30/03/2012 The Review Show

On tonight's Review Show, Brenda and Olympia as a lesbian couple in

a mad cap road drip. A new exhibition of the mind. More

psychological exploration and TV writer Noah Hawley's new novel.

Beating oppression in Iran with a camera, in a hit new documentary,

This Is Not A Film. And Werner Herzog on his latest, and

characteristically cheery look at life on death row.

A rip roaring insight from the new guests on the sofa. Matthew Sweet,

whose book, Shepperton Babylon, charts the history of British

cinema. The playwright Mark Ravenhill, famous for shopping at

(coug h) and in residence in the RSC.

And the former editor of the International Film Festival.

Remember however eminent the views of Matthew Mark and Hannah, we love

to hear your views. Share them on Twitter. Now in its 26th year, the

London Gay and Lesbian Film Festival is established. We have

chosen two films to review, one dark and the other a kooky comedy.

The festival kicked off with Cloudburst, a film part road trip,

part rom com. As so often with gay cinema, it pushes the boundaries,

both by being the story of a mature lesbian couple, and by providing

strong lead roles for two older actresses, Oscar winners, Olympia

Dukakis and Brenda Fricker. I play Dottie, I love the name, she's

blind, she's old and fat, so unlike me, she falls out of the bed

laughing one night, and damages herself. Her granddaughter wants to

put her into a home, which means they would be separated. They are

not going to have that. They decide to drive to Canada and get married

and be together forever. Are you proposing to me? Maybe.

Are you down on one knee? Yeah. I don't believe in marriage. I was

married, remember, that was like having a brain clot. Most love

stories about the beginning of love, the difference was about trying to

parlez the idea of what it is like to have been together for so long,

and this sort of how love comes with frustration and anger and

disappointment. Maybe we could work out some sort of trial commitment?

How about 100 years. I was thinking of six months.

At a time when the issue of gay marriage is a political hot potato,

does the film take a particular stance? I discovered early on in

the writing process, if I was going to be honest about the point of

view of these two character, there was nothing political to say.

Because when people are getting married, nobody is thinking about

politics. You are thinking very much with all of your focus about

the person you are about to marry. It is the world's first geriatric

lesbian road movie. I think you are right. That is a very good

description, yeah. From the tale of who older lesbians,

to the sexually awakening of a young man, comes Absent. Toying

with convent actual attitudes to under-age relationships, it hinges

on the attraction of a young teenage boy to his swimming

instructor, with moral ambiguity Presented as a dark thriller in the

south American role, dark glances play more of a part than dialogue.

It plays with audience expectations and is an oblique look at a taboo.

Both films explore passion and love from different portions of liefpl.

Is there anything new from well worn themes. Two very different

films, but let's deal with Cloudburst first, you were there at

the opening. How was it received? It was received with great rapttuer

and joy and laughter. It is a very -- rappure and joy and laughter. It

is a very theatrical film. It started as a play, with central

performances, they have fantastic comical timing. There was applause

and laughter, the film is edited to allow it to play to a big popular

audience like that and be a big experience. It is a road movie in

the tile of Paris-Texas and Thelma and Louise? There are no surprises,

apart from one scene where Brenda Fricker and Olympia Dukakis are

trying to shed the load of a nude man who has got into the bed of

their truck. It is an extraordinary scene. It is one of the most

conventional films I have seen. There is no adventure in it any way.

And yet, it seems absolutely churlish to bring that in at all,

it is uproariously funny. There is nothing particularly to say, it is

a lesbian film, except what you have is two older actresss? There

is some extremely foul language, the way Olympia Dukakis's character

talks I was genuinely shocked, and I have seen a lot of movies. What I

found odd and jarring was the combination of this sentimental

premise, beautiful cinematography, and beautiful score, and

conventionally things, and then this disgusting language, I didn't

know if it split the people being OK about that. A foul mouthed old

person, at 83 you can say what you want. What is important about that,

some of that foul mouthedness she is expressing her sexuality, her

crush on KD Lang and what she wants to do with her is great.

They have both been battered by life, it was a road movie with a

difference, it was not a optimistic start-out, it was the optimistic-

end of life. I love the characters saying I loved you when you were

fat and when you went blind. You don't see that in movies, when you

see people get old and in love in movies they are old and beautiful.

The fact they are old seems more important than they are two women.

This idea, we said at the beginning of the programme, that the lesbian

and gay festival has been determinedly anti-establishment,

this and The Kids Are All right, puts sexuality in a different

position now? I would question the film maker's claim of the lack of

politics. Firstly, those women come to realise they don't have a legal

right to be together and get married. Also that marriage brings

them out of the closet, they have been able to live in this small

community, and even their close family are able to pretend they are

two girls who love each other and share a bed and it is nothing

lesbian. The marriage makes the family confront it is a loving and

sexual relationship they have. There is the pre-wedding, lovely

night in the bar in Canada, all Canadians are fabulous. A lot of

this funding came from Canada. That actually is where the hitch hiker

they pick up does this bestman's speech, I thought that was pretty

moving? That's a moment that everybody will applaud. Isn't it?

There is no sense that this is a difficult or dangerous subject, in

any way at all. This is a film, this is a family film, apart from

the language. It makes you say this is completely logical, these two

people should be together. The humour is broad and slapsticky, to

a an irritating extent. You think these people should be together

whether you like them or not. stick might be the wrong word for

it, it is Brenda Fricker's face sliding with one of the actor's

peniss! There is purely theatrical timing, when she's released from an

old people's homes and doors and looks and timing. You have what is

essentially an exuberant film, to one that is absolutely downplayed

to the point of actually, very, very quiet acting, if indeed it

seems like acting at all in Absence? The acting is quiet. The

score is the problem, it is as though the director has constructed

the most wonderfully ambiguous film, full of these teasing, tense images,

that are very, very difficult to read, and has thought, I know, what

this really needs is the soundtrack of Scream 3 played over the top,

this horror film music that bullies you into responding to it in a

certain way. It is the reverse Lolita, this under-age boy is

entrapping the older man? What I thought is in Lolita, the key line

"reader, it was she who seduced me". Whether you believe that or not?

is seeing the seduction of the young boy coming on to him and he's

innocent. What you can't get away from in this film, as beautiful as

the cinematography, there is a score going, feel this, feel this,

all the time. In terms of themes, these are well worn themes in both

films, is this film telling a different story? It is essentially

a film about stuff that is deferred, suppressed desire that can't be

realised until the very final image of the film, and then is it real or

not. There is this ghost boy that leads the central character through

this experience. I thought the cinematography, the composition of

the shots, colour, was equisite, I just didn't quite believe it. It

seemed like somebody who knew a lot about cinema, it felt like a fan's

film, there was a lot of Hitchcock imagery in it, right down to shower

curtains and entering into the teacher's bedroom with the boy,

refractured through the mirrors, that led us into the score. I

thought at the end of the day it seems an exercise about ambiguity,

an exercise about deferred passion, rather than coming from a real

place. Maybe there is something about Argentinian culture I don't

understand, it seemed artificial. There is an academic quality, it

seems one of these films that has been constructed to prove that

everything is in the eye of the beholder, the view is actively

reading the image. It is more important than the what is in the

frame itself. Do you think underpinning it is the idea of

ethics and behaviour and the boundaries that exist within

institutions? Certainly. Whether it has anything much to say about

those things I don't know. That is certainly the arena of it. The one

thing about the score is it constructs the sex act as a crime

in a very dramatic way, in a Hitchcockian way, but it does it

too much. It took us into a camp area, melodrama, which the rest of

the film didn't, it was odd. terms of the kind of films, we only

reviewed two, but do you think actually, lesbian gay film festival,

should that still exist? I think certainly in terms of the audience

demand, every ticket is sold. That festival could run or two or three

times as long and be packed. There are so many of these festivals

around the world, every city has one, I think sometimes there is a

shortage, sometimes there is a greater demand than there is supply

of gay films. I think as the gay and lesbian community become more

assimilated into the mainstream culture, what is a gay aesthetic,

is much more problematic. It is a rich festival, these aren't really

the best two films in it, I don't think. There is the South African

film, Beauty, an exploration of a similar theme to the one we have

been discussing. There is far more to it than just this. We chose two

and they were pretty good to choose. The LGLFF, try to say that, the BFI

runs until Sunday. Intergenerational of a different

kind by a new novel by Noah Hawley, who uses a dark canvas to explain

the strains and limits of the paternal bond.

Noah Hawley is an established name in the United Statesing films and

TV shows, including Bones, in its seventh series. His latest venture

is fourth book but UK debut, The Good Father, it tells the story of

Dr Rosemary Leonard, a respected -- Dr Paul Allen, a respected

rheumatologist, he find out his son is abroad and connected to the

assassination of a presidential candidate. As we watched, the

gunman turned into the crowd, the Secret Service tried to reach him,

the camera swung wildly, the agents tried to reach them, they were lost

to the camera. I got closer to the TV, but rather than make things

clear it played them harder to identify. The words of the anchor

that the police have identify the gunman. The doorbell rang.

I came up with the idea when my wife was pregnant with our first

child, I came to wonder who my daughter would grow up to be. I

started to think about a story of a man whose son was accused of a

crime, and he was going to fight to prove that his son was innocent,

but at the same time he would have to come to terms with the fact that

he might not have been the best father.

The terrors of parenthood are well trodden territory in literature,

most recently in Lionel Shriver's We Need To Talk About Kevin. But

Hawley's take is a psychopath tholg of the father, who unearthed truths

about his own shortcomings. have a 20-year-old like this who

shoots a politician, and walks into a High School, any of these things,

it is hard not to blame the parents. It is tough, and at what age do we

stop being responsible for the actions of our children. If I'm a

25-year-old man, can I still blame my parents, for where I am in my

life, 30, 40. I would like to think at a certain age your childhood is

no longer relevant. During the course of his investigations, pall

draws on past cases of mass murder and -- pall draws on past cases of

mass murder, and the case of Gabrielle Giffords. Has Hawley

managed to weave fiction and real life together in a way that offers

new insights into the troubles of fatherhood.

It seems in this book it is the opposite of We Need To Talk About

Kevin, this is a man exploring the nature of his own guilt, or his

son's guilt, and his son's guilt? It feels like a repost to it. We

Need To Talk About Kevin puts the child as this evil incub bus, who

springs from nowhere, and terrorises the parent. Here it is

the opposite. He's very, very interested in the geneology of that

process, and how a child can become a killer. This is a book with a

kind of identity crisis. There is some beautiful writing in it, but

there is also things that are best suited to the fax machine than the

novel, I think. The airport writer, inside him, is reasserting itself,

maybe that is in his geneology. he's using it at the start to hook

you in, like television writing, it changes gears, it starts, you

really start to think about this book as seriously about guilt, full

stop? It is interesting about built, it is particularly interesting

about loyalty. For me the key point of the book is when the son, in

prison, says to the father, what if I was guilty, would you still be

doing all of this, by is clear his flame, the answer has to be yes,

because the point of being loyal and loving your family, is

protected whatever, that means protecting if they try to kill the

potential President. We don't give away the end of the book? We don't

know if he was guilty and who died. There is an odd sort of perspective

of the book. The perspective of the protaganist and the reader, with

the reader he keeps telling you things you know. He can't imagine

people not knowing, the Mansen family, they were crazy people, and

Robert Kennedy. It has a quality of telling you things that are obvious.

In terms it of the position of the protaganist, you don't know if the

stuff you are hearing about the child's experience is coming from

the father's perspective or what actually happened. It felt confused

in that regard. The Doctor feels the need to tell you things, they

are in control. What he is, as he loses control during the book, only

thing he feels factually in control of are stories that really happened

to real people? As the protaganist loses control, it is like the

author really finds his voice. There is this weird mixture of

airport novel writing, sometimes almost end of chapters ending as

next episode there will be. They are like ad breaks. A lot of the

establishing stuff about him being a doctor, felt like brilliant

research, and somebody writing from a doctor's point of view. Then all

of that falls away, the second half of the book you get this fantastic

mediation on what it means to be a parent, and giplt, and how much

people inher rite from -- guilt and how much people inherit from their

parents. And the trimmings of the political campaign that felt a

little bit received as well. I wonder if it needed that. Just

this central thing of your son might have killed somebody, and how

much are you implicated in that, just grows and grows as a book. By

the end you feel you are reading a classic writer, at the beginning

you feel you have picked up something you could throw away in

an airport. That central theme of whether children of divorced

parents or not, the fragility of the relationship between the parent

and child, no matter what circumstances, Hawley talks about

it himself, is extraordinary, and where responsibility ends and self-

reliance begins? I think this boy was clearly damaged. We can tell

there was this early incident, he is on a journey from one end of

America to another seeing his parents. Then the plane goes into a

nose dive. That was a fantastic metaphor for the whole book? It is

very convincing the process of how this guy is trying to examine

everything that has happened, sifting through the whole biography,

worrying whether the child, that's what it is, but it is something

else, he's looking for a kind of story, he wants his son's story to

be the story of the Manchurian candidate, but it won't fit. It is

not the story of Taxi Driver right, you can't lean on it and get it

wrong, it is not about a taxi driver falling in love with a

teenage prostitute. He retraces the son's steps, it is a road movie.

You get a fantastic sense of America and its huge distances.

the boy wanting to lose himself in it? You also get the sense that the

parent can never completely know the child. You can go on the

journey, he starts to do exact low the things the boy has done, taking

on his vocabulary and actions, ultimately accepting that you can

never know your own child. child can change its name and deny

you. There was one episode in the book, where he goes to stay with

the parents of a girl he knew at Vassar for one year, who sound like

great parent, he goes there, and spends a few months with them, in a

new nuclear family, and happy -- happier than he has ever been,

guting for his father. That is where he picks up his potential

killer skills. The Good Father, published by Hodder & Stroughton,

is in all good books and libraries. From the exploration of troubled

minds to the exploration of the fiscal brain. The Wellcome

Collection lifts the lid on the most ex siting grey matter of human

existence, the human brain. The human brain contains more than a

billion nerve cells, it is the most intricate and least understood

organ. We are taken from the benign to sinister, from horror movie

posters to ubegin INGs, in order to grb eugenics, in order to shed

light on the grey matter. Some people would hold the brain to be

the most complex object in the universe. It contains billions of

brain cells and not well understood by the public. It is even less

often seen. So that is why we wanted to put on an exhibition that

created an encounter with this extraordinary, but unique organ.

More than 150 objects are on display, ranging from segments of

real brains, preserved from figures such as Einstein, and serial killer,

Jason Burkett, through to art, videos and manuscripts. The

exhibition is split into our sections, measuring and classifying

looks at how scientists have tried to understand how the brain

functions. While mapping and modelling focuses on how the

Britain has been visually represented. Cutting shows the

surgical desection of the brain, and the giving and taking section,

looks at the difficult politics of brain donation and medical research.

The approach here has been to investigate, not only the artistic

ramifications of health and medicine, but also the

philosophical ones too. We hope that people will come away from the

exhibition with an appreciation of the nature the brain, but not

really from a detailed neuropsychological perspective,

rather than a social perspective, formed by the nature of the brain

as this rather delicate substance. I mean, an appreciation of the

brain is absolutely right, one can't imagine why there wasn't been

an exhibition like this before. Because it is so endlessly

fascinating, you realise you are no further forward with understanding

how the brain works, than you were and could ever be? I think that

probably reflects where we are. The brain is still a huge mystery to us.

I quite regularly have my brain scanned. I have a scar on the right

asipital lobe, I'm used to looking at pictures of my brain. Going to

the exhibition, you realise the image of the brain in the jar, is a

Gothic image of Frankenstein and horror movies and Doctor Who, there

is a certain, pure, house of horrors aspect to the exhibition.

As I journeyed around it, there were a few times I thought I might

keel over, and one moment where I felt I was just about to go. I

learned a lot, one of the things I learned was that image of a brain

in the jar still has the horror movie power. I still couldn't get

over the fact that, again, they are lined up in jars, they are sliced

up, they are diced, everything, they are made into beautiful works

of art. You can't get away from the fact that it is inside here? This

presents the brain as a cut of meat, as brisket, or rump, or something

like that. We are so used, because we are so enthralled to

neuroscience right now, every week a book comes out saying we are hard

wired to do this, and setting up the brain is almost like this God-

like entity. It seemed really refreshing to be reminded it is

just this rather preposterous globy object, to some extent.

illustrations, what I found most enthralling about the investigation,

it was very interesting in many ways and covers a huge amount of

ground. Was the brilliant illustrations and diagrams that are

very prety. I found my self- wondering whether we are drawn to

certain kinds of patterns, some of them look like beautiful Victorian

wallpaper. Maybe we are drawn to them because it is already in there.

Some of the things commissioned for this, there was an partist who had

dyslexia, had the MRI, a cross section of the MRI of her brain,

set in perspex. You can walk through her sed. It is

extraordinary. Before we get to the cultural beauty of it. We should

talk about ECT trepanning, and eugenics, people writing to

families saying your children are almost dead. We see the heart-

breaking, shocking documentaries, the products of Nazi hospitals, you

see the children whose brain will be claimed soon by some scientist.

A photograph from above by a rostrum camera. You can see some of

them are still fighting, and some of them have given up. It is

profoundly shocking. There is a letter in it, from a woman whose

baby is dying of meningitis, who writes to an eminent brain

scientist in America in the 50s, saying, would you like this brain.

Maybe this can be of some benefit. We should say it is not just Nazis,

that is not just doctors. There are these heart-breaking letters saying

your child won't make it. It is not just Nazi investigations, there is

some dubious ends to this research, there is also just a very poignant

thing about the mystery of what goes wrong and how you sort it out.

One of the things that struck me, and they make the point early on,

is the brain isn't always central of the idea of who we are, for

Aristotle the brain was number seven after the liver. It is only

in the last 200 years we have come to think of ourselves, not located

in the Full Heart Company or the guts, but more and more in the

brain. If anything is done to the brain or violated and used in a

certain way, for us it is the centre being attacked. The idea of

doing your head in is new. It used to be something in your stomach.

They say the gut is the second nervous system. Then there is the

absolute beauty, again you are talking about, we are drawn to

things that look beautiful, also, the idea that almost like some of

the drawings were botanical, there is an extraordinary detail? There

is a sculpture, with the Kapil rees of the brain have been filled in

with plastic, it looks like a piece of coral, it is gorgeous, it shows

you the patterns are mirrored throughout nature. Then, what you

have, as well, is the idea you have the brain of Einstein, and the

brain of Burke, we should be able to see something looking at the

brains, telling us this man was a genius, this man was a killer? The

idea that we could do that, we haven't cracked that one? Quite a

lot of the exhibition looked at the same similarity, the lumps on your

brain indicating your character. The amazing fact that you see, the

British society of fronolog y wasn't disbanded until 1968. Until

then people were meeting, producing a journal, still with the theory

that the shape of your brain would dictate whether you were a criminal.

One of the loading brain surgeries in this country, in the 1940s, was

a Dr Cushing. At the end of the exhibition you see some of the

horror pictures, the man with two brains, and the brain and all that,

did it make you think differently about yourselves when you left?

think it takes the brain down a peg or two. In a way. It slightly

rejects this idea that the brain is the centre of everything, by making

us more aware of it as a gloopy physical object. If you fancy

looking at your brain in a serious way, Brains is open at the Wellcome

Institute until June. How does a virtual mind cope with incars

nation. That is the question at the heart of a film made by Jafar

Panahi, whose film had an extraordinary journey to the west,

via a USB stick hidden in a birthday cake.

In 20 010, one of the leading lights of Iranian city, Jafar

Panahi, -- film Iranian cinema, Jafar Panahi, was taken by the

authorities and sentenced to prison. He created a new work, This Is Not

A Film, a not film that was shot in ten days. He documents his desire

to make films, with his virtual confinement at home. He puts out

his vision for a film the authorities won't let him make,

mapping it out on the floor at home. The process increasingly leaves him

Presented as a day in the life of a director, serious moments when

Panahi plans his appeal against his sentence with lawyers, are inter%ed

with scenes from every day life -- interspersed with scenes from every

day life. He puts previous work in The fear of further persecution by

the authorities is ever present, with coded phone calls and constant

concerns for the safety of his family, highlighting the volatile

Panahi's courageous act of rebellion received rave reviews

across the festival circuit. Is it anything more than a howl against

censorship? What's extraordinary is we don't

know, we think Panahi is still in his flat awaiting the appeal on the

six-year sentence. He's still under house arrest. When this film gets a

limited distribution, we don't know what will happen to him. Was it

more than just an act of defiance, in terms of cinematic

graphicically? In the context of Iranian cinema, it is conventional

to make films about being film maker, he's drawing on Kier st.

Armer. He can work within the regime? Panahi is fitting in more

with the conventions of Iranian cinema doing this film, rather than

doing Kristy and The Circle, which were more anti-establishment. Not

this film is anti-establishment, but he is reflecting here. He's

fantastic company. It is not really so much about the film he's not

making. There is a little bit in there about that. It is about an

conversation with an amazing man. You are absolutely right about that.

This is a summary of Iranian cinema, from inside somebody's living room.

The film that he has made has all the customary structures, the refer

relation quality, it is always reminding you this is a film, and

ending with an epi phanic moment. You have this sense of if I never

get out of the room you will know what I mean? I'm an Iranian film

virgin, I didn't know all the references. I thought it was one of

the most brilliant things I have seen in a long time. The honesty

and stowism of this man, who finds out -- -- stoicim of this man who

finds he can't make films any more. The doorbell, when it rings you

don't know, when the man takes the trash you think who are you, I have

never seen you before, you think this is a spy, you build up a sense

of real fear in the film? It raises certain questions about who you are

looking at, you are conscious that his flat is beautiful and he has

lots of culture, he's worried about not making art films any more.

There is part of you asking what is going on in the real world. There

is that as well, which I'm sure he's conscious of. It service to

remind us that when people in the west are most concerned about

Iran's nuke clear ambitions, Iran is a quite different place to the

place that, the reductive attitude towards Iran. It does suggest, in a

way we would like to see it as a last hur ra to some extent. Hurrah

to some extent. The regime can't stop you being a writer or a

musician, you can always still write. People can stop you being a

film maker. That is what the film is about. This individual man has

an urge, and he will reach for anything. Now with the technology

that he can get out on to the balcony with the iPhone and make a

film. Although it is slightly constructed, he meets the beautiful

fascinating man who collects the trash and makes the film about him.

There is the extraordinary shot of the big picture window, and against

the light are all the flowers, then there is cranes doing a dance

outside, which either speak to a huge document in Iran, or this idea

that so many different things wraching him. That was one of the

most sinister things in the whole film -- watching him. That was one

of the most sinister things in the whole film. When you look at a film

like Carnage, shot in one room with Kate Winslet, it is much more

arresting? It is real life. It was incredibly well constructed, it was

shot in ten days and played as real time, there is an element of

construct, and the moments where he uses different cameras. It is

carefully plotted. I think it is smarter than it pretend to be,

people showing up at different moments and the dog, is construct

jif. Is it disingenious? No, all the way through he questions the

voracity, sits down and does that several times, as any good Iranian

film director should. It is part of the work. Do you think, though, I

suppose the answer for him will be yes, my heart was in my mouth, I

thought is he taking a terrible risk. He has family, he's already

incarcerated, he's watched all the time. It is a two-fringeered salute,

he gets it smuggled out in a birthday cake. He would have had a

tremendous amount of support from the European film industry, not

where he is, to be honest. Iranian sin pla has a status within the

rest -- cinema has a status within Europe and the world is it is where

it is. He will always be able to get the director of the Cannes Film

Festival to write letters for him. It won't sort his life out but it

does help. What made it electric for me to watch as a viewer, was

supporting him or encouraging him, or was I complicit in something

that will impress son him, ultimately. Was I encouraging him

to commit a crime -- impress son him ultimately. Was I encouraging

him to commit a crime or not. He has consigned himself to

incarceration. This is something that is still happening now, when

you watch the film, this is this man's life. From one respected film

maker to another now, there are a few more few more refound than the

German auteur, Werner Herzog. We talkeded about his book focusing on

a triple homicide. What was fascinating for me was the nature

of the crime. Very disquieting for me. Bank robbery, you understand,

and other crimes you would understand. But this triple

homicide had all the ingredients of something completely and utter low

senseless. It is not just about the two murders, and it is not about

the death penalty. It is about a true genuine American Gothic.

dad died ten days ago. REPORTER: You are scheduled for execution in

only eight days. Yes, Sir. How are you doing? I'm a Christian, I

believe that paradise awaits, one way or the other, I tell people all

the time, I'm either going home or home. He says I'm going home or

home. Which means I'm going either to God, home into paradise, or I'm

going home to my family. It is understandable in a way. At

the same time he didn't have any remorse, it was not in this young

man. REPORTER: I have the feeling that desanyone knee, in a way, has

dealt -- destiny has, in a way, dealt you a very bad deck of cards,

it does not exonerate you, I talk to you, it does not necessarily

mean I have to like you. executions were the law, I was

going to make sure it was done professionally, with integrity. I

was a professional in capital punishment. We have to take the

fact that after 125 executions, and he performs his 125th or so, it is

a woman, he goes back to work, and two days later, in his workshop, in

his garage, he has a breakdown. after all this, and until this day,

11 years later, no, sir, nobody has the right to tell you to take

another life, I don't care if it is the law. It is so easy to change

the law. Werner Herzog with Into the Abyss.

Death row twice in one show. Hopefully it won't give you too

many nightmares, many thanks to my guests tonight, Hannah McGill,

Matthew Sweet and Mark Ravenhill, they will be carefully studying

your tweets and comments in the Green Room shortly. Remember you

can see more about tonight's items on the website, and explore the

treasure trove of material we put up there for your viewing. Next

week we have a break for Easter, fear not matter that is back on

April 13th. Another of the brilliant young artists performing

as part of our partnership with spw. BC introducing, here is RAMS'

# You got preens # You got clothes

# Clear arms # Has gots the pocket radio

# You got style # You got soul

# Something new # And maybe something you stole

# You good preens # You got clothes

# Did you make it on your own # Tell me when

# You think # You've gone too far

# You got results # Got the faults

# Got them all # The ephemeral

# You got the say nothing at all # I seen a change

# You got far # I seen it written in a bolt

# Of a car # The new clothes

# You got results # Got the faults

# Got them all # The ephemeral

# You got the to say nothing at all # You got results

# Got faults # Got them all

# The ephemeral # You got the cold

# But say nothing at all # You got results