You know, it couldn't have happened to a more deserving fellow...

'Nazi' remark presenter is sacked

This from a BBC report later the same day:

Talksport host Jon Gaunt has said he is "bemused" by the radio station's
decision to sack him for calling a local councillor a "Nazi" live on air.

A clue as to why they sacked him might well be the fact he called someone a Nazi and an "ignorant pig" ON AIR...

Gaunt has been called a "shock jock" by just about every station he's worked for - although this mis-uses, misunderstands and vitally discredits the value of "shock jocks". He isn't one at all, he's a rude, arrogant bully how shouts at his guests if they disagree or try to express another view. I've heard some appalling views expressed on TalkSport over the years, and the fact that listener complaints prompted the station to sack him really says something... "Shock jocks" get sacked for pushing boundaries too far... not for intimidating people with abusive language.

Even the hundreds of supporters that he says have been in contact - or even the "national celebrities" that have expressed support (his book has a nice comment from Anthea Turner on it, so maybe that's the level we're looking at) couldn't save him. And rightly so.

Supporting local causes on local radio - airing the public's views and allowing debate on these subjects is what he, rightly, came to fame for - he deservedly won a Sony Gold for coverage of Vauxhall's decision to close their factory in Luton while he was at BBC Three Counties Radio. Not this - controversial broadcasting is one thing - and shouldn't be discouraged. But there's a far better way than to initimdate, bully and scream.

We apologse for the delay to this service...

As you'll have realised, should you be reading this blog, we've had an extended break from the blog, following the end of Series 4. This was obviously to make sure we made absolutely no headway whatsoever on the back of the plug the Who Cast kindly gave us back in July...

So let's start this creaky machine back up again... And we have things to talk about.There's a new Christmas special now only 5 weeks or so away (the Children In Need sampler of which got me whimpering with excitement like the man-child I am),

Obviously the news that now not just RTD is going, but David Tennant too, the prospect of a spectacular end for their tenures and the brave new world of the Vast Toffee MN - and the inteminable debate on who should take the role. Expect the Sun to fill pages with these rumours. Its nice to know that a national "News"paper is interested in the show... but maybe not if they're going to suggest Ross Kemp has accepted the role...

[Read the rest here]

Buchan Forth...

John Buchan was in bed, suffering from a duodenal ulcer when he wrote the book that changed my life. And he later described it as a “shocker”. Not in the sense that we take that to mean, but Buchan used “shocker” to refer to works that contained events that were very unlikely to really happen – and that readers were only just able to believe in.

And The 39 Steps, as this work became, along with its hero, Richard Hannay, was a success and has influenced many a film adaptation (to date, 3, with one more in the pipeline), as well as a spin-off drama series on ITV in the late 1980s.

I need to nail my colours to the mast here. I don’t like the 1935 Hitchcock version very much. As a film, its well-constructed, and well made – but its not the story Buchan wrote and I fell in love with.

The Hitchcock film was re-made in colour in 1959, starring Kenneth More, and was an upgrade of the original, but essentially the same, with the same altered story.

The 1979 film starring Robert Powell was far more to my taste, but I still can’t stand the ridiculous dangling-off-of-Big-Ben ending that has become so famous.

I discovered the novel at the age of 14. We’d been forced to move house to an area I didn’t like and away from all my friends – my bus ride to school was now two buses and was long and torturous. The Christmas coming up didn’t seem to be too promising to me then. And when I wandered into a little bookshop in Orpington (which has long since gone), I had no idea what would happen when I picked up a small book from the Wordsworth Classics display. I’d only looked at that because they were all just £1 each, too.

On Christmas day, we travelled to my nan and grandad’s house near Croydon. I had the book with me – not because I didn’t get anything nice for Christmas, or because I was expecting to be bored. But I had it because for once, I’d read something that intrigued me from the start. That first chapter – read in slight desperation because I wanted to go to sleep on Christmas Eve – had had my mind whirring ever since I’d woken up. But until that car journey, there’d been too much going on to read – there’d been church, and then a visit to my other nan and granddad’s… But now I could see how it would continue.

I read the rest of the book between then and the end of the evening. I’ve not read many books within 24 hours, and this was the first. I read it again over the next week. I was enthralled. This was escapism as it was intended. I didn’t care one jot what was going on elsewhere – I was in a world of espionage and treason, where you couldn’t trust anyone completely. Brilliant. Just what I needed.

So that’s basically why I don’t like the Hitchcock film – because its nothing like the book. I was so excited when I managed to get hold of a copy of the film… and so disappointed when I watched it. The ending of the book is so Holmesian in its reasoning, so suspenseful – and its totally changed.

It’s a very good film, I concede, but its not the film I want it to be – the whole plot is altered substantially when The 39 Steps are changed to be the name of an organisation rather than what the book says it is. And even more when a love interest is introduced. The importance of the Memory Man character to the film is very clever, and well-worked, but it all seemed rather less than only just believable to me.

I only really mention this stuff because I read these articles today:

BBC to remake Buchan classic

Austen? Buchan? It's time for more unusual adaptations

I’ve been waiting for the BBC to do this. It’s been my dream for roughly 15 years to write a new version, and I am obviously only hurt because the BBC didn’t ask me to do it… But Rupert Penry-Jones is a great casting choice for Richard Hannay. Its being written by Lizzie Mickery too (who, amongst other things, co-wrote the marvellous The State Within), and the BBC have been at pains to say that although it’s an adventure first written and set in the first years of the twentieth century, it will be worthy of a Bond of a Bourne story.

I’m in two minds about that. On the one hand, it’s a brilliant idea. But on the other, I’m nervous of the implication that it could be somewhat more, shall we say, modern. When trying to play up to the Hollywood standard, TV adaptations generally simply put in more CGI and explosions. I hope this won’t happen here. It looks promising, but I’ll have to keep my fingers crossed!

An exciting marriage…

No, not an actual marriage… But it’s the first thing to make me so excited (if you discount the release of Artemis Fowl book 6 last month… and perhaps not surprisingly, this is related).

Here’s the press release on Eoin Colfer’s site: And Another Thing: Full Press Release

And here’s a summary for those who can’t be bothered to read it:

The widow of Douglas Adams, Jane Belson, has chosen Eoin Colfer to write book 6 of the Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy Trilogy… It will be called “And Another Thing”, and will be out in Penguin Hardback next October (2009).

I saw that yesterday and stared at the screen in wonder for several minutes.

My reason is this: Douglas Adams and Eoin Colfer are two authors who have changed the way I think about writing and about storytelling – both have surfaced in my consciousness when I was looking for something to keep going for, and have sustained their appeal for me ever since (which believe me, is unusual). They both also inspired me to write – in different ways.

I was lent a copy of the first Artemis Fowl book in April 2002 by someone who recommended it as something good to get through the gap between Harry Potter books. I devoured it in less than a day, and since then, I’ve read that book probably hundreds of times and have far and away preferred Artemis to Harry.

It was as visual a piece of writing as I’ve ever come across, if that makes sense. I wasn’t surprised to hear talk of a Hollywood film soon afterwards. But its exciting – writing that makes your heart beat faster, your nerves jangle and every sense in your body tingle is a rare and treasured thing. And he managed it with the first book in the series.

My theory is that most series of novels take a couple to hit a peak – it happened with Harry Potter, in my opinion (Book 3: The Prisoner of Azkaban is the best, I think). Saying that, its disproved countless times…

I then bought a copy of a different Eoin Colfer book – The Wish List – thinking I could read it during a week away at Spring Harvest. I read the whole thing on the journey up to Skegness – finishing with about an hour to spare.

When I think about it, it’s the spirit of the writing that attracts me – the style, certainly of Artemis Fowl – follows on almost fittingly on a line that includes Robert Louis Stevenson, Jules Verne and John Buchan, with a twist of HG Wells. His writing – even for small children – is engaging, vivid, exciting, and laugh-out-loud-funny when it wants to be. All things I aspire to achieving one day.

One of my favourite things about Eoin is his enthusiasm. He recently wrote an introduction to a new Penguin Classics edition of “Treasure Island”, extolling the virtues of the book for good reason… and he also embraces his audience – going on national tours to connect with people, encourage kids to read and make people enjoy stories – not to promote his books… And his enthusiasm for Hitchhiker’s is infectious – here’s the piece on his website about the new project…

Eoin Colfer on Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

If you haven’t read an Artemis Fowl, go and do that. Beg, borrow, steal, murder, whatever. You have to read the original book at least.

Hitchhiker’s Guide was a discovery I consciously made myself. I heard a couple of people at school talking about it, and soon after I got my first job, I went hunting for the cassettes of the original radio series. I wore those out in a matter of months. It took a while to read the books – mainly because I assumed that Adams would have produced a pretty standard novelisation (like happened with Doctor Who books – although they’re still marvellous). But I was proved delightfully wrong. Having then read Neil Gaiman’s biography of Douglas, I realised that he was so full of ideas, so creative in his thinking, that he never quite got the same result twice. I know that he suffered from crippling writer’s block, which depressed him – and he was famously not a prolific writer – often having to be forced to sit down and write.

The influence these two have had on my reading tastes and my desire to write is sizeable, but I’m not going to get all gushy – for people to spout forth about the brilliance and the influence of Douglas Adams is more cliché than a Westlife video and the best thing I can say about Eoin Colfer is what I’ve already said… Plus, I don’t want to look like a fan now, do I…?

Despite not wanting to be gushy, the combination of Eoin’s writing and Douglas’ creations makes me want to squeal with joy. So naturally, I’m already panicking that its going to be a huge let-down… Oh to be able to ignore paranoia.

'King Kev...

I don't write about football much. I like it - I like playing, watching and reading about it. But I'm not obsessed. I go off it for long periods of time - and the last time was when my beloved Charlton got relegated and then acted like arses (disbanding the very successful women's team - although later forced to reinstate it when a furious backlash erupted - and selling players there was no need to sell). But international tournaments always, always reinstate my love of the game.

Even this transfer window has been fascinating. Not because of Charlton pulling in some very decent players, but because of the big cheeses fighting over mega-rich, easily-bruised ball-kickers. The Berbatov thing, I grant you, was interminable - until Man City livened it up by threatening to gazump their deadliest rivals for the player.

But what dismays me most is Newcastle. I have a slight soft spot for the Toon - I have friends who love the club to bits, and I can understand why. For me, they're a bigger version of Charlton - always promising but never quite getting there. I say like Charlton - more like Charlton with Ken Dodd as financial adviser...

But today's sacking of Kevin Keegan... I'm speechless. Mike Ashley obviously isn't the saviour fans thought he was. Sure he brought King Kev back, and it was so much better for the premiership as a whole that he did - the Toon improved steadily after he arrived and haven't looked half bad at the start of this season. But after all that, he gave the footballing genius that is Denis Wise control over transfers.

It was always going to end up a choice between a legend and a small, mediocre yob.

How do you manage to get that choice wrong?

Ask Ashley. Bloody hell.

Sad Things Happen

This isn't how I saw things going,
Definitely not how I thought it would be.
But every cloud has a silver lining
every person a sight to see.

I cannot help but relive memories,
though I know theres a new path to tread.
All it means is I walk in circles
Crossing over from warmth to dread.

I have no clue how hard the journey
That awaits me around the bend,
All I know is I have to step forward
And just trust that it leads to the end.

Has anyone else noticed...?

A certain amount of wicked irony in the US threatening Russia over illegal incursions into another territory?

Surely that ranks alongside Lily Allen mouthing off about the crapness of other "celebrities" and the English football fans' insistance on pointing out Spain's frequent under-performing at major competitions as one of the most hypocritical statements of all time...

Anyone think of any more?

Like A Rowling Stone

There was a really interesting article on Guardian.co.uk back in May, which looks into whether JK Rowling is accepted as a fantasy writer, or whether the world of critics and academics are sexist towards her (and other female sci-fi/fantasy writers). I meant to blog about it at the time, but a lot has been happening... So here are my thoughts.

Firstly, the article is here.

There are a few things that I picked up on particularly. Firstly, the quote from Michael Rosen, which was jumped on by the media the week before that for being anti-Potter... He was quoted in the Scottish Sunday times as saying that the Potter books are rather hard-going for children under six. Well, that's right, surely? Why is that controversial or anti-Potter? That's no more a criticism than saying Shakespeare is difficult for toddlers. The books are full of heavy themes and events - things that a lot of adults struggle to comprehend. Michael Rosen is not the Children's Laureate by good fortune. He knows what he's talking about - I'm not sure there are many who understand and promote storytelling better. And yet, his comments were interpreted as meaning that the books were unreadable.

Secondly, and I hadn't paid attention to the criticisms of JKR before now - I was content just to read and enjoy the books, enjoying the storytelling and the escapism - but the comments of AS Byatt are snobbish and ignorant. If you don't know what this is about, she has said that the popularity of the Potter books is because they are "written for people whose imaginative lives are confined to TV cartoons, and the exaggerated (more exciting, not threatening) mirror-worlds of soaps, reality TV and celebrity gossip." Sounds disturbingly like jealousy to me... Very unseemly for an extremely well-respected novelist, poet and Dame of the British Empire...

I, for one, don't fall into the target audience Byatt suggests, and I find it offensive to be pigeon-holed like that. If you don't like it, fine, but I don't see what right you have to condemn others. It's easy to read - maybe not all that deep and meaningful (to me), but its a nice escape from a world that is increasingly becoming dark and corrupt. You write what moves you - and you know what you're talking about there. But Rowling wrote what she felt she had to - and there's no doubt that she knows what she's on about in that realm.

Another point in the article was about Rowling being invited to give Harvard's graduation day commencement address this June. The reaction from students was not altogether positive. This is from the Guardian article:

Writing in the university paper, the Harvard Crimson, student Adam Goldenberg rips into Rowling as "a flash in the pan", "a petty pop culture personality" who "tricked parents into letting their kids read books filled with sex, murder, and homosexual role models". Furthermore, "writing bedtime stories is lame".

What utter, utter crap. I'm going to sound like I'm JKR's press officer now, but I have to disagree. A flash in the pan - seven books worth. Does that make seven flashes in seven pans? A highly successful movie series isn't exactly half an hour’s work either...

Petty pop culture personality - the way she's handled her fame, and riches - the philanthropic and compassionate way she's dealt with it all makes that comment every bit as ignorant as AS Byatt's jealous rant. Writing articles about subjects you clearly know nothing about isn't the way to cultivate respect...

I'll skip the tricking parents thing, as I think its nuts - OK there's murder in there, but sex? No more than kids would have experienced growing up, and homosexual role models - that maybe true, but when you're not told a character is homosexual until well after the books are published, it kind of diminishes the effect. And what's wrong with a homosexual role model anyway? That would make two ‘isms’ from Mr Goldenberg in one comment. Good going there...

"Writing bedtime stories is lame." That comment is just so wrong that I actually feel violently-inclined to this whingeing, envious wheeze bag. As a parent, I love reading stories with Luke. I have always loved stories and storytelling, and I am a huge fan of children’s or “young adult” books - because they tend to be more creative and imaginative. I read plenty of bona fide adult fiction and non-fiction too, mind you. But that only sharpens my appreciation to it all. I don't think I would enjoy either one half as much without the other. Writing a bedtime story is every little bit as legitimate, literary and commendable as writing a historical novel, or a thesis on the US constitution.

In general, I agree with the point of the article - novels of this genre are generally only talked up if they are written by men - Philip Pullman, Garth Nix, Darren Shan, Philip Reeve et al. But there are female writers who produce books of a quality matching, if not surpassing them - Diana Wynne Jones and Marjorie Blackman are two that spring to mind immediately. Both of those I discovered through recommendations, having seen nothing of their work advertised or hyped up in the press to the same extent as the male authors quoted.

People like different things. Lord of the Rings is pretty good, I think - but I don't consider it to be that good to deserve obsession and repeated readings. Or a musical. When you strip that down to its bare bones, it’s essentially a fairly tedious road trip story. Albeit a road trip with tiny men in possession of huge hairy feet. And a fiery thing at the end. And orks. I did enjoy it, but I also got very bored at various points.

JK Rowling has achieved what she has through hard work - and in the process she's stimulated millions of minds (not just those of children), and made reading popular with many, many children once more - in an age where the internet and TV rule without competition. How on earth, with clear conscience, can you criticise that?

Unless she’s selling more books than you, of course…

blOODy hell, we're famous!

Well, nearly.

The wonderful eccentricities of my computer meant that for some reason I missed a couple of recent episodes of the DWO Who Cast... Which I downloaded last night and listened to this lunchtime.

I listened to Episode 76 and nearly choked on my sushi when they started the "Random Fandom" section by mentioning the name "The Ood Cast"...

Tony and Trevor are both very nice about us and I've probably mentioned this before, but I'll do it all over again - the Who Cast is well worth a listen, definitely one of the best DW-themed podcasts out there, and always an entertaining half an hour or so of listening.

Oh, and they mention my rant about people's, frankly wrong, opinions on The Unicorn and The Wasp. Oops...!

But the word is out...

Look it up on iTunes if you don't believe me...

Or download it from here...

[See the original post here]

Red Letter Days

Saturday was supposed to be a momentous day for Doctor Who – it was RTD’s big finale, in effect. An episode where he pulled together as many loose strings from the last four years as he could fit into an hour and tried to tie them all together once and for all.

We finally saw the door slammed on the ridiculous Doctor-and-Rose-sitting-in-a-tree… "tension". Mickey finally moved on (to Torchwood?). Martha finally seems to have joined Torchwood permanently. Donna is back with her family – having got better and better as the series rolled on. And we got that answer to the regeneration question.

But did it all come off?

[Read the rest here...]

This is wonderful! Go and enjoy!

I've been reading about Interesting2008, which took place last Saturday in London. I'd have loved to have gone. Its a conference where various creative-types get up and talk about interesting things.

Annie Mole, of the Going Underground blog fame, described it like this: "A collection of funny, fascinating, funky & often frankly foolish people who Russell Davies collected together to talk about interesting things"

Anyway, this is amazing - a self-confessed geek and LEGO obsessive expounds the delights of the little building blocks we all love. All in 3 minutes ten seconds.

http://www.slideshare.net/rooreynolds/lego-is-full-of-win

Go and have a look, share the geeky joy and do something geeky yourself. Its good for you.

Trust me, I'm a doctor.








All right, I'm not.

But you should do it anyway.

When the night is long...

I find straight-up horror films pretty boring these days. I almost think its fair to say that if a film states that it is a horror film, and is not made in Japan – its probably not very scary unless you’re a horror virgin or too young to see one. They generally end up in three categories, in my experience – the unheard-of, non-english-language original version, the plastic-bimbo-populated Hollywood remake, and the half-baked predictable teen-horror.

What’s impressive with Doctor Who at the moment, is how far they seem willing to push the boundaries for the timeslot they’ve been shoved in (I say shoved in: series 1-3 were all shown in a slot an hour later – and all pulled in roughly a million more viewers per week).

But this hasn’t quietened down the ambition of the production team. This series has had a feel of the inevitable about it – a kind of running dread that has wound its way around the storylines. But – no stories that have tried to freak viewers out with “scary” CGI monsters… Not that spring to mind, anyway.

And RTD’s episode, Midnight, seems to be the pinnacle – so far, anyway.

[Read the rest here...]

And the nation's libraries were empty...

Oh so often in television, cliffhangers are abused. Cruelly used to drag viewers back against their better instincts to watch the next installment of whatever it is they're watching. And often, this is a complete let-down. Imagine sitting back to watch the new episode of Eastenders because the end of last night's has intrigued you - only to find out that its still a soap opera of negligable merit about depressing people and their petty little existences. Nothing is ever discussed - always dismissed as either "it's family" or in fisticuffs. Or a bottling. It is London, after all.

Where are the Krays when you need them, eh?

Well, I'm always worried that a cliffhanger in Doctor Who was just such a hook to drag you into a mediocre fishing net, filled with slippery little bores that rumble on endlessly about continuity, mythology and characters. Incidentally, I'd like to set up a forum for people to discuss and enjoy the good doctor's universe - but it would have a strict policy - the rules of Just A Minute would apply. Say continuity twice and you're out of here!

But why was I worried at the end of the Silence In The Library? Why did I even entertain the idea that the next part would be anything other than magnificent? I'm not sure. But I'm glad I was worried, if only that it meant I enjoyed The Forest of the Dead even more.

[Read the rest here...]

When The Going Gets Tough, The Moff Gets Going

Well. How to describe The Silence In The Library... I sat still afterwards for a few minutes, looking at the now empty screen I'd been watching it all on, and became very aware that I had a dark room behind me...

I've loved this series so far - so many things to like about the writing, the elusive "story-arc" (yawn). But the one thing I think we've been missing is suspense. Last year was not short of suspense - I think most, if not all the stories had elements of suspense - with 42 being extremely tense all the way through, and then the ultimate trio of episodes from Paul Cornell and Steven Moffat topping it all off. But this year, I think we've seen things coming.

The Sontaran story, as enjoyable as it was (and I mean that sincerely - it was incredibly watchable, even if I did have reservations about the plot), was not tense at any point, to me. The Doctor's Daughter gave away the suspense within a minute of the start and from then on was light on plot and pretty predictable (but great all the same). The Fires of Pompeii had some suspense in, and was a cracking early episode, but that's about it.

But as usual, The Moff defies us all. From start to finish, this episode pulsed like one of the classic Dalek tales or the relentless tension in the Web of Fear. There were some fantastic touches in structure - they're sealed in a library, but there's a little girl on earth (? Is it earth?) who can see all and communicate with them - even if she doesn't understand. Shadows that eat you alive - "not every shadow, but any shadow" is how the Doctor described it. Weapons useless against such an enemy is something that also screams classic Who to me - and makes all this even better.

[Read the rest here...]

Trailer nonsense

I am writing at the end of the week where the good Dok-tor was replaced by a bunch of over-made-up European tunebreakers. Eurovision took preference, and Who fans have had to make do with a teaser trailer again.

I also write this just after the first ever get-together of the Ood Cast writers - fine gentlemen, all - and the night before the Moff unleashes what looks to be an even more frightening story than last year's Blink. Only this time, we have to get through two episodes behind our white knuckles!

I actually quite like the break to accomodate Eurovision. And that's not just because I like the Eurovision (although, embarrassingly, perhaps, I do - even if it is mainly for Sir Terry) but it affords us a bit of a breather before we set off on the usually terrifying road to the season finale. And it gives us a chance to ruminate on what's been and get pant-wettingly excited about what's coming up.

But some take this more seriously than others. Some can't stand the week's break (really - think about how long we had to wait for the series to come back, guys - what's a week?), and others take what they're given and over analyse to a ridiculous extent.

[Read the rest here...]

I Think It Was The Giant Wasp In The Library With The...Erm, Giant Wasp Sting?

I can't stand wasps. I have never liked Agatha Christie. I was therefore probably not going to immediately warm to this episode. Gareth Roberts was either going to be onto a total winner or complete failure....

My problems with Agatha Christie are long and deep-rooted. I was kind of brought up with her work (my mum had read every single one, and there were hundreds of them in the house). I studied her work as part of a course at university - compared and contrasted every aspect of her novels with others of both the time, earlier and later. And I was bored rigid of her. Formulaic, predictable and annoyingly elitest, her mysteries were not exactly my favourite time-killer.

But there is a sort of history with Doctor Who and crime fiction. They seem to be natural companions. You see, Doctor Who is not all about saving universes from horrible beings, sometimes what is worth saving is somewhat smaller than a planet. And the Doctor has been pretty good at being the detective - stories such as the Talons of Weng Chiang and The Horror of Fang Rock unfold like Sherlock Holmes tales, while fabulous murder mysteries in their own right, like The Robots of Death (which still stands up as a magnificent piece of drama, in my opinion) carve out this alternative and rich vein in the Doctor's psyche. And here he was again.

[Read the rest here...]

Guns + War + Genetic Experiments = Family?

There was a time - the late 80s spring to mind - that Doctor Who wasn't really viewed as, you know, "proper acting". The Doctor was arriving in places filled with Comedy double-acts trying to stretch their careers for a bit longer, the cast of Cats and actors that people had assumed were already dead...

If there was any doubt to the quality of this show by now, I point you in the direction of The Doctor's Daughter. This is, seriously, the best thing I have seen in a long time. Ok, so being daddy to a small boy, TV isn't exactly something I get to experience all that much anymore. But the point still stands. This was brilliant.

[Read the rest here...]

You know, you'll only spoil it for the rest of us...

This is about Fandom. The wonders of it, and the horrible way it can really obstruct other people's enjoyment of things.

Doctor Who fans, in general (I think) are a wonderful bunch of people. They vary hugely in every way, and cover several generations. Even the younger fans seem to be able to intelligently hold their own in debates over whether the Slitheen should make a wiffy return, or if the Daleks really are the meanest baddies in the "Whoniverse".

(Incidentally, my pedantic side picked up on something that was said by a 12-year-old fan in a podcast I heard recently. He said that he'd seen "just about all the classic series, which is an achievement for a child of just twelve years of age." I agree. Especially since many episodes haven't existed on video since the late 60s/early 70s...)

But there are some who are so set in their ways, so convinced that what went before is better than it can ever be again, that with every new idea, every new theory of the doctor's past or the development of any plot line that has been used before, that they become willfully destructive and just blow up at the slightest provocation.

[Read the rest here...]

Sontar-Ha! Sontar-Huh?

Do you remember that feeling when you were little, when Christmas came round, and you got exactly what you wanted in every way... and then discovered it wasn't quite as brilliant as you thought it would be?

I don't know whether I should be disappointed. Don't get me wrong, I loved the story - and I think the Sontarans are a wonderful baddie. I am, and always have been, a UNIT fan. DT was brilliant as usual, Donna bearable, and Martha was excellent. But I feel cheated. I went on a nostalgic trip after I saw The Poison Sky, and it only made things worse, and because I particularly like the Sontarans and I want to share my pain, I'm going to go a bit geeky on this episode's ass.

[Read the rest here...]

Strategems and Self-discovery

I learnt something very insightful and rather frightening about my future at the weekend. Let me briefly explain. My parents have been watching the series of Doctor Who. On Sunday, when Luke and I went to visit them, my dad said that he didn't understand that week's episode. "It didn't make sense," he said. "Why? What was wrong with it?" He looked up and replied "It had no end - it was confusing..." Everyone turned to look at him. "Dad, you did know that it was the first part of a two-part story, didn't you?"
"Ah. Now that would explain a lot, wouldn't it..."

Let's get on. The Sontaran Stratagem. Like Andrew, I think this will be more tangent than plot talk...so let's start where we mean to go on.

[Read the rest here...]

Oods and Ends...

So, our namesakes arrive... and this was a bit of a masterclass in sci-fi staple elements. An ice planet, a future inter-galactic human empire, a slave race in revolt, misuse of science for personal gain and a scientist with slightly mental hair. And that's not to mention the warehouse chases and planetary landscape scenes filmed in a quarry...

But that's not to do it down any. This was well done. Well written and slick, this is an interesting story that was really nicely put together.

Donna's moral side really does something good here - and really does counter the Doctor well. But, like Chris, I really am not sure about Catherine Tate. She's OK, and she's fine with me if her character remains interesting next to DT (who wouldn't?). But every time she speaks, I just hear characters from her sketch show. At the end of every episode she's been in so far, I have been expecting her to storm off to the TARDIS shouting "F***ing liberty!"... I'm waiting for the Dalek episode where she'll just look at it as if its a male model on a cold day, cock her head to one side and shout "I ain't bovvered!".

[Read the rest here...]

Moving the mountain (off the face of the earth)

And Partners In Crime is completely forgotten. My word this was good.

Soothsayers, volcanoes, underground monsters, stone people, ancient circuitry, moral depth for Donna (who saw that coming?! – I don’t believe you if you say you did…), fabulous actors...

Any shortcomings from the week before, forgotten and gone. This was lovely. Even the water pistol moment was good. In fact, it was far better than that – it was classic Who – it sits alongside offering Jelly Babies and cups of tea, and bamboozling enemies with insults so intelligent that they are still standing scratching their head while their plan is unraveled around them.

This is what I call Doctor Who… at least, what I did when I was little. It was one of those moments that you look for with every new Doctor, the moment where they challenge the previous incumbent’s reputation… Where they mark their path. Introduce their own little quirk to the role. The first moment that Pertwee’s furrowed brow morphed into that cheeky glint in the eye, when Tom Baker’s teeth filled the screen like an Attenborough Shark Special. When Davison adjusted the leek on his lapel and straightened his hair. When McCoy doffed his hat and swung his question-mark-handled brolly. When Colin Baker’s doctor had a break…

[Read the rest here...]

And so it begins...

At last! Andrew summed all that sentiment up perfectly, so I won't add to that, except to say that I am glad its back, if a little nervous.

I have several gripes with Catherine Tate. Not least the idea that The Guardian put out there on the same day as episode 1 was broadcast that she's "Britain's best-loved woman comic"... I don't particularly find her sketch show all that funny and there are characters on that which make me want to put my foot through the telly.

But in 2006, whether I liked it or not, she encroached on my ground... She was in Doctor Who. And she was, well, alright. It wasn't a great story, and the character was pretty unlikeable. But it was alright. It was watchable - but having David Tennant in the cast does that to a programme...

So what on earth was this going to be like with the grating Donna by DT's side, combatting what looked to be the least-threatening menace since the half-painted Myrka stumbled into the Sea Station in Warriors of the Deep? Its so much harder to get away with crap monsters these days. It was much easier when it was very clear to all that this hideous alien/creature was obviously a man in a half-painted suit - because Doctor Who fans didn't care - its about getting lost in the fantasy of it all, letting your brain compute this as real for 20 minutes a week. Now, though, CGI has added it's double-edged twopenneth in. On the one hand, they're able to create the most stunning things I've seen on UK telly. On the other hand, there isn't anything to be left to the imagination. So how were they going to pull this off?

[Read the rest here...]

Beginnings (2)

I had two beginnings. One false start that sent me scurrying for cover, and then the reunion…

My first happened when I was plainly not ready to see Dr Who. It’s actually one of my first memories (other than falling asleep in front of Live Aid and waking up to see that now-famous video to the Cars song…)

I clearly remember seeing a scene from Earthshock – where Cybermen march up a metal staircase. It genuinely frightened me, and I then remember running and wrapping myself in nearby full-length curtain to hide... 15 or so years later, watching it back again while at university, the same feelings flooded back and I felt a chill down my spine.

The second beginning was a trip to a video shop with my dad. I’d begun watching the TV series properly by then (starting with Sylvester McCoy), and I was playing all the requisite playground versions – everyone wanted to be Ace. Boy or girl, it didn’t matter. Ace was clearly cooler. And so I, being smaller than most of my peers, became the Doctor. On the upside, quite clearly, I was better - after all, I had my own Tardis. And everyone else was a girl. Technically. But anyway, I’d become obsessed with the Doctor, and I wanted more.

Somehow (memory is hazy on the exact details of how I managed it), I got my dad to buy me Spearhead From Space. I took it home and devoured it. Again and again. This was a Doctor I didn’t know, I had never seen before, and was totally different to the one I’d met. But this one was dashing, erudite, and was basically a scientist dressed like Adam Adamant. But I took that in my stride. And their special effects were better than the ones on telly (because they didn't have to go over the top). I loved the story, and was very wary of shop window mannequins for a VERY long time afterwards.

There was something different about all this, though. I immersed myself, but all the while I was picking up the rudimentaries of right and wrong, of the value of life. Of love for others. And after all, while my friends were totally obsessed with football, I couldn't help feeling a bit sorry for them. They watched 22 men in shorts kick a ball around while I loved cricket and watched an eccentric, clever and funny man help up scantily-clad women while he was saving the earth. Sigh.


Favourite Doctor:

Patrick Troughton. While my first was both McCoy and Pertwee, I suppose, and I always thought Paul McGann was brilliant but never got a fair go... my second (dad-bought) video was The Seeds of Death. And I’ve always had a sweet spot for the "Cosmic Hobo", so I’ll go with him. Maybe it’s the daft trousers and the blatant darts at comedy. Maybe it was because he died of a heart attack after (allegedly) attempting to seduce another actor’s wife at a Sci-Fi convention. I don’t know. But the Seeds of Death is one of the finest things I’d ever seen, and I’ve always loved the way his doctor dealt with some terrifying monsters (Cybermen, Yeti, Daleks, the Ice Warriors, the Great Intelligence) with fantastic grace and panache (for the time) and still found time to get everyone else’s back up by practicing the Recorder…


Favourite Story:

This is tough! There are a few that really and truly drew me in until I was completely hooked. The Ambassadors of Death, Robots of Death, The Pyramids of Mars, Talons of Weng Chiang, Ghostlight, The Android Invasion, The Daemons.
I’ll plump for The Web of Fear though. Pulsating thriller set in the tunnels of the London Underground, with Yeti stalking, looking for prey. Oh, and green stuff on walls. Always good. Really threatening, close thriller which is captivating just from the soundtrack (only episode 1 still exists on film).


Monster/enemy:

This used to be the easiest answer for me. It was always the Cybermen. Daleks, like Andrew, I thought were dull. Really, really not scary and not too hard to run away from. Cybermen were virtually unbeatable (except of course if you happened to have a wrinkly old woman from the Sixteenth Century who came with her own gold arrows… ahem), and they were determined. And Colin Baker’s brush with them (The Attack of The Cybermen), is an overlooked gem.
But for me, it’s the Master.
There’s a series of encounters with Pertwee’s doctor that are absolutely riveting – The Mind of Evil and the Claws of Axos in particular are brilliantly simple but complex thrillers… but the master always has the advantage over the Doctor that gives way to a fascinating story while the Doctor fights to reel him in. And his return last year with Derek Jacobi and John Simm was just, well, perfect. It was classic Master and bang up to date all at once.


Which companion did you either want to be or fancy:

The years watching old videos made a huge impression on me… Sarah Jane Smith (Elisabeth Sladen)…

I always wanted to be in UNIT. I suppose they count as companions...


What are you looking forward to:

The return of the Sontarans - OK, they look a bit like rubber-moulded humpy-dumpty models in shiny suits, but they're another one of the old-school monsters who were genuinely interesting to watch. Oh, and UNIT returns in the same episode too!
I'm also looking forward to stories by two particular writers - Gareth Roberts and Stephen Moffat...


Dreading:

I am thoroughly dreading what they’re going to do with the return of Rose…
I'm really beginning to hate the whole romance element of the series. Rose was far enough for me. But then Martha, and now Donna too - falling in love with him. Maybe its naiive to expect that love could be kept out of this, but its making David Tennant's doctor look like a ladies' man, when traditionally, I suppose, he's always been a bit above that.

Ood - Oodio - Oodles - Oodience - Oodearmeitookthistoofar...

For the last couple of months, I've been writing on another blog - in case people out there haven't seen.

This particular blog will appeal to people who like Doctor Who, of any level of interest (you don't have to be a fanatical nutjob to enjoy what we write). It's called The Ood Cast (as it is technically a spin-off from the wonderful Odd Cast) and you can find it here: The Ood Cast blog

and if you haven't had a listen to the Odd Cast, you can find it here: The Odd Cast Podcast
From this week I'm going to start posting my articles from there on here and I'll begin putting the old ones up first - just, you know, so its duplicated and really annoys people.

We're hopefully going to have a debut podcast up and available for download soon (but we'll have to record it and stuff first...).

Please go and have a look if you are so inclined, enjoy the articles contributed by my fine, upstanding colleagues Andrew and Chris and why not be bold and leave a comment? You never know, we might not even censor you!

“Return of Routemaster in doubt says transport chief”

Gosh. Now there’s a shock. Boris may not be able to keep one of his unrealistic manifesto pledges… I don’t believe it…

You’ll be telling me that they run some sort of long race with people dressed up like cartoon characters every year next…

They already do that? Really?

Well, well.

The Day of Truth... Have Londoners just "done a Bush"?

"Boris as mayor? Lovely to see other comedians getting work, but four years is a bit long for a comedy routine."
- David Mitchell

This is from a very good Guardian [here] which puts the case against BoJo as he has annoyingly become known. I voted for someone else, with good conscience, and to be honest, out of the people who stand a chance, I hope to all is holy that Ken wins again. If the quotes below don't make you think otherwise, there's something wrong. What scares me most is that someone who is a hypocritical, lying, bumbling, racist, homophobic, ignorant, elitist wally might actually have managed to dislodge someone who - while not universally popular - has done a lot to further the multi-cultural and accepting society of London, as well as try some Green policies (which I admit, he hasn't done enough). I do find him funny. But in the same way I find George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. And what fine, upstanding, well-informed, in touch and completely unevil gentlemen they are.

I cannot believe that we sat here laughing at the US for "electing" such a man for so long and now we have come so close to following their footsteps almost exactly over here in London. If you hadn't bothered to find out exactly what BoJo is like past the jokes and the "policies", here are some quotes from the Guardian article that sum him up.

Oh, and as much as I respect everyone's right to vote for whoever the hell they like... shame on you if you voted for Boris.

Boris Johnson in his own words

The wannabe mayor on race, sex and politics

On homosexuality
"Gay marriage can only ever be a ludicrous parody of the real thing." · Daily Telegraph, 2005

"If gay marriage was OK - and I was uncertain on the issue - then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog."· From his book, Friends, Voters, Countrymen, 2001

"We don't want our children being taught some rubbish about homosexual marriage being the same as normal marriage, and that is why I am more than happy to support Section 28." · Daily Telegraph, 2000

"The clerics gave us [journalists] a wigging for being so mean to the Church of England ... Why did we draw attention to tricky subjects like homosexuality, aka the Pulpit Poofs issue?"· The Spectator, 2000

"I'm not bisexual so far ... not that I would condemn myself if I later discovered I were."· Daily Telegraph, 2008

On Africa
"No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird."· In 2002, on Tony Blair's visit to the Democratic of Republic of Congo, Daily Telegraph

"Right, let's go and look at some more piccaninnies."· Reported remark, while visiting Uganda, to Swedish Unicef workers and their black driver, the Observer, 2003

On the Commonwealth
"It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies."· Daily Telegraph, 2002

On failing to recognise his Filipina housekeeper
"When our housekeeper appeared on stage in her hot pink strapless number [as a finalist of the Mrs Philippines 2005 contest in London], I failed at first to recognise her, surrounded as she was by 10 other Filipina mums, each shimmering in every shade from fuchsia to Germolene ... Was that Luz, the No 6, the one with the cleavage? Or was she No 5, with the smile? Surely she wasn't No 11, the one with the legs. No: wait - that was her, with her hair up. No 8! 'We want eight,' we screamed, and waved at good old Luz, a woman who has been exposed to the full horror of the Johnson family washing and yet contrived to look little short of $1m. · The Spectator, 2005

On his prospects
"My chances of being PM are about as good as the chances of finding Elvis on Mars, or my being reincarnated as an olive."· The Independent, 2004

George Bush and Iraq
"He liberated Iraq. It is good enough for me."· Daily Telegraph, 2004

"The Americans were perfectly happy to go ahead and whack Saddam merely on the grounds that he was a bad guy, and that Iraq and the world would be better off without him; and so indeed was I." · Daily Telegraph, 2003

On Islam
"The most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers."· The Spectator, 2005

On race
"I'm down with the ethnics. You can't out-ethnic me, Nihal ... My children are a quarter Indian, so put that in your pipe and smoke it."· To Nihal Arthanayake, BBC Asian Network, 2008

On cannabis
"It was jolly nice. But apparently it is very different these days. Much stronger. I've become very illiberal about it. I don't want my kids to take drugs." · GQ, 2007

On sex
"I've slept with far fewer than 1,000."· On whether he has slept with fewer than 30 women, like Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, Daily Telegraph, 2008

"An inverted pyramid of piffle."· The Mail on Sunday, 2004, on allegations that he had an affair with Petronella Wyatt, later confirmed.

On obesity
"Nothing but their own fat fault."

On transport
"I don't believe [using a mobile phone at the wheel] is necessarily any more dangerous than the many other risky things that people do with their free hands while driving - nose-picking, reading the paper, studying the A-Z, beating the children, and so on."· Daily Telegraph, 2002

"The whole county of Hampshire was lying back and opening her well-bred legs to be ravished by the Italian stallion."· GQ, while in a Ferrari

On Liverpool
"A society that has become hooked on grief and likes to wallow in a sense of vicarious victimhood."· A Spectator editorial, 2004 (Johnson didn't write the editorial, but he approved it)

On his arts role
"Look, the point is ... er, what is the point? It is a tough job but somebody has got to do it."· On being appointed Tory Arts spokesman, 2004

On stag hunting
"I remember the guts streaming, and the stag turds spilling out on to the grass from within the ventral cavity ... This hunting is best for the deer." · From his book Lend Me Your Ears

Don't know much about history...

I found this on Kester's blog...

I'm no expert on history, but... hang on...

I don't know why, but it really reminded me of this Far Side Cartoon:

Voting for ANYONE but Boris...

I am now able to vote on 1st May, so I am going to set out my stall now, in the hope that someone, anyone, will listen...

PLEASE DON'T VOTE FOR BORIS JOHNSON!

He is only popular because of novelty value, and is simply "doing a Cameron" and announcing populist ideas that either wouldn't work or would make things worse in London. As well as opposing environment-improving measures already in place and sharing George W. Bush's view on the Kyoto Protocol (which is selfish, ignorant and criminal, in my opinion - that's Boris, not the Kyoto Protocol...).

Just please, listen to reason. As whimsical and comic on Have I Got News For You as he may have been... and despite of as good an impression of a scarecrow as I've ever seen... Is he really the kind of person you want in charge? Even if you don't want Ken again, Boris is NOT the only alternative!

I would normally look to vote for the Lib Dems, if I'm honest. But this time, their candidate is awful. Essentially, they're fielding a single-issue candidate in Brian Paddick. All he knows is crime, being an ex-Met Police Commissioner. All I've heard him talk about is crime. Y-A-W-N.
But I'd rather he got in than Boris Johnson without question...

For me, the choice is between the Green Party and Left List (formerly part of the Respect Coalition)... and right now, the Greens have the best manifesto of the lot. Cuts to bus and tube fares, free insulation for every home that needs it, affordable housing and a higher minimum wage in the public sector.

All that's left after that is the pointless UKIP, the unspeakable BNP, the English Democrats (who?), and the groan-causing Christian Choice party.

The most bizarre statement I've heard so far is from Richard Barnbrook, the BNP candidate. He opposes the London 2012 Olympic Games, and says he would "offer them to Athens" should he win. Well, he won't. And what's more, he clearly doesn't understand how these things all work if he thinks he'd have that choice...

But please, don't vote for Boris... you won't be able to get rid of him after half an hour...

My Secret Life as a Goth Clown...

I have some smart shoes. Well, I think they're smart, and they're rather nice in my opinion. Bought, originally for my brother's wedding, in case you're wondering. I like them. They're comfy and they're fairly smart. I wore them to a job interview today, and they did the job - I suppose I might well have looked fairly smart.

I had an interview for a job at another government department, and it went OK - although I am the worst judge possible on things like this and I'm rarely right if I guess the outcome.

I really enjoyed it, actually, which worries the hell out of me. Its not right, is it? Interviews are ordeals, aren't they? I've never enjoyed an interview before, so I have no idea if its a good thing or not! The interview panel were all very nice and friendly, and seemed genuinely interested in what I was saying... and were just lovely about it all. I guess I'm just glad that they didn't ask me to define "diversity", like I was asked in my last one... My answer to that was so awful that it jeopardised my chances. Wasn't ignorant or rude or racist or anything - just dumb because I hadn't even though about that!

There was just one thing that bugged me. My shoes.

Lovely and comfy they may be, but they are an inch or two longer than my feet, and makes me look a bit like either a Goth Clown or someone who's just bought some shoes from a charity shop and these were the best fit they had..

Still, fingers crossed. I'll let you know what the job is and where it is when I find out the result.

Springer Case Dismissed by Lords

I am very pleased to hear this...

It should finally put an end to a ridiculous set of events surrounding Jerry Springer: The Opera.

It is just such a shame that Christian Voice have to be so flippin' patronising about it.

This is from the article linked above:

"Christian Voice called the decision an "ignoble move".

"It brings down the judgement of God on us all," said Stephen Green, national director of the evangelical lobby group.

"I love my neighbour and I do not want that to happen."

You love your neighbour enough not to credit them with enough intelligence to work out whether they find the show offensive for themselves? You love them so much that you're telling them that they should find it offensive, and if they don't then the warming coals of Beelzebub's fireplace will greet them in the afterlife?

You love them so much that you thought you'd drag this pathetic, holier-than-thou, anachronistic complaint out for over three years?

This is a controversial show, there's no doubt about it. When it was shown on BBC Two, it prompted 63,000 complaints from viewers. But this was mostly people complaining that it contained over 200 swearwords, not Christians complaining about the content.

Christian Voice complained that the show contained images that "vilify God and the Bible". Of course it does. It's a satirical show that deals with modern life as seen on the Jerry Springer show. You think they're all God-fearing, good-intentioned tea-totalers? Any joke that deals with religion would meet that statement. It doesn't mean that every joke is another nail in the coffin of humanity's future. Maybe it means that God can take a joke because he knows that its not everyone's opinion. And, well, it's just a joke.

If its that serious, why would He need you to take up the fight? I'm sure he could retaliate if He wanted to. Get down off your high horses and let someone else have a rant. You don't represent the whole of Christianity. And you certainly don't represent my "Christian voice". So pipe down.

Obama/Cameron, Cameron/Obama?

This is an interesting view of the debates in the US:
http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/

And in particular, this paragraph catches me - and says what has been troubling me about what I've seen and heard - of both Barak Obama and David Cameron...:

"All this leaves me baffled. I have watched Mr Obama speak live; I have watched him speak on television; I have even watched his speeches set to music on a video made by celebrity supporters… But I find myself strangely unmoved – and this is disconcerting. It feels like admitting to falling asleep during Winston Churchill’s “fight them on the beaches” speech."

I'm afraid that its the same with both of them for me - I just am not moved by anything they do. Cameron in particular makes a grand entrance look like sneaking in via the back door under cover of darkness, and last week's Northern Rock debates simply seem to have proved that the Tories are just as adept as ever at rescuing defeat from the jaws of victory. George Osborn, the great Tory hope, seemed to think he was on to a dead cert, and then watched all the criticisms they threw at Darling and Brown just fade away making them look foolish. Don't get me wrong, Labour certainly didn't come out smelling of roses, and didn’t deserve to either - only the Lib Dems managed that - thanks to Vince Cable showing the bigger boys how they should have dealt with the situation.

But Obama seems to be the living embodiment of the phrase "all mouth, no trouser" - spouting meaningless phrases that somehow catch the imagination and mood of the baying fans that have fallen under his spell. If anyone doubts this, please explain to me what the phrases "the audacity of hope" and "we are the change we've been waiting for" actually either mean or do for the mood of the US... As Mr Rachman points out in the article linked above, it would only genuinely be audacious to run for president for reasons of despair... And the second one, urgh, I don't know.

As for David Cameron, I appreciate that making fun of the government at every step, and shoving fingers into every hole in policy at the first opportunity seems to be working at the moment. But you may have many, many more months to wait for an election, and we've seen before that this behaviour wears thin very easily with the public - and support follows rapidly.

I don't actually want Mr Cameron to win an election - I'd far rather see Titus Bramble in the next England football squad - but if he's serious about being a challenge to Labour, he needs to realise pretty quickly that being able to walk and talk without notes, and being able to come up with a few priceless playground insults will not be the deciding factor in an election.

And if last week was anything to go by, maybe they ought to check that the gift horse standing in front of them doesn't have a "Made In Troy" stamp somewhere on it…

God bless you, Mr President

During 1999 and the first half of 2000, I reckon I spent, on average, about 15-20 hours a week in a cinema, usually in the company of Jon Monkhouse. We'd roll up to the cinema at roughly 11 or 12 (an achievement for a pair of students...) clutching our unlimited passes and then spend the rest of the day watching films, routinely seeing three or four a day. And we saw some brilliant films in that time. We also saw some stunningly awful films (Down To You – I can picture Jon’s expression just at the mention of the title - and Frequency to name just two). When Nikki and I started working in London (in 2004), we took out unlimited passes again. This time, it was just for 1 or 2 films a week, but we picked our films, and saw some really good ones, with the occasional disappointment. Obviously, since Luke’s birth, our movie-going habits have been somewhat… restricted. I have no complaints – as I would far rather see Luke’s little face every day than any film, and I have yet to hear of a film to change my mind (no, not even Batman Begins changed my mind…), so I happily recline in my ignorance.

I am, along with any other potential signs of geekdom, completely unable to commit to being a film fan. And yet, that is what I am. But I don’t much care at the moment. I love films, I really do. But I have finally (and very, very belatedly) discovered The West Wing



Can TV get any better than this show? I’ve never seen something that had me hooked within minutes, caring about the characters enough to want to know more by the end of episode 1 and when I saw the season climax I was beside myself!

I suppose it does help that I have an interest in US politics, and that I like this kind of drama – something that is simultaneously unafraid to address proper, heavyweight issues (the first episode has a potential scandal with a White House staffer and a call girl, and within a few episodes a drug scandal breaks) use humour, and make sure we all understand that these are normal, everyday people going through something extreme every day.

It probably also helps that I’d love to do the job. I’d love to be one of the actors, obviously, but there’s a part of me that aspires to be that essential to the running of the country, and be under that kind of pressure. But its not my priority to get there – there are far, far more important than work, or a career (just as well, the way mine has stalled).

But as far as I am aware, The West Wing isn’t repeated on terrestrial TV… Channel 4, who originally broadcast the series, constantly and tediously repeat Friends and ER (and magnificently, Frasier) during the day, so why not this? The only way I have seen what I’ve seen is through begging and borrowing other people’s copies – downloading, in case you’re wondering, takes far far far too long on my humble little creaky laptop (donations gratefully received). I’d love it if Channel 4 starts repeating it other than on a digital channel that not everyone can receive… And if they’d start showing the Daily Show on the regular channel – shunting it to More4 is a waste and an insult – its better than anything we have on tv at the moment over here in terms of satire.

Opening A Vein

There was a time, years ago now, when I wanted - more than anything - to be an actor. I loved, and I still do love, the feeling of being on stage, of showing all those people gathered in front of you that you could be someone else, that you could make them laugh, appall them, shock, frighten, warm, comfort, sadden them, with just an action or a phrase.

There's a very good saying that Phil Hammond used on last Friday's News Quiz on BBC Radio 4: "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put tomatoes in a fruit salad."

I don't know whether I was ever any good as an actor - I was certainly told that I was quite a few times, but confidence is a huge part of doing it. My confidence was always battered by a memory that is fast-attaining legendary status for its faliures. After all, it's all very well being able to recite Stanislavski's acting system, but being able to do it is far more valuable than knowing it.

But there was a moment - one of those moments that you know will affect how the rest of your life will go. It happened at school. I was in the sixth form (year 13 for those of you who are too young to remember proper school years...), and I was rehearsing for my A-Level drama practical exam. I'd chosen one of my favourite speeches from Shakespeare for my monologue piece - its in Much Ado About Nothing (my favourite Shakespeare...), when Benedick first believes that Beatrice loves him - in the Branagh film, it's the bit when he's wandering around the garden with a deckchair...

I knew the speech inside and out, I'd researched into it, I'd concentrated and worked on every inflection of every syllable, and worked out timings. I'd even begun blocking the scene. Then my teacher asked me what I was doing again. I told her. She stared at me as if I'd just accused her of eating students during detentions (she was, after all, big enough for that to be believable).
Her words have stayed with me ever since:

"You'll have to change it. You can't do Benedick - you don't look like a romantic hero."

Well, to me, that's the point of acting. If I was any good at all, it wouldn't matter one little bloody jot if I didn't look like a romantic-sodding-hero. If I didn't look like one, I could act like one and speak like one. I could BE one. But instead, I had to do the only soliloquy anyone ever remembers from Richard III. And I hated it. I like the play, and I thoroughly recommend the film version with Ian McKellen as Richard III, but I hated doing it. If there's one thing I was probably less suited to be than a romantic hero, I'd have guessed at murderous hunchback king... Still, I suppose I was lucky she didn't get me to be Othello...

It was that moment, when she said that preposterous, insulting sentence, that I decided that it wasn't for me. I was going to follow something I'd been doing for just a few months - writing. I wanted, instead of being on the stage speaking someone else's words - I wanted to be the person who'd put those words in the actor's mouths.

All Mysteries Solved...

Huge kudos must go to the artist, Mike. Have a look at his work: http://seemikedraw.wordpress.com/

Go on, you know you want to!

RIP Heath Ledger - and why I hate the British public

I'm shocked that Heath Ledger's dead.

OK, there are many many more things in life to be more bothered about for me, and sure - he wasn't the greatest actor the world has ever seen... But he wasn't a bad one, and he was certainly someone I enjoyed watching in films.

I recently saw "Two Hands" - one of the films that pushed him into Hollywood stardom. It's an Australian mobster film about a guy who gets the chance to do a little job for a local gangster (take $10,000 across town to someone). It goes wrong and the money is stolen. The rest of the film is about how he tries to get the money back to save his life, while evading the gangsters and getting the girl. There's a good sub-plot about the theives who got the original money, a moment during a bank job scene that made me snort with laughter and have to wipe drink off my computer screen, and an unexpected ending. Oh, and its got Rose Byrne as the lead female character (she can currently be seen in Damages on BBC1).

I was excited that he was playing the joker in the new Batman film, The Dark Knight - being a Batman fan, I was always going to be excited about the film, but there's something about the choice of Heath Ledger that seemed right - he was unexpected, possibly an inspired choice for it.

What makes me more sad is not just that I'd only just started to like him as an actor and really appreciate his work, but the kinds of comments that are being left on all the message boards I've seen in response to his death make me feel sick. The BBC's infamous "Have Your Say" one is awful, and makes me really ashamed to be from this country. There are, obviously, some people who go over the top with their messages about missing him, and not quite believing that they'll never see him in a film again. Other than that, it's full of cynical or jealous people, complaining about the fuss being made over someone who is, after all, “only an actor”. There are people suggesting that the fact that the majority of people commenting are women proves that he will be more missed for his looks than his talent (Oh, come on, we're not talking about Keanu Reeves, for god's sake, Ledger could act), that his death was a selfish act because it *could* have been suicide (nothing is sure yet)... But then there's this jewel of unmistakable wisdom:

"Like many others I had never heard of him and thought him to be Keith Ledger rather than Heath. So he played a gay cowboy in a recent film and was a passable actor. Now he is dead and some people will miss him. Quite why he has generated so much interest in death is something of a mystery."

Well why bother commenting on this then? If you know nothing about them, why even chance your arm by saying something so ignorant that it looks intentionally offensive?

But whether you think this is all pathetic or not, films, actors, novels, writers, characters, stories, plays, theatres, cinemas... they all mean an awful lot to a lot of people. Some of these things have mattered to people for centuries. They're escapism, fantasy, ambitions, comforts. All things to all men.

Heath Ledger was a good actor. He was also a rare thing these days - an film star who didn't particularly like all the limelight and the pressures of fame, and managed to keep himself out of the news for being drunk and punching photographers, or swearing at autograph hunters, or drink-driving. Or throwing phones at hotel staff.

People who dismiss the grief of fans are every bit as pathetic as they think the fans are. If not more. You try losing something that's comforted you while you're upset, made you laugh when you wanted to cry or made you believe in love again. I'm sure you'd greive too.

Until you get some compassion, you're all twats. With big mouths.

Superbad... Super bad?

I haven’t seen Superbad. I’ve heard a bit about it, and I want to have a look, but I’ve heard more bad comments than good, so I’m reluctant to spend any money to see it…

Two things more than anything worry me.

1, Total Film gave it 4/5 stars.

2, Adverts for the DVD release say that Empire magazine described it as the “funniest teen movie since American Pie”.

First reaction is, good Lord, is it really as lazy a comedy as American Pie? Don’t get me wrong, AP made me laugh throughout, but it did it by playing to the cheapest laughs they could find. That they spun that out for more movies neither surprised, shocked, or even interested me. It certainly caught something of the mood of the time, but let’s get this straight, it’s no Airplane or Blazing Saddles, is it? It broke no new ground, and said nothing new about anything. Except the sexual side of apple pies (How many chavs were admitted to hospital for burns treatment after trying to reproduce that scene with an apple pie from MacDonalds… I think we should all be told).

I know some of my friends are a lot better up on movies than me – so I’m appealing for some help! Is Superbad worth a watch? Or is it worth avoiding at all costs?

All opinions welcome!

Fa-La-La-La-La (What do you mean I'm a bit late for that?!)

Happy New Year, everyone... Welcome to my 2008...

Over the festive season, I’ve had a few chances to reacquaint myself with a few things I had forgotten.

Firstly, how lovely it is to experience Christmas with Nikki and Luke – truly the most amazing two people I have ever met, and wonderfully, the two people can share my life with. I had some lovely gifts, and couldn’t care less how much or little anyone spent, or how many gifts I received – the best bits for me is always seeing other people get presents.

Secondly, I FINALLY saw The History Boys by Alan Bennett thanks to BBC 2… And my love of Alan Bennett’s writing was completely re-awakened. I’ve re-read the script to The History Boys twice since seeing the film, and savoured so much that its made me want to turn back and try acting again… as well as begin to write again. Amazing what 90 minutes of sort-of sitting still can do to you. There were moments that made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck, just like the first time I saw A Chip In The Sugar from the original Talking Heads series way back when I was 14 or 15, or when I first put on a tape of Beyond The Fringe. I’m so glad he’s still writing and making an impact – the world will be a far, far poorer place when he stops writing. No one has the same acute sense of detail, gentle or sensitive touch with tragedy or the same unassuming humour as him. I’ve always felt an affinity, a closeness to his words that I cannot and don’t really want to explain.

The reason I’ve always loved his writing – and why I love reading in general - is gloriously summed up by this line, spoken by Hector in The History Boys:


"The best moments in reading are when you come across something - a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things - which you had thought special and particular to you. And now, here it is, set down by someone else, a person you have never met, someone even who is long dead. And it is as if a hand has come out, and taken yours."

Thirdly, the songwriting of Steve Earle. I love some country music – essentially people who try and do something interesting or different within the genre (the same could be true for any of my tastes in music). But his, I admit, isn’t particularly ground-breaking or new. It is, however, distinctive. There’s not many people who can write songs that assess the state of the nation as accurately and pointedly as he did in Amerika v.6.0 – which incidentally is on the same album, Jerusalem, which gained him as much notoriety as acclaim in the US and led to his behaviour being monitored by the security services over there because of the song John Walker’s Blues which tells the story of a young American who joins the jihad against the West - I’ll put the lyrics below, but the song rocks as well as makes your brain tick, so I highly recommend checking it out for yourself. The whole album is wonderful (if you can take alt.country).

Amerika v. 6.0 (The Best We Can Do)
(Steve Earle)

Look at ya
Yeah, take a look in the mirror
now tell me what you see
Another satisfied customer in the front of the line for the American dream
I remember when we was both out on the boulevard
Talkin' revolution and singin' the blues
Nowadays it's letters to the editor and cheatin' on our taxes
Is the best that we can do
Come on

Look around
There's doctors down on Wall Street
Sharpenin' their scalpels and tryin' to cut a deal
Meanwhile, back at the hospital
We got accountants playin' God and countin' out the pills
Yeah, I know, that sucks – that your HMO
Ain't doin' what you thought it would do
But everybody's gotta die sometime and we can't save everybody
It's the best that we can do

Four score and a hundred and fifty years ago
Our forefathers made us equal as long as we can pay
Yeah, well maybe that wasn't exactly what they was thinkin'
Version six-point-oh of the American way
But hey we can just build a great wall around the country club
To keep the riff-raff out until the slump is through
Yeah, I realize that ain't exactly democratic, but it's either them or us
And it's the best we can do

Yeah, passionely conservative
It's the best we can do

Conservatively passionate
It's the best we can do

Meanwhile, still thinkin'
Hey, let's wage a war on drugs
It's the best we can do
Well, I don't know about you, but I kinda dig this global warming thing...