On Tuesday 23 December, hit satirical panel show Mock The Week returns to BBC Two for a one-off Christmas special.
Regular comedy supremos Frankie Boyle, Hugh Dennis, Russell Howard and Andy Parsons join host Dara O'Briain for a sparkling half hour show featuring their unique thoughts on the festive season as well as some favourite moments from the last series.
The Mock The Week regulars are joined for this special by a host of top comedy talent including Michael McIntyre, Ed Byrne, David Mitchell, Gina Yashere, Lauren Laverne, Stephen K Amos, Greg Davies and Lucy Porter.
Only on Mock The Week this Christmas will you find talk of Russell Howard being sucked into a black hole, Hugh Dennis yearning for a game of Battling Tops and Frankie Boyle being crowned King of the Daleks.
Look out for bemused Aussie comedian Adam Hills who valiantly tries to bring some Christmas joy to a programme devoid of Christmas decorations, apart, that is, from a miserable Scot with a blower from a cracker.
After six hugely successful series, it's the perfect time for a Mock The Week Christmas special.
Mock The Week was created by Dan Patterson and Mark Leveson, the creative force behind iconic improvisation show Whose Line Is It Anyway? which ran for ten years on British TV before successfully transferring to the United States.
Mock The Week is produced for BBC Two by independent production company Angst Productions.
BBC Press Release
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
Journalists welcomed into family courts
Press Gazette have reported that Justice Secretary Jack Straw has announced that family courts will be opened up to journalists from next April in an attempt to make them more transparent.
This change will mean that journalists will be able to sit in on all divorce, custody and care proceedings unless stated otherwise but, will obviously be subjected to certain reporting restrictions.
Press Gazette writes: '"He told the Commons: "Many argue that the current provisions to safeguard privacy and confidentiality go too far - leaving family courts unfairly open to accusations of bias or even injustice."
"The overall effect of these changes will be fundamentally to increase the openness of family courts while protecting the privacy of children and vulnerable adults."'
This is a huge change for the journalism industry and for the family court environment, I'm sure a lot of people won't be happy about the proposal but, it does seem a good move towards letting the general public know more about what goes on in court.
This change will mean that journalists will be able to sit in on all divorce, custody and care proceedings unless stated otherwise but, will obviously be subjected to certain reporting restrictions.
Press Gazette writes: '"He told the Commons: "Many argue that the current provisions to safeguard privacy and confidentiality go too far - leaving family courts unfairly open to accusations of bias or even injustice."
"The overall effect of these changes will be fundamentally to increase the openness of family courts while protecting the privacy of children and vulnerable adults."'
This is a huge change for the journalism industry and for the family court environment, I'm sure a lot of people won't be happy about the proposal but, it does seem a good move towards letting the general public know more about what goes on in court.
Tuesday, 9 December 2008
Body of Lies Cinema Review
Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe star in terrorist action film ‘Body of Lies’ as CIA agents trailing an Al-Qaeda leader in the Middle East.
Ferris (DiCaprio) is the ground-agent in Jordan tracking the terrorists with his boss, Hoffman (Crowe), supposedly watching his back via satellite but, Ferris starts to wonder if Hoffman has his own agenda as things don’t quite go the way he is expecting.
Ferris seeks out the help of Jordanian intelligence officer Hani (Mark Strong), a man not to be messed with, to trap the dangerous Al-Qaeda leader but, Hoffman just doesn’t seem to want to stick to Hani’s rules which jeopardizes the whole operation and puts the relationship between the three men under great strain.
DiCaprio and Crowe give strong performances throughout, they work great on-screen together in their rocky relationship and they carry the film forward well.
Body of Lies, based on the novel by Washington Post journalist David Ignatius, is an interesting film with plenty of action throughout, although the plot is quite complicated it is easy enough to follow. However, it does seem just a little bit too long and gives the impression that if a few more scenes had been edited out then it would have created a far more exciting movie.
Ferris (DiCaprio) is the ground-agent in Jordan tracking the terrorists with his boss, Hoffman (Crowe), supposedly watching his back via satellite but, Ferris starts to wonder if Hoffman has his own agenda as things don’t quite go the way he is expecting.
Ferris seeks out the help of Jordanian intelligence officer Hani (Mark Strong), a man not to be messed with, to trap the dangerous Al-Qaeda leader but, Hoffman just doesn’t seem to want to stick to Hani’s rules which jeopardizes the whole operation and puts the relationship between the three men under great strain.
DiCaprio and Crowe give strong performances throughout, they work great on-screen together in their rocky relationship and they carry the film forward well.
Body of Lies, based on the novel by Washington Post journalist David Ignatius, is an interesting film with plenty of action throughout, although the plot is quite complicated it is easy enough to follow. However, it does seem just a little bit too long and gives the impression that if a few more scenes had been edited out then it would have created a far more exciting movie.
Monday, 8 December 2008
The Violent Screen
Critics say that violence in films is a bad influence, it teaches people that it is ok to use violence, it desensitises people to real life violence, it glamorises violence and encourages copy cat crimes. Arguments say that children are particularly influenced by what they watch in films and it affects their attitudes and behaviour.
Perhaps this is all just speculation because scientific studies have provided little concrete evidence to back up the hypothesis that violent films have negative effects.
It is worth us pausing for a moment to take a look at the kind of films that are categorised as violent. Website, Film School Rejects, provide us with the top ten violent movies of all time and the top ten ultra-violent movies of all time. The website comments about both categories as follows: Violence – “Just as a keg of beer needs a bung hole to relieve pressure, we need violent movies to relieve the pressures of everyday life.” And Ultra-Violence – “this list is all about the most shocking, bloody and unbelievable gut-wrenching cinematic adventures in the history of film. It’s not just about slashing up unsuspecting victims; it is about leaving a lasting imprint of terror in the minds of audiences…”
Their definition of ultra-violence does little to quash fears that violence in films is a negative experience and the films that appear in both lists probably don’t help either.
At number ten in the list of top violent films we have ‘The Godfather’ which tells the story of the head of an organised crime dynasty (the Italian Mafia) and provides the audience with violence a plenty. FSR writes: “If guns and garrotting aren’t enough to convince you ‘The Godfather’ belongs on this list, how about punch-outs of Sonny’s pregnant sister or mass killings simultaneously shot with the latest Corleone baptism.” And that film is the supposed mildest of the bunch as we work up to the likes of ‘Silence of the Lambs’ (1991), ‘Natural Born Killers’ (1994),’Reservoir Dogs’ (1992) and coming in at number one ‘Scarface’ (1983) which chronicles the life of a fictional Cuban refugee who arrives in Florida and becomes a gangster who finds himself rising and falling in the criminal underworld. FSR writes: “Bloody killings with a chainsaw, mass slaughter of authorities, other gangsters and just about anyone close at hand; weapons galore and Pacino’s immortal “Meet my li’l fren,” this 1982 Brian de Palma film with story by Oliver Stone, has enough violence to insure its place in cinema history.”
As if that wasn’t enough, wait until you see what turns up in our ultra-violent list. Number ten is given to ‘The Hills Have Eyes’(2006) which pushed the violence and gore even further than the 1977 Wes Craven original, with a family being stalked by a psychotic group of desert-dwellers. The list goes on to give us the likes of ‘Saw’ (2004), ‘A Clockwork Orange’ (1971) – interestingly this appears midway in both the violent and the ultra-violent list, ‘Hostel’ (2005) and coming in at number one ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ (1974). FSR writes: “After more than 30 years, very few films can stand up against Tobe Hooper’s terrifying trip into the Texas countryside. Inspired by the killings of Ed Gein, this film was actually shot with the hopes of a PG rating. By avoiding on-screen blood and graphic horror, ‘Chainsaw’ became one of the most disturbing films to watch because your imagination did all the work.”
All the above mentioned are enough to make anyone cringe but, perhaps critics of such films are looking too much into things. These are, after all, just films, made with the intent to entertain the audience and to bring in the money. The makers of such films don’t set out with the objective to corrupt the minds of the viewers with the hope that they will be influenced enough to carry out their own mad murders, they just want to produce a good piece of film that will be remembered as a gripping cinematic experience.
Theories such as ‘the hypodermic needle model’, the ‘social-learning theory’ (Bandura 1973) and Berkowitz’s ‘priming aggression’ theory from the 1960’s, all suggest that audiences are influenced by violent cinema. Bandura’s theory goes as far to suggest that people watching their role models carrying out violent behaviour on screen can teach them to do the same. All such theories assume a great degree of passivity on the audience’s part. They fail to assess the ability of film fans to interpret the meanings behind the violence and to be able to comprehend that what they are seeing is not intended to make them think it is ok to go out and have a go themselves. These theorists would have us believe that we view films in a vegetative state, passively absorbing everything we see without processing or thinking about it whatsoever but, we know that’s not true. I would argue that few people leave the cinema without thinking about what they have just seen and perhaps questioning aspects of the film. As a modern audience, we also have a good understanding of the film-making process which makes it virtually impossible to take on board everything we see in a film. We understand, to some extent, what goes on behind the scenes and so levitate ourselves from the passive position we have been branded as having.
Professionals who work with children are often also quick to criticise the influence of violence on screen. Play development Officer Joanne feels that a combination of violent media exposure definitely has a negative effect on children and agrees with Bandura’s theory, to a certain extent, that watching heroes act out violence will influence children: “you know, children, they want to be like their heroes so they will copy the behaviour that they see their heroes doing... you hear of some of these crimes with samurai swords and things and that is definitely down to, sort of, scenes they’re watching on the telly so, yeah I think it is down to heroes and media and TV.”
Critics argue that viewing too much violence can cause people to be de-sensitised to real-life crimes but, Joanne raises a valid point about the theory: “I think a lot of streets in Britain today do have violence and kids are hanging around in gangs, so I do think those children are de-sensitised but, then other children, who may watch perhaps a violent movie, because of their family values and where they’re being brought up, I don’t think they are de-sensitised, so I really do think it is about a number of factors.”
Violent films are often blamed for supposed ‘copy-cat’ crimes. The murder of James Bulger in 1993 caused a stir as the film, ‘Child’s Play 3’ about Chucky the evil, possessed doll was blamed for the behaviour of the two boys that kidnapped James. Allegations were made that the murder resembled a scene from the film and it was assumed that because one of the boy’s fathers had recently rented the film, the boys must have watched it. However, it was later revealed that the boys hadn’t seen it and they didn’t even like horror films. So, ‘Child’s Play 3’ was off the hook despite tabloid newspaper, The Sun, launching a campaign to burn the ‘video nasties’.
As someone who works with children, Joanne doesn’t necessarily think that film violence causes copy-cat crimes: “I think children need to know the difference between right and wrong and, you know, I just think it’s just an excuse for their behaviour.”
A major issue with children viewing film violence is perhaps not the content of the film, which is obviously intended for an older audience but, the fact that these children are unsupervised and are gaining access to the aggressive content. When conducting my own research on the matter, I surveyed children on the types of films they are watching and was shocked to find that at ages 8-16, they had seen films like ‘The Exorcist’, ‘Saw’ and ‘The Boogeyman’, which are all intended for an older demographic.
Joanne has had first hand experience with this kind of situation: “I’ve also found that in the play centres I’ve worked with children aged 5 to 14 years but, if we had a film night, I can say that I’ve never seen an under 18 film come onto the play centre, they all just wanted the over 18s, particularly violence, which of course we could never play and yet these are children aged 5 to 14.”
A lot of the time, children are left unsupervised to view such content, meaning that they have no one to explain it to them and that for me is the real problem. We shouldn’t be blaming the films; certificates are there for a reason and it is a parent’s job to enforce them.
Moving back to violent films in general, we need to consider the creative aspects of them before we accuse film-makers of bombarding us with barbaric images. Let’s take Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction for example, which is packed with violence and gore pretty much from start to finish. To a critic, this would be damaging and would encourage aggression but, to anyone with a bit of film knowledge or an open mind, it is an innovative and gripping example of post-modern cinema. Pulp Fiction has an unconventional non-linear narrative and presents an ironic mix of violence and humour. It is a perfect example of how violent films shouldn’t be taken at face value. We must remember that violence in films is there to help tell the story and not as a piece of propaganda, it is part of everyday life and so should be able to be translated to the big screen.
Finally, why is film violence suddenly such an issue anyway when violence has been part of our story-telling culture for as far back as we can go? It can be traced right throughout history - from paintings, penny novels and theatre to the Bible and other such religious readings – and so is definitely no new occurrence or phenomenon.
Perhaps this is all just speculation because scientific studies have provided little concrete evidence to back up the hypothesis that violent films have negative effects.
It is worth us pausing for a moment to take a look at the kind of films that are categorised as violent. Website, Film School Rejects, provide us with the top ten violent movies of all time and the top ten ultra-violent movies of all time. The website comments about both categories as follows: Violence – “Just as a keg of beer needs a bung hole to relieve pressure, we need violent movies to relieve the pressures of everyday life.” And Ultra-Violence – “this list is all about the most shocking, bloody and unbelievable gut-wrenching cinematic adventures in the history of film. It’s not just about slashing up unsuspecting victims; it is about leaving a lasting imprint of terror in the minds of audiences…”
Their definition of ultra-violence does little to quash fears that violence in films is a negative experience and the films that appear in both lists probably don’t help either.
At number ten in the list of top violent films we have ‘The Godfather’ which tells the story of the head of an organised crime dynasty (the Italian Mafia) and provides the audience with violence a plenty. FSR writes: “If guns and garrotting aren’t enough to convince you ‘The Godfather’ belongs on this list, how about punch-outs of Sonny’s pregnant sister or mass killings simultaneously shot with the latest Corleone baptism.” And that film is the supposed mildest of the bunch as we work up to the likes of ‘Silence of the Lambs’ (1991), ‘Natural Born Killers’ (1994),’Reservoir Dogs’ (1992) and coming in at number one ‘Scarface’ (1983) which chronicles the life of a fictional Cuban refugee who arrives in Florida and becomes a gangster who finds himself rising and falling in the criminal underworld. FSR writes: “Bloody killings with a chainsaw, mass slaughter of authorities, other gangsters and just about anyone close at hand; weapons galore and Pacino’s immortal “Meet my li’l fren,” this 1982 Brian de Palma film with story by Oliver Stone, has enough violence to insure its place in cinema history.”
As if that wasn’t enough, wait until you see what turns up in our ultra-violent list. Number ten is given to ‘The Hills Have Eyes’(2006) which pushed the violence and gore even further than the 1977 Wes Craven original, with a family being stalked by a psychotic group of desert-dwellers. The list goes on to give us the likes of ‘Saw’ (2004), ‘A Clockwork Orange’ (1971) – interestingly this appears midway in both the violent and the ultra-violent list, ‘Hostel’ (2005) and coming in at number one ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ (1974). FSR writes: “After more than 30 years, very few films can stand up against Tobe Hooper’s terrifying trip into the Texas countryside. Inspired by the killings of Ed Gein, this film was actually shot with the hopes of a PG rating. By avoiding on-screen blood and graphic horror, ‘Chainsaw’ became one of the most disturbing films to watch because your imagination did all the work.”
All the above mentioned are enough to make anyone cringe but, perhaps critics of such films are looking too much into things. These are, after all, just films, made with the intent to entertain the audience and to bring in the money. The makers of such films don’t set out with the objective to corrupt the minds of the viewers with the hope that they will be influenced enough to carry out their own mad murders, they just want to produce a good piece of film that will be remembered as a gripping cinematic experience.
Theories such as ‘the hypodermic needle model’, the ‘social-learning theory’ (Bandura 1973) and Berkowitz’s ‘priming aggression’ theory from the 1960’s, all suggest that audiences are influenced by violent cinema. Bandura’s theory goes as far to suggest that people watching their role models carrying out violent behaviour on screen can teach them to do the same. All such theories assume a great degree of passivity on the audience’s part. They fail to assess the ability of film fans to interpret the meanings behind the violence and to be able to comprehend that what they are seeing is not intended to make them think it is ok to go out and have a go themselves. These theorists would have us believe that we view films in a vegetative state, passively absorbing everything we see without processing or thinking about it whatsoever but, we know that’s not true. I would argue that few people leave the cinema without thinking about what they have just seen and perhaps questioning aspects of the film. As a modern audience, we also have a good understanding of the film-making process which makes it virtually impossible to take on board everything we see in a film. We understand, to some extent, what goes on behind the scenes and so levitate ourselves from the passive position we have been branded as having.
Professionals who work with children are often also quick to criticise the influence of violence on screen. Play development Officer Joanne feels that a combination of violent media exposure definitely has a negative effect on children and agrees with Bandura’s theory, to a certain extent, that watching heroes act out violence will influence children: “you know, children, they want to be like their heroes so they will copy the behaviour that they see their heroes doing... you hear of some of these crimes with samurai swords and things and that is definitely down to, sort of, scenes they’re watching on the telly so, yeah I think it is down to heroes and media and TV.”
Critics argue that viewing too much violence can cause people to be de-sensitised to real-life crimes but, Joanne raises a valid point about the theory: “I think a lot of streets in Britain today do have violence and kids are hanging around in gangs, so I do think those children are de-sensitised but, then other children, who may watch perhaps a violent movie, because of their family values and where they’re being brought up, I don’t think they are de-sensitised, so I really do think it is about a number of factors.”
Violent films are often blamed for supposed ‘copy-cat’ crimes. The murder of James Bulger in 1993 caused a stir as the film, ‘Child’s Play 3’ about Chucky the evil, possessed doll was blamed for the behaviour of the two boys that kidnapped James. Allegations were made that the murder resembled a scene from the film and it was assumed that because one of the boy’s fathers had recently rented the film, the boys must have watched it. However, it was later revealed that the boys hadn’t seen it and they didn’t even like horror films. So, ‘Child’s Play 3’ was off the hook despite tabloid newspaper, The Sun, launching a campaign to burn the ‘video nasties’.
As someone who works with children, Joanne doesn’t necessarily think that film violence causes copy-cat crimes: “I think children need to know the difference between right and wrong and, you know, I just think it’s just an excuse for their behaviour.”
A major issue with children viewing film violence is perhaps not the content of the film, which is obviously intended for an older audience but, the fact that these children are unsupervised and are gaining access to the aggressive content. When conducting my own research on the matter, I surveyed children on the types of films they are watching and was shocked to find that at ages 8-16, they had seen films like ‘The Exorcist’, ‘Saw’ and ‘The Boogeyman’, which are all intended for an older demographic.
Joanne has had first hand experience with this kind of situation: “I’ve also found that in the play centres I’ve worked with children aged 5 to 14 years but, if we had a film night, I can say that I’ve never seen an under 18 film come onto the play centre, they all just wanted the over 18s, particularly violence, which of course we could never play and yet these are children aged 5 to 14.”
A lot of the time, children are left unsupervised to view such content, meaning that they have no one to explain it to them and that for me is the real problem. We shouldn’t be blaming the films; certificates are there for a reason and it is a parent’s job to enforce them.
Moving back to violent films in general, we need to consider the creative aspects of them before we accuse film-makers of bombarding us with barbaric images. Let’s take Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction for example, which is packed with violence and gore pretty much from start to finish. To a critic, this would be damaging and would encourage aggression but, to anyone with a bit of film knowledge or an open mind, it is an innovative and gripping example of post-modern cinema. Pulp Fiction has an unconventional non-linear narrative and presents an ironic mix of violence and humour. It is a perfect example of how violent films shouldn’t be taken at face value. We must remember that violence in films is there to help tell the story and not as a piece of propaganda, it is part of everyday life and so should be able to be translated to the big screen.
Finally, why is film violence suddenly such an issue anyway when violence has been part of our story-telling culture for as far back as we can go? It can be traced right throughout history - from paintings, penny novels and theatre to the Bible and other such religious readings – and so is definitely no new occurrence or phenomenon.
Friday, 5 December 2008
Joe Swash is crowned King
It has just been announced that Eastenders star Joe Swash has been crowned King in this year's I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here, leaving tennis champion Martina Navratilova in second place and Star Trek's George Takei in third.
Joe, who has entertained ITV viewers from start to finish, is a deserved winner after enduring his fair share of trials and tribulations in the jungle and remaining down-to-earth throughout.
This year's I'm a Celeb has once again been fantastic and I will be sad to see it come to an end, three weeks just doesn't seem long enough!
Joe, who has entertained ITV viewers from start to finish, is a deserved winner after enduring his fair share of trials and tribulations in the jungle and remaining down-to-earth throughout.
This year's I'm a Celeb has once again been fantastic and I will be sad to see it come to an end, three weeks just doesn't seem long enough!
Branagh supports Welsh film-maker
BBC News have revealed that all-round actor, director and producer Kenneth Branagh is mentoring a Cardiff-based rising film-maker.
30-year-old Keri Collins was chosen for a one-year scheme for emerging talent. He was one of 25 chosen out of 500 applicants.
Branagh finds himself among other famous names set to mentor the up-and-coming film-makers, including Bourne director Paul Greengrass.
"All of the mentors are of that kind of level but some are not as well known as others because Kenneth Branagh is an actor as well," said Mr Collins.
Branagh, who has made a name for himself in films, on television and in the West End, says the scheme for rising talent is ‘important and helpful.’
Mr Collins said: "He’s going to read my screenplay and then he’s going to meet with me and give me comments and notes on how to improve the script."
BBC News writes: 'Mr Collins would like to work full time in the film industry but still has a "day job" working on graphic design at the University of Wales Institute Cardiff (Uwic).'
'The Guiding Lights mentoring scheme, which is in its second year, aims to help develop the skills of aspiring talent in the film industry.'
30-year-old Keri Collins was chosen for a one-year scheme for emerging talent. He was one of 25 chosen out of 500 applicants.
Branagh finds himself among other famous names set to mentor the up-and-coming film-makers, including Bourne director Paul Greengrass.
"All of the mentors are of that kind of level but some are not as well known as others because Kenneth Branagh is an actor as well," said Mr Collins.
Branagh, who has made a name for himself in films, on television and in the West End, says the scheme for rising talent is ‘important and helpful.’
Mr Collins said: "He’s going to read my screenplay and then he’s going to meet with me and give me comments and notes on how to improve the script."
BBC News writes: 'Mr Collins would like to work full time in the film industry but still has a "day job" working on graphic design at the University of Wales Institute Cardiff (Uwic).'
'The Guiding Lights mentoring scheme, which is in its second year, aims to help develop the skills of aspiring talent in the film industry.'
Norton to replace Wogan
After more than 30 years spent guiding viewers through the highs and lows, panache and pizzazz of the extraordinary world of the Eurovision Song Contest, Sir Terry Wogan, the doyen of the show is bowing out of the competition.
He will leave the prestigious BBC One presenting reins in the capable hands of Eurovision fan Graham Norton.
Terry says: "I've had 35 wonderful years commentating on the Eurovision for radio and television.
"From my first, in a small music-hall in Dublin, to my last, in the huge arena in Belgrade, it has been nothing but laughter and fun. The silly songs, the spectacle, the grandiose foolishness of it all.
"I'll be sad to leave it all behind, but I'll be watching and listening, and happy to leave it in the witty hands of Graham.
"Let's hope that between him and the musical brilliance of Lloyd Webber, Royaume Uni will gather its proper share of 'Douze Points' and bring the Grand Prix home to where it belongs."
Graham says: "As a long time fan of the Eurovision this is an amazing job and a huge honour.
"Sir Terry is nothing less than legend and is an impossible act to follow but somebody must and I just couldn't say no.
"I can't wait to get to Moscow – with a combination of cheap vodka and a language barrier what could possibly go wrong?"
In the new year Graham hosts Your Country Needs You on BBC One – the UK public's chance to choose the act that will perform Andrew Lloyd Webber's specially composed song in Moscow 2009.
Jay Hunt, Controller of BBC One, says: "Terry has enhanced viewer's enjoyment of Eurovision for many years and I would like to thank him for all of his work on the programmes.
"I am delighted that Graham Norton will now be bringing his wit to bear on this iconic music event."
Graham's association with the Eurovision title began with the Eurovision Dance Contest which he has presented for the last two years.
Courtesy of BBC Press Releases
He will leave the prestigious BBC One presenting reins in the capable hands of Eurovision fan Graham Norton.
Terry says: "I've had 35 wonderful years commentating on the Eurovision for radio and television.
"From my first, in a small music-hall in Dublin, to my last, in the huge arena in Belgrade, it has been nothing but laughter and fun. The silly songs, the spectacle, the grandiose foolishness of it all.
"I'll be sad to leave it all behind, but I'll be watching and listening, and happy to leave it in the witty hands of Graham.
"Let's hope that between him and the musical brilliance of Lloyd Webber, Royaume Uni will gather its proper share of 'Douze Points' and bring the Grand Prix home to where it belongs."
Graham says: "As a long time fan of the Eurovision this is an amazing job and a huge honour.
"Sir Terry is nothing less than legend and is an impossible act to follow but somebody must and I just couldn't say no.
"I can't wait to get to Moscow – with a combination of cheap vodka and a language barrier what could possibly go wrong?"
In the new year Graham hosts Your Country Needs You on BBC One – the UK public's chance to choose the act that will perform Andrew Lloyd Webber's specially composed song in Moscow 2009.
Jay Hunt, Controller of BBC One, says: "Terry has enhanced viewer's enjoyment of Eurovision for many years and I would like to thank him for all of his work on the programmes.
"I am delighted that Graham Norton will now be bringing his wit to bear on this iconic music event."
Graham's association with the Eurovision title began with the Eurovision Dance Contest which he has presented for the last two years.
Courtesy of BBC Press Releases
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)