:00:08. > :00:15.This month, graphic nymphomaniac, pole dancers and hustlers.
:00:16. > :00:22.Adventures in the mountains. The American dream in a doughnut shop. A
:00:23. > :00:33.family affected by a disappearance. And watching the detectives. All
:00:34. > :00:40.that and music here from Chvrches. Joining me are the writer and
:00:41. > :00:54.broadcaster Natalie Haynes, writer Paul Morley and critic Lesley
:00:55. > :00:57.Felpren. We are very grateful. We're beginning with the latest films from
:00:58. > :00:59.two of the most intriguing directors working in cinema today. Arch
:01:00. > :01:02.provocateur Lars Von Trier's Nymphomaniac - a typically arduous
:01:03. > :01:05.four hours of explicit sex and violence. And in contrast, a comic
:01:06. > :01:12.confection from another auteur which provided a colourful opener to the
:01:13. > :01:21.Glasgow Film Festival this week. Why do you want to be a lobby boy. Who
:01:22. > :01:23.wouldn't. At the Grand Budapest Hotel. The Grand Budapest Hotel is
:01:24. > :01:27.Wes Anderson's typically eccentric take on the crime caper - a dazzling
:01:28. > :01:30.cornucopia of visual treats, tall tales and top drawer talent Ralph
:01:31. > :01:33.Fiennes plays Monsieur Gustave H, the charming chief concierge of a
:01:34. > :01:36.legendary hotel, who takes under his wing a lobby boy, Zero, played by
:01:37. > :01:47.newcomer Tony Revolori. The police are here. They asked for you. Tell
:01:48. > :01:57.them I'll be right down. OK. Raffle Fiennes takes under his wing a lobby
:01:58. > :02:04.boy, zero, played by Tony Revolori. I started primary school...
:02:05. > :02:15.Education zero. Call the damn plumber. Not now. Six. A stellar
:02:16. > :02:18.cast features Bill Murray, Adrien Brody, Jeff Goldblum and Tilda
:02:19. > :02:26.Swinton as a series of typically screwball Anderson characters. How
:02:27. > :02:34.may we serve you gentlemen? Ah inspector. By order of the police I
:02:35. > :02:38.place you under arrest for murder. I knew there was something fishy. We
:02:39. > :02:41.never got the cause of death. She's been murdered and you think I did
:02:42. > :02:52.it! Lars Von Trier's Nymphomaniac is the
:02:53. > :02:54.story of Joe, a woman whose life is increasingly dominated by an
:02:55. > :02:58.appetite for sex. Charlotte Gainsbourg plays the older Joe, who
:02:59. > :03:02.recounts the story of her life in a series of episodes to a stranger.
:03:03. > :03:10.While her younger self is played by newcomer Stacy Martin. What do I do?
:03:11. > :03:15.Smile. Make eye contact But what if it doesn't work? If you have to talk
:03:16. > :03:19.remember to ask lots of work questions if you want more he has no
:03:20. > :03:23.answer then it'll just happen on its own, you just take them to the
:03:24. > :03:27.lavatory and you just have sex with them. What if its nasty? Then you
:03:28. > :03:30.just think of a bag of chocolate sweeties It will come as no surprise
:03:31. > :03:33.to aficionados of Von Trier's films that he follows Joe's descent into
:03:34. > :03:39.addiction and degradation in a series of explicit scenes. The film
:03:40. > :03:41.is likely to further cement his reputation as a filmmaker with few
:03:42. > :03:54.limits. Let's start with Nymphomaniac. Does
:03:55. > :03:59.Lars Von Trier, given all these films of various scenes of problems
:04:00. > :04:05.for women, does this have anything new to say? Yes, I didn't find it
:04:06. > :04:09.arduous. I found it entertaining. A lot of new things to say. He filters
:04:10. > :04:14.whatever he say about women and being alive through so many
:04:15. > :04:19.different episode and each has a different tone and approach. I find
:04:20. > :04:24.it endlessly surprising and brilliant. It would be awful if
:04:25. > :04:29.someone like Lars Von Trier with his imagination was wiped out of exist
:04:30. > :04:34.tense. It is controversial. But that is the point. He is setting us up to
:04:35. > :04:40.work out what what is going on. I thought it was brilliant. I thought
:04:41. > :04:52.the first one mad a lot of -- had a lot of humour to it: Urma therman
:04:53. > :04:58.steals it. She is terrible and ghastly and forces everyone to look
:04:59. > :05:02.into the face of her traumatised children, while traumatising them
:05:03. > :05:09.further. The second not so much for me. The fact that the structure is
:05:10. > :05:15.dictated by Charlotte Gainsbourg that rating her life -- narrating
:05:16. > :05:19.her life, so I never get the feeling I know who Joe is. I don't know what
:05:20. > :05:26.she does for a living. How does she find out about the man who is
:05:27. > :05:37.prepared to punish her? She has no friend. She has such a monotonous
:05:38. > :05:45.voice. If you look at Lars Von Trier's films through Emily Watson
:05:46. > :05:51.and the second Charlotte Gainsbourg and Nicole Kidman. It is always
:05:52. > :05:56.women who are not entirely in control and unhappy. He has been
:05:57. > :06:02.accused of being a misogynist. I don't think that is true. He likes
:06:03. > :06:06.to put his lead actresses through suffering and test them. I am not
:06:07. > :06:10.sure if that is out of identification. Do you think it is
:06:11. > :06:15.more that Lars Von Trier, this is his own emotional journey? I think
:06:16. > :06:22.maybe Joe is a stand in for him. What is fascinating, I think there
:06:23. > :06:26.is moments that are brilliant, and bits where he knows nothing about
:06:27. > :06:32.women. He is fascinated with them and he has an empathy for them. But
:06:33. > :06:40.the psychology about Joe doesn't ring true to me. It is a kind of
:06:41. > :06:46.energy he is dealing with. One thing I love, it is set in a weird limbo,
:06:47. > :06:56.you never know, sometimes they're paying in pounds. Sometimes it was
:06:57. > :07:00.1970s. It is some weird notion of everything. The film goes from
:07:01. > :07:05.Ireland to Scotland to somewhere else. You're not sure if it is the
:07:06. > :07:15.70s and you have then safe room where Joe is where Seligman. That
:07:16. > :07:23.conversation is bonkers, because the scene of sex, the first place, goes,
:07:24. > :07:30.ah that sequence. He can take it off. He can parallel park and it has
:07:31. > :07:37.flew fishing. It has the idea it is about energy and what we are believe
:07:38. > :07:43.about ourselves and how we liberate ourselves. It has his own criticism
:07:44. > :07:48.and there is a lot of stuff about story telling. I'm not sure there is
:07:49. > :07:53.a feeling of liberation with Joe. Not Joe, but the idea of making a
:07:54. > :07:58.film in the current climate and make bg this kind of film takes courage.
:07:59. > :08:05.If he is railing against the system, so what I feel. It is harder to rail
:08:06. > :08:13.against the system. So the more you do it and do it in such a wonderful
:08:14. > :08:19.way. I have seen the uncut version in Berlin. That is, well I don't
:08:20. > :08:26.know, I don't know if I get like a Micky Mouse badge. I thought it was
:08:27. > :08:33.more edgy. He takes that language of pornography. It is extended and that
:08:34. > :08:38.exposure gives is more. -- gives it more. Do you think there needed to
:08:39. > :08:43.be some kind of feeling of what triggered this. This idea, was not
:08:44. > :08:50.trite to say it was the cold mother and the warm father. He has been
:08:51. > :08:56.talking about making a porn film with real actors and he did that
:08:57. > :09:02.with The Idiots. And there was controversy about which certificate
:09:03. > :09:07.it got. So it is going over old territory. As with Wes Anderson, you
:09:08. > :09:11.wouldn't mistake this work for anyone else. Is part of the thing
:09:12. > :09:18.that you have to be there for four plus hours, part of the whole... Is
:09:19. > :09:24.endurance what we are after? No I am never after endurance, I am after
:09:25. > :09:31.brevity. I wish everyone agreed with me. But a I Las, not so much. There
:09:32. > :09:36.is a homage to an earlier work and there is a fox and you think
:09:37. > :09:43.anti-Christ. And the boy who does not go off the building. You have to
:09:44. > :09:50.do more than four hours. But with Wes Anderson's film, Grand Budapest
:09:51. > :09:55.Hotel, brevity. Xhom dithat -- comedy that is 90 minutes long. I
:09:56. > :10:07.would like it send to anyone who makes a comedy more than that. It is
:10:08. > :10:15.women'sical -- womens isical -- whimsical and Ralph Fiennes hasn't
:10:16. > :10:24.been allowed to be funny. He is having a whale of a time and having
:10:25. > :10:30.a hoot. What did you think, it was a mirror image of Nymphomaniac, it was
:10:31. > :10:40.a backward story. Yes and all these narratives. I thought that was too
:10:41. > :10:45.tricksy. I love Wes Anderson. They all hang together. This one will
:10:46. > :10:56.find its slot in his work. Like Nymphomaniac and Lars Von Trier,
:10:57. > :11:05.everyone queues up to work with him. William Dafoe was in both. It has
:11:06. > :11:16.everybody. It found this really arduous. Psychedelic mastubation. It
:11:17. > :11:23.was like someone from great British bake off doing it. It was so sweet
:11:24. > :11:34.and self-conscious. Do you not think it had everything from grimes Grimms
:11:35. > :11:39.fairy tales. It is representative of an infan tile world and I can see it
:11:40. > :11:44.almost being animation. Which is like he would like to be. The
:11:45. > :11:49.characters are like cartoon characters. 90 minutes, it felt like
:11:50. > :11:53.four and a half hours. It has the emotional depth... He seems to be
:11:54. > :12:03.getting slighter. The last film there was a resonance and am
:12:04. > :12:10.nousness about the coming of -- ominousness and the war. They tried
:12:11. > :12:17.hard to deal with grief. He has that. And the backdrop of the 30s
:12:18. > :12:25.and the war is coming, like The Producers. Yes he doesn't flinch,
:12:26. > :12:28.even gets a bloody nose. And compared with the Lars Von Trier
:12:29. > :12:33.which is set after the 30s, women have jobs. I was delighted. Such a
:12:34. > :12:39.surprise. And they seemed like actual people. So he manages... In
:12:40. > :12:48.the Wes Anderson. There is not one person in it. There a baker, she is
:12:49. > :12:58.not a hooker or a sex addict. Wes Anderson is cold. You say obviously
:12:59. > :13:06.the Wes Anderson... The messy ps of Lars Von Trier. Lars Von Trier is
:13:07. > :13:20.messy, but the relationships with the men are cold. All those fla Sid
:13:21. > :13:28.penises? -- Flacid penises. The names go on and on. You need to
:13:29. > :13:40.check who they are. Tilda Swinton under that make up. It is just
:13:41. > :13:47.marzipan. It is a sort of homage to that Indian actor that ran a
:13:48. > :13:58.convenience store and he is replaced. It is pop eating itself.
:13:59. > :14:07.It could be, it is like marry Ann twa net. But in that I slept. But
:14:08. > :14:12.she had a job. That was good. Sorry. Well, they can turn up and jam off
:14:13. > :14:19.and get off on themselves and show off. But I did find it lacking. I
:14:20. > :14:24.found it only containing actresses and actors and no human beings. What
:14:25. > :14:31.about the music, that was phenomenal. There was music? Did
:14:32. > :14:38.something say something is burning down. Did somebody have a gun. Lars
:14:39. > :14:42.Von Trier is making more of a comment of the use of music. That is
:14:43. > :14:51.a kind reading of that. The Grand Budapest Hotel is out on
:14:52. > :14:54.the 7th of March, and both volumes of Lars Von Trier's Nymphomaniac are
:14:55. > :14:57.in cinemas now - certificate 18, of course. Novels set in dysfunctional
:14:58. > :15:01.families are nothing new but there's something of a spin on the genre in
:15:02. > :15:05.the latest book from Karen Joy Fowler, the author of the bestseller
:15:06. > :15:08.The Jane Austen Book Club. Fowler's new book, We Are All Completely
:15:09. > :15:11.Beside Ourselves, examines the grief caused when a cherished member of a
:15:12. > :15:14.close-knit family disappears, and the drastic consequences of a
:15:15. > :15:17.scientific experiment gone wrong. I must warn you, spoiler alert coming
:15:18. > :15:20.up. The novel is narrated by Rosemary
:15:21. > :15:23.Cooke, a California college student, who has retreated into near silence
:15:24. > :15:33.following catastrophic events which led to the implosion of her
:15:34. > :15:37.close-knit family. For the first 76 pages of We Are All
:15:38. > :15:40.Completely Beside Ourselves, the reader is carefully drawn into the
:15:41. > :15:45.mystery of the disappearance of Rosemary's sister Fern, at the age
:15:46. > :15:49.of six. We imagine the pain, the horror of losing a sister. On page
:15:50. > :15:57.77, a twist in the tale - we discover that Fern is not a little
:15:58. > :16:01.girl. She's a chimpanzee. Though I was only five when she disappeared
:16:02. > :16:05.from my life, I do remember her. I remember her sharply. Her smell and
:16:06. > :16:13.touch, scattered images of her face, her ears, her chin, her eyes. Her
:16:14. > :16:20.arms, her feet, her fingers. But I don't remember her fully, not the
:16:21. > :16:24.way Lowell does. The book is based on a real 1930s
:16:25. > :16:27.experiment in America in which Gua, a baby chimpanzee, was raised
:16:28. > :16:33.alongside a baby boy and treated like a human child. The chimp was
:16:34. > :16:40.sent away and died shortly after, and her human companion killed
:16:41. > :16:43.himself at the age of 43. A dark message about the nature of
:16:44. > :16:49.scientific experimentation is masked by the book's playful structure and
:16:50. > :16:52.warm narration. As well as exploring the subject of animal rights,
:16:53. > :16:55.Rosemary discovers the tenuous nature of her voice, her memory and
:16:56. > :17:02.the terrible guilt of losing a sibling. I would think better of
:17:03. > :17:05.myself now if, like Lowell, I'd been angry about Fern's disappearance,
:17:06. > :17:12.but it seemed too dangerous just then to be mad at our parents and I
:17:13. > :17:16.was frightened instead. There was also a part of me relieved, and
:17:17. > :17:29.powerfully, shamefully so, to be the one kept and not the one given away.
:17:30. > :17:33.We have to invest a lot in Rosemary the narrator, because in the first
:17:34. > :17:37.third of the book we have no idea what has happened to Fern and who
:17:38. > :17:44.indeed Fern is. Did you like her voice? I found it a bit irksome and
:17:45. > :17:47.mannered to begin with. And I thought, where is this going? I knew
:17:48. > :17:53.nothing about it and was just and to read it as quickly as possible,
:17:54. > :17:59.which was a disservice to the book. She describes her parents as having
:18:00. > :18:04.this complicated relationship. And it was, where is it going? So it was
:18:05. > :18:08.a genuine shock to me having read none of the reviews, and suddenly it
:18:09. > :18:12.clicked into place and I've thought there was something very interesting
:18:13. > :18:19.there about the nature of families and my point of reference for the
:18:20. > :18:28.idea of a chimpanzee being raised, after a wonderful documentary called
:18:29. > :18:34.Project Name. And this was tragically given away to a
:18:35. > :18:40.veterinary medical science thing, so there were lots of parallels. I was
:18:41. > :18:46.impressed by her research and the nature of what the... And of
:18:47. > :18:50.course, the author, she grew up and her father was a behavioural
:18:51. > :18:55.scientist does well. So it feels informed by that behaviour and
:18:56. > :19:00.psychology. I thought an intriguing part of the book was at the
:19:01. > :19:05.beginning that she had been a talkative child, really gracious,
:19:06. > :19:09.and now she doesn't talk. -- loquacious. Yes. I can certainly see
:19:10. > :19:14.how the book could great if you are on in the mood and in a hurry. But
:19:15. > :19:18.it was incredibly adept. A proper thriller at times. And the thrill
:19:19. > :19:22.is, what happened in our family? There is no crime, nobody got
:19:23. > :19:26.murdered, nothing extraordinary or illegal happened. But there is this
:19:27. > :19:31.huge hole in her memory, and yet at the same time she is incredibly warm
:19:32. > :19:37.because she is so incredibly funny. There is a fantastic... Line after
:19:38. > :19:40.line dropped in. At one point she describes somebody as every girl's
:19:41. > :19:43.dream because she couldn't have a domestic vampire, a terrorist. So
:19:44. > :19:50.she is incredibly good company, which made it an easy book. She is
:19:51. > :19:53.extremely unreliable but she knows she is unreliable because there is
:19:54. > :19:58.this big thing she doesn't remember and we are being told up front there
:19:59. > :20:02.are gaps. Were you intrigued by the beginning of the story? And must
:20:03. > :20:07.admit, the revelation on page 77 didn't knock me out because I guess
:20:08. > :20:12.I wasn't paying that much attention. -- I must admit. For me,
:20:13. > :20:17.the big revelation was on page something like 312, where the book
:20:18. > :20:22.suddenly says, topics for reading book club discussion. I'd feel might
:20:23. > :20:29.be in one now so I feel terribly like... Well, you mentioned the
:20:30. > :20:32.creative writing thing and there is something about these books these
:20:33. > :20:36.days is that we need a new category for these kinds of things. They are
:20:37. > :20:40.not like books as I would know them. They are different sorts of things.
:20:41. > :20:44.It feels like I need to be in a group of people discussing my life.
:20:45. > :20:48.They are like therapy. And everything that happens in the
:20:49. > :20:51.book, I'm thinking, I need to sit down in a circle of people and
:20:52. > :20:58.discuss how it makes me feel. Highwood I have felt -- how would I
:20:59. > :21:05.have felt if had grown up with a monkey as a brother? But fiction
:21:06. > :21:11.places your imagination without it that. Maybe it is the punch line of
:21:12. > :21:17.everything happening with literature, that after all that, all
:21:18. > :21:20.it was was a grand theme of their appeal. And we will sit around and
:21:21. > :21:27.discuss it in groups, how it makes you feel. Yes, even taking into
:21:28. > :21:34.account I didn't know her father was a psychologist, you feel the
:21:35. > :21:40.research wait a bit heavy, that has Oracle -- the historical precedent.
:21:41. > :21:45.And what about the animal theme? There is a bit of the English
:21:46. > :21:51.teacher quality - discuss, that sort of thing. And a topicality that
:21:52. > :22:00.creates a sort of pig for book review to spin off. And something
:22:01. > :22:04.picture editors can look at. I thought this removal of the
:22:05. > :22:08.chimpanzee from the family, because she knew about the Kellogg case
:22:09. > :22:11.where the man killed himself, so she imagined it being something so
:22:12. > :22:14.devastating for the family they had never covered and she certainly as a
:22:15. > :22:20.human being, life was not the way it might have been had she just had
:22:21. > :22:26.human siblings. Absolutely. She is completely shaped permanently by
:22:27. > :22:30.this childhood jihad. -- childhood and that she had. And Fern
:22:31. > :22:36.disappeared when she was only five. It is obviously a theme of this
:22:37. > :22:40.book, that when we experiment on animals, a position with which I'll
:22:41. > :22:44.most entirely disagree with, it is not just the animals we might be
:22:45. > :22:48.harming, it is ourselves. And that is absolutely the thesis which runs
:22:49. > :22:53.through this book. It is a question of, what can you gain from putting a
:22:54. > :23:00.chimpanzee in a family? And possibly the answer is not much, but then
:23:01. > :23:05.what do you lose? It is the kind of thing that might have been covered
:23:06. > :23:08.in a really good science fiction of the 1960s or 70s, and also taking it
:23:09. > :23:13.to the next layer, that it wasn't just talking about our feelings but
:23:14. > :23:21.that it was metaphorically amplified a bit. Turned into a book, not a
:23:22. > :23:28.read. But the chimp lived with the family in the 30s so... But in terms
:23:29. > :23:35.of the amplification of it, as you were saying, it seems calculated to
:23:36. > :23:43.make us feel. There could have been more of a twist to it. One should
:23:44. > :23:48.have had the twist on page 77? Yes, I feel there is not enough plot, not
:23:49. > :23:55.enough there. Well, check it out for yourselves. The book is published
:23:56. > :23:57.next month. From his highly stylised fashion shoots to his striking
:23:58. > :24:01.street photography, Philip Lorca diCorcia is widely regarded by many
:24:02. > :24:04.as one of the most innovative and influential photographers working
:24:05. > :24:07.today. Now, in the first major British survey of his work, The
:24:08. > :24:11.Hepworth Wakefield is showing over 100 photographs taken over the
:24:12. > :24:15.course of his 35-year career. Philip-Lorca diCorcia first came to
:24:16. > :24:18.the attention of the art world in 1993 when his photographs of
:24:19. > :24:24.Hustlers went on show at New York's Museum of Modern Art. They feature
:24:25. > :24:31.male prostitutes working in the shadow of the Hollywood hills. I
:24:32. > :24:47.would ask them if I could take their photograph. That's all I wanted. I
:24:48. > :24:54.didn't even really want them to be naked. And I would pay them the
:24:55. > :24:57.lowest common do nominate of sex. -- denominator. I don't think you wind
:24:58. > :25:06.up selling yourself on the street if you're happy about your life.
:25:07. > :25:12.There was a backlash that I didn't try to show behind the scenes of
:25:13. > :25:15.their lives or photograph them in an extensive way multiple times, and
:25:16. > :25:16.that seemed to be, along with paying them, to be cheating, to some
:25:17. > :25:34.people. For another series, Heads, the
:25:35. > :25:40.pictures were taken in Times Square without the knowledge of the
:25:41. > :25:44.subjects. I'm about 20 feet away, so they don't really notice me, and I
:25:45. > :25:47.have to very precisely set everything up because it's a very
:25:48. > :25:55.long lens, which means that they go through the frame in a fraction of a
:25:56. > :26:00.second and I can't alter what I do. I'm not a control freak or anything.
:26:01. > :26:03.Serendipity is a big part of photography and I wouldn't want to
:26:04. > :26:06.eliminate it by getting so controlled that I wind up getting
:26:07. > :26:17.exactly what I expected when I started.
:26:18. > :26:22.DiCorcia's latest project, East Of Eden, began in 2008 in the wake of
:26:23. > :26:30.America's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and the financial
:26:31. > :26:33.crisis. As far as I could tell, everyone just thought they were
:26:34. > :26:37.going to get more and more rich and everything was going to go well and
:26:38. > :26:47.we were actually going to win these wars and that George Bush never told
:26:48. > :26:55.a lie. Then it became clear very suddenly that this was not the case.
:26:56. > :26:59.And things were going to get very bad, and in hindsight, yes, they
:27:00. > :27:02.did, so I tried to use as a loose organising principle the expulsion
:27:03. > :27:09.from the Garden of Eden, which is based on a loss of innocence.
:27:10. > :27:17.Paul, did you find it easy to imbue the photographs with the kind of
:27:18. > :27:22.meaning Philip wanted them to have? He was there when we were there and
:27:23. > :27:26.he gave a speech, though I wish he wasn't. I'd like to think... And
:27:27. > :27:31.obviously previously, yeah, absolutely. It is that ultimate sort
:27:32. > :27:34.of analysis of what an image is and how important images are to us,
:27:35. > :27:38.especially at the moment when we are surrounded by them. And the sense he
:27:39. > :27:40.is still using these images are missed this jibber -ish and the
:27:41. > :27:47.fragmenting of photography everywhere around us. -- in amongst
:27:48. > :27:54.this jibber -ish. And can the past be made real because we can fix it,
:27:55. > :27:57.can we take possession of the now because of a photograph? And
:27:58. > :28:03.especially the photographs in the storybook world, each one is like a
:28:04. > :28:08.poem. An incredible moment of creating a sense of reality and
:28:09. > :28:13.peering into something. It is uncanny. So I would like to think,
:28:14. > :28:17.yes, I can make sense of what he is doing, outside of his technique and
:28:18. > :28:21.mastery. Just in terms of what he is trying to do in terms of
:28:22. > :28:25.photography, it is a critical response of the world as it is.
:28:26. > :28:30.There was this particular section called Hustlers. He bought a male
:28:31. > :28:35.prostitutes for the day and took them where he wanted to photograph
:28:36. > :28:38.them. Those images are quite extraordinary. For me, those images
:28:39. > :28:43.were extraordinary because they were taken so long ago and you wonder
:28:44. > :28:48.whether firstly, these guys are still alive. There is something
:28:49. > :28:50.really difficult about it and his photography is not intended to
:28:51. > :28:54.provoke an emotional response. It is the opposite of the book top
:28:55. > :28:58.question. It is a statement and you are expected to have an intellectual
:28:59. > :29:03.and possibly aesthetic response and not an emotional one, and then there
:29:04. > :29:07.is this room full of men who look so fragile and so not long for this
:29:08. > :29:12.world, and to add to the pathos, and it really is the only place this
:29:13. > :29:16.happens, he gives a name and a place of origin and the amount in dollars
:29:17. > :29:23.he paid them for the time, which is what they normally charged will
:29:24. > :29:27.work. So it varies between 25 and $50. And it is such a small sum of
:29:28. > :29:31.money and these men look so fragile, some of them very young, which is
:29:32. > :29:35.devastating. Some of them on the verge of breaking point. 38 is old
:29:36. > :29:43.in terms of a prostitute, I would guess, in LA. And it is an intense
:29:44. > :29:49.and emotional room. It is an extraordinary piece of work. In this
:29:50. > :29:54.exhibition of generally very surreal photography. We must say, of course,
:29:55. > :29:58.that you very gallantly came on board, so you did not go to the
:29:59. > :30:01.exhibition but you did look at the catalogue. I'd just want to take you
:30:02. > :30:06.through the images of the pole dancers, which is his response to
:30:07. > :30:11.the fallen men of what -- men and women of 9/11. Yes, I'm normally
:30:12. > :30:17.find myself reaching for my gun with that but the images were
:30:18. > :30:21.extraordinary. They made me think of some of the Bacon studies of nudes
:30:22. > :30:27.and I've found them tender and beautiful. They resonate very well.
:30:28. > :30:31.They resonate very well with the Hustlers. But what about the idea...
:30:32. > :30:35.It was quite extraordinary this idea that he would go onto the streets of
:30:36. > :30:38.New York and he would use either builders or whatever was to hand
:30:39. > :30:42.that did not make it look like he was there, and he would use this
:30:43. > :30:47.long lens and get these extraordinary. Nothing set up but
:30:48. > :30:51.this clarity, and of course we know one person tried to sue him three
:30:52. > :30:59.times not to use the images. This guy. He didn't like that. This is
:31:00. > :31:05.like a portrait. It is amazing. Hi worked in the commercial world for a
:31:06. > :31:10.while and he brings that sense of capturing some idea of beauty in a
:31:11. > :31:15.moment. They're beautiful. They're posing, like they know and it looks
:31:16. > :31:20.like they know and it is extraordinary. One girl looks like a
:31:21. > :31:25.cat walk shot. He was saying how he chose them out of many, he said it
:31:26. > :31:30.was interesting in a way it was obvious which one to choose. He is
:31:31. > :31:33.after something in his mind's eye. That is happening a lot in art,
:31:34. > :31:38.people taking photographs without clearing rights or the way a film
:31:39. > :31:47.maker would if they're filming something. It is fair -- is it fair
:31:48. > :31:53.use? When you're snapping a street scene, I think it is more
:31:54. > :31:58.spontaneous, but his was the opposite. He set the whole thing up
:31:59. > :32:05.and it was more like portrait painting. A lot of things have been
:32:06. > :32:10.true of seemingly candid shot, famously the sailor kissing the girl
:32:11. > :32:14.at the end of the war and people say how could somebody do that. But of
:32:15. > :32:19.course you should. He is much more open about the fakeness of what
:32:20. > :32:27.creating and that this is art and therefore that art fis is per
:32:28. > :32:31.missible. He is not presenting the real world. But how he sees the
:32:32. > :32:36.world. So those Times Square pictures are breath-taking, because
:32:37. > :32:40.the faces pop out and they're extraordinary. I wonder if
:32:41. > :32:45.particularly in the modern world, people make the connection with
:32:46. > :32:52.photography. The gallery has been such champions of photography, the
:32:53. > :32:56.Hepworth Wakefield and you can, it shows you can get an extraordinary
:32:57. > :33:04.depth of emotional response to something like photography, as well
:33:05. > :33:07.as you know painting. Yes the combination of the gallery itself,
:33:08. > :33:11.which I spectacular and these photographs, which is a wonderful
:33:12. > :33:18.connection. At first, you think, oh God, here we go again, America. But
:33:19. > :33:25.the combination of the Hepworth and Barbara Hepworth and the photographs
:33:26. > :33:28.takes that away and lifts it into how photography can be art in a
:33:29. > :33:42.world where everyone takes photographs. Everyone is doing it.
:33:43. > :33:48.But he is giving it reality. That is where the belong. Those photographs
:33:49. > :33:58.by Philip-Lorca diCorcia until 1st June. Still too come Woody Harrelson
:33:59. > :34:08.and the play Tracey Letts wrote. Now the first of two tracks from
:34:09. > :34:21.Chvrches. The Glasgow band with We Sink.
:34:22. > :34:40.# So tight # So easy # We are going to fall if you lead us nowhere # No
:34:41. > :34:55.wasted time. Please say we listen. # Nobody is
:34:56. > :35:32.going to listen until you die # Let me stop for a second # Hand high
:35:33. > :35:41.# No time # Watching full flight. # Tell you to cut out if you make me #
:35:42. > :37:46.how you decide. # More from Chvrches later and there
:37:47. > :37:49.is an interview with the band online. Playwright and actor Tracy
:37:50. > :37:52.Letts is quite the man of the moment- he's currently appearing as
:37:53. > :37:56.the shady senator Andrew Lockhart in Homeland, and both Meryl Streep and
:37:57. > :37:59.Julia Roberts are up for Oscars for their roles in John Wells' big
:38:00. > :38:05.screen adaptation of his blackly You don't believe me.
:38:06. > :38:15.The UK premier of the play he wrote next is in London. Hm? That I wrote
:38:16. > :38:18.the Great American Novel. You don't believe me. FORCEDGREEN No, I
:38:19. > :38:21.believe you. You don't sound like you believe me. Why wouldn't I
:38:22. > :38:28.believe you? I don't know why you wouldn't believe me. Maybe you're a
:38:29. > :38:33.racist. Are you a racist? No. I mean, I don't think so. I mean, I
:38:34. > :38:37.hope not. I mean, probably not, but...you know I hired you, didn't
:38:38. > :38:40.I? Scoot over, Lincoln, make room on the penny. It starts off ostensibly
:38:41. > :38:43.as an odd couple relationship we've got a 59-year-old Polish American
:38:44. > :38:53.guy and 21-year-old African American guy and he hires him to help him in
:38:54. > :39:02.his donut shop, but as the story... Can you name any other black poets?
:39:03. > :39:08.In fact I can. Go. Is this a test? Yeah this is a test. This is your
:39:09. > :39:16.racist test. I have to take a racist test, did you have to take a racist
:39:17. > :39:21.test. I can't be a racist. It feels like it still has the Tracey Letts
:39:22. > :39:29.edge to it. What I love is he puts so much attention to narrative. As a
:39:30. > :39:46.play it is a real page Turner and gentler and has a toughness to it.
:39:47. > :39:52.Maya Angelou. That is a good one. You answered the foreblack poets in
:39:53. > :39:55.your cross word puzzle. It feels like the play is about how
:39:56. > :40:00.redemption can be found through people you meet in your life who may
:40:01. > :40:04.not be, they may seem to be different, but ultimately the
:40:05. > :40:10.relationships go deeper than that and deeper than surface level
:40:11. > :40:14.differences and how an older guy can have a friendship with a younger man
:40:15. > :40:22.and the two of them can change each other's lives. If I pass the test,
:40:23. > :40:40.will you let me read your book. Where were we. Alice Walker. What?
:40:41. > :40:44.It is a simple tale. Is there enough depth in it? I think as often for
:40:45. > :40:49.me, the running time could have been cut and nothing would have been
:40:50. > :40:54.lost. It is two hours 40 with about interval. -- with an interval. It
:40:55. > :41:00.could have been shorter. The writing is good, but not great. It is
:41:01. > :41:09.redeemed by a terrific bit of acting. Jonathan Livingston, it is a
:41:10. > :41:12.luminous performance. He lights up the stage. Everybody else kind of
:41:13. > :41:23.brightens in his light. It is a beautiful performance that he gives.
:41:24. > :41:28.Both as the two sides of the character. And he and Mitchell
:41:29. > :41:32.Mullen play so well off each other. It is better than a regular odd
:41:33. > :41:38.couple. You get a sense of their journey and all the people around
:41:39. > :41:45.them are just ornaments. Yes they make it feel a lot like a
:41:46. > :41:52.sentimental tribute to a gentle 1970s American sit come. A lot of
:41:53. > :41:57.the things it sets up in terms of elements of American dream and
:41:58. > :42:01.broken marriages, it feels like it is going to be the great American
:42:02. > :42:07.play. But it is not unentertaining. It is lovely to watch. But it is
:42:08. > :42:13.quite insubstantial. It hints at everything and then never goes
:42:14. > :42:19.there. It is like he was exhausted by the one before and here is a few
:42:20. > :42:23.things he had in mind. The thing is about itself, with the book the kid
:42:24. > :42:29.is writing about the great American novel. This suggests it will be the
:42:30. > :42:34.great American play, but it is like a minor 70s sitcom. You didn't see
:42:35. > :42:40.it, because we drafted it in late. But you read the script. This idea
:42:41. > :42:45.of the multinational taking over. But it is just another immigrant
:42:46. > :42:51.group, the idea that the Russian wants to take over. I thought the
:42:52. > :42:57.Russian character on the page... You should have seen it live. It was
:42:58. > :43:02.worse. It could be interested. Chicago is an interesting setting.
:43:03. > :43:08.It is as much as New York a city of great waves of immigrations and
:43:09. > :43:13.Polls and blacks -- Poles and blacks from the south and eastern
:43:14. > :43:21.Europeans. I liked the stuff about the digs at Starbucks moving in. It
:43:22. > :43:27.could be, but it was an easy dig. That stuff is happening it. In terms
:43:28. > :43:32.of what I did think. In terms of idea of community that in this kind
:43:33. > :43:38.of, the fast-moving world you could have the community which allows the
:43:39. > :43:46.old woman to come into the shop and get free stuff. That was touching.
:43:47. > :43:50.And quite true f you go into even a Starbucks in small town America,
:43:51. > :43:56.they do know the names of each person. They see people and they
:43:57. > :44:04.come in and they know their names. You think Starbucks at home doesn't
:44:05. > :44:10.do this. People keep coming in and I heard the audience applauding the
:44:11. > :44:17.cameo. Having read the play, I am not sure I would want to see it. The
:44:18. > :44:22.performances are extraordinary. Mitchell Mullen when he does his
:44:23. > :44:28.monologues about a failed 60s radical. And he was a refuse nick
:44:29. > :44:33.and went to Canada to escape the draft and again you feel that
:44:34. > :44:42.informed the re his life and his feeling about his own position and
:44:43. > :44:48.that. That idea of putting the 60s and the 70s and the informs from
:44:49. > :44:52.that and that is a difficult language and you put that with a
:44:53. > :44:58.younger person with their own desires and work out how they go
:44:59. > :45:04.together. You could have done that with the two of them. But he writes
:45:05. > :45:09.this material. Because there is lots of actors. He likes a big a cast and
:45:10. > :45:16.it is such a small stage and there are times you feel it is a heavily
:45:17. > :45:22.dressed stage. And I think there are times when you somebody picks up a
:45:23. > :45:33.coffee stirrer and you think, where are they going to put that. It was
:45:34. > :45:42.nippy fighting and that is worth the price of ticket. That is how crossby
:45:43. > :45:45.Styles and Nash would fight. Superior doughnuts is at the
:45:46. > :45:49.Southwark Playhouse in London until the 8th of March. Another man of the
:45:50. > :45:52.moment is Matthew McConaughey, who's achieved a spectacular reinvention
:45:53. > :45:56.in recent years, from romcom hunk to Hollywood heavyweight. He recently
:45:57. > :45:59.played the title role in Killer Joe, also written by the ubiquitous
:46:00. > :46:02.Tracey Letts, and now has an Oscar nomination for his role as the AIDS
:46:03. > :46:06.activist Ron Woodroof in Dallas Buyers Club. In the new series True
:46:07. > :46:11.Detective, he appears alongside his old pal Woody Harrelson. The pair
:46:12. > :46:20.play a duo of mismatched cops on the hunt for a killer.
:46:21. > :46:30.Have you seen anything like this before? No, sir. Eight years CID.
:46:31. > :46:39.Them symbols - they're Satanic. They had a 20/20 on it a few years back.
:46:40. > :46:42.ID? No, sir. The series follows a duo of
:46:43. > :46:45.detectives as they as they investigate the ritualistic murder
:46:46. > :46:50.of a prostitute in 1995. It then flashes forwards 17 years. A copycat
:46:51. > :46:56.killing has taken place and the two detectives undergo a series of
:46:57. > :47:01.interviews about the original crime. So, do you want to call the whole
:47:02. > :47:05.case through or just the end? No, the whole story from your end, if
:47:06. > :47:09.you don't mind. Like he said, the files got ruined. Hurricane Rita.
:47:10. > :47:22.What he didn't say was this was about something else. Something new,
:47:23. > :47:29.the one on Lake Charles or maybe... This series is less a -- a police
:47:30. > :47:37.procedural and more a study of character. The morose loner Rustin
:47:38. > :47:39.Cohle, played by McConaughey, and the straight-talking Martin Hart,
:47:40. > :47:43.played by Harrelson, who refuses to engage with Cohle's existential and
:47:44. > :47:46.at times bleak monologues. I got a bad taste in my mouth out here.
:47:47. > :47:52.Aluminium, ash, like you can smell the psychosphere. I got an idea.
:47:53. > :47:57.Let's make the car a place of silent reflection from now on. OK?
:47:58. > :48:03.True Detective has been HBO's most successful series debut since Martin
:48:04. > :48:06.Scorsese's Boardwalk Empire in 2010. But in spite of its audacious
:48:07. > :48:09.structure and bankable cast, does it breathe enough new life into a
:48:10. > :48:30.familiar narrative of detectives struggling with inner demons?
:48:31. > :48:35.You really don't want to do that. You pick my brain, you got to get me
:48:36. > :48:48.a cheeseburger and a Coke, don't you? Why is this so important to you
:48:49. > :48:52.all of a seven? Cos it's Thursday and past noon. Thursdays is one of
:48:53. > :49:01.my days off. On my off days I start drinking at noon. You don't get to
:49:02. > :49:05.interrupt that. Yet again, for the third time
:49:06. > :49:11.tonight, this is a looking backwards structure, where, actually, the very
:49:12. > :49:14.claustrophobic conversation with the two former cops by other cops in
:49:15. > :49:19.more or less present day is as important as the action. Sticky
:49:20. > :49:23.yellow absolutely, so it is moving back and forward and about
:49:24. > :49:27.unreliable narrators and who is telling the truth and who is
:49:28. > :49:30.possibly slightly fudging it. We as the audience get to see what that
:49:31. > :49:35.tree happening in the scene and then you get to hear Woody Harrelson
:49:36. > :49:40.trying to hide the fact he was cheating on his wife. It could have
:49:41. > :49:45.fallen will you flat and I think it struggled in the first episode to
:49:46. > :49:51.regroup me. -- really flat. But then I was very engaged and very seduced
:49:52. > :49:54.by the way it was shot. A real sense of cinematography. And I like this
:49:55. > :49:59.movement they are doing with television thrillers, that this is
:50:00. > :50:03.going to be a chapter by the same director, who is really interesting
:50:04. > :50:13.and did a wonderful adaptation of Jane Eyre, and that has a lot of
:50:14. > :50:16.voice. It has been talked about in the same vein as Scandinavian war.
:50:17. > :50:24.But it almost brings Twin Peaks to mind. With very good reason. It has
:50:25. > :50:29.that slightly strange, dreamlike quality because we're watching these
:50:30. > :50:34.two men flip between 15 years, maybe a bit longer, and so facial hair
:50:35. > :50:40.appears and disappears, facial wits, more impressively, appears and
:50:41. > :50:44.disappears! -- facial width. So it does appear dreamlike at times. That
:50:45. > :50:49.is not necessarily a problem. What is the problem is, here we are,
:50:50. > :50:53.looking back at things. Quite a lot of voice-over or somebody saying,
:50:54. > :50:56.yes, I once did that, this, the other. And if you were playing this
:50:57. > :51:02.for which you would have dramatised that. It is almost going there in a
:51:03. > :51:08.retro way, having these two detectives look at the murder of
:51:09. > :51:13.this woman. It is almost retro. But almost incidental. Yes, the
:51:14. > :51:15.Louisiana serial killer thing is neither here nor there. It is
:51:16. > :51:20.interesting seeing young writers being influenced Twin Peaks. Maybe
:51:21. > :51:25.at one time they would have gone into books or reading, fiction, but
:51:26. > :51:33.now they have gone into television and that is fascinating. A different
:51:34. > :51:36.world. For me, this is cops and cars catching serial killers and eye
:51:37. > :51:42.could watch the two of them talk about that. Why could just watch
:51:43. > :51:48.Matthew McConaughey smoke. That was so scary! I don't want to watch Brad
:51:49. > :51:55.Pitt or Leonardo DiCaprio smoke! And there is a scene where the
:51:56. > :51:57.revivalist church tent is there and Matthew McConaughey is dissing
:51:58. > :52:03.everybody in there and it is very, very funny. And also the great
:52:04. > :52:07.setup, which, technically, is banal, but it is wonderful, the flashback,
:52:08. > :52:12.because we want to work out how both of them... Woody became Woody, as he
:52:13. > :52:16.always does, and Matthew became Matthew, and you want to know, how
:52:17. > :52:22.the hell did that happen? And I must mention the music. The selection of
:52:23. > :52:29.music lifts it up into art. Absolutely. It is one of the great
:52:30. > :52:34.moments of music film, acting moments, that 13th floor elevator.
:52:35. > :52:41.And doing some great stuff. He really elevated the song selection.
:52:42. > :52:44.So it becomes a really integral part in the lockstep between his work
:52:45. > :52:52.with the cinematography and this use of sound as well. A beautiful use.
:52:53. > :52:59.Here is a new use for this kind of music. Final is dead, etc. We would
:53:00. > :53:06.talking earlier about Louisiana and the palate is fantastic as well. --
:53:07. > :53:10.we were talking. Very subtle shots. It resonated for me with the work of
:53:11. > :53:14.the photographer we have seen as well. That abandoned... He has a
:53:15. > :53:18.wonderful moment when he talks about the town as a memory that is fading.
:53:19. > :53:23.These strip moles and same old stores. But there is something
:53:24. > :53:30.distinctive about it. -- strip malls. This milky kind of light.
:53:31. > :53:39.Somebody not decaying is Matthew McConaughey. Who would have
:53:40. > :53:46.thought?! Anybody who thought -- saw him in Magic Mike will know. You are
:53:47. > :53:51.waiting for him to stop being so handsome! He was trapped in that
:53:52. > :53:55.body and it was a bit of a curse. Now that he is not in that juvenile
:53:56. > :54:02.role, you can do something more interesting. And going back to Lars
:54:03. > :54:08.Von Trier, that is not reading group stuff either. We cannot go back
:54:09. > :54:19.without looking at the women. There are simply not any woman -- women in
:54:20. > :54:23.decent positions. I think the Michelle character, who plays Woody
:54:24. > :54:30.Harrelson's wife, has a strong presence, a great actress. I am
:54:31. > :54:35.disturbed by people who don't see women in any jobs at all except
:54:36. > :54:40.prostitute! I am vaguely worried! Mothers, sisters. I think there
:54:41. > :54:45.might be something more subtle going on. Well, we will have to see
:54:46. > :54:50.because we have only seen three episodes. It runs on Saturday nights
:54:51. > :54:55.for the next seven weeks on Sky Atlantic. You can catch the show
:54:56. > :54:59.again on iPlayer. Thank you to all my guests, Leslie, Natalie and Paul.
:55:00. > :55:04.Martha will be back next time with highlights from Spring's cultural
:55:05. > :55:06.calendar, but to play us out, a another track from Chvrches. This is
:55:07. > :55:29.Recover. # Cut out a hole,
:55:30. > :55:40.# Hiding from you, # Skin is so cold,
:55:41. > :55:46.# Everyone, everyone knows it's me. # And if I recover will you be my
:55:47. > :56:03.partner? # Would chew the over? -- would you
:56:04. > :56:27.be over? # Give me one more chance, I'll give
:56:28. > :56:31.you one more chance To say we can change our old ways And you take
:56:32. > :56:35.what you need And you know you don't need me Blow by blow Honest in every
:56:36. > :56:39.way I know You appear To face a decision I know you fear And if I
:56:40. > :56:44.recover Will you be my comfort Or it can be over Or we can just leave it
:56:45. > :56:47.here So pick any number Choose any color I've got the answer Open the
:56:48. > :56:52.envelope I'll give you one more chance To say we can change or part
:56:53. > :56:56.ways And you take what you need And you don't need me I'll give you one
:56:57. > :57:00.more chance To say we can change our old ways And you take what you need
:57:01. > :57:05.And you know you don't need me And you know you don't need me And if I
:57:06. > :57:09.recover Will you be my comfort Or it can be over Or we can just leave it
:57:10. > :57:13.here So pick any number Choose any color I've got the answer Open the
:57:14. > :57:17.envelope I'll give you one more chance To say we can change or part
:57:18. > :57:22.ways And you take what you need And you don't need me I'll give you one
:57:23. > :57:48.more chance To say we can change our old ways And you take what you need
:57:49. > :58:05.And you know you don't need me me. # And you know you don't need me.
:58:06. > :58:19.# And if I recover, will you be my comfort # Or it can be over # Or we
:58:20. > :58:27.can just leave it here # So pick any number # Choose any colour # I have
:58:28. > :58:32.got the answer # Open the envelope # I'll give you one more chance # To
:58:33. > :58:39.say we can change or part ways # And you can take what you need # And you
:58:40. > :58:44.don't need me # I'll give you one more chance # To say we can change
:58:45. > :58:47.our old ways # And you take what you need # And you know you don't need
:58:48. > :58:53.me.