11/11/2011 The Review Show


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/11/2011. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight on the review show, everything from luminous Leonardo


to brutal Bronte. Director Andrea Arnold brings a


modern sensability to a much-loved classic. But do we need another


Wuthering Heights? What will be his name? Heathcliff. The national


gallery assembles the biggest collection of Leonardo's paintings


ever, is there anything new to learn. We have never had the


opportunity to study his aims and ambitions, his extraordinarily huge


ambitions for the art of painting. Vikram Seth is famous for his epic


tones, can his new, lighter offering, please plans. "joy came


and grieve, love came and loss, three years. Error Morris tells an


extraordinary tale in Tabloid, is the master at the height of his


powers. I could never understand the public's fascination with my


love life. Plus Liz Green joins us live in the studio to play you into


the weekend. # So we're standing in line


# With our pots and our pans Joining me in the hallowed halls of


Review this week, are four panelists who couldn't be less


tabloid, Patterson from the Independent, Anne McElvoy, James


Purnell and John Mullan, professor of English at University College


London. You can loudly agree, disagree or disabuse our panel on


Twitter, do be aware they do sometimes bite back. First up


tonight, it is the much anticipated new film from Arnold, who made so


much noise with her last film, Fish Tank. She has turneder attention to


the wild and wind swept lovers, who have haunted and terrorised so many


English students over the years. Emily Bronte's only novel,


Wuthering Heights, must be the most well read and highly analysed books


in the English language. And a favourite for the creative types,


from Lawrence Olivier to Kate Bush. # Heathcliff


# It's me a Cathy It has inspired a multitude of


dramatic adaptations, each with its own unique signature and style.


go it's mine. What children they are. I wouldn't change my life for


their's. Even if I go throw Joseph off the roof and paint the house


with Hindley's blood. Now acclaimed director Andrea Arnold brings her


inter pretation to the big screen. Arnold chose to tell the tale with


the same gritty realisim as past films, Fish Tank and Red Road.


Focusing the film on Heathcliff's troubled boyhood. Arnold tells the


story from his point of view. I will cleanse you. What will be


his name. Heathcliff. Heathcliff, do you reject Satan, come on.


struggle now. Arnold's near fanatical commitment to


authenticity, left the unknown actors, filming in the gruelling


conditions of autumnal Yorkshire. There was the minimal amount of


dialogue. Ungrateful little. Whilst the two Cathys, breerbreerbreer and


Skins actress, Kaya Scodelario, have to portray a transformation


from muddy child to elegant lady of the house.


Arnold's minimalism extended to largely hand held filming, and the


almost total absence of the score, choosing the natural sounds of the


landscape to set the scene. Cathy, Cathy.


The director herself has admitted any attempt will never do the book


justice. So was she right to try? He's gone.


Andrea Arnold said earlier this week that the world needed another


adaptation of Wuthering Heights like a hole in the head, but the


material was singing to her and she couldn't resist. Do you think she


should have? Yes, I do. I mean because I don't think it is an


adaptation of Wuthering Heights, indeed my usual president dantic


pleasure at noting all the things - - president dantic pleasure at


noting all the things got wrong were denied me by the film. It says


it is based on the book by Emily Bronte. It is based on all the bits


that are dealt with perfubgt actually in the book itself. Half


the film is the child Hoo and the childhood relationship in --


childhood and the childhood relationship with Heathcliff and


Cathy, which is dealt with in a small way in the book. There is a


point that we need to understand their childhood stories that are so


important. This book takes the ferocity of the spirit of the book,


and reimagines it visually and orally, there is no music in the


book, you hear every little sound and every bit of the weather. The


weather is in the camera, it really gets into the camera. It is


absolutely visually extraordinary. The best thing about it, it might


make you want to read the book again. Do you share her obsession


with the lives of the children, before they become their adult


selves? I loved this film, I absolutely loved it. I think it


caught the spirit of the book in a way nobody has done. The cruelty


and the hostile English landscape that anyone of us has ever seen. It


is awash with mud, and lashing winds and just so elemental, I


thought it really gave a sense of where this terror and cruelty and


passion came from. I felt it was absolutely right to focus on the


childhood in those ways. Those actors were absolutely phenomenal,


Solomon Glave, you know, mixed race, we haven't raised the race thing,


as a mixed race child, that was inspired. I thought it just sort of


reinterpreted the whole thing, it brought it brilliantly alive. I


loved it. Everyone is focusing very much on the fact that she cast a


mixed race Heathcliff, does it work for you? It did work, you were


going to have him in the foreground. She decided to primarily tell it as


his story. It is perfectly alongside the book. He's derided


racially from the moment he arrives. She lays it on too thick, there is


barely a scene when Hindley doesn't call him a ligger. This constant


use of a word, which you feel is put there to alarm and offend


modern audiences is used again and again. You get the point pretty


well that Heathcliff is an outsider and distrusted, not least because


of his race from the start. The real problem I have, I completely


agree with Christina, the childhood bits, the presexual bits, the bond


between them, and the blossoming sexuality, it was fantastic. There


were scenes that stuck with me all week, they were so tender and


passionate. When they grow up it is a disaster. Two different actors,


and what happens then, it turns into Jane Austen. You find yourself


looking at the curtains and thinking that is a nice dress. They


lost it. Perhaps it is too much to do, to put all this intensity on to


the young couple and say no we will look at what happens and cut it off


before the end of the novel. I thought that was really where I


lost it. It was game of two halves, as the footballer commentator, and


the second one failed. It may be Jane Austen and looking


at the pretty dress. Three films into Andrea Arnold we are getting a


sense of the things she likes to do and hear, we have hand held cameras,


a mystifying 4: 3 ratio, slow plays, lack of a soundtrack, do these


things work for you? I like the 4:3, I like the way it look, and gives a


1970s feel, realist but arty thing that you get from the display. I


thought it was more authentic than a lot of Wuthering Heights. I hate


the 1939 Lawrence Olivier one, it is sack cin and they distort the


story. I loved it with the love affair from the start, you really


believe it. I didn't quite buy it, she made Heathcliff too soft, he's


almost a wimp in the second half. No he isn't, he's hanging animals


on fences half the time. But the animal thing, That is all the way


through, and the hanging of the dog it is almost made as that is what


people do. He's given an excuse for everything he does. The thing in


the book he is a torturer but is tordturd. Do you think she should


have gone all the way to the end where we see Heathcliff as torturer


come into his own? The 1939 didn't have that, and this one doesn't,


you don't have his horribleness to Harton, and without the ghost you


lose the madness. Other films made the decision, they may have made it


for quite good reason. We want to see Catherine laid down, and after


that what happens to Heathcliff, though fatastically important in


the book may be less important. That puts the weight on the actor


in the second half of the film. is something to take a literary


classic and cut all the dialogue. It is extremely wordy book, and


Heathcliff is an articulate wordy person, and even as a teenager.


Some of these disagreements are almost by the board, they are the


kind of disagreements one usually has about a costume drama


adaptation of a drama. Should they have left in this and that. This


film is an extraordinary reimagining, which makes lots of


decisions I wouldn't have made. I wouldn't have had Heathcliff as


monosyllabic as she z but she has made the decisions with a kind of


fierce conviction that makes it completely unlike any other costume


drama I can remember seeing. takes little themes in the text,


she mentions fleetingly that Heathcliff can't cry as a child.


And then there is the scene when he sees Cathy crying and he puts some


grit in his eyes to create artificial tears, in itself that is


very moving. Some scenes later we have Cathy kissing the wounds on


his back, and then for the first time in his life real tears go down


his back. I think she's licking him. Being gentle with him, and kissing.


He is just, I was tremenduously moved by that. I thought there was


a delicate touch like that. And the way the camera would linger on a


moth or some flowers. There was an incredible senuality of the


landscape. You were saying earlier that you thought the landscape was


for bidding and cruel. I'm a northern girl, in the English


context, I was aching to go back to the Dales when I saw this. The


cinematographer deserves a huge applause. A won didn't he. It is


worth watching because it is so beautiful regardless. The endureing


appeal of Cathy and Heathcliff as lovers to audience and readers is


obvious. What do you think she's trying to bring in in tepls of an


audience, casting an actress like Kaya Scodelario, known from Skins,


is she bringing in younger people, it is an art house film? I don't


know what is art house about it. If you see the film it has a 70s feel,


it feels quite hip. It has a mix of elemental and 1970s, I think it has


a timeless quality. I think it is just about passion. That surely is


timeless, isn't it. On that passionate note. It loses a bit of


the horror. Passion, horror, Wuthering Heights has it all, on


general release. Puppy lovers beware. If you have ever visited


the Mona Lisa in Paris, you know the crowds that flock to a single


painting by Da Vinci. Imagine the frenzied excitement when nine of


his works are assembled in one place. Our panelists managed to


beat the crowds and get a sneak peek. It is the ultimate


blockbuster art show, with more than 60 works by the Italian


Rennaissance master, many on display in Britain for the first


time. The curator aimed for a contrast to previous exhibitions,


which have often focused on other parts of his prodigious output, as


scientists, engineer and craftman. This is about Leonardo the painter,


we have had the scientist and draftsman, but we have never had


the opportunity to study his aims and ambitions, his extraordinarily


huge ambitions for the art of painting before. Perhaps those


ambitions limited him, only 15 completed paintings are known. This


exhibition is a rare chance to see so many in one place. He was a


great non-finisher, we have to ask ourselves why. I think it is


because he had such an extraordinary idea of what he


wanted to achieve in his head, times that was simply uncould be


tainable. The national gallery has managed to secure collections from


around the world. A task that required more than a little


diplomacy People don't lend Leonardos lightly. Some were very


easy, and others were diplomatic and needed intervention from the


arts minister. But in the end it is right that each of the decisions


that various lending institutions made, had to be considered over a


period of months and years. secure those loans is undoubtedly a


coup, but rather than merely assembling them, this show aims to


illustrate a deeper thought. What you are seeing best is the move


from a painter who considered himself to be essentially the


mirror of nature, to precisely observe what you could see around


him. Just somebody who thought that his own act of creation was some


how like that of gots God's. So he's creating in a way that is, he


could see as being sort of divine in an odd sort of way. You can


follow that journey in the nine works. He thought of his own


creative skills as being akin to those of God. He saw his talent as


being God-given. It was almost miraculous, I think. Already


launched to critical acclaim, and selling as fast as any show on


record, the exhibition is an undoubted hit. Does it make the


case for Leonardo's position at the very Zen it of art hiry? --


history? It is a hit this show, does it add


up to the sum of its parts? parts are pretty amazing. I found


myself on the front picture with the lady in the ermine, open


mouthed in the sheer beauty. You don't need to get to the


explanations behind it, there is fascinating things about how he's


trying to understand God through nature, to overtake nature, to


leech to God. His inspiration between different forms of


philosophy. Actually you just sit there for so many of the paintings


just completely blown away. To have that pure, absolutely gut wrenching


feeling is something that is incredibly exciting. These were the


years that really made him, when he turns up in Milan, he's not yet the


resonance sans polymath we see today. Rennaissance polymath we see


today. We are asked to leave our other ideas of him and see him just


as a painter. Is it possible to do that? It is, it is so jofrpb


womening it is a lifetime treat. I hadn't realised that I hadn't --


overwhelming, it is a lifetime treat. I realised I hadn't looked


at his paintings in detail until I got there. This is the rich


tapestry laid out before us. They are not in -- full works, but the


allure of the time sent me to read up on the beautiful women. What are


the things you realise, a lot of them were mistresses of his patron.


I love that the drama, the way the wife is staring at the mistress.


don't know it is the wife. We like to think it is. I just want to make


one point. One of those women is 16. They have these confidence and


bearing, it is also a painting about position and power. Everyone


mentions beauty proportional -- proportion and all the things's


famous for, their position is precarious, in 15 years it is


someone else, at the heart of all the paintings. The poise? Still so


beautiful. Rough time for women, but to be in one of those, fine.


Extraordinary, as he works to create this ideal of beauty, at the


same time, every one of those human beings is credible as a human being,


I think, as a soul. That is why we find it so moving. The exhibition


is skillfully curated, it is about Leonardo the man, the process


behind him making these works. It is very well guided. Immediately we


walk into the exhibition, a sense from a tiny drawing that you might


go past, the eye, about how it creates creativity in the soul.


Very early on the painting of a young musician that was a quiet


revolution. For the first time he turns the portrait around. How did


you respond to that sense of the way that Leonardo's mind was


working? I have to say, it has been so heavily hyped this exhibition.


It is hard for an exhibition to live up to the hype. I found it


really quite an overwhelming experience. From the moment I went


in and saw that first picture, it is about the ventricles of the


brain and perception. I felt overwhelmed. You see the different


sketches of hands, or drapery, there was one of a child's torso,


that makes you want to cry. You want to pick up that child and


cuddle it. It is only a tiny segment of a torso, there is more


humanity in that segment, than you would find in a thousand artists


put together. For me, one of the many things that moved me about


this, this sense of endless quests for perfection. Although he was


unbelievably lace yeen when it came to -- lazy when it came to painting,


he only painted 15. One deadline took him 25 years to meet. We all


relate to that. I love the line about how freelance life didn't


suit him. But you see the effort he put into what he did do. Then you


see the paintings, and you just want to weep. For me it was the


lady with the ermine, that and weirdly the Burlington cartoon,


more than the Madonnas. But you look at those paintings and you see,


you can really only call the human soul, a humanity and soul that I


can't think of another artist that reaches. Lots of people are talking


about this in rather religious terms? It is a semi-religious


experience. I'm not sure I'm quite the zealot that everybody else is?


Why? Because I'm not sure, I think it is a wonderful exhibition. I'm


not sure I find all the paintings as immediately humanely


understandable as everybody else seems to. Because to me there is


something strange as well as human about them. What's fantastic about


the best ones, the lady the er -- Lady with the Ermine is fantastic.


What Christina is saying about it is true, it is this strange art


fact of Rennaissance perfection. He believes in perfection in way we


don't. It is not like going to see an exhibition by a great artist


from later centuries, where you are always thinking this is a


particular person. It is a person, but it is also strangely not her,


it is also an image, conjured. We don't know what she looked like,


but it is an image of sort of almost, yes, religious


contemplation, as well as a particular individual. That's


what's extraordinary about it, and what makes it, makes some of the


art works strange and distant as well as wonderful. Sorry, we have


so much to say, if you want to see perfection or as close as we will


come to it, the exhibition is on at the national gallery, 500 tickets


are held back every day to sell on the door. Please do set your alarm


clocks early, it is really worth the wait. If Leonardo is the


quintessential Renaissance Man, Seth is also a man of many --


Vikram Seth is also a man of many talents. Seth is a man of many


talents, with The Suitable Boy, he also writes poetry. In The Rivered


Earth, he combines writing with his long-term passion, music. His novel


An Equal Music, experimented with musical forms, in The Rivered Earth


he connects with music more directly. It contains music by


accompanying composer, Seth's own kal Liffey adoorns the pages, it


takes us all over the world, from China to his Salisbury house, where


the English poet George herb bet lived and died. Shared ground is on


the fact Herbet and I shared the ground, his having been here almost


400 years ago. He's a gentle spirit, it is possible to live in his house,


he doesn't bully you. Not a hindrance, but encouraging spirit.


His ghost, his soul is here. He will change my style. But you could


do worse than rent his rooms of verse. Joy came, and grieve, love


came and loss, three years, tiles down, moles up, drought, flood.


Though far in time and faith, I share his tears. His hearth, his


ground, his mut, yet my host stands just out of mind and sight, that I


may sit and write. This month sees the release of the CD Shared Ground,


the musical component of the collaboration between Seth,


composer Alec Roth and a violinist. Do his talents extend to the


musical realm? This is being published as a stand


alone literary work, it is asking to be judged first and foremost on


those merits, do you think that is right? I think that is trickery. It


works when you get the music and the big coral sound, which is very,


very well engineered, in a musical sense. That works extremely well,


you think now I want to read this libbret toe in detail. The problem


with the book is it tells you far too much about how he set about


working on it and his relationship with Alec Roth, it is the


equivalent of watching sasauges being made. You want to get on and


read it. You read it, and the spare poetry, it reminds me he's a bridge


builder between cultures, that sense of the old Chinese and Indian


poetry, where there is nothing at the end of your life, just you and


the place you are. That comes over very, very well. I think some of it,


frank frankly, is a bit windy, the music covers that up, get the music


alongside the book. Musical sausage making? Agree with Anna. In the


book he's a connoisseur of his creativity. Not a lovable thing.


He's a very, clever old thing. He can do the metres, he can do the


rhymes, and these kind of lots of languages, then he writes Chinese


translations and you think others do this and brilliantly, this is OK.


He imitates the stanziac forms and well, but why not set the George


Herbet to music, and don't worry about translating and adapting them,


go to George Herbet, he was a genius. The aim was because he


lived in George Herbet's house. They have made some elevated


comparisons, there is a lot of talk about Bach, Schubert and Herbet.


Are they setting themselves up for a fall? Genuinely is if one


mentions Bach! I must say I think I like this more than you two did. I


agree the peoples are uneven. It is a hotch potch, the book is


described as libretto and peoples, it can't be both. Unless you buy


the Bob Dylan is a poet-genius argument, that is a whole other


deal. Are they peoples or lyrics, it is a miscellaneous job lot. Some


of the Chinese translations I read 20 years a he didn't meet his


deadline. Then you have the shared ground peoples, I really like those.


The spirit of Herbet does pervade them in way that works very well. I


think what Vikram Seth does beautifully, when his peoples work


they have a real clarity and simplicity. The lyric is his form.


I think that those Herbet inspired peoples do work beautifully. With


the music, no it is not Bach, but it is actually very beautiful coral


music. With this really haunting ethey areal quality. I'm not in a


position to judge whether it is great music. I loved it. Without


the book in front of you and gazing with the lyrics, it would seem like


an expensive thing that you wouldn't know the results. It does


make one want to have been there, to hear them in sit tu. With the


intro to The Traveller, he said he needed a grand entrance, why not


all human life. That might be preposterous arrogance, coming not


from Leonardo Da Vinci or Vikram Seth. As a boy he did cover the


gamit. Do you think a writer of his undourtable powers, do you think he


should be -- undoublable powers, do you he should be turning his hand


to this kind of offering? The music, sitting there listening to it


whilst reading was incredible. I thought the rest of it was uneven.


There may be an explanation in the way he describes the process. Sends


in a more worked through multilayered people called Fire,


then the composer said it is too e elliptical to be set to music. They


are to too makish. He makes the difference between a text and a


people. Are we to judge them as a libret toe or a people. The


translations were published many years ago, do they stand alone now?


I don't think so. There is a terrible tendency to bathos in a


lot of them. There is the border line which is to do with reading


from anticity, you are not sure if it is very profound or very obvious.


The book is available in all good bookshops, the CD released next


week. Error Morris is one of the world's most celebrated documentary


makers, with a string of work in the Thin Blue Line and The Fog of


War. Now he brings his investigative eye to a rather more


tawdry tale. Tab is the extraordinary story of


former beauty Queen, Joyce McKinney, and her mysterious tempt pestous


relationship with a young Mormon from Utah, and what happened when


he went on a mission to London back in 1977. I did what every American


girl would do if her fiance vanished into thin air strikes I


looked for him. McKinney describes a weekend of food, fun and sex,


resulting in charges of imprisonment, and three nopbts in


Holloway Prison and a covert escape. This is the beginning of a whole


new idea in the media, the self- invented celebrity. The person who


has created this strange public image of herself, using tabloid


newspapers. Now we see Joyce McKinneys everywhere. In the 1970s,


she was something new. While some newspapers portrayed McKinney as a


romantic victim, others searched for a more shadey past, and


suggested she was a depraved sedubgt trees. You have two


newspapers You have two newspapers fighting over Joyce McKinney and


whether she's a virgin or aer who. Crazy. The clear interest is not


who is Joyce McKinney, the interest is whatever story we will put


together to sell newspapers. Tabloid is Joyce McKinney's chance


to reply. Filmed using Morris trade mark teretron, a device which


allows direct eye contact with the subject on camera. It calls into


question firsthand accounts. I could never understand the public


fascination with my love life, I was a human being caught in an


extraordinary circumstances. All of us are involved in narrating


a story to ourselves and to others. Joyce is a perfect example of that.


She's a person with a strong romantic vision of herself. That


has remained intact, no matter what has happened to her over the years.


That does fascinate me. While Tabloid sells a remarkable tale, is


it anything more than a bit of eccentric fun.


Error Morris turned documentary film making on its head with The


Gates Of Heaven, many of the techniques are standard operating


procedure for him, does it pack a punch? It is an extraordinary punch.


You have documentaries about really important issues but not that


interesting to watch. This is fascinating to watch. I'm not sure


if it is about a really important issue. He manages with not a lot of


archive, to keep you gripped all the way through. The story flips


back wards and forwards, lots of time, like the best thrillers. The


whole thing about how we perceive her, how she perceives herself, how


it is interpreted through different people. And how her feelings change


throughout it. It is an emotional rollercoaster, and great to watch


from start to finish. I'm not sure it sheds an awful lot of light on


celebrity now, I enjoyed watching it. He insists at its heart it is


about a love story. Is that completely disingenious? Does he


really insist that. Clearly that is completely disingenious. It is a


rollicking good yarn. As I think it is one of the journalists who says


it is the perfect tabloid story. It is, the man keled norm man meets


the women. The words are flashed across the screen, manacled Norman,


and spread eagled. The story is so gripping and she's such a mez


merising performer, performer she is, I know she is taking legal


action. Error Morris said if there was a catagory for Best Performance


in a Documentary, she would win it. I do think all that vintage footage


and 50s kitchen, All of this adds a different slant tonally from all


the other Error Morris films I have seen. Normally he allows the voices


to build up into a symphony that speaks for itself, here he is


commenting on the story. It is not just a rollicking good yarn, it is


one that we are all invited to snik snigger at. It is fine, but a


different enterprise. It makes the whole question of tabloid


journalism more complicated. He has called it Tabloid, he is a self-


professed laufr of tabloids, gets - - lover of tabloids, he's a lover


of tabloids. Shall we not talk about tabloid, and comlum inchs and


air time. Do you think it works as an investigation into how


journalists are operating then and today? It is an innocent era in


tabloid journalism. It is the moerm mans who tap the phones? Gone are


the days you could find an American girl tying moerm mans to bed. In


those 1970s tabloids they spriankled gold dust on newspaper,


people who -- spriankled gold dust on newspapers. Mab they wouldn't


have tapped your phone, these were entertaining blokes you would want


a drink with. I'm not sure it tells you something you wouldn't know.


You know there will be a fight over the memoirs. This film shouldn't be


called Tabloid, it should be Joyce. She's so fan tais particular, and


will be played by McAllister son Steadman at some point. --


McAllister son Staed man at some point. Tab -- Alison Steadman at


some point. It only works if you zoo can see yourself in it.


says an important line about telling a lie long enough and


believing it. She's not talking about herself. Moving on from Joyce.


Is she a worthy subject for a at the momentry of this length?


not sure -- a documentary of this length? I'm not sure she is. I felt,


as Christina felt, I think, that I had a bit of a bad taste in my


mouth by the end of it. Half way through I was really enjoying t I


agree very much she's an extraordinary performer, and the


bit part characters are good as well. The iconic old ex-hack, and


the gay, born out of moerm mannism, ex-moerm man mormanism, who tells


you what it is all about. It is a tabloid, the pursuit, in


the end, it felt like a pursuit, it became a bit too much. The joke has


an effect. You start feeling, I'm complicit in actually not just


finding her entertaining, but actually, yes, laughing at her.


Because she's not a character but a human being. I have to stop you all


there. We cannot have a serious conversation about Tabloid without


talking about Boeg er. The reason I don't agree with that, I would


agree if they went on and on about the moermmans, the fact she has


engineered this tabloid speak, and asking can a woman rape a man, it


is like putting a marshmallow in a parking meeting. She is up to the


game. She's not a victim. You want to talk about the dog, she clones


her dog. What more could you ask. Tabloid went on general release,


today. Liz Green will be here to play us out in the studio. You can


become your own Error Morris, with the BBC's massive documentary


project. Britain grab your cameras, between midnight tonight and


tomorrow, the BBC are asking you to film something that captures the


intimacy and singularity of your life, and to upload it to a


dedicated channel on YouTube. Last year Ridley Scott and Kevin Scott


looked at the footage of film taken on the 24th of July, it brought a


film edited, and brought from 92 nations.


Now Scott is collaborating with the BBC to create a snapshot of Britain.


40 years ago I went out and filmed my day. That is what led me to do


what I do today. Post monthly make it personal, whatever you film.


will be a unique portrait of 24 hours in the UK. A 0-minute feature


length film, directed by award- winning Morgan Matthews. Whether it


is with your phone camera, or something fancier, capture


something that is you in your life and become part of our nation's


story. You can find out more on the website.


Maybe you could film yourselves watching Review again on i player.


That is it for tonight. Thank you to my guest, send us your lovely


appreciative comerpbts on Twitter, they warm up a cold -- comments on


Twitter. They warm up a glos Glasgow evening. Mark Kermode will


be here with Kerry Shale and others, to discuss the Twilight series. Up


next is jools Holland. First to get your feed tapping is Liz Green with


Bad Medicine, from her album, # The words of an old blues man


# Wrote was in time with his soul # Though his face be cracked and


worn # Like age old summer soil


# You know he gave you his hand # To lift him off the ground


# No-one wants a hand # That's rough to touch


# From the ship it has been carrying round


# Every man wants more than he # Ever did before


# He still has no way out # We have no way out


# No way out # We've got no way out of this


# Well he walks through town # Like a Bible prophet


# Knows he owns it all # But sometimes he doesn't bother


# Sometimes he doesn't bother # For Lord


# Well he knows the dark hearts of # He's been there before


# He won't go there again # No he won't go there again


# For every man wants more than he # Ever did before


# He still has no way out # We have got no way out


# No way out # We've got no way out of this


# So if my eyes turn black # And my teeth fall out


# Or my hair is caught up in ration # Don't give me none of that


medicine # For I'll spit it right back out


# Well he tried so hard # To fit in


# But he never really got a chance # Before he spoke


# They burnt him # Roped him


# Cut him # And finally put him in the ground


# He said I've been through war # Been through law


# Climbed that hill so cold # I've been through more than


# You'll ever know # They won't let me go


# Every man wants more # Than he ever did before


# We have no way out # No way out


# We have no way out of this Mill my eyes turn black


# And my teeth fall out # May hair's caught up in ration


# Don't give me none of that medicine


# For I'll spit it right back out # I will spit it right


Download Subtitles