主播大秀

Funny how, in report after report about 'the NHS', no reference is made to the fact that the stories are about the NHS in ENGLAND!

The 主播大秀 has been told about this repeatedly. Therefore, it seems inescapable that the 主播大秀 is part of a conspiracy to deceive people in England that adverse conditions here are shared equally in Scotland and Wales!

In the interests of accuracy and impartiality, the 主播大秀 should make this distinction clear in its reports. After all, in Scotland and Wales, care is taken to mention when matters are Scottish or Welsh etc as the case may be!

Of course, it may be simply that the 主播大秀 and its staff seek to avoid any mention of England and the English whenever and whereever possible.
Whatever, the effect is the same!

About so-called high brow cinema. In Italy the names of artists, from the Rennaisance, to Fellini and Rossellini are not so "high brow", but generally household names. Italians may not know the films but are very proud of their culture, and filmakers like Pasolini are just as famous as Oliver Stone or Tarantino in the States, probably better known that Ang Lee. There is a certain anti-intellectualism in England which is frankly dangerous and rather right wing. I think Jeremy was being a bit tongue in cheek, because of Bergman's nordic angst, but as I pointed out in my earlier comments, his films were cool to the teenagers of the day who were lucky enough to have an A level education. The education system at that time was the elitist element which is now changing somewhat, although it is accused of "dumbing down".

True few of these films may have made it to the blockbuster level in the box office, but Antionioni made Zabriskie Point, a place I just had to visit when I was in the States, wierd and wonderful! This kind of cinema also has the trickle down effect, as without the new wave of Godard, we would not have the Hollywood revival of rubbish, that unfortunately has kept the film industry alive, with the crass likes of Arnie and Rocky, pararodies really.

Also Oliver Stone, Scorsese, Kubrick and John Huston will admit the debt they owe to the great European film makers, pioneers of the art which is being lost in the demands of the box office.

British cinema also struggles on, but again learnt to perfect its early pioneering docurealism, from films like Battle for Algiers, giving us filmakers like Ken Loach and Mike Leigh. So yes, art cinema is not "high brow", and, is worth every penny, of it, otherwise we would have been with Lene Risenthal as our cinematic role model not Fritz Lang and Fassbinder!

To call it "high brow" reflects a certain class sub-conscious class prejudice that is peculiarly British. Class prejudice, goes hand in hand with philistine populism, such as one gets in the states, where in fact it is the indie-art house cinema that attracts, and nurtures, their best talent eg films like Barfly which is a well known example of the genre, with Johnny Depp and Faye Dunaway giving great performances you won't often see in the blockbusters. Be thankful the human race can produce these wonderful artists. I am not a film buff as such, but miss, the excitement I used to feel on hearing there was a new Luis Brunel film to go and see. It was a bit like a new Bob Dylan album coming out for me!

Without Kurasawa, well known to most Japanese people, there would have been no Sergio Leone, and certainly no Clint Eastwood. Is Josey Wales, or Cold Mountain, both box office successes high brow, or just great cinema too? Times have changed, to coin a phrase, but we need to look at that, as a phenomenon of post modern mediocrity, not denegrate those who had higher aspirations and produced wonderful cinema.

Shame George Bush was, as has been reported a tad rude to the 主播大秀'S Nick Robinson advising him to "cover up his bald head ".

Not big, not clever and not in Nick's blog diary...

Oh dear. Last nights travesty of an interview was bad enough! Now, with Antonioni's death, Newsnight can embarrass itself further...Shame. Are 'high brow' programmes like Newsnight worth the effort?? Why not just stick wall-to-wall soap operas and reality shows in its place?. Newsnight's not exactly"box office" is it?? When you say "is it worth the effort" what do you mean - Reading subtiitles?? Would you ask if Shakespeare worth the effort? Or Dickens? OrRembrandt?? Great art is always worth the effort!! Shame on you for framing the debate in such a crude dumb way! Restate the question replacing "art house movies" with "Novels" or "Modern Art" to see how stupid it is.

I was extremely disappointed that tonight's piece by Stephanie Flanders completely missed the most basic point of the opposition to MMC. We have all encountered doctors that are not up to the grade, and perhaps should not progress to consultant grade. However, what MMC/MTAS has achieved is the weeding out of many doctors who, rather than being underskilled or not up to the job, are not adept at filling in bland and ambiguous questions regarding "breaking bad news in a difficult situation", or "dealing with a colleague who comes to work drunk". I myself have seen many colleagues railroaded into posts that they are overly qualified for.
Doctors support the pursuit of excellence, but it seems the government has scored a spectacular own goal, and it is the patients of twenty years time that will suffer, unless this situation is remedied.

Antionioni
Bergman

look at the acclaimed series Sensitive Skin - their influence is there

I'm with Jeremy. The films of Antonioni and Bergman are the film equivalent of the Turner Prize. This is Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome.

If the likes of Scorsese, Tarantino et al can make intelligent, striking and daring films without being pretentious then that marks them out as the true artists. And to dismiss the likes of Spielberg, Soderbergh and Thomas-Anderson just because they put bums on seats is snobbish nonsense. These men have made daring, innovative and revealing films. They have also made money. They should be lauded for doing so.

I have just watched the follow up of last night's debate about art house cinema. Can this be the same Jeremy Paxman who routinely pours scorn on 'University Challenge' participants for their low brow knowledge and/or lack of knowledge of high culture? Since when were good, well made, intelligent films somehow preposterous, when good, well made art or literature is to be celebrated? Bruce Willis in Die Hard is entertaining? Are you kidding? Personally, I would rather watch paint dry - at least you are able to think during the process.

I have just watched with dismay the poor, biased and unbalanced report regarding the plight of the junior doctors. As one myself, one that is unemployed at the moment having been working as a surgeon with 7 years experience, I am really angry that the real facts of the debate of our training has been lost and dismissed as propaganda. The 'results' of all the restructuring at present will be reaped in the next 15 years. I hope you do not get ill at that stage but as for me as a 'UK trained' doctor with a masters degree I have been deemed not committed to the speciality of my choice. I am off to New Zealand. God help Mr. Paxman and the rest. I forget you all probably have private health insurance.....

I have just watched the follow up of last night's debate about art house cinema. Can this be the same Jeremy Paxman who routinely pours scorn on 'University Challenge' participants for their low brow knowledge and/or lack of knowledge of high culture? Since when were good, well made, intelligent films somehow preposterous, when good, well made art or literature is to be celebrated? Bruce Willis in Die Hard is entertaining? Are you kidding? Personally, I would rather watch paint dry - at least you are able to think during the process.

That was embarrassing.

Itis a measure of how dumbed down the culture of this country has become, that a programme such as 'Newsnight' isn't at all embarrassed to ask a question such as 'What is the point of arthouse cinema?'.

Congratulations must be passed on for another spectacularly distasteful Newsnight, in respect of reporting the death of two people who I'm sure thousands of people (and many more worldwide) care about a great deal. I'm also sure that the lack of complaints you received owes more to restraint or bemusement than the lack of people watching who could have written them.

It's one thing to harbour a distaste for arthouse cinema - and god knows many do - but it's another to assume the news of these directors' deaths presents an opportunity to snipe at something that apparently Paxman and his cohorts don't like. Honestly, what was the editorial line behind it? I'm sure it was more designed to piss off a bunch of viewers than offer any proper 'analysis' of what Bergman or Antonioni have to offer.

Your retalliation against three emails which were both astute and restrained was nothing short of schoolyardish, and the attempt to cloak it in some kind of half-assed arthouse parody as if pulling the 'we're-only-joking' tack made it more offensive. Or was that the whole point?

It was also distinctly cowardly to bring in a ringer to criticse art cinema on Jeremy's behalf - if he's so tired of reporting on things he has no interest in, or unable to feign it, why bother at all? If those three emails were so pithy then why waste time talking about them?

Maybe you should leave the art to Kirsty Wark et al who understand its significance and have a level of respect which apparently your weekday staff can't muster.

It makes me wonder just who the team will deign worthy of a fitting send off - probably those who would trigger more than three emails if they didn't.

Is Paxman a Philistine? I make no judgement on that. He is however, I suspect, a game-player, a spinner of tales and a general 'wind-up' merchant. And in his role, rightly so.
On the matter of 'Blockbuster' vs. 'Art House' cinema, the analogy I would use is that viewing a blockbuster is rather like going to a fine restaurant where one 'consumes' and, hopefully, appreciates what is put in front of you, whereas with art-house it is like being presented with a set of ingredients and you make what you can of them. The latter option seems more interesting (dare I say intellectually challenging?) to me.

There is no truth in the rumour that I had a contract taken out on Antonioni just so I could get my Ingmar Bergman e-mail read out on tonight's programme.

The whole art house piece was ridiculous anyway. A true film fan can enjoy films from any country or genre.

Tonight's Newsnight item on Antonioni was an incredibly depressing piece of television. It was bad enough that Paxman and Co. chose to steadfastly avoid any kind of serious retrospective of Antonioni's life. But to treat his death, and the entire body of "art-house" film, as a mock-fest brought a knot to my gut.

Toby Young's bizarre, totally unconvincing insistence that the likes of Bergman and Antonioni will be forgotten only reflects Young's own fears for his imminent obscurity. His fears are well founded.

I don't know who the hell Antonia Quirke is but I hope she continues to enjoy Bruce Willis' vest and all its inherent beauty and poetry. I'm sure it will sustain her spirit in the vacuous years ahead.

As for Jeremy, he was right about one thing: Steven Smith's package was indeed drivel. By the way, good luck with the knighthood, Jeremy! Please give my regards to HRH, as I'm sure you will give her yours... relentlessly.

As you can tell, this programme has put me into a horrible mood. Thanks. I'm beginning to lose faith in Newsnight. Sorry, but it's true.

I agree with the other posters who said the discussion of 'art house'/Antonioni was a depressing and infuriating experience. I don't really want to dignify this pathetic "debate" but I feel I should at least make my voice heard. Paxman, Stephen Smith and Toby Young had clearly never seen anything by Bergman or Antonioni or attempted to engage with anything that might be considered challenging. Typical British response to perceive any attempt at seriousness or difficult as a form of bad manners.

If this is the best the 主播大秀 can offer in the way of a tribute to two internationally recognised artists, don't bother. It confirms the notion of British anti-intellectualism as surely as if there'd been no ackowledgement of their deaths at all.

And for the record, Antonioni's 'Red Desert' is an extraordinary piece of cinema.

By the way, to the poster above, Ken Russell was actually making a criticism about the diminished attention span of younger film viewers, not asserting that "art movies" (whatever that means) are "slow and boring". The opposition "art house/mainstream" is a false one, unless you're referring to genuinely to the opposition between underground/avant-garde cinema and industrial cinema. Ultimately, it's a question of good films and bad ones.

Do (or, can) so-called 'Art House Films' 'entertain/ or are they 'entertainment'?

"Entertain (v.tr)
1. amuse; occupy agreeably.
2. a. receive or treat as a guest
b. (absol.) receive guests
3. give attention or consideration to (an idea, feeling, or proposal). (ME f.F entretenir ult. f L tendre hold]

Entertainment (n.)
1. the act or an instance of entertaining; the process of being entertained.
2. a public performance or show
3. diversions or amusements for guests etc.
4. amusement
5. hospitality"
(Quotations above from the Concise Oxford Dictionary)

Before we launch ourselves into pedestrian so-called 'debates' about Art House vs Blockbuster films/cinema, perhaps we'd do well to define our terms and thereby sharpen our understanding of taken-for-granted, so-called 'definitions' which, it seems, are by no means universal.

If I wished to watch a Bruce Willis film in the context of what it might tell me about the formulaic use of structure, iconography, etc. of current American culture, I might or might not find it very 'entertaining'. If, on another hand, I wished merely to be distracted (entertained???) (away) from a pedestrian day in my own life, it may or may not afford me that end.

The same/similar could be said about any so-called 'Art House' film - except that the so-called 'Art House' film might challenge what one might call 'passive viewing' in that it is likely, at some level, to challenge formulaic cinematic conventions and thereby require of me an occasional bout of individual thought.

What then of Scorcese, Tarantino and others?

Are we not, in truth, talking about the American Studio system vs every and anything else? And if so, why do we not say so?

The sneering and contemptuous item on junior doctors brought out the usual mantra that they all expect to be consultants etc. No they don't, but they do expect to be able to apply for jobs, not time limited to 4 jobs or 4 areas and compete in that way. Some excellent doctors, who have cost thousands to train, have not get posts, and, unfortunately, with the rush to fill posts, no doubt some less excellent people will have been appointed. It is the lack of flexibility and total cut off of career prospects that exercise minds. People can accept that at times they may to progress less quickly than they would like - what they find harder to deal with is the total termination of career prospects. Well done to Matthew Shaw of Remedy for getting the facts across as best he could. Not well done the reporter - what an unpleasant, sneering approach she took.

Must say I'm greatly relieved to find that I wasn't the only one to find Paxman's moronic questions to Richard Eyre with regard to Ingmar Bergman a disgrace. But then what can we expect from a 主播大秀 that, along with the once great Channel 4, has completely neglected the great European cinematic canon over the last fifteen years or so. No wonder thirty somethings like Mistress76uk above have no appreciation of great film artists like Bergman and Antonioni - they have grown up in a culture that has virtually forgotten their existence. It is not a question of Scorsese and Coppola vs Bergman. What ludicrous ignorance! Those great directors would be the first to admit the massive debt they owe to European 'arthouse' cinema. Only yesterday I was reading Paul Schrader (US film-maker and screenwriter of Scorsese's Taxi Driver) in the Inedpendent saying he wouldn't have become involved with films if it hadn't been for Bergman.

I felt the panel debating the merits of the art film was lazily assembled. What would have been wrong with Newsnight simply running a brief 3-5 minute salute or commentary on Antonioni's life and legacy. Why turn the deaths of Bergman and Antonioni into yet another perverse justification for English anti-intellectualism (a strain that also distrusts the country's homegrown auteurs such as Peter Greenaway, Mike Leigh, Lynne Ramsay, etc.). The discussion between Nigel Andrews and Toby Young did neither any favours. The former came across as obtuse, while the latter sounded like a yob with a better grasp of syntax. Both gentlemen have made their case for high art and populism much better in print. Newsnight's other features were nuanced, informative and insightful, why couldn't the sole cultural item of last night have possessed these same qualities instead of being turned into another flippant expression of the "dumbing down" ethos that has infected so much of UK mainstream media.

I have always thought Stephanie Flanders one of the most able of the Newsnight team but I fear her report on the new junior doctors recruitment and training scheme descended into cliche with her relying on the usual suspects of Alan Maynard and rent a doc from the Department of health.

given Ms Flanders is an economist I was amazed that she did not point out that the NHS is a MONOPOLY provider of jobs and post graduate training in this country and as such in the last year has used that position to introduce untried, unscientific and oppressive changes to junior doctor recruitment and training.

We heard the word competancy alot from the discredited former BMA lead James Johnston - competancy means the "minimum level" of competance - I wonder if Ms Flanders would be happy to be treated by someone who had satisfied the minimum level of competance to practise? as opposed to a doctor who had trained sufficiently and engaged in research to further enhance their understanding of their specialty.

This report was superficial did little to explain the complexities of manpower planning facing the government and profession and I am delighted to say provided a plateform for Matt Shaw of Remedy to see off Jeremy Paxman who in previous items over the past few months has made is antipathy towards the medical profession plain

With regard to art house film and the heroes of the genre, I have to say that a film is a personal work. I say this meaning both from the film makers point of view and the audience.

I wouldn't give a hoot if the squabling brain dead masses of cinematic illiterate didn't watch it, for I personally will judge a film on it's own merit, and my very own enjoyment of it.

Now I like a brain dead action romp just like every one else now and then, but equally, there are moments where art takes the lead.

It's a matter of taste, timing, and company.

Right then, I think I'll go and watch the prefectly formulaic scary romp that is "1408". Enjoy!

Just wanted to add my own observations to last nights Newsnight interview conducted by Mr. Paxman with Nigel Andrew and Toby Young.

The arguments about the issues themselves have been well covered by other posters, but what disappointed me was the style in which the interview was conducted, and particularly the dismissive and discourteous way in which the interviewer terminated the debate, which had been conducted (by the interviewees) in a lively and respectful fashion.

It's unfortunate that someone in a professional position behaves in so immature a way, and it does neither Newsnight nor the 主播大秀 any credit to allow or encourage this sort of behaviour.

As for the debate itself, it is sad that instead of celebrating the life and work of two extraordinary artists, Newsnight chose instead to approach the story at such a tabloid level.

But it is unfortunately consistent with the approach taken by the 主播大秀 to cinema in general; Newsnight Review bravely dips its toes into 'arthouse' cinema once a year at Cannes, but apart from that is relentlessly middlebrow/lowbrow in its choice of films to review (imagine if they only reviewed books by Catherine Cookson or Wilbur Smith).

Hardly any decent foreign/arthouse cinema makes it on to 主播大秀 these days (with the exception of 主播大秀4), and, whereas once we had the likes of Gavin Millar presently an intelligent look at film, the latest offering from the 主播大秀 on British Cinema resorts to the lowest common denominator style of C-list celebs providing vacuous soundbites.

Jeremy introduced the piece on junior doctors with the comment "... Stephanie Flanders, has been finding the truth behind the Great Junior Doctor Fiasco of 2007".
No she didn`t Jeremy, as anyone lost in the fallout from this fiasco would know. I can`t say what sort of editorial brief she was given but whatever research she had access to was unlikely to expose the truth behind this sorry affair. For the first time I felt what it was like to be exposed to an inadequate examination of the facts of a case made worse by the generally sneering tone of the reportage. It put me in mind of Rod Liddel`s editorial bit on Radio 4 about fox-hunting, before he was sacked. Stephanie Flanders should stick to economics. That`s an inexact enough science for facts not to matter very much.

One might have been forgiven,while watching Newsnight last night and 主播大秀 news bulletins, for thinking that the doctor situation appled to England only. Scotland is still part of Britain and the doctor situation applies here too.
Jeremy Paxman and the female reporter should have done their homework better and realised that this is not purely about having a post. It's about a new system where the old pre-requisites for furtherment of career, for example training, experience etc have been swept aside and replaced by interview.
If Jeremy Paxman applied for a post in his field would he be happy to know that everyone who applied would be interviewed,regardless of experience, and that interviewers would not know about previous experience, training etc? All that would matter would be the interview. I doubt it, and Jeremy Paxman, with the greatest of respect, does not deal with life-and-death matters!

I tuned in to Newsnight yesterday evening in the vain hope of hearing some intelligent comment. Instead, I saw the final nail being driven in into the coffin of 主播大秀 TV's reputation as a serious commentator on the arts. My heart went out to Nigel Andrews as he attempted to explain, to two people who appeared incapable of understanding, the astoundingly simple concept that a serious work of art is not insignificant just because it can only 'a fit audience find, though few' (Newsnight producers might be interested to learn that this is a quote from John Milton, an insignificant English poet from olden times).
I do wonder what Antonioni or Bergman had done to deserve the indignity of having Toby Young pronounce on their merit. Should (God forbid) anything happen in the foreseeable future to Philip Roth, Lucien Freud or Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, are we to assume that 主播大秀 editors will be soliciting Jade Goody for her views as to their importance? Finally, though, I must admit that I am not greatly surprised 鈥� Newsnight is, after all, a programme that consigns arts coverage to a half-our ghetto on Friday night, where cultural matters are raked over by a panel made up largely of people who have no more sense of the aesthetic than I have of what it feels like to be a bat.

Thank you for last night's item on junior doctors; I am disappointed but not surprised at the reaction on the boards here. No doubt the online application system was a fiasco and should have been scrapped. But the reaction of doctors remains in effect that they should all have guaranteed six figure salary jobs - preferably in the fields they want to work in and the areas where they want to live. There is no sense that selection is a good thing, some are simply not up to the job - even though medical negligence causes 1000s of deaths every year. Sorry, Mike W, Stephanie Flanders was reporting on economics - the economics that the NHS is not an employment creation scheme.

Oh Jeremy, no need to be quite so contentious on art house cinema !
I agree with most of the comments already made on this topic.
Newsnight viewers know that the best cinema, like the best art, leaves you with an experience, and that art is more than entertainment.
If you want to learn about life, see "Bicycle Thieves"; if you want to pass a pleasant couple of hours see
"Bridget Jones".

How fixed are the minds of doctors on place and position? Do they love medicine or 100 grand lifestyles? How many tantrums have we seen by those who say they will leave the country if so and so happens.

While people pray for health doctors pray for customers. Someone is going to be disappointed?

Bevin illustrated the character of the medical profession when the doctors opposed the creation of the NHS when he said 'I stopped their mouths with gold'.

Jonathon and csharp,

I am a doctor that has been made unemployed by the recent application fiasco.

I have a double first class honours degree from Cambridge University, distinctions in Medicine from Edinburgh University and excellent references from colleagues and patients.

I am prepared to move anywhere in the country to pursue my career. Which, by the way, I will earn 拢28k for - nowhere near the oft incorrectly quoted 拢100k per year!

I was not selected for interview by the online application scheme. One survey suggests that a third of those doctors who did not get employment this year have first class honours degrees or equivalent.

And it cost your government 拢250k to train me, only to then discard me following the failure of an ill-thought out application scheme.

Do you really support a system that actively discriminates against the best doctors, and wastes your taxes?

Sorry to return but I must correct the widespread misapprehension about consultant pay. I have been a consultant for 10 years. I moved country in search of a job. I earn 86 grand a year. I work on average 44 hours a week in hospital and take work home most evenings.

I am cheaper per hour of direct patient care than the specialist consultant nurses, and other "new ways of working" instigated by this government. I am disappointed Stephanie Flanders an economist did not do a more incisive analysis of the very real problems of money, manpower and training we face.

Jonathan, if you think about it the NHS does, in fact, create jobs; every time a new hospital or health care centre is opened. In this respect, the doctors employed within it have always competed for the jobs available. This degree of competition is nothing new. What was not exposed in last night`s "true" report of the fiasco was the incompetent workforce planning that took place alongside the introduction of a new career structure for the medical profession. Stephanie Flanders was fixated by the "bottom line" and why not - she`s an ecomomist. No, in terms of balanced reporting the failures and incompetence of workforce planning were not dealt with. Oh, and by the way, what evidence do you have to support the 1000s of deaths caused by medical negligence that you say take place every year?

All a bit of an overeaction considering Paxman only made one comment regarding box office success - and that was to determine why such universal unquestioning critical acclaim can follow sometimes impenetrable and overlong filmic dramas. They tend to be worn as a badge of honour by intellectuals; the rest of the world hasn't seen them. Why all the hoo ha seemed to be what he was really asking... a discussion of of Bergman's undoubted groundbreaking technical and creative achievments would serve better than all the green-ink indignation in Tunbridge.

All a bit of an overeaction considering Paxman only made one comment regarding box office success - and that was to determine why such universal unquestioning critical acclaim can follow sometimes impenetrable and overlong filmic dramas. They tend to be worn as a badge of honour by intellectuals; the rest of the world hasn't seen them. Why all the hoo ha seemed to be what he was really asking... a discussion of of Bergman's undoubted groundbreaking technical and creative achievments would serve better than all the green-ink indignation in Tunbridge.

Unfortunately Paxman et al appeared to miss the point about what we're really up in arms about - lack of opportunity to be trained to the maximum of our abilities in the future due to the unnecessary haphazard implementation of a new training system by an interfering government. This gives a shrinking window of opportunity for those who have not been successful in obtaining a long-term training post this year.

A recent survey (https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/debate/letters/article2093366.ece ) shows that this year's selection process has actively discriminated against some of the brightest Drs in the job pool. It is likely that many of them will be lost to the UK's training system forever and without them the future of the NHS is not as great as it so easily could have been due to the reckless implementation of a flawed training system, the consequences of which we will all face as we will all be patients one day.

The NHS is about to massively lose-out with the stunted progression of many good, talented Drs in this new brain-drain of a system. Those of us who haven't already realised this fact need to do so.

Doctors don't generally complain (quite frankly, we don't have the time!) & the scale of uproar amongst the profession this year is unprecedented, so take note if you don't work in the NHS that something catastrophic has been and is taking place which is rocking the foundations of the NHS.

Support your junior doctors-they bust their guts for you.

More on the Newsnight art film fiasco.

I don't do this opinion emailing thing. But apparently you're counting, and the sneering treatment handed out to the post-Bergman emailers was a further goad.

Suffice to say, I felt for Richard Eyre, who looked understandably bewildered at being asked to justify Bergman's business affairs. It was embarrassing to watch.

As for the 'debate' the next night on art-house versus mainstream - if your treatment of economics or politics were so simple-minded, you would soon have no viewers at all. There is good and bad work on both sides of what is a very porous, artificial divide, which is why Tarantino named his production company after a Godard film, and Scorsese adores the Italian greats.

If you don't think Bergman or Antonioni worth covering - don't cover them. Don't have a debate that insults us all. Those of us who like them (and some of us like one more than the other) will get our obits elsewhere.

The only heartening thing is that most of the responses on this thread have been eminently sensible.

Jeremy Paxman and Stephanie Flanders showed an astonishing lack of insight into the MMC/MTAS debacle, and their arrogant and sneering treatment of the doctors who endeavoured to put their views forward was sickening. No one has a god-given right to a job but everyone has a right to expect a fair recruitment system. This new, untrialled and unfit for purpose MTAS failed miserably in this respect. However, before it had to be abandoned, it had culled some of the brightest and best of the medical profession. That is what this debate is about and it is a pity that the 主播大秀, and Newsnight in particular in this instance, failed to portray a more accurate picture of the truth. Incidentally, where was the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson? He was one of the main architects of this disaster. Had he been employed in the private sector, he would have had to resign. Had he been an honourable man, he would have done so anyway.

To all involved with Newsnight production and presentation,

It is a bit rich to accuse junior doctors and Remedy UK of propaganda after that grossly unbalanced report. It was very purposefully and heavily skewed in the government's favour, and each one of you knows it.

What's more is that it was quite transparent to all watching that that was your intention, and yet again the 主播大秀 have scored a huge own goal in favour of the growing evidence that it is a governmental puppet.

Please summon up some courage and start reporting the truth, or at least do a little bit of homework before making sweeping generalisations.

The reason doctors are "seriously rubbed up the wrong way" is that we have been subjected to an illegal restriction of trade, an unfair and unvalidated application system, and had to gamble our careers in a one chance only random selection. That Jeremy, IS "exclusively" applicable to the medical profession.

Have the entire Newsnight team got to their current positions without a single botched interview? Has no-one ever had a bad day?

The medical profession thrives on competetion and strives continually for excellence. But when selection processes are so utterly flawed as to be random, and there is no opportunity to improve one's performance and attributes as a doctor, then there is no longer competetion and there is no longer excellence.

Junior doctors not gaining training posts will eventually laeve the NHS. They have tremendous potential as young professionals and will find great careers elsewhere.

The real losers of this ministerial meddling are, sadly, again, the patients. The removal of competetion, excellence and expertise in the profession by MMC and MTAS, can only lead to a steady reduction in quality of medical care over the next 10-15 years.

And that, Mr Paxman, is not 'blather'.

How would journalists feel if they were, as subject to a monopoly employer, and on the basis of an acknowledged failed application system told that they had to write advertising copy for the rest of their careers? They would never get to work in their specialist field, never get to present, investigate or report. The 10s of years and the hundreds of sacrifices they had thus far made were for nought. All on the basis of 1 interview, and all because a political party wanted to change the media. I think the 主播大秀 might have something to say about that!

The 主播大秀 by virtue of its funding has a responsibility for balanced journalism. In your 'reporting' of the fiasco over doctors training you have failed spectacularly.

Medicine has always been competitive, and thankfully always will be. The new model of training has some merit, but its politically driven, rushed implementation whereby 4 years of medical graduates are squeezed into 1 year of posts is a ridiculous proposition by the most basic of assessments.

I have yet to meet one doctor who 'expects' a consultancy, nor one affected on the sorts of salaries you allude to.

Snivelling supercilious biased ignorant reportage is something one might expect from a overzealous tabloid, not the 主播大秀.

Are you so dumbed down that all you are incapable, or so cowed by the government that you are unwilling to look at this issue in a balanced way?

Some years ago, my cousin - Sun reader, 1 CSE - was enthusing about a film he'd just seen on TV, that ended with a boy casting a bell. I realised he was talking about Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev. The 'Nessun Dorma' thing shows that if people are exposed to art, they may actually find they like it, and it won't make their balls drop off. Not much chance of that these days, though. I was lucky enough to grow up in the 80's, when CH4 and 主播大秀2 vied with each other to show the full backlog of cinema, from afternoons of 20's silents to wrist-slitting Fassbinder late at night. Liverpool and Manchester (my turf) both had numerous cinema clubs, too. What happened? I can't remember the last time I saw a Bergman on terrestrial TV, and the cinema clubs all closed in the early 90's - too early to be the fault of the DVD.
By the way, a couple of months ago,Toby Young (son of a Lord) was slagging off The Arcade Fire on the grounds that they went to a posh school (so that's it for the Clash and Radiohead, eh?) The man really is a first class tit.

I have to say that I find the implication in Stephanie Flanders report that many UK-trained doctors are not fit to reach consultant status breath-takingly arrogant and also extremely insulting. There are in fact far more sufficiently intelligent, dedicated and ambitious doctors wanting to become consultants than there are posts available, so this is a question of government funding rather than of 'weeding out' weaker doctors - what an insulting term!

Paxman's interview with Matthew Shaw was a similarly atrocious piece of journalism. Junior Doctors have never at any point demanded guaranteed career progression and this has been refuted dozens of times, and yet Paxo still knows better! If Jeremy is going to give free range to his unfounded opinions people may still find it interesting viewing, but should it really go under the title "News"night?

Finally, after watching Jeremy accuse Remedy UK of being "a publicity stunt", coming from a such a histrionic journalist that sounds like high praise indeed!

Jeremy/Stephanie

For the record, I am a British born and trained interventional cardiologist (completed specialist training May 05) and have recently come back from 2 years in the US where I gained further advanced training. I have watched this debate concerning doctors training with interest whilst over the pond and since coming back. There a number of points I wish to make

1. The current MTAS debacle is not the first time that the NHS/DoH has well and truly screwed the careers of doctors. Less well publicised, in the mid 90's, the number of consultant obs & gynae new posts were cut (needed more for true consultant led care but funds were lacking). A significant number of people who had trained to a level equivalent to me in that speciality (eg gynae oncology - super specialised) over 12-15 years and at a pre-consultant stage (old SR grade) had to give up. Prior to that in the early 90's with the previous re-working of specialist training, a proportion of junior docs had to give up pursuing specialist training, purely, due to a transient (1-2+ years) but large reduction in availability of such posts. This is unacceptable given point no 2.

2. Time and again I have heard people asking why should doctors expect or feel entitled to employment when people in other sectors of work obviously do not. The majority of the rest of the workforce have the benefit of working in market economy. Those working for the state have many private sector opportunities. This in marked contrast to medicine The point no one has made during this debate is that whilst we are not unique in having comprehensive universal healthcare, we are unique in that docs have no choice but to train and to work for state owned monopoly (NHS). UK docs do not have the choice before, during or after completing specialist training to work exclusively in the private sector. You may disagree with this assertion pointing to the existence of private hospitals. Please note however that >>90% of all private medical care is non-acute and delivered by NHS consultants in their spare time 鈥� thus quite wholly unsuitable for training. Whilst I as a fully trained cardiologist, for example, can theoretically work exclusively in the private sector, in practice this is impossible due to >90% of the private work being performed by NHS staff. The healthcare economy is a state run enterprise in a sea of market economics. (Whilst I鈥檓 in favour of a truly mixed healthcare economy albeit with the private sector being very tightly regulated I鈥檇 like to point out that the US system is a mess). Thus junior docs who have no choice of employer (the state) should therefore have a basic guarantee of a job by the state; otherwise you the great British public should opt for a mixed system like in Europe/Australasia and I鈥檇 be happy have the same job uncertainties as the rest of British society. In this scenario I鈥檇 happily try my luck going entirely private with the risks that entails as nevertheless I鈥檓 not unemployed unlike the current system.

3. Having a central portal to organise job application is not in itself irrational. The US system is excellent with similar programmes in Australia and elsehwere. I do agree, it is not credible for doctors to think that their choice of specialty is guaranteed 鈥揺veryone who wants to can鈥檛 do a particular specialty. Indeed this basic principle of competition has always been accepted. Any centralised system must allow for full demonstration of all positive attributes an applicant thinks they have- this MTAS lacked. A state run organisation should have had an idea of applicant 鈥� job ratios avoiding unemployment (point 2). MTAS was a classic British farce 鈥� we attempted to emulate an excellent process used abroad but鈥�.amateurishly and on the cheap!

Remember the media and the public supported the government in 'managing doctors', stopping them from 'playing golf all day'. The result- doctors payed more, less home visits, no increase in efficency.

In 10-20 years time, when the public and journalists are concerned about the fact that doctors are not trained to the same standard as the current senior doctors- just remember you supported the government in bring in minimum competence, as opposed to excellence. Remember that you supported a system that gives higher marks to attending a study day, and getting a certificate than a PhD, that you wnat doctors who can write about coping when making a mistake, but are not tested about medical facts.

Nick S (comment 39) said:
"a discussion of of Bergman's undoubted groundbreaking technical and creative achievments would serve better than all the green-ink indignation in Tunbridge."
Exactly! So why did we not get that discussion ??

主播大秀...主播大秀...how can you invite someone to speak about Antonioni....
in that tone....!!!!
Antonioni is one of the director who has changed the cinema.....we all know that!!! Please no more discussion about Antonioni with such a "non sense" tone!!!!

Your recent shows on the death of Bergman and Antonioni were just unbelievable! I have never commented before on the content of a tv show but this one was just too much! You have now totally lost all credibility and these shows are the nail in the coffin. This is just a quick note to let you know what my initial reaction was and that I will be following this up with further correspondence. As my circle of friends debates the issue, I am certain they will also want to make it known that you have really lost your way.

The occasion of the deaths of two giants of world cinema seems like a good opportunity to look back and appreciate, rather than to debate the whole concept of cinema as art, especially if you are going to do it in an inept, anti-intellectual philistine fashion. Late Review has long had a schizoid attitude, reviewing highbrow books and plays, but only looking at big-budget commercial films - a strange, unproductive double standard. But they have outdown themselves this time, with an ambarrassing, idiotic apparaisal of two unassailable titans of film art. It's the equivalent of running an arts debate along the lines of: "Caravaggio, is he any good?" I can sort of understand Jeremy Paxman going on the attack, since that's what he's trained to do, like a pitbull, (though I now have lost all faith in 主播大秀 news' ability to analyse an issue intelligently: if I'm ignorant of the issue I will simply assume that the 主播大秀 is no better informed than I am) but for a specialised arts show to sink to this idiotic level is unforgiveable.

Not so long ago, many highly ambitious junior doctors from Europe and North America (as well as elsewhere) sought to prove their mettle (and turbo-boost their CV's) by a year or two at Baragwanath Hospital in Soweto - frequently with the express intention of gaining a march on their peers (by returning to their country of origin well ahead in experience & knowledge, of said peers). My understanding is that this often worked well for them.

There must now be many places and placements around the world that might serve junior doctors in a similar way.

The point of this thought is not to belittle what may well be the genuine grievances of those who feel so let down by the UK selection process under question, but to proffer that some who wish to advance in Medicine and medical excellence, might find it a worthwhile route and model to investigate, even as times and conditions change.
Thanks.

Stephanie Flanders's report on the junior doctors' recruitment saga itself deserves the title of "fiasco".

It is most definitely not the case that junior doctors are overpaid or enjoy some form of protected employment and guaranteed advancement. Ipso facto it is not the case that MMC is simply about the government putting an end to doctors' priviledged position and introducing them to the labour market as everyone else experiences it.

As things stand, junior doctors earn between 25k and 50k - not 100k! - and half of this in overtime. They work 56 hour weeks, much of it at night and deserve every penny.

As far as guaranteed employment and advancement to consultant goes, there has never been a guarantee that any particular doctor will reach consultant. What there was is a fair system (the Calman system) for recruiting registrars - those training to become consultants. Competition was always fierce for registrar's positions: so this fiasco is not about doctors waking up to labour market competition either.

What it is about is two things:

Firstly, this year's round of recruitment was profoundly unfair. Calman was fair. MTAS was not. Its not that there was competition for the first time, its that the competition was unfair.

Secondly, MMC is a dumbing down of consultants' training. Your future surgical consultant, for instance, will have one sixth of the experience of the ones produced by the old system. No amount of bleating that that sixth will have been of a higher quality (don't make me laugh!) can make up for the brute lack of operating time. Filling in a form and ticking a box does not teach anyone anything about surgery.

"Newsnight viewers know that the best cinema, like the best art, leaves you with an experience, and that art is more than entertainment."

Agreed.
But the way the whole coverage was framed left it rather difficult to get to a fruitful discussion of all this.

Perhaps if the notion and question of 'Authorship' (l'Auteur) had formed part of Jeremy Paxman's introduction to the subjet we (& he!) might have benefitted more coherently from the contributions of Eyre and, yes, even Young. It might also have helped us appreciate Scorcese & Tarantino too.

I'd be inclined to say things around so-called 'Art-House Cinema' and the well known statement on "...the unexamined life..", if I didn't think that by now, my comments are rather tardy and the point has already been made far more usefully by others, not least, in their references to ummm..."La Condition Humaine" (as-'t-were).

Recent information that the United States Congressional Senate has commited treason by joining governmental bodies with the State of Isreal; seceding from the Second Continential Congress. The Second Congress was abolished.