Christopher Eccleston talks about leaving Doctor Who

When Doctor Who returned to the airwaves after an exile of seventeen years, the show was spearheaded by two men who had made significant names for themselves in British television: Russell T. Davies as executive producer and lead writer, and Christopher Eccleston as the mysterious and iconic Doctor. However, while Doctor Who easily re-established itself as an entertainment powerhouse, Eccleston was gone by the end of the first season. His replacement was the media darling David Tennant, who championed the show for the next five years, but Eccleston's departure remained a sore, if rarely-talked about, blip on the otherwise magnificent radar of Doctor Who.

 

In an interview with Radio Times to promote his role as John Lennon in Lennon Naked, Eccleston spoke briefly about his short tenure as the Ninth Doctor:

 

I was open-minded but I decided after my experience on the first series that I didn't want to do any more. I didn't enjoy the environment and the culture that we, the cast and crew, had to work in. I wasn't comfortable. I thought "if I stay in this job, I'm going to have to blind myself to certain things that I thought were wrong."

 

And I think it's more important to be your own man than be successful, so I left. But the most important thing is that I did it, not that I left. I really feel that, because it kind of broke the mould and it helped to reinvent it. I'm very proud of it.

 

What exactly Eccleston objected to so much, that he would actually leave one of the highest-profile roles in British television after only one season, will likely remain a mystery. Contentious as though the circumstances were for him, Eccleston says he is very proud of his work as the Doctor, and the pivotal role he played in bringing the show back into the public consciousness after its unceremonious retirement in 1988. As the series continues to move from strength to strength (now headed by Steven Moffat as executive producer/lead writer and Matt Smith as the Doctor), it would make no sense for Eccleston to tarnish his hard work, or the 47-year old television and cultural legacy he is a part of and helped bring back. 



Doctor Who: "Vincent and the Doctor"

While standing in the Musée d'Orsay, admiring The Church at Auvers by Vincent van Gogh, the Doctor notices the image of an alien creature in the church windows where there should be none. A quick trip back to 1890 reveals more than what the Doctor and Amy bargained for. It's an adventure - and a journey - for "Vincent and the Doctor", episode 10 of the 2010 series of Doctor Who, and one of the most remarkable and triumphant installments in the show's long history.

Arriving in 1890, Amy and the Doctor find van Gogh (Tony Curran) penniless, depressed and the laughing stock of Arles. But they have bigger problems; a young woman's mutilated body is found in the city streets, and Amy is attacked by the killer - a monster that only Vincent can see, and the same creature he painted in The Church at Auvers. The Doctor promises to help van Gogh stop the alien, after which he and Amy will leave. Vincent's depression overcomes him, sick to the heart of ending up alone - but he takes comfort from Amy, since he recognizes that she, too, is sorrowful, but soldiers on. Confronting the monster, the Doctor realizes that it is blinded (and was abandoned by its pack), before Vincent kills it in self-defense, mournfully observing that he and the creature were alone and misunderstood by the world around them.

As Vincent explains how he sees the world - swirls of color and light, nature itself screaming at him - the Doctor recognizes a kinship between him and van Gogh. He takes the painter to the Musée d'Orsay in 2010, to show Vincent that his work becomes universally loved and admired. Vincent is overwhelmed, this time by joy, and after returning to 1890, he, the Doctor and Amy happily part ways. Back in the present, Amy is crushed to find that van Gogh still took his own life at the age of 37, and laments that their time with him meant nothing. The Doctor feels otherwise, pointing out that the alien no longer haunts the church windows in The Church at Auvers, and Vase With 12 Sunflowers now bears a dedication: "For Amy".

Leaving aside the alien of the week (which looks like a giant CGI chicken), the absolute strength of this episode comes from Richard Curtis' script and Tony Curran's living, breathing performance as Vincent van Gogh. At times it seems like Matt Smith and Karen Gillan are merely along for the ride, while Curran writhes in mental anguish on his small bed, tearfully ordering the Doctor out of his room, or standing in the Musée d'Orsay listening to the uncredited Bill Nighy saying "van Gogh is the finest painter of them all, the most beloved", who used his "passion, pain to portray the ecstasy, joy and magnificence of our world." As the camera spins around van Gogh and the music builds, yes, it's sentimental and saccharine; yes, it's not science fiction or classic Doctor Who, but this is far better that that. It's a testament to beauty, to art, to hope, to rising above our nightmares and creating something that will touch a life and change the world in some small way. That Doctor Who can go from a story about reptilian humanoids living underground, to giving one of the most famous painters in history something to smile about in the last year of his depressed life, is what has made the show one of the best of all time.

But while Vincent finds himself, how does Amy cope with a loss she can't remember? The three reminders for us - the Doctor being extra nice to Amy, van Gogh pointing out her tears and the Doctor accidentally referring to Vincent as "Rory" - are subtly done, and ensure that the recurring themes of the series continue without breaking the narrative flow of the episode. Not having Rory constantly underfoot helps, too. "Vincent and the Doctor" is honestly too good an episode to bog down with cracks in time, or mysterious prophecies about silence. All that can wait - the real story here is Tony Curran as Vincent van Gogh, whose performances of passion and madness, brilliance and depression are as vivid and vibrant as the paintings of van Gogh himself.

If this is the only one of Doctor Who's 767 episodes you see, watch it for the final act - Vincent seeing a lifetime of desolation and frustration washed away by an eternity of adulation and recognition, and the Doctor convincing Amy that life is about making the good moments mean more than the bad ones, even if they're outnumbered. At times, the emotion is dialed up a notch too high, and there's nothing like an indie rock song to take you out of the moment. But at 4.5/5, it's really hard to argue with an episode that's as good as "Vincent and the Doctor".

 

 

Robbed At The World Cup

When it comes to the World Cup don't expect any objectivity what so ever, because you aren't going to get any, from me. I am for the USA.

In today's, Friday, match, the USA team rallied from a two-goal halftime deficit on goals by Landon Donovan and Michael Bradley to tie Slovenia 2-2. A tie? We needed a victory to make sure we can advance to the next round. We needed a win and we scored a late goal, and then what? We were robbed at the World Cup! The goal was disallowed by a "no good call " by some "referee" whose name I won't mention. His bad call forced the USA team to settle for 2-2 tie with Slovenia. Slovenia! There are only two million people in Slovenia! Two million and one. I suspect they will be granting citizenship to that referee with his "no good" call.

Today in Vampire Sex News

Today, like many other days, is a HUGE day in the world of Vampire Sex. First comes the ultimate news flash from Kristen Stewart: married Vampires are now not only allowed to have sex, Bella and her Vampire love Edward actually have sex after their wedding. I must extend my heart-felt congratulations to the dynamic half-Vampire duo for finally doing the deed, even though they had to wait so long to do it. Watch out for their “steamy” sex scenes in “Eclipse”.

The sex in “Eclipse” might not be nearly sexy enough for Kristen Stewart’s edgier and slightly sexier co-star Robert Pattinson- he is hoping for the franchise to continue in the sex vein with more “hard-core nudity” or so he told a French magazine. I’m not sure how that will go over with Stephenie Meyer, the Mormon author, but if this particular  project ever comes to fruition, I might even rent one of the videos- strictly for educational purposes, of course.

In other Vampire Sex news today (because let’s face it- Vampire sex is WAY more interesting than Politician Sex), co-stars Anna Paquin and Stephen Moyer admit to having “real sex” in their sex scenes in the third season of “True Blood”. Anna Paquin said it’s really hard to resist having “real sex” on the set because the couple is engaged in real life. In the article I read, Ms. Paquin did not speculate on exactly how different her real sex life was from her sex life on the set, but it’s rumored that the male cast members “have to put a sock around their manhood on set”, which might make penetration slightly awkward.  

For a detailed analysis of episode one of the third season of “True Blood”, THIS seems like a great re-cap although I didn’t see the episode myself. The post’s author gave the show a fifty-fifty review, but was more than impressed with the nudity and sex scenes in the show; the Vampire Sex alone might make the show worth watching for enough viewers- the writer reports that in one scene, there is 6-hours of continuous fantastic Vampire Sex, which leads me to believe that it’s true what they say- Vampires do actually have more fun.

Are Hair Booms A Scam?

I assume you've heard about the hair booms by now.  Hair and other natural fibers like feathers and animal fleece are excellent at sopping up spilled oil.  After the Deep Water Horizon spill, a non-profit organization called Matter Of Trust began collecting hair clippings to stuff into nylons, to make floating booms that would soak up the oil.  But is it even happening?  The information is conflicting, to say the least!

On May 24th, the Huffington Post reported that "hundreds of thousands of pounds of hair" was piling up in warehouses across the gulf, and that "BP and the U.S. Coast Guard say they are not using hair to sop up the oil, and don't plan to."  The report added that Matter of Trust had released a statement that "there had been a misunderstanding with BP."

Furthermore, engineers for the Coast Guard had done studies that showed that "using the hair was not feasible, and the organizations collecting the hair were asked to stop doing so."  The Coast Guard is sopping up the spill with a material called "sorbent," which works better than nylons stuffed with hair.  And there is no shortage of sorbent, thus no need for a nation-wide hair trimmings drive.

Despite all this, the Matter of Trust website continues to tout the hair booms, and to solicit donations.  What's going on?  

According to the FAQ on their website, although BP and the Coast Guard have rejected the hair boom donations, "Gulf municipalities and harbors are taking the donated natural fiber boom to protect their shores whereever they can."  Although Matter of Trust is soliciting sign-ups on their website, buried deep within their FAQ is a mumbled request not to send any more hair right now.  

Matter of Trust reports that their volunteers have stuffed 10 miles of booms already, and they estimate that there is another 15 miles' worth of boom stored up in their warehouses.  However, they will continue to collect locally in the event of another spill.

And at the same time, at other points in their website and FAQ they continue to solicit donations.

I struggle against my own cynical side, which points out that you can make money selling hair and animal fibers.  Manufacturers buy them up by the bale in order to serve as stuffing and other raw materials.  There's not enough money in it to make it worthwhile to buy hair clippings just in order to resell them, of course.  But enough that if an outpouring of public sentiment results in dozens of warehouses full of fibers, that the proceeds could certainly help carry your charity through some hard times.

The past few years have been rough on non-profits of all stripes.  And keep in mind that Matter of Trust's main charter is not to protect the oceans, but to redistribute wealth and surplus.   

I definitely don't want to believe that the hair boom thing is a scam.  But I have to admit, I harbor some serious doubts.

Image copyright Matter of Trust

The Death of Cricket

Cricket has been eulogized since time immemorial. As one of the oldest established sports, it holds a hallowed, reverential place in the minds of billions of people across the globe. But this adulation is a jealous mistress; whatever bright idea seeks to improve on the game is immediately pounced on and devoured, like a hapless wildebeest that approaches a bask of crocodiles with a petition for peaceful coexistence. The verdict of this court of opinion is always the same: it's the death of cricket. 

These days, every attempt to innovate, upgrade or develop the game is met with skepticism and hostility, from men with exorbitantly expensive Italian suits or nameless, faceless people sitting behind computer screens. Day-night tests? The death of cricket. Colored balls? The death of cricket. Twenty20? The death of cricket. The Champions League and Indian Premier League? The death of cricket. Attempts to break into the American market? The death of cricket. Featuring cricket at the Olympics or the Asian Games? The death of cricket. Giving more exposure to Associate countries? The death of cricket.

Which leads me to wonder, why stop at the modern age? If we cast our eyes backwards, any change to the game - however minute or far-reaching - was met with opposition. Standardizing the number of deliveries per over from four or eight, to six? The death of cricket. Introducing the helmet and, unforgivably, the grill? The death of cricket. Abolishing timeless Tests in favor of a five-day format? The death of cricket. Reducing ODIs from 60 or 55 overs to 50? The death of cricket. Not actually serving tea during the tea interval? The death of cricket. Yes, I jest, but the precedent remains true - the things we take for granted and defend so vociferously and vehemently were the same things that made our grandfathers rend the clothes from their backs and write angry letters to the editors of their local newspapers. The topic? The death of cricket, and how all these advances - helmets, colored clothes, formats that guarantee results - will forever tarnish the game they love.

If every change is brutally and mercilessly choked by lobbies so desperately determined to maintain and preserve their narrow and limited idea of "purity", then yes, cricket will die, and they will be the ones who kill it. Of course, every proposed innovation should be thoroughly vetted and debated before implementation or rejection. But the court of public opinion is rarely patient or logical, and if the billions of anonymous, faceless voices on the Internet have their way, the only cricket we would have would be unprotected batsmen fending off viscous bouncers to the jeers of a packed leg-side field.

Cricket does not have to sacrifice its tradition and its legacy to be vital and relevant outside its established borders in the 21st century. If cricket retreats into its shell and abandons any idea of modernizing, the world will pass it by and the game we all love will become an antiquated relic, a curious oddity that will appeal to no one but historians and time travelers. This paranoid, primal fear of change is not limited to cricket, by any means, but considering that this is just sport we're talking about - grown men hitting a ball, chasing after a ball, and throwing a ball over and over again - there are better things in life to get so protective about. 

2010 Asia Cup Preview, Part 1

The 2010 Asia Cup is the first major international cricket tournament after the Twenty20 World Cup in the Caribbean, and for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and hosts Sri Lanka, serves as a dress rehearsal/testing ground for the 2011 World Cup in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Focus now shifts to 50-over cricket and working on the lessons learned from the Micromax Cup in Zimbabwe.

India - after disappointing campaigns in the Twenty20 World Cup and the Micromax tournament, India will be relieved to welcome Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Virender Sehwag, Harbhajan Singh, Gautam Ghambir and Zaheer Khan back to the mix. They will be without Sachin Tendulkar (who asked to be rested) and Yuvraj Singh, dropped over concerns about his fitness and form. While Tendulkar's permanent place is without question, Singh will have to face competition from Saurabh Tiwary, the tall 20-year old who impressed with three half-centuries in the Indian Premier League. The more experienced players will be refreshed after the World Cup debacle, but might be rusty switching back into 50-over cricket - the selector's idea of a complete revamp of the team for the Micromax Cup meant that team that went to Zimbabwe will be almost completely different to the one that will play in Sri Lanka. India will look to disprove criticism that the IPL has made them soft and uncommitted to international cricket.

Bangladesh - after decent (but ultimately losing) performances in England, Bangladesh will look to cause more than a simple upset in the Asia Cup. Mohammed Ashraful returns to the side, but the pressure will fall on Shakib Al Hasan and Tamim Iqbal, who has lit up scoreboards with his attacking and dynamic strokeplay. Bangladesh will look to shrug off a disappointing Twenty20 World Cup campaign, and get their performances ready for the 2011 World Cup, which they will co-host. While not much is expected of them (either then or now), they will be expected to punch above their weight - they've had Test status for a decade, but still languish at the bottom of the world rankings table. If they want to acquit themselves with decent performances in front of their home crowds at the World Cup, the Asia Cup - which will be played in similar conditions to what they'll have at home - is the best place they can start. 

 

(contd.)

2010 Asia Cup Preview, Part 2

In Part 1 of my 2010 Asia Cup preview, I covered India, the team in transition, and Bangladesh, who will look to prove their worth against their subcontinent neighbors. In Part 2, we'll look at Sri Lanka, the host team of this year's Asia Cup, and Pakistan, a team who are their own worst enemy.

 

Sri Lanka - of the four teams taking part in this year's Asia Cup, Sri Lanka go in the most prepared. While they had a mediocre Twenty20 World Cup campaign, their performances in the Micromax Cup will help them carry some momentum to the bigger challenges they face in the Asia Cup. Tillekeratne Dilshan rediscovered his form, and has generally thrived on the slower surfaces of the Asian subcontinent. The biggest story is the exclusion of Sanath Jayasuria and Ajantha Mendis, part of the aggressive new selection policy. Neither comes as a big surprise - Jayasuria's slide has been painfully obvious for far too long, and while Mendis enjoyed success in Zimbabwe, he has lost much of the aura that propelled him into the international scene. It's ironic, because it was a century from Jayasuria and a mesmerizing spell of 6/13 from Mendis that won Sri Lanka the final of the 2008 edition of the Asia Cup. While Mendis is by no means out of the picture, youngsters like Suraj Randiv and Jeevan Mendis will be eager to prove their worth after good performances in the Twenty20 World Cup and the Micromax Cup.

Pakistan - I wrote before that the only time Pakistan do well is when they face adversity of some kind. It happened in the 1992 World Cup, it happened in the 2009 Twenty20 World Cup, and it almost happened again in the 2010 Twenty20 World Cup. Shahid Afridi now leads a team putting itself together after multiple suspensions, life bans and fines were overturned, and with injury- and controversy-prone Shoaib Akhtar back in the squad. Akhtar's presence can be a double-edged sword for Pakistan - he hasn't played competitive cricket in a long time, and there's enough infighting in the Pakistan team as it is, but he can be an absolutely lethal fast bowler. It's in circumstances like these, when Pakistan have their backs to the wall, that they perform the strongest. It's led them to world cup victories in 1992 and 2009, and almost saw them through to the finals in 2010. Going into the Asia Cup, and with the 2011 World Cup on the horizon, Pakistan's preparation has been anything but focused, but that's never stopped them before.

So when it comes down to the bottom line, I'm going to put money on an India-Sri Lanka final; after that, it's anyone's guess. Sri Lanka have had India's number in the recent past, but India have enjoyed consistent success against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka, both in bilateral and multi-nation tournaments. Bangladesh performed as well as they could have hoped for in England, but whether they can win consistently enough to make it to the finals is unlikely. Pakistan remain the perennial wild card, the dark horse that can go all the way if they don't spectacularly combust first. They face hosts Sri Lanka in the first game of the tournament that will reveal a lot about what we can expect - Akhtar's fitness, Pakistan's cohesiveness, Dilshan's form, and the bowler-friendly Dambulla wicket. Who knows, it might be as interesting as North Korea going up against Brazil tomorrow. 

The Story of Stuff

I recently wrote about Annie Leonard’s amazing twenty-minute film The Story of Stuff. If you’ve watched this very important, free film, you may want to learn how to take action, or to teach others about the story and what really happens to our products. You might also simply want to know more about the story. Where do all of Leonard’s statistics and other information come from? How exactly does pollution happen? What are other externalized costs, and how do they work?

To answer these and many more questions, Leonard has published The Story of Stuff: How Our Obsession with Stuff is Trashing the Planet, Our Communities, and Our Health—and a Vision for Change.

In her book, Leonard is as funny yet moving as she is in her short film. She shares personal stories about how she ventured on her quest to find out what happens to our stuff. More of the interconnectedness between people, animals, land, water, and resources is also explored. The film, in fact, is just a starting point; yes, it might inspire you to act—and I hope it did!—but to be truly informed and to answer any questions of people you are educating about the subject, the book really comes in handy.

Leonard goes into detail about many things not talked about in the film. She discusses organic purchases, medical waste, PVC and other hazardous materials, and more. She goes more into detail about corporations, incinerators, and many issues presented in the film. On a hopeful note, she also discusses many positive things that are being done to combat our stuff problem, such as updating mining laws, protecting acres of rainforest, and companies ceasing to export waste or treat it harmfully. Still, there remains much to be done—and while our government, corporations, and very citizens maintain their consumption mentality, there always will be.

One of the most interesting and helpful things I found in Leonard’s book was the story of individual items. She explains, for example, about how 36 gallons of water are needed to make just one cup of coffee—and how 256 gallons are used to create a single t-shirt! No wonder we are experiencing so many water shortages. We tend to not see these hidden costs and resources used to make the stuff we buy; Leonard brings these processes to our attention so we can finally do something about it.

Pages