Evan Davis with the latest on Brexit and an interview with the daughter of a kidnapped Chinese bookseller. Plus, what is the significance of new superhero film Black Panther?
Browse content similar to 07/02/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
It's Brexit decision time folks.
Scarecrows don't talk.
tone that we too. Of course people
do go both ways.
Are you doing that
on purpose or can you not make up
That is the trouble, I
cannot make up my mind!
We've been pondering
on it for 19 months,
but now a crucial cabinet committee
is trying to argue out
what kind of Brexit we want.
It'll take some wizardry
for them to reach agreement.
But here in the studio,
we'll hear some of the arguments.
Easier trade with the EU,
or more independence from it?
What kind of customs
border do we want?
Also tonight, the other great
debate - Internet reform.
Are tech companies
platforms or publishers -
should they take responsibility
for what gets posted on their sites?
The companies are realising they
have two act and if they do not the
danger is for them that governments
will start to legislate.
And, Black Panther the movie.
The first black Marvel
comic superhero film -
it's wowing critics.
What's its significance?
We'll discuss with the guy who wrote
the comic and a film critic.
Well, we've been debating
and dithering for over a year,
perhaps more dithering
than debating, but one thing
everybody agrees on now,
is that we can't go
on delaying a choice.
We have to tell the EU
"this is our vision
of a new relationship",
and annoyingly, it has to be
a realistic vision at that.
So it is crunch time -
and this could be the biggest two
days of Theresa May's premiership,
because the Brexit cabinet
sub-committee is thrashing
out the arguments.
Call it soft or hard
Brexit, Norway, or Canada.
How do we finesse that stark choice?
We'll rehearse some of the arguments
they have undoubtedly been having
but a little briefing first.
Here's Nick Watt.
From wars to peacetime,
it's grand corridors and gilded
rooms have witnessed some
of the great decisions
in British history.
Theresa May had assumed
she would stamp her mark
on our history by shaping Brexit
within the walls of Downing Street.
And so today, ministers
on the Cabinet's Brexit subcommittee
gathered to discuss the nature
of the UK's future
relationship with the EU.
Progress was said to be slow today.
One source close to a Cabinet
minister complained to me that it
all had the feel of kicking
decisions into the long grass.
Another source expressed confidence
that the Cabinet as a whole
would reach agreement
by the end of the month.
But today's meeting was held
as senior Tories acknowledge
that the Cabinet is not the only
source of power in shaping Brexit.
Beyond Downing Street there are two
other centres of power.
Parliament may well
have a significant say.
Brexiteer Tories are already
making their presence felt.
But a combination of an evolving
Labour Party and the House of Lords
could force the government's
hand in other ways.
And then, of course,
there is the EU, which
appears to be playing
hardball at the moment.
Until recently, it had been assumed
that Parliament could,
at best, take potshots
at the government on Brexit.
Now pro-European MPs and peers have
far grander ambitions.
These parliamentarians want to amend
the EU withdrawal bill in the House
of Lords on access to the single
market and on a customs relationship
with the EU in a way that would be
acceptable to the Labour Party
and pro-European Tories
when the bill returns
to the House of Commons.
One source close to a Cabinet
minister told me there are Remain
ministers who want Parliament
to do their work for them.
These pro-Europeans believe
they have been vindicated
by a government assessment
of the economic
consequences of Brexit.
A breakdown of the UK regions shows
that, under a no-deal scenario,
the size of the economy in the Leave
heartland of the north-east
of England would be 16% smaller
in 15 years compared
with current forecasts.
In the West Midlands,
another Leave area,
the figure would be 13%.
London, a Remain stronghold,
would be the least
effected by slower growth.
The government says these
are provisional findings.
And of course the EU
will have its say.
The European Commission is proposing
sanctions to punish the UK
during the transition period if it
breaches EU rules.
One Cabinet minister told me
it was a deliberately
provocative negotiating ploy.
The power to shape Brexit may well
be spreading beyond Downing Street.
For the moment, though, the ball
sits with its current inhabitants.
Nick is with me.
You must have more Intel on what
inside the crucial meeting today?
Interesting speech this evening by
the Prime Minister to the
conservative black-and-white ball,
she said ever since the British
people delivered board and the
referendum I have had no doubt about
what our new relationship with the
EU must mean, control of our money,
control of our borders and control
of our laws. She's knocking on the
head the idea that she does not have
a for Brecon. -- Brexit. I have to
say I am hearing some pretty gloomy
accounts, one source close to a
cabinet minister said to me there
was a dreary reading out of
preprepared scripts. Another source
said the only thing they could agree
on was that they disagree but I have
to say Theresa May loyalists are
saying they do not recognise those
accounts and they are absolutely
confident there will be agreement.
What is the choreography and timing?
What is the process?
Today was a
norther Ireland and immigration,
tomorrow is the future relationship
with the EU and the trade
relationship with the EU and there
is to be a third meeting later this
month and the idea then is that the
full Cabinet will look and agree
with what they have come up with and
that is to do two things. By the
time you have EU Council at the end
of March there would be agreement
between the UK and EU on the
implementation period. There are
difficulties on that at the moment.
And the other thing is for the UK to
tell the EU what it once for a
future trade relationship so the UK
can influence the council guidelines
which are then due to go to the
Thank you very
So, the key decisions
are about borders and regulation.
Do we rebuild our own customs
border with the EU?
A border that allows us and the EU
to monitor or tax our trade and thus
have separate trade policies?
How do we solve the Irish
problem if we do?
On regulation, we won't be
in the single market,
but should we agree to align our
product regulations with theirs,
so that border checks are minimal?
We have a panel of two commentators
and two politicians,
from different perspectives.
Jill Rutter is Programme Director
for the Institute for Government.
Dr Andrew Lilico is Executive
Director of Europe Economics
I'm also joined by DUP
MP Ian Paisley Jr -
his party supported Brexit -
and Conservative MP and former
Attorney General Dominic Grieve,
who supported Remain.
Good evening to you all. We will
have a less dreary discussion than
what they had on the subcommittee.
Ian Paisley if you were in there
today, 40 seconds, what would be
your opening gambit on the trade
I think they missed
the mac -- the Prime Minister a
spell that out tonight, this is
about the British people being in
control of their own destiny. We
want to make sure we have a free
trade relationship going forward
with the EU. Given that they have as
much to lose any bad deal as we have
to lose this is about getting a good
deal for all of the British people
and we need to stop being so
negative about this and pessimistic.
I am sorry. I just want to hear. I
don't want to be political, I want
to hear your practical suggestion
for a customs union and regulatory
alignment, what is your pitch not to
Theresa May, what are you telling
her to take to the Europeans?
want a really good fisheries deal,
that is key for us.
The key thing
is, trade and...
Money makes the
world go round and trade here will
determine the drive and politicians
like us and everyone else want to
have a good trading deal and a good
Is Canada OK, Canada
I think it's daft to say
it must be like Canada or
Switzerland, we need a good bespoke
deal for the next kingdom.
watching of Herod, how will the
Europeans react and does it make
There is sympathy at
the European level for having a free
trade agreement, probably one that
includes some services, they are not
sure how much financial services
they would want to include, but
there is some pushback about exactly
what will happen on the Irish
We will come to that!
think the EU...
He is talking about
Canada take deal, they would
interpret that as Canada?
Canada plus a few extras. It will
not be just like a Canada deal so
politically would not want to say it
is a Canada deal but it is broadly
in that realm.
positives of that deal?
The EU has
lots of trade agreements with lots
of countries, there is no reason not
to have one with the UK but what it
does mean is there will be there
quite up panoply of things at the
border. It means we can run a
different trade policy and have
different tariffs, we are not
applying the common external tariff
is a potential Bert Harris at that
border which is an issue for Ireland
we need to work out. It would also
enable us to do trade deals with
other countries but that means we
might commit of regulatory alignment
so for example a lot of talk in the
summer about a trade deal with the
US. We know some of the things they
want like letting in agriculture
regulation under their terms which
are different from the EU approach
to regulation. The EU would want to
make sure the UK border and
particularly the border in Ireland
does not become a back door into the
single market with different
It does not sound like
you have solved the Irish problem
The Irish problem is a
particle at the core problem in the
south of Ireland. -- a party but her
problem in the south of Ireland. It
is not in the Republic of Ireland's
interest to have a troublesome
But they need to enforce...
If they start putting up enforcement
tariffs that is a matter for them
given most of the trade is with
ourselves and the united states of
America I think they would be
foolish to do that.
They might see
They want to have a
bad relationship of us? Come on.
Dominic Grieve, where would you
start the meeting like this one
If the Prime Minister can
achieve what she set out in her
Lancaster House and Florence
speeches why should I complain? We
would effectively have our cake and
eat it. Complete access to the
single market is if we were still in
it, there would be no tariffs
because we would have succeeded in
finding the magic we are dealing
with it and at the same time we
would not be bound by those EU
regulations which are clearly
objectionable to some of my
colleagues. That's not the problem.
The problem is logically its most
unlikely we are going to get that.
Because the EU will not give it to
us because it undermines their
So what would you
You have to do a cost
benefit analysis of where the best
benefit for the next kingdom lies
and the best benefit lies in our
ability to trade to the maximum
possible in providing goods and
services, free of regulatory
inhibition with our European
partners because they are our
closest trading partners and no
other trading partners elsewhere in
the world are ever likely to
substitute themselves for it.
the customs union, or a customs
union, I'm sorry I get stuck on
It would have to be a
customs union and all I would say
about that and here I think I
disagree is if we are honouring the
agreement we reached in December and
outlines with the EU on the terms of
withdrawal I find it difficult to
see how we will not be in a customs
union because unless somebody comes
up with some extraordinary technical
way of avoiding the checks which
would have to go with it we will end
up with a hard border. I know we
don't want that but it's not
completely an issue for the Irish
Republic, it's actually an issue for
the EU and the Irish Republic will
be forced to have that border even
if they don't want it.
By the EU.
THEY TALK OVER EACH OTHER
cannot escape that.
minuses of what Dominic Grieve
OK so a key plus is
you would not have rules of origin
or other kinds of things, less
bureaucracy as you deal internally
with trade within the European Union
but she would have an ability to do
trade deals externally severely
impaired so that might raise the
question of if you have taken back
control over trade policy which
might be one of the things people
thought they were voting for. I
don't think it addresses the Irish
border question because if you have,
if you have different issues...
need to check things so it just
takes away the tariff question.
Necessary but not efficient?
whatever would be your solution to
the regulatory difference would
allow you to check the tariffs so I
don't think it solves the question
or is a requirement for solving the
The Dominic Grieve option, is that
an option? They keep saying you can
have Norway or Canada and nothing in
Norway is not in the
customs union, it is a member of the
single market, and that is why the
Norway Swedish border has been
visited by almost every
Parliamentary select committee
Lakra. There are checks at that
border, at the US and Canada border
and they have a free-trade
agreement. None of those countries
you get a refund if you go and buy
something expensive in Iceland, you
get your VAT back at the border
because it is not in the customs
union said the question is do we
want to be both in the single market
and the customs union and that is
what we are in now. Obviously still
being part of the single market
comes with ECJ jurisdiction...
you're just advocating some...
have the sake as a lawyer and
contours of the fact that whatever
trade agreement you get into,
somebody is around to arbitrate it
and the session we have with the
European Court of Justice seems to
slightly missed the point although I
do understand that direct effect is
a particular problem.
We have little
time, it sounds like we are miles
apart... Can I offer a solution?
That you have a customs union for
goods and things that crossed the
border, physical products, and
complete freedom to negotiate new
If we are outside these
in the market I don't think were
going to get a customs union for
services anyway so I think we
talking about one for goods in the
context of Ireland and therefore the
Holebas. These are very complex
issues of detail. I'm not saying
they are insoluble but they are, get
the -- and therefore the whole of
us. But do we simple by them and
thence Ah Mau gets up right when
they are difficult to fix?
deals all over the world, this is
not a major issue that should stop
is doing trade. My fear is that
unfortunately what you see appears
to be that we have given up on
Britain and the British people
getting on with it and making a
great trade deal going forward,
that's the downside.
parties about this? That matter your
party survive this?
I very much hope
so but I do recognise that there are
Anna Soubry said on
this programme but she could not
serve under Jacob Rees-Mogg and you
That is a hypothetical.
But these are held together not
necessarily by people agreeing on
everything but by ties of loyalty
and affection. Clearly there can
come a point in a process of party
with the ties of loyalty and
affection get so stressed that it
snaps and that is when the party
starts to fall apart. The difficulty
is that we are a party which
historically has been very pragmatic
in its approach to problems and we
have just introduced, by a
revolutionary means they recommend,
a deep ideological division. And for
a pragmatic party to get over that
and absorb the ideological division
and come together to deliver
pragmatic government is clearly an
immense challenge but then look at
Labour. They are as equally divided,
they are all over the place and they
cannot answer any of the similar
questions about what they want.
yet but the country first and not
the party, the interests of our
traders and people come and we will
get over this and you have too.
Thank you very much indeed.
Viewed with western eyes,
the Chinese system of justice has
not exactly lived up to the word
justice, in its pursuit of one case,
relating to five booksellers.
It's a fascinating story this,
going back a few years.
They operated from a business based
in Hong Kong, called
Causeway Bay Books which published
and sold political gossip among
other titles, clearly not
to the liking of the authorities
in mainland China.
In response, the authorities have
dealt with the five men harshly,
appearing to cross all sorts
of lines in the process.
It all started when the men
from different locations
in late 2015.
Tonight we'll focus on one of them,
Gui Minhai, Chinese born,
but a Swedish national,
and whose daughter is with me.
Here's a brief chronology.
On October 17th, 2015,
Gui left his holiday
apartment in Pattaya,
Thailand, with a man in a striped
shirt who was speaking
Chinese on his phone.
He wasn't seen again
for three months.
Then, in January 2016,
he turned up in China,
claiming on state media
that he voluntarily turned himself
into answer to a drunk
driving incident from 2003,
that had reportedly resulted
in the death of a student.
For the best part of two years
he was held in detention in mainland
China without legal assistance
or consular access.
Then, in October last year, having
apparently served his sentence
for a traffic offence,
he was released and began
living under surveillance
in a police-managed flat
in the eastern city of Ningbo.
Until January 20th this year,
when he was travelling with Swedish
consular officials to get some
medical attention in Beijing.
He was picked up and detained
again by Chinese police.
The Swedes say there were as many
as ten officers waiting for him
at the train station.
Well, I'm joined by Gui Minhai's
daughter, Angela Gui.
Good evening to you. Tell us what
contact you have had with your
From the very beginning, in
2015, when he first disappeared, I
did not have very much contact at
all for those two years he was in
custody. I had a couple of written
messages on Skype in which he mostly
told me to keep quiet because it was
going to hurt his case if I didn't.
I chose not to and I was not about
to speak to him any more, I had a
few phone calls in which he was
trying to persuade me to not speak
And what do you know about
his current condition? He was
apparently seeking medical help when
he was arrested this time.
was allowed to speak to him after he
was nominally released in October
Three months then.
when he was in lured and I was
allowed to Skype with him almost
every day. -- when he was in Ningbo.
I found out a lot about his health
condition. He has been diagnosed
with a less by eight knowledges to
in Ningbo. -- by a neurologist.
Motor neurone disease.
they said that because of the lack
of specialism in ALS in China, they
suggested he travelled abroad for
The most remarkable
thing about this case surely has to
be what looks like an abduction by
the Chinese from a property in
We just didn't think
that went on very often or am I
being naive? That is very surprising
in 2015. Are we sure that is what
happened? He came out and said that
is not what happened but nobody
believed his confession.
There is a
Chinese official version of what
happened in which he is supposed to
have travelled on his own, for some
reason leaving behind his passport
and not entering the country legally
in order to turn himself in for this
alleged traffic accident that he is
supposed to have caused back in
2003, for which we have not seen any
evidence yet. But of course there
are a lot of questions to be asked
about that narrative.
Of course. Can
I give you the Chinese state would
question the embassy said, " Cobra
has piloted the law in China,
criminal enforcement measures have
been taken, China Bob McNair
judicial sovereignty must be respect
and the legal case in Berlin, though
a Swedish citizen, must be dealt
with in accordance with the law in
China. " And that must be right,
even if you are Swedish, if you
break the law in China the Chinese
are entitled to do whatever in the
Yes. I think it is great
that they have promised to act in
accordance with the law in China but
I would like to ask them how they
have acted according to the law in
China, especially because they did
not seize him in China, they seized
him in Thailand, which breaks
several international laws,
presumably breaks Thai law.
Is it a
dilemma, you can see making a fuss
and highlighting the case can make
them digging their heels? And some
would say maybe it is better to do
this under the radar, you must have
Yes, I have been
feeling that for over two years now.
I don't think one has to choose one
way or another. I think there are
different ways of doing advocacy and
I think that in this case, and of
course I might be wrong, because
this case is unprecedented in so
many ways as you mentioned, but I
think that in this case it is very
important to also be public about
it. Because of the encouragement
that I had from my dad when he was
in custody and he told me to not
speak to the media and other
governments, I thought that that
must surely reflect fear and people
telling you what to say.
thank you very much.
YouTube or Facebook:
publisher or platform?
It is the defining
debate of our time -
those concerned about polluted
public discourse want
the social media giants
to be seen as publishers,
for what appears on their screens.
The companies - keen not to take
responsibility for everything posted
and reposted on their sites -
like to think of themselves not
as publishers, but as a mere
shelf on to which others
put their publications.
But there's an interesting history
to this distinction -
a legal position deriving
from a different country
and a different era,
that has somehow found itself
dictating the treatment
of the tech giants.
All that may, however, be changing,
as our technology editor,
David Grossman, reports.
DIAL-UP MODEM SOUNDS.
It's strange to think that we don't
even really know when it
started but it used to fit
on a single computer...
Would we have been nearly so excited
in the mid-90s when we unboxed
the consumer internet given
all the bad stuff that we now
know also lurked inside?
Like Pandora, we must
all make our own balance sheet
of its contents of the good
and the harm.
It is a complete accident
that the internet looks
and feels the way it does,
a sort of lawless Wild West
where people can say and do more
or less anything they want.
It is certainly not
what the politicians had in mind.
However, a tiny clause in one law
passed in the United States 20 years
ago more or less props up
the whole thing.
Internet freedom has always been
controversial but now there is more
pressure than ever to reform this
law, with profound, perhaps even
chilling consequences for all of us.
I think we are at a really dangerous
moment for free expression online.
There are politicians
responding to public concern,
saying we must do something
and what they do is not clear.
The tech companies are realising
they have to act and if they don't
act, the danger is for them that
governments will start to legislate.
In the early 90s, the reaction
of many lawmakers to the internet
was pretty much this...
It's not exactly homework.
It's the internet.
Turn it off!
Turn it off!
I've heard about this internet,
it is a corrupting influence,
I saw a programme about it.
In the United States,
Congress passed the Communications
Decency Act in 1996 which,
as it name suggests,
was all about keeping this
new online world clean.
But the US Supreme Court struck down
most of its restrictions.
One clause, uncontroversial
at the time, Section 230, remained.
It says no provider or user
of an interactive computer service
shall be treated as the publisher
or speaker of any information
provided by another
information content provider.
This is unique.
No other jurisdiction in the world
has such a sweeping immunity
for online services.
The US is home to some
of the largest interactive computer
services in the world and I don't
think that's a coincidence.
Section 230 has played a very
active role in fostering
the growth of social media,
search engines, consumer review
sites, because there is sort of this
almost laissez faire attitude
towards user content
because of Section 230.
At the time, hardly anyone
understood the implications of 230.
It was actually just
an adaptation of a law that
protected book shop owners.
It was argued they could not be
expected to read every book
they stocked so it would be unfair
to prosecute them for
something written in one.
But in the case of books of course,
there are publishers
who can be sued and they,
therefore, act as gatekeepers.
What the framers of 230 completely
failed to appreciate is that
on the internet the barriers
to publication would disappear.
There would not only
be no gatekeepers,
there would be no gates.
Everything from eBay to Facebook
to Airbnb to Twitter
to TripAdvisor to Google,
they all rely on Section 230.
It is the ultimate backstop that
protects them from prosecution.
And it's the ultimate reason why,
seemingly, independent sovereign
countries like the UK cannot pass
laws on that than to rein
in the tech giants.
We can certainly try to do it.
I mean, Facebook and Twitter,
they have offices in London
providing services related
the provision of the Facebook
service and the Twitter service
so we can certainly put pressure
on these companies but ultimately,
were they to want to continue
to provide services and avoid UK
regulation, there is the potential
they could simply withdraw back
to the United States.
As if to demonstrate this
tomorrow a committee of MPs
will hold an evidence
session in Washington.
This is something that has
never been done before,
to have a live select committee
hearing in another country.
What it meant is because the tech
are headquartered in America,
it's giving us access to people
who are involved in the global
policy decisions these companies
make, not just the people
from the UK that represent them.
The committee is looking
specifically at fake news.
Like many of the big internet
problems we struggle with,
it has its origins in Section 230
which treats online companies
as platforms, not publishers.
The select committee chair says
regulatory reform is long overdue.
I think we need to come up
with a new definition
that is somewhat between a social
media company being a pure
publisher and simply
being a platform, to recognise
that they have a responsibility
to police and manage their platform
in a way that restricts
the harm that some users
can cause and create.
And I think it is our job to say,
to identify what we think the social
problems are that the social media
companies need to act against.
In the US, many politicians
are in a similar place
but the difference is that they can
be legislatively effected.
Do you acknowledge today
for the record that child sex
trafficking is a serious
problem on Backpage?
After consultation with counsel,
I decline to answer your question.
What has triggered the debate
there is the case of Backpage,
an online classified adverts site
that was found by a Senate
investigation to have knowingly run
ads for children who had been
trafficked for sex.
But the law apparently
couldn't touch Backpage
because of Section 230.
Legislation is currently going
through Congress to change that.
I think if we don't address this
issue with a targeted exception,
I think that Section 230 could be
in jeopardy down
the road altogether.
What I would rather see
is a targeted exception that
actually prevents sex trafficking,
and still preserves the enormous
free-speech and innovation that
Section 230 promotes,
and I think that is possible.
I think if we don't address this
issue, I would be very worried that
that could cause more sweeping
changes to Section 230 which I think
would be very dangerous.
But there is a worry that once
Section 230 is chipped away at,
it won't end there.
They might start with laws
to restrict sex trafficking,
but the politicians would soon come
back for more.
There is already an appetite
to restrict the right to publish
what is known as fake news.
People have the right
to speak their mind,
and no one can get into the business
of censoring opinion.
People can have wildly different
opinions on the same event
but as long as that event is true
and based on fact, that's fine.
I think we have to take a stand
where people are spreading harmful
content that is based on lies.
So the social media companies
are increasingly under pressure
to decide what is true
and what is false, what is legal
and what is illegal,
and the algorithms they will use
will, of necessity, be blunt,
sweeping and cautious.
If you think about the sheer volume
of content being uploaded
onto the internet on a daily basis,
it is just impossible for internet
providers to be able to effectively
decide what is illegal and legal
content, and I think
we are just going to end up
in a situation where jokes,
where perfectly legitimate content,
even controversial content
that we might find distasteful that
ought to be there as part of a free
and open internet,
is simply removed.
So the barriers to ordinary people
publishing might go up again
and the internet become more
like TV or newspapers
with one way communication.
It may be that we will see this
chaotic free for all of the last
couple of decades as a mere blip
in human history.
It's had brilliant reviews,
has a 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes,
and has been called the first
adult superhero movie.
And it's coming to a screen
near you next week.
The Black Panther.
We are home.
My son, it is your time.
# Show me my respect and bow down #.
You get to decide what kind of King
you are going to be.
I never freeze.
# The revolution will
not be televised #.
It is the first Marvel
comic film production
featuring a black superhero,
and the fact that is has been
well-executed at every level means
it has generated far more
than the usual excitement
of a new action movie release.
As one critic said, it's
a "story about black lives,
which matter and are not defined
by their pain but instead
by their glory".
Well, Evan Narcisse is the writer
of 'Rise of Black Panther'
for Marvel Comics and joins us
from Austin in Texas.
Film journalist Nola Ojomu
is with me in the studio.
Good evening to you, Evan, a lot of
people say this is a moment and do
It is for sure a moment.
I want to correct a little bit,
technically Blade featuring Wesley
Snipes was a marvel superhero
Snipes was a marvel superhero movie,
but Black Panther, this is a moment
like I have never seen before in my
career. I am a pop culture critic as
well as writing comics and nothing
like this has ever happened, it is
utterly astounding, the excitement
around this movie.
A lot of this is
around a black movie not being about
victims, it is bigger than that.
Right. It's not about trauma, it's
not about economic
disenfranchisement, it's not about
the legacy of slavery or Jim Crowe
or any of that stuff. Don't get me
wrong, the Black Panther character
concept very much has to do with
colonialism and its effects but it
is shown in a way that is not
central to the conflict. This is
more about the preservation of
culture, a way of life, celebrating
black excellence and achievement and
making black characters on screen
for more complex in a fictional
sense than we've seen maybe ever.
Are you excited by it?
Tried to put into words, I
am not an action hero sort of
person, what is it that makes this
so different? Moonlight won the best
locks rueda Oscar, a black theme
song, why is this important?
it's going to be fun, it's a
superhero movie. Like Evan was
saying, it's not to do with Savary,
he's cool, he kicks butt, he has all
this technology, it is just fun.
Mike -- might I suggest you do not
want the black community to judge
their worst by the prestige
Hollywood restores them in their
movies because that would be a
terrible metric by which you would
the community, the Hollywood eyes
edition of its values.
It would be
horrible but this is not that, this
is a fictional country in Africa but
it is Africa, it is Africans being
shown as strong and smart and clever
and there is not enough of that in
mainstream media and that is what is
exciting. These guys are cool and
strong, they are lit, as the hashtag
Black Panther goes back to
1966, a black superhero in comic
form back in the 1960s, why did it
take so long for this movie to come
I think there are a lot of
perceptions in Hollywood's and
beyond, people who fund movies that
a black lead piece like this would
not perform internationally,
globally. That it would not do the
kind of business that these
blockbuster movies need to do in
order to justify their existence so
I think there is a lot of that.
There is also, the talent pull in
Hollywood, the decision makers to
sign off on these still think the
very white. There are not a lot of
producers who have the pull to make
something like cabin. The gentleman
at Marvel who made this happen is
black. He is a relative minority in
terms of numbers in Hollywood. This
was clearly a passion project for
I suppose, we don't have this
conversation, when its normalised
and see more of these kind of films,
probably not quite as black theme
does this, this was almost entirely
black crew and cast, you would not
have to be so racially segmented,
but is that which you would like to
I feel this is the start of
where things are going. Again, like
Evan said, we had Blade and then
there has been such a long gap. I
think this is going to do well and
it will inspire so many new script
And show black
characters can sell movies.
they can make money and the old
Hollywood fears are not correct.
Thank you both very much.
That's nearly it for tonight.
Kirsty will be here tomorrow.
But before we go, it's
the centenary of the death
of the Austrian symbolist painter,
To mark the occasion,
virtual reality artist
Frederick Baker has teamed up
with Vienna's Museum of Applied Arts
to take you on an interactive
journey through Klimt's work.
The exhibition opens today so we
leave you with a little taster.
Evan Davis with the latest on Brexit and an interview with the daughter of a kidnapped Chinese bookseller. Plus internet reform, and what is the significance of new superhero film Black Panther?