin Tarrentino's new film,
:43:12. > :43:16.Django Unchained. The London Underground celebrated its 150th
:43:16. > :43:19.birthday. We thought we would celebrate it, that as well as
:43:19. > :43:29.moving millions of people a year, it also commissions art. This
:43:29. > :43:34.
:43:34. > :43:37.celebration has inspired a new set # When I get to Warwick avenue
:43:37. > :43:40.# Meet me by the entrance of the tube
:43:40. > :43:44.# We can talk things over a little time
:43:44. > :43:54.# Promise me # You won't stay by the line
:43:54. > :43:56.