:00:10. > :00:12.On The Review Show tonight: The return of Rebus. Ian Rankin
:00:12. > :00:18.brings his whisky-swilling, vinyl- spinning detective back from
:00:18. > :00:22.retirement. But is there still life in the old curmudgeon?
:00:22. > :00:32.The Master. It looks like director Paul Thomas Anderson's take on
:00:32. > :00:34.
:00:34. > :00:40.Scientology. A must-see or just cult viewing? I am a writer, a
:00:40. > :00:43.theoretical philosopher, but, above all, I am a man, just like you.
:00:43. > :00:47.Death in all its manifestations in a remarkable exhibition at Wellcome
:00:47. > :00:57.Collection. And Full English. Has Channel 4 found Britain's answer to
:00:57. > :01:02.
:01:02. > :01:04.Family Guy? This is my chance to On the panel tonight are the writer
:01:04. > :01:08.and critic Hannah McGill, the novelist Alex Preston, and the art
:01:08. > :01:10.historian James Fox. Like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle before him,
:01:10. > :01:15.Britain's most successful living crime writer Ian Rankin has brought
:01:15. > :01:19.his most popular character back. John Rebus wasn't exactly dead, but
:01:19. > :01:22.he is certainly out of cold storage for Rankin's 28th work of fiction.
:01:22. > :01:25.Though, as he told Alan Yentob in last week's Imagine, he only knew
:01:25. > :01:35.that the new book would feature Rebus when he found himself typing
:01:35. > :01:41.his name on page two. Over the previous 18 books of the
:01:41. > :01:46.series, Ian Rankin aged his leading man in real time, following John
:01:46. > :01:51.Rebus out of retirement. In Standing In Another Man's Grave, he
:01:51. > :01:59.has joined the Cold Case unit. The hero of his last two books, Malcolm
:02:00. > :02:09.Fox, pops up here, too, and takes a dim view of Rebus's return and his
:02:10. > :02:16.
:02:16. > :02:21.effect on his former partner, She picked up the coffee. John
:02:21. > :02:26.Rebus was the loosest of cannons. No constabulary had room for that
:02:26. > :02:32.any more. He warned her that Rebus's proximity might damage his
:02:32. > :02:40.chances of promotion. The action takes us north of the capital. The
:02:40. > :02:43.furthest he's been from an Edinburgh pub. Hints of what
:02:43. > :02:49.political sentiment are sewn into the story as Rebus journeys north.
:02:49. > :02:54.He reflects on Scotland and its future. He remembered Siobhan
:02:54. > :03:02.Clarke's words. It's an odd little country hard to fathom. She accused
:03:02. > :03:08.of coming over all defensive. In fact, he had agreed with her. A
:03:08. > :03:12.nation of 5 million cowered together. Clinging to the notions
:03:12. > :03:16.of community and shared history. Changes to the leader retirement
:03:16. > :03:21.age of mean that Rebus could have a new lease of life in the force.
:03:21. > :03:27.reason he retired is that in real time he would be 60. Now he's able
:03:27. > :03:34.to work until he is 67. There is potential for seven more years of
:03:34. > :03:39.Rebus books. Ian Rankin says he would only revive Rebus's career
:03:39. > :03:46.only if there was something serious to say. I'll be hanging on his
:03:46. > :03:53.every word? We have some very big Rebus fans. But the possibility of
:03:53. > :03:59.seven more years of Rebus. Was it a risk to bring him back? I found it
:03:59. > :04:04.fascinating. Unlike the rest of the country, I had never read a Ian
:04:04. > :04:11.Rankin novel and I spent the last two weeks immersing myself in
:04:11. > :04:18.Markham Fox and Rebus. Internal affairs? Rebus doesn't play by the
:04:18. > :04:22.rules and Malcolm Fox is the rules. I thought that Rebus is a fantastic
:04:22. > :04:26.character like Raymond Chandler. A hard-boiled detective.
:04:26. > :04:31.Unfortunately, this novel did not work for me in the way some of his
:04:31. > :04:35.earlier ones did. Even the first one, noughts and crosses, I thought
:04:35. > :04:41.they were incredibly well constructed. Fiercely groping. This
:04:41. > :04:46.one, in the documentary he describes this novel is a bit
:04:46. > :04:52.random and not interesting. I'm afraid that's how I felt about it.
:04:52. > :04:57.Is that how you found it? I read the back of the book which was
:04:57. > :05:02.gushing. Some body described him as a mystery writer of. But it's not
:05:02. > :05:06.really a mystery novel. I like that about it. For me, it was very
:05:06. > :05:11.evocative of what I imagine the real police work to be like. Plod,
:05:11. > :05:17.plod, plod, go down a blind alley, have a suspicion, it's all very
:05:18. > :05:23.nasty. There's not a lot of glamourous possibilities. It's very
:05:23. > :05:29.fitting to the character that Rebus is, someone quite depressed. He
:05:29. > :05:35.basically does not like life. is different is that a crime does
:05:35. > :05:39.not appear early. You feel that Ian Rankin is getting back into the
:05:39. > :05:44.Rebus groove again. It seemed to be more of a character a novel about
:05:44. > :05:49.Rebus, this is how he has changed. Rather than the crime of being the
:05:49. > :05:53.most important thing. I'd only ever seen Rebus on television a day
:05:53. > :06:00.spent most of the book trying to get Ken Stott out of my head. One
:06:00. > :06:05.thing which surprised me was how slow the novel was. It wasn't until
:06:05. > :06:10.page 215 when the crime gets discovered. For a crime thriller,
:06:10. > :06:20.there wasn't much crime and there wasn't there but role, either.
:06:20. > :06:26.of the things I picked up was the crime is so minor. Minor to the
:06:26. > :06:34.structure. A terrible crime. The antagonist, the greater villain, we
:06:34. > :06:41.won't reveal, is almost inconsequential. Ian said he did
:06:41. > :06:44.not decide who the villain was until the end. Page 273. Rebus is
:06:44. > :06:48.so deeply ingrained with the underworld of Edinburgh, all the
:06:48. > :06:55.real villains are his mates. That's fascinating and I love that. What
:06:55. > :07:00.is interesting about the way that he writes Rebus now is that it is
:07:00. > :07:08.like a method acting of. I always picture Ian up rather than Ken
:07:08. > :07:14.Stott. The tension in the book is that what he does in the previous
:07:14. > :07:18.two novels is set up his new hero, Mark, Fox, and then we have Rebus
:07:19. > :07:24.back and you think, Malcolm Fox, I don't like him. Maybe he did not
:07:24. > :07:30.like writing him -- Malcolm Fox. One thing which is charming about
:07:30. > :07:40.him is that Rebus has these little things he likes, vinyl records, and
:07:40. > :07:40.
:07:40. > :07:44.correct people's grammar. The other thing in this book is, he is the
:07:44. > :07:49.hard-boiled detective, but, actually, he puts social media into
:07:49. > :07:55.it is a clever way. It's all about profiling and using a mobile phone
:07:55. > :07:59.to show part of the crime scene. I think he worked on that very hard.
:07:59. > :08:04.So often with novelists have a certain age, taking on the internet,
:08:04. > :08:10.it's like William Hague wearing a baseball cap. Here, it is
:08:10. > :08:16.incredibly well handled. Ian Rankin is very good on it Twitter. Showing
:08:16. > :08:22.the way the mobile phone, and having a camera with you, you can
:08:22. > :08:25.have it. It's changed our lives. And how much young people used to
:08:25. > :08:34.go to, and the idea of the older man getting into this youngsters
:08:35. > :08:44.world force of the young woman, she reminded me of the new cue in Sky
:08:45. > :08:49.
:08:49. > :08:53.He travels through Scotland. He is saying something about Scotland.
:08:53. > :08:57.One of the great characters in the novel is the motorway running
:08:57. > :09:06.through Scotland and it's a way of thinking through ideas of what
:09:06. > :09:11.Scotland is about to. It's a sinister road. The death of ready
:09:11. > :09:16.McRae, she always believed she would be buried under it. It's the
:09:16. > :09:20.anonymity of the motorway, and the loss of these women. It's like all
:09:20. > :09:25.the people who disappear. Young women who disappear. It's not a
:09:25. > :09:29.sentimental, at all. There is a deep feeling of sadness. You know,
:09:29. > :09:34.the idea the mobile phone is supposed to connect everybody but,
:09:34. > :09:39.in this case, it's another sign of loss. We are in the middle of
:09:39. > :09:47.November and Ian will have to start on the 2nd January with his new
:09:47. > :09:52.book. How does he do it? Watching a documentary, that was amazing.
:09:52. > :09:58.Living alongside him. The fact he can at knock this thing off in a
:09:58. > :10:06.couple of months. Strong dialogue, as well. Is it going to be another
:10:06. > :10:12.Rebus book? I wanted to stick at Rebus. I didn't realise he was so
:10:12. > :10:16.old. I wanted to go on longer. the time he reaches 67, he can go
:10:16. > :10:19.on to infinity. Get the book now for Christmas. With credits that
:10:19. > :10:21.include Boogie Nights, There Will Be Blood, and Magnolia, director
:10:21. > :10:25.Paul Thomas Anderson has never shied away from working at
:10:25. > :10:27.emotional or historical frontiers. With the release of his sixth
:10:27. > :10:30.feature film, starring Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Pheonix,
:10:30. > :10:40.he now shifts his attention to the emerging spiritual factions of
:10:40. > :10:42.
:10:42. > :10:49.The Master is set in the wake of World War II and follows Freddy
:10:49. > :10:54.Quell, unable officer transition in from the military to civilian life.
:10:54. > :10:59.Played by Joaquin Phoenix, he is trapped in a storm of his own a
:10:59. > :11:02.volatile emotions and dogged by alcoholism. One day, he regains
:11:02. > :11:07.consciousness in an unfamiliar boat. His life changes when he's
:11:07. > :11:17.introduced to Lancaster Dodd. a writer, a doctor, a nuclear
:11:17. > :11:18.
:11:18. > :11:21.physicist, a philosopher. Above all, I am a manner, just like you.
:11:21. > :11:25.the self-appointed leader of the spiritual movement called The Cause
:11:25. > :11:34.and claims to have discovered how mankind cannot rise beyond its base
:11:34. > :11:37.animal nature. Paul Thomas Anderson's research into this
:11:37. > :11:42.movement in the post-war era has clearly informed his script and
:11:42. > :11:46.there are parallels with the early history of Scientology. Likewise,
:11:46. > :11:52.the character of Lancaster Dodd appears to take evidence from its
:11:52. > :11:57.founder, L Ron Hubbard. Science, by definition, allows for more opinion.
:11:57. > :12:03.Otherwise it's the will of one man which is the basis of a cult. The
:12:03. > :12:07.he becomes a lieutenant to the movement, Freddy Quell, and takes
:12:07. > :12:14.criticism from inside his own family. He's making this up as he
:12:14. > :12:19.goes along. You can't see that? makes his post or aspiration and
:12:19. > :12:29.post-traumatic stress with a plausible alternative religion. But
:12:29. > :12:30.
:12:30. > :12:35.is the master likely to wow the It's hard to talk about this film
:12:35. > :12:40.without centring on Joaquin Phoenix at's incredibly physical
:12:40. > :12:45.performance and also Philip Seymour Hoffman, a dominant figure. Had you
:12:45. > :12:49.any idea what you're watching? was extremely divided about this
:12:49. > :12:54.film having seen it because it was very beautiful and the performances,
:12:54. > :12:59.particularly Joaquin Phoenix, was staggering. The set pieces were
:12:59. > :13:04.mind-boggling but, on the other hand, I found it really boring. I
:13:04. > :13:09.wasn't very moved by it. I think the reason was, I don't think the
:13:09. > :13:13.film went anywhere. It had a brilliant first hour and other two
:13:13. > :13:18.protagonists met and the characters did not develop. Their relationship
:13:18. > :13:22.didn't develop. For me, it was a film I admired greatly but I didn't
:13:22. > :13:27.enjoy it. Did you get a sense you started to watch Joaquin Phoenix,
:13:27. > :13:34.who was so damaged, and he kept on being damaged, and also of his
:13:34. > :13:40.performance was so mesmeric, it is almost watching a car crash.
:13:40. > :13:47.disagree. There was a certain static us about it. At a conversion.
:13:47. > :13:57.If they progress. These tricks that they use, the phoney religion which
:13:57. > :13:57.
:13:57. > :14:02.has been set up which they cause -- called The Cause, it's all out
:14:02. > :14:07.taking someone vulnerable, giving them a fake love, breaking them,
:14:07. > :14:12.and then winning their love. The way scientology works, you then ask
:14:12. > :14:17.them for money. But does not come up in this film because the Joaquin
:14:17. > :14:23.Phoenix character isn't financially powerful. His films are quite hard
:14:23. > :14:29.to get in to immediately. His films are all very long, quite distant
:14:29. > :14:34.and order. They don't be the automatic... There Will Be Blood
:14:34. > :14:39.was fantastic. There's 20 minutes with no dialogue at the beginning
:14:39. > :14:47.of a There Will Be Blood. The lead character is not lovable. No, but
:14:47. > :14:53.the difference between them is you go on a journey with the character.
:14:53. > :14:59.Did you? His films are work like avant garde novels. The problem
:14:59. > :15:05.with this is that are being in a cult isn't interesting for the here
:15:05. > :15:11.we have a man who has written about it. And I have attended several. I
:15:11. > :15:16.thought that, soon as you get to the end, the beginning was
:15:17. > :15:21.brilliant, we sought during the war they had a clear sense of their
:15:21. > :15:28.purpose in life, their direction, comradeship, they were thrust out
:15:28. > :15:33.into this world and suddenly they are a Lola. Beautifully shot. It is
:15:33. > :15:38.shot so beautifully. The idea things were coming back in after
:15:38. > :15:44.the war. There is no sense of things moving forward for that the
:15:44. > :15:53.characters do not develop. The film has no plot. I could have walked
:15:53. > :16:01.out for 40 minutes during the What about the relationship between
:16:01. > :16:06.Lancaster Dodd and his wife? That is not plot. I felt that Joaquin
:16:06. > :16:10.Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman eclipsed each other. Joaquin
:16:10. > :16:15.Phoenix is amazing, he lost a lot of weight for the part, he has his
:16:15. > :16:23.chiselled face, he looks weird, but he is doing it -- overdoing it a
:16:23. > :16:28.bit. He always has one performance that is a bit over-the-top. Tom
:16:28. > :16:33.Cruise in Magnolia, you know. And Joaquin Phoenix, his face is
:16:33. > :16:37.incredible, but every time you see his body, you saw it in that clip,
:16:37. > :16:42.he has this weird... He has obviously decided that is his
:16:42. > :16:48.thing! You have to believe in the relationship between Joaquin
:16:48. > :16:55.Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman. That is every film about men,
:16:55. > :16:59.father and son. There Will Be Blood was a father-something, and for me
:16:59. > :17:04.the relationship did not work. What summed it up was this strange
:17:04. > :17:08.lowish to Britain at the end, totally unexplained. There is a
:17:08. > :17:12.lack of emotional climax. I think he is being slightly perverse, and
:17:12. > :17:21.this film has been made at side of the commercial sector, so it does
:17:21. > :17:27.not had the pressure of... He said, I want to make this hugely
:17:27. > :17:35.expensive film, incredibly difficult but they win Oscars.
:17:35. > :17:39.Larry Ellison's daughter may this. If somebody came to me and said, I
:17:39. > :17:43.am Paul Thomas Anderson, I have got Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour
:17:43. > :17:47.Hoffman, I would give him a check. This is what happens when artists
:17:47. > :17:53.do not have to respond to commercial pressures. It did not
:17:53. > :17:58.satisfy you because it does not respond to a traditional trajectory.
:17:58. > :18:05.I thought, it just happened to me, I did not have an extreme reaction
:18:05. > :18:11.except for enjoying it while I was watching it. I actually prefer
:18:11. > :18:15.films without plot, but they need to do something to me, take me on a
:18:15. > :18:21.journey with the characters. think it took me somewhere that it
:18:21. > :18:27.did not take you. I think this film was made on 65 mm stock, I was
:18:27. > :18:31.lucky to see a 70 mm print, and that is very rare these days.
:18:31. > :18:38.Increasingly, film-makers are using digital media, and go back to the
:18:38. > :18:42.greatest and of medium is just wonderful to watch. The Master went
:18:42. > :18:46.on general release today. The only certainty in life is death, but for
:18:46. > :18:50.that reason we often shy away from it as a subject. A new exhibition
:18:50. > :18:53.of artwork and artifacts at the welcome collection explores our
:18:53. > :18:57.complex and often contradictory attitudes towards death and
:18:57. > :19:05.immortality. If you're of a nervous disposition, you might want to look
:19:05. > :19:10.The exhibits come from the diverse collection of a former antique
:19:10. > :19:14.print dealer from Chicago, Richard Harris, who set out to capture the
:19:14. > :19:18.essence of death through its iconography. The Western world
:19:18. > :19:22.including England and the US certainly are afraid of death and
:19:22. > :19:30.do not want to have it as part of our conversation in any way, shape
:19:30. > :19:39.or form. My wife and I attended the Day of the Dead in Mexico, and it
:19:39. > :19:44.was an eye-opening experience, to be part of it. They go to the grave
:19:44. > :19:54.sites and bring food that the deceased loved, they bring food and
:19:54. > :19:57.
:19:57. > :20:07.While one room reflects rituals and remembrance around the world,
:20:07. > :20:17.
:20:17. > :20:23.another displays disturbing We see it on the television
:20:23. > :20:29.sometimes, and it seems so far away, but when you stand in front of this
:20:30. > :20:36.print, it can be more visceral and strike you in a more personal
:20:37. > :20:40.fashion, what the results of war really can be. There are scores of
:20:40. > :20:44.skulls and skeletons on show, but while much of the exhibition is
:20:44. > :20:50.morbid and macabre, other works show a different aspect to death
:20:50. > :20:55.which can lift the spirits. People say, Richard, you are so ebullient,
:20:55. > :21:01.smiling and happy about things, how can you be collecting a subject
:21:01. > :21:05.like that? And I think the other aspect of death is that he sees the
:21:05. > :21:15.day, you know, make the most of each of your days of living on the
:21:15. > :21:17.
:21:17. > :21:21.Well, you know, the Wellcome Collection, to have put this on
:21:21. > :21:26.after Brain, to have such an all- encompassing focused exhibition,
:21:26. > :21:31.did it change the way you thought about death? A bit just fitted in
:21:31. > :21:36.exactly what my thinking about death. Going to Mexico around the
:21:36. > :21:39.Day of the Dead celebrations, it was very dear to my heart. I saw an
:21:39. > :21:45.engraving that I had sent as a postcard to my father, so I
:21:45. > :21:49.immediately went, I belong here! Of all the rigours you have put the
:21:49. > :21:54.true for the Review Show, this is something I am starry eyed about,
:21:54. > :22:01.it is just beautiful. In amongst it, there are the most extraordinary
:22:01. > :22:06.collections, but early on you realise, what a collector he is,
:22:06. > :22:10.where he has found this stuff, and this is just a fraction of his
:22:10. > :22:14.exhibition at Chicago. Indeed, and he has assembled this over quite a
:22:14. > :22:19.short period of time, 12 years, and in the catalogue he says, thanks to
:22:19. > :22:23.his wife Barbara for patience and understanding. When you see the
:22:23. > :22:27.collection that he has obsessively assembled over the past 12 years,
:22:27. > :22:33.Barbara Harris does have the patience of a saint! Apparently she
:22:33. > :22:37.has told him to stop. I think it is great because you might say he is a
:22:37. > :22:42.magpie, but he has collected notions of debt from practically
:22:43. > :22:48.every culture, Japanese, Indian... That is what is so wonderful. I was
:22:48. > :22:53.terrified about singers, I am a huge hypochondriac, so scared of
:22:53. > :22:57.dying, but he was there, and he just kind of took me around and
:22:57. > :23:01.kept saying, I just want it to be uplifting. The thing that is
:23:01. > :23:06.comforting about it is how universal so many of the images are,
:23:06. > :23:11.the dance macabre, a medieval chronicle up to the pictures from
:23:11. > :23:17.Japan, the Tibetan sketches, the Day of the Dead in Mexico. We are
:23:17. > :23:23.all terrified by this stuff, I think everyone else's! But dealing
:23:23. > :23:28.with it through art in the same way. You talk about the Durer, but in
:23:28. > :23:36.the images of war, you have got two collections which are extraordinary,
:23:36. > :23:40.the coir as well. You have got three extraordinary anti-war
:23:40. > :23:45.gestures, the greatest in Western art, all together in a single room,
:23:45. > :23:48.absolutely fantastic. I thought what was remarkable about that room,
:23:48. > :23:53.it is the first time when death is not just seen as something that
:23:53. > :23:57.comes upon us, it is something we do to each other, we are implicated
:23:57. > :24:01.in this political process. Even though this is a small fraction of
:24:01. > :24:05.his collection, a lot of which is in storage, which is tragic, he
:24:05. > :24:09.needs a building to put it in, but it takes you through the personal
:24:09. > :24:14.impact of it, it is very emotional, and it brought tears to my eyes and
:24:14. > :24:19.made me laugh. But it shows you how death is used, and there's also a
:24:19. > :24:24.real feeling of taste, you can see what he likes. You see what the
:24:25. > :24:30.curator likes, Kate Ford. Mexican artist took photographs and
:24:30. > :24:33.then put the death masks on. This is an extraordinary human being, he
:24:33. > :24:38.has put together this amazing thing out of personal curiosity. He is
:24:38. > :24:42.not even making money from it, it is to his great credit, and that of
:24:42. > :24:46.the Wellcome Trust and their extraordinary approach to these
:24:46. > :24:53.exhibitions which are partly scientific, partly social, not
:24:53. > :24:59.cloistered away. And it is a free exhibition. And it is free. What I
:24:59. > :25:03.found the most disturbing thing, knowing that he committed suicide
:25:03. > :25:13.in the end, you get a progression of death from someone like Ray
:25:13. > :25:14.
:25:14. > :25:24.Jackson. I think probably... A portrait of myself in 1960, this
:25:24. > :25:24.
:25:24. > :25:31.was a man born in 1860, not looking for at Well! He is so brilliant,
:25:31. > :25:34.totally under-appreciated. Even the simple thing of a portrait on one
:25:34. > :25:38.side and his skull on the other, it is something about coming to terms
:25:38. > :25:43.with the idea that we all have one of them. There is a great tension
:25:43. > :25:48.in this exhibition, virtually all of these objects are meditations on
:25:48. > :25:51.the inevitability of death, but making them is a gesture towards
:25:51. > :25:56.immortality, producing something that will outlive us and the
:25:56. > :26:00.permanent marker. That is the whole idea, but looking at a collection
:26:00. > :26:06.put on for us, it is extraordinary, I have never been anywhere where I
:26:06. > :26:11.have seen so much about death in one space. It is still so taboo. A
:26:11. > :26:15.lot of people will miss out on it. You used the word morbid, and I was
:26:15. > :26:19.talking to Kate Ford, the curator, and I said the word is the wrong
:26:19. > :26:22.word, because death is something we have to live with and carry around,
:26:22. > :26:26.and once you are had a big bereavement, you learn that it does
:26:26. > :26:32.not go away. What is lovely about this is that you feel sad and a bit
:26:32. > :26:37.gross-out at times, but it is also a celebratory in its humour. Some
:26:37. > :26:41.of the things are very poignant. seemed to me somehow an image of
:26:41. > :26:45.the whole exhibition, because here is... Particularly the skull with
:26:45. > :26:50.the monkey perched on it, something you holding your hand, a little bit
:26:50. > :26:54.of death you carry around with you. And the opposite of that is this
:26:54. > :27:00.massive extraordinary chandelier. Which reminded me of the cap which
:27:00. > :27:06.encrypt in Rome, this idea of using the bones, having them in the room
:27:06. > :27:11.with you. An amazing thing! that is one of three he bought!
:27:11. > :27:16.would like one in my dining room! Because the exhibition is free, you
:27:16. > :27:21.can afford to buy the book, the whole thing is stunning. The whole
:27:21. > :27:29.thing is absolutely stunning, if you get a chance to go to Death: A
:27:29. > :27:34.Self-Portrait at the Wellcome Trust. The animated sitcom Full English,
:27:34. > :27:38.on Channel 4 on Monday, has been touted as Britain's answer to the
:27:38. > :27:42.senses and Family Guy. Meet the Johnson family, a fairground there
:27:42. > :27:52.in which review the state of the nation, satirising the television
:27:52. > :27:57.
:27:57. > :28:03.The series was created and written by Harry and Jack Williams, the
:28:03. > :28:06.brothers behind the BBC Two comedy, and the characters and sets are by
:28:06. > :28:11.the artist and illustrator Alex Scarfe, who has followed in the
:28:11. > :28:16.footsteps of his father Gerald. cannot believe our own daughter is
:28:16. > :28:22.too embarrassed to have asked there... The cast list includes The
:28:22. > :28:31.IT Crowd's Richard Ayoade, Kayvan Novak from Facejacker, and Daisy
:28:31. > :28:34.Haggard from Green Wing. This is my chance to shine! The first episode
:28:34. > :28:41.takes aim at Britain's Got Talent, it's more outrageous acts, and of
:28:41. > :28:51.course its best-known judge. massive pile of steaming... You
:28:51. > :28:54.
:28:54. > :28:58.were awful and you are out. You So all the ingredients are in place,
:28:58. > :29:08.but does Full English satisfy the appetite for home-grown satire, or
:29:08. > :29:17.
:29:17. > :29:21.Where his money? Is she playing The Americans have delivered The
:29:21. > :29:27.Simpsons and Family Guy. This is the attempt to get back in the game.
:29:27. > :29:31.Isn't it strange there hasn't been at a British equivalent given the
:29:31. > :29:36.success of The Simpsons and Family Guy? Maybe it's because they had
:29:36. > :29:46.such success, but this is not the Simpsons. I think I enjoyed it more
:29:46. > :29:56.than anybody else. It is very much the palate we are talking about, be
:29:56. > :30:02.
:30:02. > :30:10.disarmed but Ted. -- Beavis and Arteta. I was pretty down on the
:30:10. > :30:16.first episode. I went back and watch the first episode of Family
:30:16. > :30:19.Guy, and it was finding its feet. It wasn't anywhere in the year as
:30:19. > :30:23.the joyous with what it did back then for some I think this is the
:30:23. > :30:29.sort of thing, if you gave it time, it could grow into something which
:30:29. > :30:34.could stand up against the American shows. The writing would pick up?
:30:35. > :30:40.They need to get a writer. They need a miracle. This was like
:30:40. > :30:47.watching a particularly unfunny episode of banana Mamma. I did not
:30:47. > :30:53.laugh once. The jokes were stupid and crude. The targets were so
:30:53. > :31:03.obvious for some it just felt such a deliberately cynical thing. Here
:31:03. > :31:03.
:31:03. > :31:10.was a great opportunity of putting down a marker for British animation.
:31:10. > :31:18.We have great animators, brilliant animators. How these people got to
:31:18. > :31:24.make this, it's nothing to do with Family Guy and The Simpsons. We are
:31:24. > :31:33.dignifying it all that it is a rip- off of the monkey dust. It was
:31:33. > :31:39.before about 10 years ago. Sorry, BBC Three. It is very reverential
:31:39. > :31:46.to monkey dust. It brings the same characters back. But without any
:31:46. > :31:53.hope jokes. No punchlines. There was a great possibility of a thread,
:31:53. > :31:58.the gap year. You want to leave them out there rather than bring
:31:58. > :32:03.them home of. Why is the first episode so weak? It's not like you
:32:03. > :32:12.have got to do the shoots. defended a little bit, I felt that
:32:12. > :32:19.the level of darkness they went to, having Princess Diana and a topless
:32:19. > :32:24.Jade Goody... Easy targets. Shagging the Queen. It is low blows
:32:24. > :32:32.for teenagers. They want to watch something their parents would be
:32:32. > :32:38.shocked by it. I'm a being shocked by it being so bad, not subversive.
:32:38. > :32:43.It's perfect audience is a 13-year- old boy yet it's going out at night
:32:43. > :32:52.time. When I was 13, I wasn't up late. It needs to have more
:32:52. > :33:01.satirical stuff. More political force up why is it about bad TV?
:33:01. > :33:07.is bad TV about bad TV. To take the mickey out of Simon Cowell... These
:33:07. > :33:13.reality shows are over. What I thought was interesting about the
:33:13. > :33:18.second episode, interesting could be overstating it, but better about
:33:18. > :33:22.the second when a comet didn't try to take on a theme up. I felt we
:33:22. > :33:32.were living alongside their lives. The references to homosexuality and
:33:32. > :33:36.the lazy use of the word gay, please stop doing that. Let's hope
:33:36. > :33:41.that there will be more animation. There's loads of animators about
:33:41. > :33:46.but it needs to be funny. From the Creation and the transmission, it
:33:46. > :33:54.needs to be faster. It could open up an opportunity by being
:33:54. > :33:57.commissioned. Animation used to be expensive to do, but now it is not.
:33:57. > :34:02.Maybe this will encourage the idea, maybe people will see it and think
:34:02. > :34:07.they can do better than that. That's a good thing. It was
:34:07. > :34:17.slightly better the second time. almost laughed in the second
:34:17. > :34:18.
:34:18. > :34:21.episode. You're easily pleased. Let's hear from more animation. You
:34:21. > :34:24.can see episode two of Full English on Channel 4 on Monday night.
:34:24. > :34:27.That's all from us for tonight. Thanks to Alex Preston, Hannah
:34:27. > :34:29.McGill and James Fox. Jools Holland's joined by Ellie Goulding
:34:29. > :34:33.and Foals among others on Later after the lottery. Next week,
:34:33. > :34:35.Martha will be here to look at Stephen Fry's return to the West