3:49:12 > 3:49:16On this month's Review Show, Harry Hill's take on Simon Cowell.
3:49:16 > 3:49:20Urinetown - a musical about romance and revolution.
3:49:20 > 3:49:25Dostoyevsky directed by an IT Crowd star.
3:49:25 > 3:49:29Nurses plunged into the horrors of World War I.
3:49:29 > 3:49:32Taking offence - the new culture wars.
3:49:32 > 3:49:36And from apps to drones - the year's best designs.
3:49:36 > 3:49:42All that, plus music in our studio from Ben Watt and Bernard Butler.
3:49:45 > 3:49:48Joining me for this final edition of The Review Show
3:49:48 > 3:49:50are three dedicated regulars
3:49:50 > 3:49:54who've sampled some of the best our culture has to offer
3:49:54 > 3:49:57and, let's be honest, some real turkeys over the years!
3:49:57 > 3:50:00Journalist and broadcaster Sarfraz Manzoor,
3:50:00 > 3:50:03writer and Professor of American Literature Sarah Churchwell
3:50:03 > 3:50:06and writer and critic, Paul Morley.
3:50:06 > 3:50:09We begin with Simon Cowell and a urinal
3:50:09 > 3:50:12as seen in two new comic musicals.
3:50:12 > 3:50:14Harry Hill's parody of The X Factor
3:50:14 > 3:50:16and the charmingly titled Urinetown,
3:50:16 > 3:50:21which won a trio of Tony Awards on Broadway back in 2002,
3:50:21 > 3:50:25and which has finally splashed onto the London stage.
3:50:25 > 3:50:27# This is Urinetown!
3:50:27 > 3:50:30# One rest room here at Urinetown!
3:50:30 > 3:50:31# It's unisex at Urinetown! #
3:50:31 > 3:50:34The musical is set in a dystopian city
3:50:34 > 3:50:39in which there's been an environmental catastrophe.
3:50:39 > 3:50:41It's ravaged with drought,
3:50:41 > 3:50:44and it's led to social and political collapse.
3:50:44 > 3:50:47One man who is exploiting the poor,
3:50:47 > 3:50:51owns all of the public toilets.
3:50:51 > 3:50:55Private toilets have become unthinkable in this drought,
3:50:55 > 3:50:57and everyone must now pay to pee.
3:50:57 > 3:51:00# You have to run, run-a, run-a, run, run-a, run!
3:51:00 > 3:51:02# Hallelujah!
3:51:02 > 3:51:07I suppose that the musical, of all genres, is, you could argue,
3:51:07 > 3:51:11the most manipulative of theatre modes.
3:51:11 > 3:51:15There's the high energy gospel number
3:51:15 > 3:51:17which you are meant to applaud
3:51:17 > 3:51:18for as long as you can
3:51:18 > 3:51:20and it stops the show,
3:51:20 > 3:51:21and they're kind of like...
3:51:21 > 3:51:23They're tropes - musical theatre tropes.
3:51:23 > 3:51:26They're motifs repeated through many different musicals.
3:51:26 > 3:51:29And the production partly embraces those
3:51:29 > 3:51:31and sends them up, at the same time.
3:51:31 > 3:51:34It probably does actually penetrate further,
3:51:34 > 3:51:36maybe, than a kind of
3:51:36 > 3:51:42worthy, very cerebral, traditional play might.
3:51:43 > 3:51:46I've seen a couple of people wander out.
3:51:46 > 3:51:49I've never been quite sure if that's because they need a wee,
3:51:49 > 3:51:52- or they just hated it. - No, they always come back in!
3:51:52 > 3:51:55"Please welcome your host - Liam O'Deary!"
3:51:55 > 3:52:00Your Saturday night starts right here!
3:52:00 > 3:52:03Meanwhile there's a different kind of piss-taking
3:52:03 > 3:52:06with Harry Hill's parody of the X Factor, I Can't Sing!
3:52:08 > 3:52:10Backed by Simon Cowell himself
3:52:10 > 3:52:12the musical is directed by Sean Foley
3:52:12 > 3:52:16and stars Olivier Award-winning actor Nigel Harman
3:52:16 > 3:52:18as the high-waisted music mogul.
3:52:18 > 3:52:21# When you make a wish it happens
3:52:21 > 3:52:26# You got to wish it Really wish it. #
3:52:26 > 3:52:28Harry Hill brings us a typically eccentric cast
3:52:28 > 3:52:30of X Factor contestants,
3:52:30 > 3:52:33while the central plot line follows the love story
3:52:33 > 3:52:36of student Chenice and songwriting plumber Max,
3:52:36 > 3:52:39who persuades her to audition for the show.
3:52:39 > 3:52:42# I can't sing
3:52:42 > 3:52:45# I can't sing
3:52:45 > 3:52:48# I can just hear the crowd call out for less
3:52:48 > 3:52:51# Flat as a pancake in a trouser press... #
3:52:52 > 3:52:56So, I've always rather enjoyed the whimsicality of Harry Hill,
3:52:56 > 3:52:59the surreal nature, and we did get some of that on stage -
3:52:59 > 3:53:01I mean, the talking dog, for example?
3:53:01 > 3:53:03Yeah, and the hunchback.
3:53:03 > 3:53:06I, erm... You say it's a parody, in a way it's partly a parody
3:53:06 > 3:53:08and a sort of tribute, as well, to the X Factor.
3:53:08 > 3:53:13So there is a bit of tension, it's not a straight-blown satire.
3:53:13 > 3:53:15But I did actually like a lot of it.
3:53:15 > 3:53:19I was initially thinking it would be quite difficult to watch
3:53:19 > 3:53:23and I thought some of the targets were simple and very easy.
3:53:23 > 3:53:27But Harry Hill's absurdity and some of the bonkers nature of it,
3:53:27 > 3:53:31and the fact that he's paying tribute and parodying a format
3:53:31 > 3:53:33that has been exported all over the world,
3:53:33 > 3:53:36but I can't imagine this working anywhere apart from Britain.
3:53:36 > 3:53:39So it was that very Britishness of it that, in the end, I really liked.
3:53:39 > 3:53:41Did you enjoy the absurd...?
3:53:41 > 3:53:43I think the phrase is "Backed by the mogul himself."
3:53:43 > 3:53:45I mean, the thing itself, in the real world,
3:53:45 > 3:53:47and some of us are still in the real world,
3:53:47 > 3:53:49is about as elegant and tasteful
3:53:49 > 3:53:52as Love Thy Neighbour and On The Buses from the '70s.
3:53:52 > 3:53:54It's still got that atmosphere about it.
3:53:54 > 3:53:56I think Harry Hill's wife must have been kidnapped -
3:53:56 > 3:53:59cos it gives the patina of Harry Hill being involved,
3:53:59 > 3:54:01but they didn't know how to deal with
3:54:01 > 3:54:03the Harry Hill whimsy a lot of the time.
3:54:03 > 3:54:04And what's remarkable is,
3:54:04 > 3:54:07it's another aspect of Simon Cowell's extraordinary technique
3:54:07 > 3:54:10that you cannot criticise this, because he puts up the barrier,
3:54:10 > 3:54:13the force field, that he's criticising himself, himself.
3:54:13 > 3:54:16But I suppose the thing about Simon Cowell is,
3:54:16 > 3:54:18in a way he parodies himself on the X Factor.
3:54:18 > 3:54:20He's a pantomime villain, really.
3:54:20 > 3:54:23Well, yeah. But that's part of the problem with the show.
3:54:23 > 3:54:25I disagree that it's impossible to criticise him
3:54:25 > 3:54:28because he criticises himself first.
3:54:28 > 3:54:30There's a lot to criticise here.
3:54:30 > 3:54:33You can do it, Sarah, but he puts the force field around him.
3:54:33 > 3:54:36I understand, but I think you can break that quite easily,
3:54:36 > 3:54:38because, in fact, they miss so many of the targets.
3:54:38 > 3:54:41And, actually, I think there's a misconception
3:54:41 > 3:54:42at the heart of the show.
3:54:42 > 3:54:45What it's doing is... It can't decide whether
3:54:45 > 3:54:47it's making fun of Simon Cowell or the contestants.
3:54:47 > 3:54:50The show already makes fun of the contestants.
3:54:50 > 3:54:53To then mock the contestants is actually really uncomfortable.
3:54:53 > 3:54:57I actually found the whole thing a really unpleasant experience.
3:54:57 > 3:55:01Not only not funny, but really meretricious and grim.
3:55:01 > 3:55:03The idea that we sit there and laugh at these people,
3:55:03 > 3:55:06when we're already encouraged to laugh at them on the programme,
3:55:06 > 3:55:09and, also, to Saf's point - I think this is important -
3:55:09 > 3:55:12not only will it not transport out of Britain, AT ALL,
3:55:12 > 3:55:15the idea that anybody outside of the country
3:55:15 > 3:55:17would even UNDERSTAND most of the jokes is ridiculous.
3:55:17 > 3:55:19It might not make it outside London!
3:55:19 > 3:55:23But it also is going to date in about 30 seconds - it's already dated.
3:55:23 > 3:55:26It treats the X Factor as if it matters,
3:55:26 > 3:55:28and people are ceasing to watch it.
3:55:28 > 3:55:29And Dermot O'Leary as a target?
3:55:29 > 3:55:33- Yeah. But I think you may be taking it a bit too seriously.- No!
3:55:33 > 3:55:36Don't fall for the dark side, Saf!
3:55:36 > 3:55:38No, that's a cheap argument!
3:55:38 > 3:55:41- But the guy who plays... - Hang on, let him finish.
3:55:41 > 3:55:44The guy who plays Liam O'Deary, he nails that brilliantly!
3:55:44 > 3:55:46But it's not Liam O'DREARY,
3:55:46 > 3:55:49it's Liam O'Deary - they can't even do that right.
3:55:49 > 3:55:51ALL SPEAK AT ONCE
3:55:51 > 3:55:53And how big is "Nailing Dermot O'Leary"?
3:55:53 > 3:55:55But hang on, hang on...
3:55:55 > 3:55:58If you think of it, not as satire, but as panto at the Palladium
3:55:58 > 3:56:00it's actually quite entertaining.
3:56:00 > 3:56:02That's disgusting and degrading
3:56:02 > 3:56:05of 100 years of extraordinary entertainment at the Palladium.
3:56:05 > 3:56:07Cowell brings everything down in a big chaos of ruins
3:56:07 > 3:56:09and he's now done it to the London Palladium.
3:56:09 > 3:56:12I think you're right in the sense that the targets...
3:56:12 > 3:56:13Just right, Saf. Just right.
3:56:13 > 3:56:16The Cheryl Cole character is a bit of a parody.
3:56:16 > 3:56:18Not just "A bit of a parody" - it's not funny!
3:56:18 > 3:56:21What do you mean Cheryl Cole? A Geordie character called Geordie?
3:56:21 > 3:56:24- That's the level of the wit. - Exactly. That's not witty.
3:56:24 > 3:56:28The hunchback singing in the style of Eminem is kind of funny.
3:56:28 > 3:56:31Maybe a little.
3:56:31 > 3:56:34I basically felt, most of the time, I'm not taking it seriously, at all,
3:56:34 > 3:56:37I was watching something that was written by very clever sixth formers.
3:56:37 > 3:56:39It was nothing like funny enough.
3:56:39 > 3:56:41The jokes were so obvious,
3:56:41 > 3:56:43the targets were so broad...
3:56:43 > 3:56:46You know, you do have to take it a little seriously, Saf,
3:56:46 > 3:56:48because this is the reduction, the removal,
3:56:48 > 3:56:51and the wiping out of all levels of discernment and discrimination.
3:56:51 > 3:56:53What, you mean the programme, or...?
3:56:53 > 3:56:55The sensibility, the banality.
3:56:55 > 3:56:57- All of that.- There's a synergy between the two of them.
3:56:57 > 3:57:00It's like the '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s, Noughties never happened.
3:57:00 > 3:57:03It's a weird combination that Cowell manages to pull off
3:57:03 > 3:57:05of a weird '50s version of music hall,
3:57:05 > 3:57:08but exploiting the technology to make his enormous amount of cash.
3:57:08 > 3:57:11And then he goes out and somehow arranges a musical,
3:57:11 > 3:57:15that makes it an extraordinary thing, that he makes a load of cash,
3:57:15 > 3:57:18as if somehow turning him into an alien,
3:57:18 > 3:57:21and I'm giving the ending away, somehow makes it OK.
3:57:21 > 3:57:23I think you should take it seriously.
3:57:23 > 3:57:26It's representative of the removal of critical dimension.
3:57:26 > 3:57:28I think the target of the production misses
3:57:28 > 3:57:31by having a go at Cowell, having a go at the contestants,
3:57:31 > 3:57:33and not having a go at the audience...
3:57:33 > 3:57:36- They DON'T have a go at Cowell. - ..for watching it. They do sort of.
3:57:36 > 3:57:38- They don't have a go at Cowell! - ALL SPEAK AT ONCE
3:57:38 > 3:57:40Or the culture, the whole idea
3:57:40 > 3:57:42of "What are we trying to achieve through this?"
3:57:42 > 3:57:45But that's why I'm saying it's as much a celebration as a parody.
3:57:45 > 3:57:48- Absolutely.- More than a celebration, it's like an affirmation.- Exactly.
3:57:48 > 3:57:51- "I can have a musical written about me."- It's a religious experience!
3:57:51 > 3:57:53Supposed to be.
3:57:53 > 3:57:55"I've backed it, I've supported it, arranged it, I'm in it.
3:57:55 > 3:57:58"I am the whole hero of it" - unbelievable narcissism!
3:57:58 > 3:58:00- I did laugh, I'm sorry. - I can't believe it!
3:58:00 > 3:58:04- I did laugh at various moments. - Then I hit you. I remember it well.
3:58:04 > 3:58:08OK, let's move on from something that was a parody of the X Factor
3:58:08 > 3:58:10to a musical that was actually a parody
3:58:10 > 3:58:13of the genre of musicals themselves.
3:58:13 > 3:58:14What did you think of Urinetown?
3:58:14 > 3:58:17I have to say, I read a lot about Urinetown when it came out
3:58:17 > 3:58:18on Broadway over 10 years ago now.
3:58:18 > 3:58:20And it got somewhat mixed reviews,
3:58:20 > 3:58:22so I wasn't sure what to make of it.
3:58:22 > 3:58:24And of course that title is very off-putting. Erm...
3:58:24 > 3:58:28- Did you think so? I thought it was rather enticing!- Not for me.
3:58:28 > 3:58:31Anyway, but, so... DON'T let the title put you off.
3:58:31 > 3:58:34It's one of the best things I've seen in a REALLY long time.
3:58:34 > 3:58:36And, actually, not having seen the Broadway production,
3:58:36 > 3:58:39from what I've read, I think Jamie Lloyd's production...
3:58:39 > 3:58:42I think that brought a really welcome darkness and edginess to it.
3:58:42 > 3:58:45They've found in the show, in the book,
3:58:45 > 3:58:47they brought out in their production
3:58:47 > 3:58:48the strains of Kurt Weil,
3:58:48 > 3:58:53and of, particularly, Sondheim's Sweeney Todd,
3:58:53 > 3:58:57that are in the music, and they've actually made that part of the production.
3:58:57 > 3:59:02So the show is willing to both be a musical send-up of musicals,
3:59:02 > 3:59:04and also a dark exploration, a dark satire,
3:59:04 > 3:59:07of the dystopian things that were talked about...
3:59:07 > 3:59:10- And dealing with some pretty dark themes.- Very serious issues.
3:59:10 > 3:59:13I think you're right that the title is misleadingly perky
3:59:13 > 3:59:15compared to the content.
3:59:15 > 3:59:19But I liked the fact that it mixed that jauntiness of the music
3:59:19 > 3:59:21with a very cynical heart.
3:59:21 > 3:59:23The other thing I thought it shared
3:59:23 > 3:59:27with I Can't Sing! is that the performances were really...
3:59:27 > 3:59:30I think Jenna Russell, as Pennywise, was absolutely fantastic.
3:59:30 > 3:59:34And also, I thought it was an amazing set.
3:59:34 > 3:59:37- It had this kind of circular urinal structure.- Absolutely.
3:59:37 > 3:59:40It's interesting that I Can't Sing! clearly is aware of this as well,
3:59:40 > 3:59:44because it tried to incorporate some of that kind of meta-level
3:59:44 > 3:59:45in its own sense of itself.
3:59:45 > 3:59:48And that is interesting, because in Urinetown,
3:59:48 > 3:59:51it's all very well mocking and parodying the excesses
3:59:51 > 3:59:54of a musical and the cliches and the tropes, as we just discussed.
3:59:54 > 3:59:57And yet in the end, as much as you mock them, you are relying on them
3:59:57 > 3:59:59for the ultimate emotional power of the musical.
3:59:59 > 4:00:02But isn't that good? You're having your cake and eating it.
4:00:02 > 4:00:05- You have to be very careful that you pull it off.- They did pull it off.
4:00:05 > 4:00:07Well...yeah, kind of.
4:00:07 > 4:00:09But, you know, that is the difference
4:00:09 > 4:00:11between one and the other,
4:00:11 > 4:00:14that this one pulled it off, because it's basically saying
4:00:14 > 4:00:16these are cliches, this is ridiculous,
4:00:16 > 4:00:17the whole idea is ridiculous,
4:00:17 > 4:00:21and yet the best bits of it use those cliches to really lift you up.
4:00:21 > 4:00:23What I thought was interesting
4:00:23 > 4:00:25was that it subverted the genre of the musical,
4:00:25 > 4:00:30but also subverted what we thought was going to happen with the plot.
4:00:30 > 4:00:33You start off with rather simplistic politics about evil capitalism,
4:00:33 > 4:00:35without giving too much away,
4:00:35 > 4:00:38but then that is subverted and I thought that was clever.
4:00:38 > 4:00:40That's why, in comparison of the two, Saf,
4:00:40 > 4:00:43and I'll bring it back to the first one which we mentioned,
4:00:43 > 4:00:46it's the difference between the two in terms of one being grown-up
4:00:46 > 4:00:51and intelligent and ingenious and the other being crude and ugly.
4:00:51 > 4:00:53But isn't it partly that both of them
4:00:53 > 4:00:56confirm your prejudices in different ways?
4:00:56 > 4:00:58I guess your mindset would be more sympathetic
4:00:58 > 4:00:59to some of the ideology in Urinetown
4:00:59 > 4:01:01and therefore, you're more sympathetic.
4:01:01 > 4:01:04You're probably not somebody who watches X Factor
4:01:04 > 4:01:07and therefore, you have an ingrained hostility towards it anyway.
4:01:07 > 4:01:09It isn't just about the content, it's about the execution.
4:01:09 > 4:01:11There is no comparison in the execution of the two.
4:01:11 > 4:01:13We haven't yet talked about the music.
4:01:13 > 4:01:19The music in X Factor is utter... The music in Urinetown is fantastic.
4:01:19 > 4:01:23Yes, it's sending up the cliches, but it's also reinvigorating them.
4:01:23 > 4:01:24It's bringing it back to life.
4:01:24 > 4:01:26If it really wants to be...
4:01:26 > 4:01:29Again, this critical language, as we now know, is dead.
4:01:29 > 4:01:32But if it truly wants to be five stars instead of 4.75 stars,
4:01:32 > 4:01:34for me, it needed that last little bit more
4:01:34 > 4:01:37of being genuinely original, rather than a very good parody.
4:01:37 > 4:01:39To pick up what Martha said, I like the fact
4:01:39 > 4:01:42that it didn't completely play to your liberal prejudices
4:01:42 > 4:01:44about what you thought the story was going to be like.
4:01:44 > 4:01:48Absolutely. You called it cynical, and quite rightly.
4:01:48 > 4:01:50It has a couple of very surprising moments.
4:01:50 > 4:01:52I've seen a lot of musicals in my time and I love musicals
4:01:52 > 4:01:57and I very much enjoyed those quotations... It's picking up all the great traditions.
4:01:57 > 4:02:00But it doesn't just subvert... It subverts all kinds of things,
4:02:00 > 4:02:02without giving too much away,
4:02:02 > 4:02:05and there is one moment in particular that is really surprising,
4:02:05 > 4:02:07and it is fresh and innovative.
4:02:07 > 4:02:09Is that the only way it can sustain itself, though,
4:02:09 > 4:02:11ultimately, this far in,
4:02:11 > 4:02:13by having that sheen of self-deprecation?
4:02:13 > 4:02:15Saf, do you think it beckons
4:02:15 > 4:02:18a different kind of era for musicals
4:02:18 > 4:02:21on the stage in this country, in the sense that The Book Of Mormon
4:02:21 > 4:02:24was a very satirical musical and very different
4:02:24 > 4:02:25and is doing very well?
4:02:25 > 4:02:28Perhaps that is a different way of moving away
4:02:28 > 4:02:31from just the jukebox musicals that we've seen so many of.
4:02:31 > 4:02:33It's interesting about how this idea of both I Can't Sing!
4:02:33 > 4:02:35and Urinetown have that sort of knowing element.
4:02:35 > 4:02:38You wonder whether that's now because they have to assume
4:02:38 > 4:02:40that the audiences are so familiar with all those tropes
4:02:40 > 4:02:42that there has to be some aspect of it.
4:02:42 > 4:02:45But the thing you mentioned about this idea of co-opting,
4:02:45 > 4:02:47owning the joke in some ways,
4:02:47 > 4:02:50whether it's Cowell funding I Can't Sing!
4:02:50 > 4:02:53or the Mormons actually using The Book Of Mormon
4:02:53 > 4:02:56as a recruiting thing, that is also interesting.
4:02:56 > 4:03:01The distance between who we mock and who owns the joke has changed.
4:03:01 > 4:03:05Cowell doesn't want to so much own the joke as own the culture.
4:03:05 > 4:03:08What has happened in that world is that once upon a time,
4:03:08 > 4:03:11it was very nice that they all made their money and they had hits,
4:03:11 > 4:03:13but they did not own the cultural world.
4:03:13 > 4:03:14Now they want to own that world as well,
4:03:14 > 4:03:17which goes back to the fact that critics are being wiped out.
4:03:17 > 4:03:23That is why it's important, in a way. Cowell makes lots of money.
4:03:23 > 4:03:24He manipulates an audience.
4:03:24 > 4:03:27It's wonderful in the sense of what he does,
4:03:27 > 4:03:30but he also wants credibility.
4:03:30 > 4:03:33And he will look to The Book Of Mormon and Urinetown to get that.
4:03:33 > 4:03:36They want both. They want the money and the credibility.
4:03:36 > 4:03:39But Urinetown is our hope. There are pockets of resistance.
4:03:39 > 4:03:41Well, throw it in Cowell's face!
4:03:41 > 4:03:45On that note, the rather odd idea that Urinetown is our hope,
4:03:45 > 4:03:48let me tell you that it's on at the St James Theatre in London.
4:03:48 > 4:03:51I Can't Sing! is on at the Palladium.
4:03:51 > 4:03:54Now, from Angels to Call The Midwife,
4:03:54 > 4:03:56nurses have an understanding allure for dramatists.
4:03:56 > 4:03:59After all, you have got attractive young women
4:03:59 > 4:04:01grappling with life and death.
4:04:01 > 4:04:04The Crimson Field, a new prime-time drama for BBC One
4:04:04 > 4:04:07which stars Hermione Norris and Oona Chaplin,
4:04:07 > 4:04:09tells a rather bleak story
4:04:09 > 4:04:12of volunteers coming to the trenches of Northern France.
4:04:12 > 4:04:15It's just one element of a wide-ranging BBC season
4:04:15 > 4:04:18of programming to mark the centenary of the First World War.
4:04:18 > 4:04:20In Britain's Great War,
4:04:20 > 4:04:26Jeremy Paxman explored the history of this most brutal of conflicts.
4:04:26 > 4:04:28It was August 4th, 1914.
4:04:28 > 4:04:32The clock was ticking to catastrophe.
4:04:33 > 4:04:36The fact-based drama 37 Days took us behind diplomatic doors,
4:04:36 > 4:04:38chronicling the countdown
4:04:38 > 4:04:43to one of the darkest chapters in European history.
4:04:45 > 4:04:49And now, World War I, the nurses' tale.
4:04:49 > 4:04:51Set in a field hospital in Northern France,
4:04:51 > 4:04:54Sarah Phelps' drama, The Crimson Field,
4:04:54 > 4:04:56follows a crop of volunteer nurses
4:04:56 > 4:05:00who arrive from Britain to ease the suffering of wounded soldiers,
4:05:00 > 4:05:04and who are faced with spartan living conditions.
4:05:04 > 4:05:05The rules are clear.
4:05:07 > 4:05:09No scent, powder or paint is to be worn.
4:05:10 > 4:05:13No fancy stockings, boots, shoes, belts. No trivialities.
4:05:13 > 4:05:17Nothing that might invite, provoke or inflame masculine attention.
4:05:17 > 4:05:19But perhaps, Marshall, you are a trivial young lady
4:05:19 > 4:05:21and masculine attention is what you're hoping for.
4:05:21 > 4:05:23It was only a splash of rosewater, Matron.
4:05:26 > 4:05:32Matron, we all understand the rules, and will abide by them utterly.
4:05:32 > 4:05:34Nursing the men to the very best of our ability
4:05:34 > 4:05:35is what we are ready to do.
4:05:37 > 4:05:38I'll be the judge of that.
4:05:42 > 4:05:46The nurses have arrived at the hospital with little training,
4:05:46 > 4:05:47and are forced to adapt quickly
4:05:47 > 4:05:50to the horrific realities of the front line,
4:05:50 > 4:05:54where their patients' injuries are psychological as well as physical.
4:05:56 > 4:05:58HE SOBS
4:06:03 > 4:06:08And, Sarah, although we saw the agony of a male officer there
4:06:08 > 4:06:09this is nonetheless a story
4:06:09 > 4:06:12- very much from a female perspective. - It is.
4:06:12 > 4:06:15And I really enjoyed it, more than I thought I would.
4:06:15 > 4:06:16I mean, it's a soap opera
4:06:16 > 4:06:19and I don't think we should treat it as much more than that.
4:06:19 > 4:06:22But it's a pretty intelligent soap opera, and I found it engaging.
4:06:22 > 4:06:24One of the things I liked about it
4:06:24 > 4:06:27was that it managed to be sympathetic to these women
4:06:27 > 4:06:30from a more or less 21st century perspective
4:06:30 > 4:06:33in terms of being interested in the kinds of struggles
4:06:33 > 4:06:35that we would find interesting and engaging,
4:06:35 > 4:06:38but without falling back on anachronism.
4:06:38 > 4:06:41So the women are actually reasonably representative
4:06:41 > 4:06:44of the actual experiences of women.
4:06:44 > 4:06:46It's not as with some programmes,
4:06:46 > 4:06:49where you have women who are basically 21st century women
4:06:49 > 4:06:50who get parachuted in,
4:06:50 > 4:06:54Doctor Who-style, back into a story, and have all of those attitudes.
4:06:54 > 4:06:57There is a bit of that, of course, but for the most part,
4:06:57 > 4:06:59I think they are actually pretty accurately done,
4:06:59 > 4:07:01and the men are also well rounded.
4:07:01 > 4:07:04There isn't a sense that this is a kind of woman-centred drama
4:07:04 > 4:07:07where the men are cardboard characters.
4:07:07 > 4:07:09As I say, it's a soap opera
4:07:09 > 4:07:11set on the battlefields of the First World War.
4:07:11 > 4:07:14The soap opera, for me, was too overwhelming.
4:07:14 > 4:07:17Again, this looked like it was something out of the '70s.
4:07:17 > 4:07:18There was no sense of what is going on
4:07:18 > 4:07:21in great television around the world at the moment.
4:07:21 > 4:07:24If you're going to treat this subject seriously, as you should,
4:07:24 > 4:07:27I would really want that to be involved.
4:07:27 > 4:07:30Every character is a cliche, every situation is a cliche.
4:07:30 > 4:07:32The music is extraordinarily manipulative.
4:07:32 > 4:07:35It's empty, it's airless, it's too antiseptic.
4:07:35 > 4:07:38So ultimately, I got more and more annoyed with it.
4:07:38 > 4:07:41I don't think I'll be sticking with it at all.
4:07:41 > 4:07:45I suppose one of the attempted complexities was the way
4:07:45 > 4:07:48we were shown the nurses dealing with the front line,
4:07:48 > 4:07:52but we also get a sense of the chasm at the home front as well.
4:07:52 > 4:07:55So when one patient's wife visits him,
4:07:55 > 4:07:56we see this terrible difference
4:07:56 > 4:07:58between the hell that the men have gone through
4:07:58 > 4:08:03and the inability of the families to connect in any way with that.
4:08:03 > 4:08:07You do, but I would go along more with Paul.
4:08:07 > 4:08:11- It felt too sedate for me. - Didn't feel like hell.
4:08:11 > 4:08:12I'm surprised you found it engaging.
4:08:12 > 4:08:14I fell asleep the first time I watched it
4:08:14 > 4:08:16and I was watching in the afternoon,
4:08:16 > 4:08:19so there was no reason for me to go to sleep at all.
4:08:19 > 4:08:22I found the characters quite cliched.
4:08:22 > 4:08:24The idea of the tyrannical matron...
4:08:24 > 4:08:26Nurse Ratched!
4:08:26 > 4:08:29..the guy who is a captain or whatever,
4:08:29 > 4:08:32he's a bit of a charmer and he's going to try and get the woman.
4:08:32 > 4:08:34And I thought the music was not just manipulative,
4:08:34 > 4:08:37it was just coated in strings, every scene.
4:08:37 > 4:08:40- Somebody has got to wake up to that. - I thought the compromises they made,
4:08:40 > 4:08:42for a territory that is very interesting
4:08:42 > 4:08:44and I did not know much about,
4:08:44 > 4:08:46but the compromises they have made to make it something
4:08:46 > 4:08:50that would work on a Sunday evening on BBC One were too great for me.
4:08:50 > 4:08:52The parachuting thing is interesting, though,
4:08:52 > 4:08:55because this felt like an interesting dynamic between people,
4:08:55 > 4:08:59but the fact that it was World War I was almost irrelevant.
4:08:59 > 4:09:01It was just a convenient set of circumstances.
4:09:01 > 4:09:03It was the theatre, the stage.
4:09:03 > 4:09:06We never felt that we were embedded in that history and that moment.
4:09:06 > 4:09:09This is a post-watershed drama,
4:09:09 > 4:09:13and particularly in the second episode, it gets quite dark.
4:09:13 > 4:09:15I think it does get dark. I take your point,
4:09:15 > 4:09:20and certainly if you compare it to the really great prestige drama
4:09:20 > 4:09:22that is coming out of HBO and America...
4:09:22 > 4:09:26- Which we should. - ..it doesn't stand up to that.
4:09:26 > 4:09:28It's a weird thing about British television.
4:09:28 > 4:09:30It seems to be rooted in its theatre.
4:09:30 > 4:09:32It had a lot of money thrown at it.
4:09:32 > 4:09:37But I think Martha's point is also right. I think it is finding its way.
4:09:37 > 4:09:39The first episode is just set-up.
4:09:39 > 4:09:42The second episode, the violence is starting to come in.
4:09:42 > 4:09:45There is a sense in which we are actually seeing,
4:09:45 > 4:09:48we don't want to give anything away,
4:09:48 > 4:09:51but there is a character who self-harms.
4:09:51 > 4:09:53So they are starting... It is a soap opera.
4:09:53 > 4:09:55It's a whisper away from French And Saunders.
4:09:55 > 4:09:56If you put it next to...
4:09:56 > 4:10:01I am among those who thought Downton Abbey was massively overrated,
4:10:01 > 4:10:03just so silly, cotton candy.
4:10:03 > 4:10:06If you put it next to that, it starts to look like
4:10:06 > 4:10:09at least it has the courage of its historical convictions.
4:10:09 > 4:10:13- It understands its own context.- Not a good comparison, though, is it?
4:10:13 > 4:10:15I had low expectations, I grant you!
4:10:15 > 4:10:17On the question of historical convictions,
4:10:17 > 4:10:21I suppose what it's prefiguring is the immense social change
4:10:21 > 4:10:24that is about to happen after the war to women's lives.
4:10:24 > 4:10:27Yeah - we were about to move on to the fact the BBC are going to do this for four years.
4:10:27 > 4:10:30- LAUGHTER - That's what I find really strange -
4:10:30 > 4:10:33the idea that this is embedded in a big four-year theme.
4:10:33 > 4:10:36Do we call it a celebration? What do we call it? Anniversary?
4:10:36 > 4:10:39I'm slightly concerned about that, personally, cos I just find that...
4:10:39 > 4:10:41The BBC, with the best of intentions, as usual,
4:10:41 > 4:10:44seem to have made...a complete cock-up.
4:10:44 > 4:10:46The idea we will live through this for four years...
4:10:46 > 4:10:50In two years' time, what is...? Are we celebrating?
4:10:50 > 4:10:52Nobody is talking about it as a celebration.
4:10:52 > 4:10:54What are they talking about it as?
4:10:54 > 4:10:56It's a hugely ambitious season of programming,
4:10:56 > 4:11:00covering historical documentaries from different perspectives,
4:11:00 > 4:11:02- schools' programmes, online... - For four years?
4:11:02 > 4:11:05I wouldn't criticise that. What I find quite interesting is...
4:11:05 > 4:11:09One of the best programmes, I think, has been The Great War,
4:11:09 > 4:11:12the Great War interviews, which is these interviews from the 1960s.
4:11:12 > 4:11:14That series was a 26-part series.
4:11:14 > 4:11:17It just struck me about what event programming is like now -
4:11:17 > 4:11:20for event programming, it'll either be something like The X Factor
4:11:20 > 4:11:23or we're going to have to throw 2,500 hours at something.
4:11:23 > 4:11:26Whereas, in the past, you could have done 26 hours on something.
4:11:26 > 4:11:29I can't imagine now being to able to do a 26-part series
4:11:29 > 4:11:30on something like this.
4:11:30 > 4:11:33It seems to me the nature of what we do for event programming...
4:11:33 > 4:11:37Four years seems to compensate for making great television.
4:11:37 > 4:11:40It's not about making it a series of occasions.
4:11:40 > 4:11:43It's about... One thing that had been brilliant would have done it.
4:11:43 > 4:11:45One thing that would have been brilliant.
4:11:45 > 4:11:46If you look at the First World War,
4:11:46 > 4:11:49and it is so many aspects that continue to alter...
4:11:49 > 4:11:51I mean, if you look, for example,
4:11:51 > 4:11:53at the Ukrainian crisis at the moment
4:11:53 > 4:11:56and the way we've taken peace in Europe for granted for so long,
4:11:56 > 4:11:58we look back at some of the historical documentaries -
4:11:58 > 4:12:01doesn't it give us an insight into our own age?
4:12:01 > 4:12:03I'm not presupposing one way or the other whether the four years...
4:12:03 > 4:12:05I think it'll be all in the execution.
4:12:05 > 4:12:09It will entirely depend on whether the programmes can continue to deepen
4:12:09 > 4:12:12and, exactly, make those kinds of connections, to draw out context...
4:12:12 > 4:12:16But if...if it's four years of The Crimson Field, you know,
4:12:16 > 4:12:17maybe not so much.
4:12:17 > 4:12:19It needs to be much more metaphorical.
4:12:19 > 4:12:23Are we going to do this is 2045? 2039-2045?
4:12:23 > 4:12:25It's such a bizarre set-up.
4:12:25 > 4:12:27I have to say, I find it really strange.
4:12:27 > 4:12:29We'll have to wait and see what's yet on offer -
4:12:29 > 4:12:31you've not liked it so far, but there's more to come.
4:12:31 > 4:12:34The Crimson Field is on BBC One from next Sunday.
4:12:34 > 4:12:38Do stay tuned to BBC Four tonight for The Poet Who Loved The War -
4:12:38 > 4:12:42a documentary about Ivor Gurney that's coming up next at 9 o'clock.
4:12:42 > 4:12:45Now, you may well know him best as Moss,
4:12:45 > 4:12:48the geeky genius in The IT Crowd,
4:12:48 > 4:12:50but Richard Ayoade is carving out a career
4:12:50 > 4:12:53as one of Britain's most promising film-makers.
4:12:53 > 4:12:56His debut feature, the quirky coming-of-age story Submarine,
4:12:56 > 4:12:58was widely praised.
4:12:58 > 4:12:59Now comes The Double,
4:12:59 > 4:13:03starring Jesse Eisenberg from The Social Network.
4:13:03 > 4:13:06It's an adaptation of an early work by Dostoevsky,
4:13:06 > 4:13:08the disturbing tale of an office worker
4:13:08 > 4:13:12whose life unravels when a doppelganger walks into his life.
4:13:12 > 4:13:17Eisenberg plays both of the film's central roles.
4:13:17 > 4:13:20First, he's Simon James, a meek office worker
4:13:20 > 4:13:25who's disparaged by his own mother and undervalued by his colleagues.
4:13:25 > 4:13:28- Say, "Hello, Melanie." - Hello, Melanie.
4:13:28 > 4:13:30- Stanley here is going to be your mentor.- Yes. What?
4:13:30 > 4:13:32An hour a day, at your discretion.
4:13:32 > 4:13:35- She's a good girl, but no head for figures.- Yeah.
4:13:35 > 4:13:38Alienated at work and painfully awkward,
4:13:38 > 4:13:42Simon's one ray of light is the object of his unrequited love -
4:13:42 > 4:13:47photocopy girl Hannah, played by Mia Wasikowska.
4:13:52 > 4:13:53Hi.
4:13:57 > 4:14:02Simon's life is turned upside down with the arrival of James Simon,
4:14:02 > 4:14:05a man who, in all physical respects, is his exact double -
4:14:05 > 4:14:09a fact that no-one, apart from Simon, seems to notice.
4:14:09 > 4:14:11Did he remind you of anyone?
4:14:12 > 4:14:13Who did you have in mind?
4:14:13 > 4:14:15Me...for instance.
4:14:16 > 4:14:18While he's identical in appearance,
4:14:18 > 4:14:22James's personality and manner couldn't be more different.
4:14:22 > 4:14:24- Anything else?- No, that's it. - Are you sure?
4:14:24 > 4:14:25Just give me the damn food.
4:14:27 > 4:14:28What? I'm hungry.
4:14:28 > 4:14:31No, it's just...I don't know, I would have never done that.
4:14:31 > 4:14:32You don't like eggs?
4:14:32 > 4:14:35No, I mean, I just...don't think I'd feel comfortable
4:14:35 > 4:14:36talking to someone like that.
4:14:36 > 4:14:40She's a waitress - if you don't tell her what you actually want, how can she do her job?
4:14:40 > 4:14:44The newcomer's instant popularity and incursion into his life
4:14:44 > 4:14:47sends Simon to the brink of his own sanity.
4:14:47 > 4:14:49- I want you to stop seeing Hannah. - What else?
4:14:49 > 4:14:52I want you to tell Papadopoulos I've been doing all your work for you.
4:14:52 > 4:14:54This man...is a fraud.
4:14:55 > 4:14:58Ayoade's darkly comic film
4:14:58 > 4:15:01has shades of Terry Gilliam and David Lynch,
4:15:01 > 4:15:05but it's clear that he hasn't forgotten his British roots,
4:15:05 > 4:15:08with former IT Crowd colleague Chris O'Dowd and Chris Morris
4:15:08 > 4:15:11making cameo appearances.
4:15:11 > 4:15:14- You don't exist any more.- Excuse me? - You're no longer in the system.
4:15:14 > 4:15:15Well, put me back in the system.
4:15:15 > 4:15:17- I can't put you back in the system. - Why?
4:15:17 > 4:15:20You don't exist - I can't put someone who doesn't exist in the system.
4:15:21 > 4:15:23So, that's it?
4:15:23 > 4:15:27That's it. I'll leave you to make your own arrangements.
4:15:32 > 4:15:34So, Paul, we've got a flavour of the film there -
4:15:34 > 4:15:37do you think Richard Ayoade is an interesting film-maker?
4:15:37 > 4:15:42It reminded me a little bit of when newcomers make a demonstration tape
4:15:42 > 4:15:46of...of how good they might be as a film-maker, a kind of exercise.
4:15:46 > 4:15:50And as a 12-minute piece, I think it would have been quite interesting.
4:15:50 > 4:15:52But what I find strange, ultimately,
4:15:52 > 4:15:56is that to demonstrate a strange situation, you are so derivative.
4:15:56 > 4:15:58You can't get away from the fact
4:15:58 > 4:16:01that it's very beautifully done and elegantly done,
4:16:01 > 4:16:06but there's so much of the Gilliam, Cronenberg, Coen, Lynch, Hitchcock
4:16:06 > 4:16:08that it is, ultimately, familiar.
4:16:08 > 4:16:10So if you're trying to create a strange world
4:16:10 > 4:16:14and a strange set of circumstances, this Kafka-esque thing -
4:16:14 > 4:16:16The Trial, Orson Welles, obviously, as well -
4:16:16 > 4:16:18it seems, again, paradoxical
4:16:18 > 4:16:20that what you're actually giving us is the familiar.
4:16:20 > 4:16:23So as much as I enjoyed it as a ten-minute demo tape
4:16:23 > 4:16:26of the possibility that he will become a great director,
4:16:26 > 4:16:29the fact that it lacked originality was, ultimately, its worst point.
4:16:29 > 4:16:32You could say that the fusion of all these different influences
4:16:32 > 4:16:35did give it its very strong visual style.
4:16:35 > 4:16:37It does have a very strong style and a very strong mood -
4:16:37 > 4:16:42it sustains a very strong, kind of ambient creepiness.
4:16:42 > 4:16:43It does it very well.
4:16:43 > 4:16:46But within about three minutes, you're thinking about Brazil - it's hard not to be.
4:16:46 > 4:16:48I agree with Paul - ultimately, it's derivative.
4:16:48 > 4:16:51For me, I had less of a problem with that, because -
4:16:51 > 4:16:54and we seem to be dealing very much in the post-modern this week -
4:16:54 > 4:16:56I mean, it's kind of a meta-language, it's pastiche,
4:16:56 > 4:16:58in the way we've been talking about.
4:16:58 > 4:16:59I don't have a problem with that.
4:16:59 > 4:17:02My problem was that it was ultimately one note, and it was one joke,
4:17:02 > 4:17:05and it wanted that mood to carry everything.
4:17:05 > 4:17:09And I think that it just... It got flat, after a while.
4:17:09 > 4:17:12It's sustained, but it doesn't actually go anywhere.
4:17:12 > 4:17:15And I think the other issue, for me, with it
4:17:15 > 4:17:18is the problem of trying to film that sort of story -
4:17:18 > 4:17:20The Double or, in the English tradition, say,
4:17:20 > 4:17:21The Turn Of The Screw -
4:17:21 > 4:17:24where the complexity of the story actually depends on,
4:17:24 > 4:17:27when we read it, being inside somebody's consciousness
4:17:27 > 4:17:30and not knowing about the external reality of what they're looking at.
4:17:30 > 4:17:34When you film it, by definition, it becomes empirically true,
4:17:34 > 4:17:35and that actually messes with the doubt
4:17:35 > 4:17:39which is at the heart of the joy of the literary experiment.
4:17:39 > 4:17:42Because in the literary experiment, you're not certain
4:17:42 > 4:17:43if the other person is actually there...
4:17:43 > 4:17:47Imagining it or dreaming it or projecting it -
4:17:47 > 4:17:49but when we're sitting there as the audience,
4:17:49 > 4:17:51seeing that there's another person there,
4:17:51 > 4:17:53it changes the nature of the game.
4:17:53 > 4:17:54Suddenly, there is a double.
4:17:54 > 4:17:58It's interesting - you mentioned this idea of it being a ten-minute film or whatever, a showcase,
4:17:58 > 4:18:01but it seemed to be a showcase more for the set design
4:18:01 > 4:18:03and the production design and the colour grading
4:18:03 > 4:18:05as opposed to the writing or directing.
4:18:05 > 4:18:07What I found was actually, at the heart of it,
4:18:07 > 4:18:09this existential thing about a person who believes
4:18:09 > 4:18:11that there is a better version of themselves
4:18:11 > 4:18:14that they can't reach, that felt like it was drowned
4:18:14 > 4:18:17by being overly mannered and being overly styled.
4:18:17 > 4:18:20So there was an emotional pain or connection that you just didn't feel
4:18:20 > 4:18:23because you were admiring the composition of the shots too much.
4:18:23 > 4:18:25I thought that whole idea of the doppelganger
4:18:25 > 4:18:26was quite intriguing -
4:18:26 > 4:18:29the idea of projecting onto another persona,
4:18:29 > 4:18:32a stronger version of yourself, actually destroys you.
4:18:32 > 4:18:36It's a very familiar road to go down, though - that's the problem,
4:18:36 > 4:18:38unless you can introduce something
4:18:38 > 4:18:41genuinely original to make it slightly chilling.
4:18:41 > 4:18:43It did make me think more and more, as I was watching,
4:18:43 > 4:18:46that I'm about to be replaced by Phil Tufnell.
4:18:46 > 4:18:49I have to say that. I was slightly chilled by that,
4:18:49 > 4:18:51because there was a grain of truth in that.
4:18:51 > 4:18:54- I'd like to see that as a film. - That's more original than this.
4:18:54 > 4:18:57I mean, the idea of projecting onto a stronger version of yourself -
4:18:57 > 4:18:58that's Fight Club.
4:18:58 > 4:19:03I mean... It is... The Double is from 1846, I think,
4:19:03 > 4:19:04is when Dostoevsky writes it.
4:19:04 > 4:19:07And then we have Jekyll and Hyde, and all of the kind of, you know,
4:19:07 > 4:19:09further avatars of it.
4:19:09 > 4:19:11It's not a new idea. It doesn't need to be...
4:19:11 > 4:19:13It's in most films, oddly.
4:19:13 > 4:19:15Which is fine - it's actually a really important trope,
4:19:15 > 4:19:17something we come back to,
4:19:17 > 4:19:19but it seems to think it's original in a way that it isn't.
4:19:19 > 4:19:22Was it the coldness, the detachment, that was the problem?
4:19:22 > 4:19:23I found it was just too chilly -
4:19:23 > 4:19:26it seemed that the work had been done in creating
4:19:26 > 4:19:29this weird set which sort of looked both futuristic and retro
4:19:29 > 4:19:32rather than making the characters complex.
4:19:32 > 4:19:35I find him quite a chilly and cold kind of director and writer.
4:19:35 > 4:19:37It feels like somebody who basically...
4:19:37 > 4:19:38You mentioned the showcase -
4:19:38 > 4:19:41it's also somebody who seems to want to advertise his influences,
4:19:41 > 4:19:45whether literary or whether it's the slightly offbeat music choices.
4:19:45 > 4:19:48But you lose the heart because you show too much of your brain.
4:19:48 > 4:19:50That's interesting too, cos it's part of the modern world,
4:19:50 > 4:19:53and in a way, because there's a kind of cultural amnesia,
4:19:53 > 4:19:56there is a world now when you can do something like this
4:19:56 > 4:19:59and play to people who aren't aware of all these references
4:19:59 > 4:20:01and respond to it as an original work.
4:20:01 > 4:20:03That's when it starts to become really interesting.
4:20:03 > 4:20:05On one hand, you say, "If someone came along now
4:20:05 > 4:20:10"and was just copying Picasso, or was just copying Shostakovich,
4:20:10 > 4:20:12"then we'd all go, 'You can't do that.'"
4:20:12 > 4:20:14Somehow, in this world, you can copy directly
4:20:14 > 4:20:18and we're supposed to go, "Yes, but lots of young people don't know where it's come from."
4:20:18 > 4:20:22You say "copy", but Sarah would say that it's referencing.
4:20:22 > 4:20:24Yeah, but it's more than that.
4:20:24 > 4:20:28What about Jesse Eisenberg, then? He's required to...
4:20:28 > 4:20:30It's a challenging thing for an actor to play two different...
4:20:30 > 4:20:32Oh, they love it. They LOVE it!
4:20:32 > 4:20:35- They do.- That's all they want to do, for goodness' sake!
4:20:35 > 4:20:38- Narcissism doubled. - God, can you imagine?
4:20:38 > 4:20:41Show me one actress or actor that wouldn't or couldn't do it.
4:20:41 > 4:20:43I think he does a good job with it.
4:20:43 > 4:20:45I personally think that he's a little bit miscast,
4:20:45 > 4:20:47only in the sense that -
4:20:47 > 4:20:50and it goes back to Saf's point about the distance of it,
4:20:50 > 4:20:55which I agree with - you have this very strong, stylised feel
4:20:55 > 4:20:59to the whole visual aesthetic, but he...
4:20:59 > 4:21:01I, personally, don't find him compelling.
4:21:01 > 4:21:04He doesn't have enough charisma to carry me forward.
4:21:04 > 4:21:07Technically, he does it very well, he's a good actor,
4:21:07 > 4:21:10but I think you need somebody with more star quality,
4:21:10 > 4:21:11who's going to bring this to life.
4:21:11 > 4:21:15But the main character, Simon James, couldn't have star quality by his very nature,
4:21:15 > 4:21:17- cos he was a neurotic... - James Simon can, so...
4:21:17 > 4:21:20I suppose it's about somebody who can show that they're in pain
4:21:20 > 4:21:23as a result of being that tortured. I don't think he conveyed that.
4:21:23 > 4:21:26It would be truly creepy if they'd got Simon Cowell to do it.
4:21:26 > 4:21:27LAUGHTER
4:21:27 > 4:21:29- Simon Cowell, interesting... - Cowell Simon.
4:21:29 > 4:21:31Cowell Simon - very good, Saf.
4:21:31 > 4:21:34Well, The Double is in cinemas from Friday.
4:21:34 > 4:21:36Songwriter and musician Ben Watt
4:21:36 > 4:21:38has spent much of the last three decades
4:21:38 > 4:21:41writing and performing with his partner, Tracey Thorn,
4:21:41 > 4:21:42in Everything But The Girl.
4:21:42 > 4:21:45This year, he's concentrating on his own projects.
4:21:45 > 4:21:47He recently published Romany And Tom,
4:21:47 > 4:21:50a memoir of his parents, which has garnered glowing reviews.
4:21:50 > 4:21:53And now, over 30 years since his first solo album,
4:21:53 > 4:21:55he's about to release another.
4:21:55 > 4:22:00Here's Ben Watt with Bernard Butler and the title track, Hendra.
4:22:00 > 4:22:02MUSIC: "Hendra" by Ben Watt
4:22:20 > 4:22:24# These rooms are cold but heavenly
4:22:24 > 4:22:26# And the sun is shining
4:22:30 > 4:22:35# You know what they say about silver and lining
4:22:38 > 4:22:41# Oh, Hendra
4:22:41 > 4:22:43# Oh, Hendra
4:22:43 > 4:22:47# I would walk this way again
4:22:48 > 4:22:54# Cos you make me feel as right as rain
4:23:05 > 4:23:07# I wish I'd studied harder now
4:23:07 > 4:23:10# Made something of myself
4:23:14 > 4:23:17# But instead I'm just a shopkeeper
4:23:17 > 4:23:21# But I mustn't blame myself
4:23:23 > 4:23:25# Oh, Hendra
4:23:25 > 4:23:27# Oh, Hendra
4:23:27 > 4:23:30# There's still so much to gain
4:23:33 > 4:23:39# You make me feel as right as rain
4:23:39 > 4:23:41# All the self-help books
4:23:41 > 4:23:43# Like the Dance With Life
4:23:43 > 4:23:47# Like the Feel The Fear And Do It Anyway
4:23:47 > 4:23:51# Sometimes I have them right here in my hand
4:23:51 > 4:23:56# And think it's easier for you to see
4:24:18 > 4:24:24# But I must allow these feelings and just let them fall
4:24:28 > 4:24:34# But sometimes I turn the radio up so loud just to drown them all
4:24:36 > 4:24:39# Oh, Hendra
4:24:39 > 4:24:40# Oh, Hendra
4:24:42 > 4:24:44# Where love is plain
4:24:47 > 4:24:54# You make me feel as right as rain
4:24:57 > 4:25:04# As right, not as wrong, as rain. #
4:25:11 > 4:25:14And there will be more from Ben Watt and Bernard Butler
4:25:14 > 4:25:16later on tonight's show.
4:25:16 > 4:25:20What makes you take offence? The use of the N-word?
4:25:20 > 4:25:23A cartoon mocking the prophet Muhammad?
4:25:23 > 4:25:25A joke about rape?
4:25:25 > 4:25:27A new book about those controversial issues
4:25:27 > 4:25:30argues that modern sensitivities are now so out-of-control
4:25:30 > 4:25:33that freedom of speech itself is under threat
4:25:33 > 4:25:35from left and right alike.
4:25:35 > 4:25:38On Offence by Richard King ranges over the protests
4:25:38 > 4:25:40that erupted over The Satanic Verses,
4:25:40 > 4:25:42threats to burn the Koran,
4:25:42 > 4:25:46political correctness in schools and cultural relativism.
4:25:46 > 4:25:50King argues that the politics of offence is poisoning public debate.
4:25:55 > 4:25:59"Everywhere one looks, offence is being taken -
4:25:59 > 4:26:03"sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad ones,
4:26:03 > 4:26:05"but nearly always in a way that implies that offence
4:26:05 > 4:26:07"is something regrettable in itself.
4:26:07 > 4:26:11"Respect and offence are fast becoming the 'good cop, bad cop'
4:26:11 > 4:26:15"of a new mood of censoriousness, of self-pity and self-righteousness."
4:26:16 > 4:26:20My argument is that the claim to find something hurtful or offensive
4:26:20 > 4:26:22should be the beginning of the debate and not the end of it.
4:26:22 > 4:26:24It seems to me that, recently,
4:26:24 > 4:26:28the taking of offence and the attempt to whip up offence
4:26:28 > 4:26:29is really an attempt
4:26:29 > 4:26:30to close down debate.
4:26:30 > 4:26:33It's a book that argues for more argument, not less.
4:26:35 > 4:26:37The modern obsession with hurt feelings
4:26:37 > 4:26:40makes something that was once implicit explicit
4:26:40 > 4:26:43and, in so doing, invites us, quite shamelessly,
4:26:43 > 4:26:47to put our intellects on hold and our feelings on speaker.
4:26:47 > 4:26:52Offence is nothing new - when I was growing up in the UK,
4:26:52 > 4:26:54people took offence all the time,
4:26:54 > 4:26:58but it tended to be about things like denigrations of respectability
4:26:58 > 4:27:00and religion and nudity and blasphemy,
4:27:00 > 4:27:01bad language, that kind of stuff.
4:27:03 > 4:27:04# Let there be light... #
4:27:04 > 4:27:08These were the things that shrivelled the nostrils of public opinion.
4:27:08 > 4:27:12But what happened in the late '80s and 1990s was that
4:27:12 > 4:27:16the taking of offence began to be...consciously politicised.
4:27:16 > 4:27:18Political correctness is partly to blame,
4:27:18 > 4:27:21and what you have now is a very strange situation
4:27:21 > 4:27:26whereby even the very powerful find it expedient, politically expedient,
4:27:26 > 4:27:27to parade their hurt feelings.
4:27:27 > 4:27:30Having internalised the old slogan of the counter-culture,
4:27:30 > 4:27:32"The personal is political",
4:27:32 > 4:27:34we now behave as if the opposite is true -
4:27:34 > 4:27:37that the political is merely personal.
4:27:37 > 4:27:41Identifying with causes rather than committing ourselves to them
4:27:41 > 4:27:44and mistaking our feelings for political insights,
4:27:44 > 4:27:46we demand not only the right to take offence,
4:27:46 > 4:27:49but also the right not to be offended.
4:27:49 > 4:27:53In order to have a civil society, you need to have the debate -
4:27:53 > 4:27:55you need to agree to disagree
4:27:55 > 4:28:00and you need to agree on rules on how to disagree.
4:28:00 > 4:28:01Freedom of speech is meaningless
4:28:01 > 4:28:03unless it includes the freedom to offend.
4:28:05 > 4:28:08Sarah, do you think there is a problem around taking offence?
4:28:08 > 4:28:10Absolutely - I've thought so for a long time.
4:28:10 > 4:28:13I really welcomed this project.
4:28:13 > 4:28:15It's something I've been hoping someone would do,
4:28:15 > 4:28:18sit down and try to anatomise what's happened to political discourse,
4:28:18 > 4:28:21the way that talking about taking offence shuts down everything,
4:28:21 > 4:28:24and what has seemed to me, for a long time,
4:28:24 > 4:28:26the idea that people basically say, "You hurt my feelings"
4:28:26 > 4:28:28and that that's supposed to somehow stop the debate.
4:28:28 > 4:28:30People's feelings get hurt all the time
4:28:30 > 4:28:33and if you put it in those terms, you realise how childish it is -
4:28:33 > 4:28:35the whole thing is very infantilising in a lot of ways,
4:28:35 > 4:28:37it's seemed to me, for a long time.
4:28:37 > 4:28:40And everybody starts to walk on eggshells,
4:28:40 > 4:28:42this fear of offending somebody else.
4:28:42 > 4:28:45That's not to say that we should have permission to offend
4:28:45 > 4:28:47left, right and centre, but that we need to have something
4:28:47 > 4:28:51that's more nimble, a more finessed position on all of this.
4:28:51 > 4:28:54So I think his basic postulate is right.
4:28:54 > 4:28:57I'm not sure I agree with all the conclusions that he draws
4:28:57 > 4:29:00and with all of his analysis, but I think the premise is correct.
4:29:00 > 4:29:02That there's a risk of debate being stifled
4:29:02 > 4:29:05- because of people's sensitivities. - And it's shutting down free speech.
4:29:05 > 4:29:07I think there's space for a book that looks at that.
4:29:07 > 4:29:09I don't think this is the book.
4:29:09 > 4:29:10I think part of the problem is
4:29:10 > 4:29:12he chooses a lot of different kinds of offence -
4:29:12 > 4:29:15starts with the pastor trying to burn the Koran,
4:29:15 > 4:29:17then goes to Mark Twain's use of the N-word,
4:29:17 > 4:29:19whether that should be acceptable,
4:29:19 > 4:29:20then goes to the Tea Party.
4:29:20 > 4:29:22I'm not sure he comes up with a unifying idea
4:29:22 > 4:29:24that links all those things.
4:29:24 > 4:29:26And I also think there's somebody...
4:29:26 > 4:29:29When you read someone like Hitchens or Nick Cohen or a polemicist
4:29:29 > 4:29:31and think, "They're angry about what they're saying
4:29:31 > 4:29:33"and they're just going for it",
4:29:33 > 4:29:36he doesn't actually sound like he's that offended by offence, actually,
4:29:36 > 4:29:38which makes me wonder why he's written the book.
4:29:38 > 4:29:40There's a sense of it being written by somebody
4:29:40 > 4:29:43who's watched a couple of YouTube videos, read a few articles -
4:29:43 > 4:29:44it doesn't feel lived.
4:29:44 > 4:29:47That makes me wonder how much he actually believes it.
4:29:47 > 4:29:50Though it is... It does have a certainly topicality, doesn't it?
4:29:50 > 4:29:52If we look at what's been happening on Twitter
4:29:52 > 4:29:55and various hate campaigns against different people.
4:29:55 > 4:29:58It's very twee and it's been organised around him, almost,
4:29:58 > 4:30:00in terms of the cover as well, with the "F Off",
4:30:00 > 4:30:03which is, oddly, possibly the most offensive thing
4:30:03 > 4:30:05about the book, which isn't that offensive,
4:30:05 > 4:30:08and shows you what the book's like. It's very polite.
4:30:08 > 4:30:11I think, also, what we're circling is often not the opinions
4:30:11 > 4:30:14or the attitudes or the offenders,
4:30:14 > 4:30:16it's the amplification of everything at the moment,
4:30:16 > 4:30:19and this book kind of, occasionally, gets close to that,
4:30:19 > 4:30:22or is very awkward with it and uncomfortable about dealing with what's happening,
4:30:22 > 4:30:25cos obviously, what we're really talking about
4:30:25 > 4:30:28is the instant amplification of opinion that undercuts
4:30:28 > 4:30:30the idea that there could be a sophisticated debate,
4:30:30 > 4:30:33because everyone's responding too quickly and not allowing
4:30:33 > 4:30:36the delicacy of an idea or theory of an argument to really develop.
4:30:36 > 4:30:38But doesn't he talk about...?
4:30:38 > 4:30:43He said the Danish cartoons, and suddenly that spread so quickly...
4:30:43 > 4:30:46But again, I think, absolutely, there's no heroic, iconic...
4:30:46 > 4:30:49It's melancholy, in a sense, because it becomes part of the problem,
4:30:49 > 4:30:53that this kind of book is dying out precisely because of the problem.
4:30:53 > 4:30:55He touches on a lot of issues and, I think,
4:30:55 > 4:30:57he superficially glances towards them.
4:30:57 > 4:30:59His accounts of how things developed
4:30:59 > 4:31:03and his attempts to historicise them are mostly wrong-headed.
4:31:03 > 4:31:04They're often inaccurate,
4:31:04 > 4:31:07they're often...certainly crude and reductive.
4:31:07 > 4:31:08He tries to cover a lot of ground
4:31:08 > 4:31:11and I think he ends up gesturing towards these ideas,
4:31:11 > 4:31:13and I agree, he raises several important issues
4:31:13 > 4:31:15that, actually, he can't quite make sense of.
4:31:15 > 4:31:17One of the most interesting sections of the book
4:31:17 > 4:31:20was when he talks about the dynamic
4:31:20 > 4:31:25between the cultural sensitivities of the left becoming paramount
4:31:25 > 4:31:29and, therefore, the right then rises and sees themselves as victim
4:31:29 > 4:31:31to respond to that, so you get a kind of ratcheting up of events.
4:31:31 > 4:31:34So you get commentators on Fox News thinking that to be a white male
4:31:34 > 4:31:36is now the most persecuted thing in the world.
4:31:36 > 4:31:38And the war against Christmas.
4:31:38 > 4:31:42And how PC is, in some ways, a mirror of all the values
4:31:42 > 4:31:43that it was initially trying to oppose.
4:31:43 > 4:31:47I think that I agree with you in that the other thing I found difficult about it
4:31:47 > 4:31:48was that he seems to have...
4:31:48 > 4:31:51He has a slightly superior, snooty attitude towards things.
4:31:51 > 4:31:54- That the rest of us... - He has this quote where he says
4:31:54 > 4:31:57"History can be used to bolster the self-esteem of the weak",
4:31:57 > 4:32:00talking about Afrocentrism, etc.
4:32:00 > 4:32:02But this suggests that history is somehow objective
4:32:02 > 4:32:05and some people are using it...but it's not.
4:32:05 > 4:32:07Actually, if you have a fuller sense of history -
4:32:07 > 4:32:09for example, if you go back to the First World War,
4:32:09 > 4:32:12if you show the role that people from outside Britain played,
4:32:12 > 4:32:15the colonies, etcetera, is that boosting the self-esteem of the weak,
4:32:15 > 4:32:17or is that just telling you a fuller story?
4:32:17 > 4:32:18I think this had a slightly...
4:32:18 > 4:32:21There's also the very delicate moment of people like this,
4:32:21 > 4:32:24the academic - I'm not allowed to say the critic any more, am I?
4:32:24 > 4:32:27Those that were used to only being the voice
4:32:27 > 4:32:29that tried to direct the narrative and direct the argument
4:32:29 > 4:32:33have been replaced by just everybody, in a way, for better or worse.
4:32:33 > 4:32:34And in a sense, there's a sense...
4:32:34 > 4:32:37For me, what came across is that's like a powerlessness -
4:32:37 > 4:32:40he's powerless, because these kind of books that want to put...
4:32:40 > 4:32:42He quotes loads of books and calls them famous,
4:32:42 > 4:32:46but they're only famous in a very small area of the world.
4:32:46 > 4:32:49For me, this kind of book, what it needs to do to take the argument on
4:32:49 > 4:32:52is not root itself in 20th century language and 20th century divisions
4:32:52 > 4:32:55but create and generate new possibilities.
4:32:55 > 4:32:56I think that's right.
4:32:56 > 4:32:59There's quite an interesting attack on cultural relativism.
4:32:59 > 4:33:01Again, not necessarily new, but...
4:33:01 > 4:33:03Not new at all, and I think that's a problem.
4:33:03 > 4:33:06There are a fair number of straw men here, actually,
4:33:06 > 4:33:09and I think, in some ways, the PC thing is dated in important ways.
4:33:09 > 4:33:12For him to hook onto that and onto the '90s culture wars,
4:33:12 > 4:33:15that's not really what's being debated any more.
4:33:15 > 4:33:17I think what he needed to do was, actually,
4:33:17 > 4:33:18to go back to the point Saf made a moment ago
4:33:18 > 4:33:22and in regards to the left and the right rising up against each other,
4:33:22 > 4:33:26that there's a politics of victimhood that he keeps invoking
4:33:26 > 4:33:28and never actually comes to grips with
4:33:28 > 4:33:29and for me, that's part...
4:33:29 > 4:33:33There are various sorts of issues that are totally unexamined, here,
4:33:33 > 4:33:35questions that are begged throughout the book.
4:33:35 > 4:33:38Why has "victim" become a status?
4:33:38 > 4:33:39It goes to what you said about history.
4:33:39 > 4:33:4250 years ago, you didn't fight over who was the victim,
4:33:42 > 4:33:43you fought over who was the victor.
4:33:43 > 4:33:47Now, we fight over who's the victim. Something has changed, but he's not getting at it.
4:33:47 > 4:33:48Two other things. One I was going to say
4:33:48 > 4:33:52is I think Mary Beard's lecture and piece in the London Review Of Books
4:33:52 > 4:33:54about the language used around women
4:33:54 > 4:33:56digs deeper into this sort of subject than this book does.
4:33:56 > 4:33:59The second thing is, I don't think he looks at -
4:33:59 > 4:34:01for example, with the Muhammad cartoons,
4:34:01 > 4:34:02you can look at the obvious thing and go,
4:34:02 > 4:34:05- "My God, why are Muslims going crazy?"- Which is what he does.
4:34:05 > 4:34:09But you've got to ask, "Why has a particular strain of Islam grown
4:34:09 > 4:34:10"that is intolerant,
4:34:10 > 4:34:13"when, in the past, there were more tolerant strains?"
4:34:13 > 4:34:15Why is that we've got to this position now,
4:34:15 > 4:34:17where that voice is the loudest voice?
4:34:17 > 4:34:19That is a more complex issue that just treating it
4:34:19 > 4:34:22- in terms of what you're seeing now. - What would your answer to that be?
4:34:22 > 4:34:24I think it's to do with money,
4:34:24 > 4:34:27probably to do with money from Saudi Arabia that's come into help
4:34:27 > 4:34:31fund the Wahhabi religion...sect, rather than other kinds of sect.
4:34:31 > 4:34:34I think it's to do with politics and power.
4:34:34 > 4:34:36Power - he hardly ever uses the word "power"
4:34:36 > 4:34:38and the whole thing is about power.
4:34:38 > 4:34:40Terrible thing is, though, I feel, at a time like this,
4:34:40 > 4:34:42is when we knock a book like this,
4:34:42 > 4:34:45there's less space for a book like this, better written,
4:34:45 > 4:34:47- better made, to appear. - I'm not going to knock it.
4:34:47 > 4:34:49But it's a terrible situation we find ourselves in -
4:34:49 > 4:34:52on one hand, we're applying this, but the world is like this,
4:34:52 > 4:34:54and what's being squeezed out...
4:34:54 > 4:34:56But it's almost like what he's actually saying...
4:34:56 > 4:34:58His opening thing is, basically, that offence is...
4:34:58 > 4:35:00We should have a debate about it,
4:35:00 > 4:35:02but what he doesn't do is take on the hard questions.
4:35:02 > 4:35:07Are you allowed to use the N-word generally? Is that what he says? Or what to do about the burka?
4:35:07 > 4:35:08He doesn't tackle tough issues.
4:35:08 > 4:35:11You can give him credit for it being a very good talking point for us.
4:35:11 > 4:35:15Richard King's book On Offence is out now.
4:35:15 > 4:35:17Talking lampposts, geek shoes for cyclists,
4:35:17 > 4:35:19a floating school -
4:35:19 > 4:35:22some amazing inventions on display at the Design Museum.
4:35:22 > 4:35:24The exhibition of Designs Of The Year
4:35:24 > 4:35:26showcases cutting-edge innovation
4:35:26 > 4:35:29from the worlds of architecture, fashion,
4:35:29 > 4:35:31furniture and digital design.
4:35:31 > 4:35:35Last year's award winners included the UK Government's own website
4:35:35 > 4:35:37and a folding wheel
4:35:37 > 4:35:40and this year's inventions are just as ingenious.
4:35:40 > 4:35:41Here's our guide to this survey
4:35:41 > 4:35:45of the finest fruitions of form and function.
4:36:01 > 4:36:06I think what Designs Of The Year does is it shows the whole diversity
4:36:06 > 4:36:08of design, from design that saves lives,
4:36:08 > 4:36:11design that makes us safe,
4:36:11 > 4:36:14and also design that improves the quality of life.
4:36:15 > 4:36:17You can either show things by their category,
4:36:17 > 4:36:20with architecture or graphics,
4:36:20 > 4:36:23but we've chosen here to show it by theme.
4:36:23 > 4:36:28So in the exhibition, we hope that it reflects the fact that, in life,
4:36:28 > 4:36:31you might be driving along in a car that keeps you safe
4:36:31 > 4:36:34but also wearing a pair of shoes that makes you smile
4:36:34 > 4:36:39and we hope the exhibition has that layered effect that reflects life.
4:36:40 > 4:36:43It's both an exhibition and an awards,
4:36:43 > 4:36:46and we have a panel of judges who have expertise
4:36:46 > 4:36:51in all the different categories who will, next week, sit together
4:36:51 > 4:36:52and go through the designs
4:36:52 > 4:36:55and come up with a winner of each category
4:36:55 > 4:36:58and then an overall winner of Design Of The Year.
4:36:58 > 4:37:00And yes, it's their difficult job
4:37:00 > 4:37:07to choose between a car and a dress, housing and an art gallery.
4:37:09 > 4:37:13Design can solve problems, it can make our lives better
4:37:13 > 4:37:15and it can make our lives more enjoyable.
4:37:23 > 4:37:26Saf, what I've found hugely enjoyable about this exhibition
4:37:26 > 4:37:28was it was just so optimistic -
4:37:28 > 4:37:31these are people working away to improve other people's lives.
4:37:31 > 4:37:33I agree - I think it's quite sweet, actually,
4:37:33 > 4:37:36that the very last item of the very last programme is something
4:37:36 > 4:37:40which is hopeful and optimistic about the future, which I just love.
4:37:40 > 4:37:41I also really like the fact that,
4:37:41 > 4:37:44rather than it being about just one person, you know -
4:37:44 > 4:37:46there's another room in the Design Museum
4:37:46 > 4:37:47which is in tribute to Paul Smith -
4:37:47 > 4:37:50this is about lots and lots of people, from all over the world,
4:37:50 > 4:37:53who are all never heard of, who are all doing different things.
4:37:53 > 4:37:55And they're looking at preoccupations
4:37:55 > 4:37:56we have with the present,
4:37:56 > 4:38:00whether it's the environment, or crowd sourcing of technology,
4:38:00 > 4:38:03and they're finding solutions which don't seem completely far-fetched,
4:38:03 > 4:38:07but just seem like they're moving us forward just a little bit further.
4:38:07 > 4:38:08I absolutely loved it.
4:38:08 > 4:38:10So imaginative, the idea of a floating school,
4:38:10 > 4:38:11to deal with a region
4:38:11 > 4:38:14where there was water rising -
4:38:14 > 4:38:16which may even become necessary here -
4:38:16 > 4:38:18down to little bottle tops which have been
4:38:18 > 4:38:19turned into a children's toy.
4:38:19 > 4:38:21It's the extremes of one thing, a city itself to -
4:38:21 > 4:38:25yeah, absolutely - a small thing, games that never end,
4:38:25 > 4:38:28keyboards that don't have keys, beautiful churches,
4:38:28 > 4:38:30new ways of burying people...
4:38:30 > 4:38:32You realise that a lot of designers, in a way,
4:38:32 > 4:38:33are philosophers.
4:38:33 > 4:38:37They have a philosophical kind of quality to what they do, they're so important.
4:38:37 > 4:38:39And great design prepares us for new ideas.
4:38:39 > 4:38:40I think it's absolutely key.
4:38:40 > 4:38:43When you go and see these 76 pieces that have been nominated -
4:38:43 > 4:38:45and that will be out of many, many other things -
4:38:45 > 4:38:47you realise, "Yes, this is where the optimism is.
4:38:47 > 4:38:50"This is where the future is still being formed in people's minds."
4:38:50 > 4:38:52We have this kind of slightly jaundiced thing,
4:38:52 > 4:38:55at the moment, that there is no such thing as "the future" anymore.
4:38:55 > 4:38:57This exhibition shows you absolutely there is,
4:38:57 > 4:39:00and these people are thinking about it.
4:39:00 > 4:39:03- It changed my idea of what designers really are.- Me, too.
4:39:03 > 4:39:05I walked in there with my heart slightly sinking,
4:39:05 > 4:39:07partly thinking, "What do I know about design?
4:39:07 > 4:39:10"How am I possibly going to be able to judge this?"
4:39:10 > 4:39:12But anybody could go in there and respond to it,
4:39:12 > 4:39:15because it's exactly as you were saying - it's everyday objects,
4:39:15 > 4:39:16all the way up to schools and museums.
4:39:16 > 4:39:18It's the things that we all use in our lives.
4:39:18 > 4:39:22And what is remarkable about going through these 76 items is that
4:39:22 > 4:39:26almost every one of them has a really strong ethical component.
4:39:26 > 4:39:29You start to realise that people are thinking very, very carefully
4:39:29 > 4:39:31about how to make the world a better place,
4:39:31 > 4:39:35not just making gadgets that are more fun. They're partly doing that...
4:39:35 > 4:39:37Another thing, which I think is right,
4:39:37 > 4:39:39there's also an aspect of play about it.
4:39:39 > 4:39:40There's a lot of playfulness.
4:39:40 > 4:39:42The bottle caps which have been turned
4:39:42 > 4:39:44into this Lego-style building things...
4:39:44 > 4:39:47Whether it's about lampshades, whether it's about learning Chinese,
4:39:47 > 4:39:49using these kind of picture things...
4:39:49 > 4:39:52There's a really lovely non-arrogance
4:39:52 > 4:39:55and playful aspect to a lot of it, which I found lovely as well.
4:39:55 > 4:39:58In many senses, the designer is at the cutting edge
4:39:58 > 4:39:59of the commercial compromise,
4:39:59 > 4:40:01but still trying to bring in a moral dimension,
4:40:01 > 4:40:03cos what they try to do is bring in something new
4:40:03 > 4:40:05and the newness of an idea is so delicate,
4:40:05 > 4:40:08it cannot be punished and torn apart by instant,
4:40:08 > 4:40:10amplified response, because it takes time to develop.
4:40:10 > 4:40:12You see that with these kind of designs.
4:40:12 > 4:40:15It's interesting that the world thinks it's caught up with design,
4:40:15 > 4:40:17because it's caught up with the '70s and the '80s,
4:40:17 > 4:40:19so we've got a lot of that around us,
4:40:19 > 4:40:21but this shows us design is still moving forward.
4:40:21 > 4:40:24And it's implicitly educational, which is one of the things I loved about it -
4:40:24 > 4:40:27you get an education yourself, not just in design,
4:40:27 > 4:40:30but in all the kinds of questions that people have to think about
4:40:30 > 4:40:31as we move through society.
4:40:31 > 4:40:34There is this wonderful Japanese design
4:40:34 > 4:40:36for children going through chemotherapy,
4:40:36 > 4:40:38a new way for them to be with their families,
4:40:38 > 4:40:40- and you realise...- Lovely. - Wonderful.
4:40:40 > 4:40:44And you realise how many problems we're facing as a society
4:40:44 > 4:40:48and how much design is a way of addressing that and educating us
4:40:48 > 4:40:50in order to ask the right questions,
4:40:50 > 4:40:53to think about what we do with families where children are sick.
4:40:53 > 4:40:55Get used to a new idea, a new design.
4:40:55 > 4:40:57A syringe which goes red when you've used it once...
4:40:57 > 4:40:59One interesting thing, it was one of those moments
4:40:59 > 4:41:02where you actually feel hopeful when you go to the gift shop,
4:41:02 > 4:41:05- cos you go in and some of the things you've seen in the exhibition...- ..are there.
4:41:05 > 4:41:08I did all of my Christmas shopping, I absolutely did!
4:41:08 > 4:41:10This is not completely pie in the sky - some of it...
4:41:10 > 4:41:12- Not exploitation?- No, but it's not just pie in the sky.
4:41:12 > 4:41:14A lot of it is crowd sourced too.
4:41:14 > 4:41:16This stuff is actually being used and being made.
4:41:16 > 4:41:18And being made ethically, so a lot of it is crowd sourced...
4:41:18 > 4:41:21It's also wonderful to see in the technological world -
4:41:21 > 4:41:23we're now used to Apple and Samsung
4:41:23 > 4:41:25and all these, sort of, dreadful, tyrannical companies -
4:41:25 > 4:41:28to see this other version of a mobile phone...
4:41:28 > 4:41:29Called the Fairphone, wasn't it?
4:41:29 > 4:41:31Yeah, the phone that could last forever -
4:41:31 > 4:41:34much more intelligent, sensitive, poetic.
4:41:34 > 4:41:37We think that an Apple is the definitive version
4:41:37 > 4:41:39of that thing - no, it isn't.
4:41:39 > 4:41:41It's the compromised, commercial version of it.
4:41:41 > 4:41:42There was something poetic -
4:41:42 > 4:41:45Citymapper was one of the things that was being done.
4:41:45 > 4:41:48- This is an app.- An app, and I got to the Design Museum using Citymapper,
4:41:48 > 4:41:50so I just thought...
4:41:50 > 4:41:52I love the cemetery as well, that they pointed out,
4:41:52 > 4:41:55very clearly, that when things end, it isn't the end,
4:41:55 > 4:41:58it's just another part of the life cycle.
4:41:58 > 4:42:00And Sarah, what do you think about the way...?
4:42:00 > 4:42:02Laughing at Paul's metaphor.
4:42:02 > 4:42:04I think we got the metaphor.
4:42:04 > 4:42:07What do we think about the way the exhibition itself was organised?
4:42:07 > 4:42:09Was it interactive enough for you?
4:42:09 > 4:42:11Not necessarily - that would be my only quibble.
4:42:11 > 4:42:12I really enjoyed it,
4:42:12 > 4:42:14so I don't particularly want to be captious about it,
4:42:14 > 4:42:17but I'm not convinced organising it thematically
4:42:17 > 4:42:18was particularly useful.
4:42:18 > 4:42:21I'm not sure it opened things up as well as it might have.
4:42:21 > 4:42:24One the other hand, most of these objects do speak for themselves,
4:42:24 > 4:42:26and when you get the little description that tells you
4:42:26 > 4:42:29what it's about, it kind of doesn't matter what its context is,
4:42:29 > 4:42:33because it's an idea that, you know, speaks for itself.
4:42:33 > 4:42:37It's quite cute, some of the signs that say, "Please DO touch", which is quite nice.
4:42:37 > 4:42:40It was the weakest form of it, of the design in the Design exhibition,
4:42:40 > 4:42:44but I think - and they're moving soon, in 2015, to South Kensington,
4:42:44 > 4:42:45and I think that's deserved -
4:42:45 > 4:42:49you have to walk 15 minutes from London Bridge Station to get there,
4:42:49 > 4:42:50it's a bit on the edge of things.
4:42:50 > 4:42:53I think the Design Museum should really be in the middle of things,
4:42:53 > 4:42:56because I think design is possibly, at the moment,
4:42:56 > 4:42:58the key thing in the way that we are thinking these things.
4:42:58 > 4:43:00Sarah, you mentioned crowd sourcing,
4:43:00 > 4:43:03and so many of these were crowd sourced,
4:43:03 > 4:43:05which must mean there's good financial backing
4:43:05 > 4:43:06to many of these ideas.
4:43:06 > 4:43:08That people are getting excited about it,
4:43:08 > 4:43:10there's a feeling of populism with a lot of it -
4:43:10 > 4:43:11and they're affordable.
4:43:11 > 4:43:13When I say I did my Christmas shopping,
4:43:13 > 4:43:15A - I'm not kidding and B - I didn't break the bank.
4:43:15 > 4:43:18Yet there was the sense I was buying interesting things
4:43:18 > 4:43:20and helping people who are trying to solve problems.
4:43:20 > 4:43:23Just to bring it back to where we started,
4:43:23 > 4:43:24it's nice that, this time,
4:43:24 > 4:43:26crowd sourcing is being used positively -
4:43:26 > 4:43:28we're not voting for a winner, but for a solution.
4:43:28 > 4:43:32- It wasn't I Can't Sing! It was I Can Design.- Very good.
4:43:32 > 4:43:35Nicely wrapped up. Well, those gadgets and inventions are on show
4:43:35 > 4:43:38until August at the Design Museum in London.
4:43:38 > 4:43:41That's just about it for this last edition of The Review Show.
4:43:41 > 4:43:44Thanks to this month's guests - in fact, to all the panellists
4:43:44 > 4:43:48over the past 20 years for their bouquets and brickbats
4:43:48 > 4:43:51and to you, of course, for following this show in its many incarnations.
4:43:51 > 4:43:54So it's goodbye from me and from Kirsty, too.
4:43:54 > 4:43:57To play us out, another track from Ben Watt and Bernard Butler -
4:43:57 > 4:44:01from Ben's new album, this is The Levels.
4:44:01 > 4:44:03MUSIC: "The Levels" by Ben Watt
4:44:24 > 4:44:27# The estate agent's been over
4:44:29 > 4:44:33# I've resurfaced the driveway
4:44:33 > 4:44:36# I was selling flowers out on the pavement
4:44:38 > 4:44:41# Made it nice round the place
4:44:45 > 4:44:49# I'm up for selling the business
4:44:51 > 4:44:54# My heart isn't in it
4:44:54 > 4:44:58# Without your face over the counter
4:45:00 > 4:45:03# Without your face
4:45:07 > 4:45:10# Some nights I drive out on The Levels
4:45:12 > 4:45:17# Through the village past the church where we got married
4:45:21 > 4:45:25# I can see for miles
4:45:34 > 4:45:38# Out there is the future
4:45:40 > 4:45:43# What's there standing in my way?
4:45:43 > 4:45:47# Right now it is my past
4:45:48 > 4:45:52# And it's not moving forward
4:45:56 > 4:46:00# Some nights I'm out there on The Levels
4:46:00 > 4:46:07# And the ditches and the fields are flooded by the rivers
4:46:10 > 4:46:13# I can see for miles
4:46:15 > 4:46:19# And I know it is only daylight
4:46:19 > 4:46:24# That we all walk through
4:46:26 > 4:46:33# And everyone has wounds that heal with time
4:46:37 > 4:46:39# I'll get over mine
4:47:01 > 4:47:04# Some nights, I'm out there on The Levels
4:47:05 > 4:47:08# And we are talking like we used to
4:47:08 > 4:47:11# But it's me who does the talking
4:47:14 > 4:47:18# And I'll be out there for a while
4:47:26 > 4:47:31# I can see for miles. #