If this film's title means nothing to you then clearly you are not familiar with one of Britain's great televisual institutions - the quiz show University Challenge.

Running from 1962 to 1987 on ITV, and since been revived by BBC Two, the show tests teams of students from different universities across the United Kingdom on general knowledge in a knockout tournament format.

Starter for 10 is about a young man from a working class background who was motivated by the quiz show to learn and someday go to university and appear on the show itself. When he arrives at university he discovers it is not quite the world he expected and struggles to keep himself from turning into the typical university "wanker" his old friends revile.

James McAvoy (The Last King of Scotland, Atonement) is an appealing lead, youthful and naive without ever falling into the trap of becoming annoying. His character tries hard but often falls short, tripping over his words awkwardly and making some catastrophic errors of judgement.

Set in the mid-1980s, at the height of Thatcherism, there is plenty of period detail for the nostalgic to enjoy. I loved the way McAvoy's Brian joins in protests, not because of any deep conviction but because it is what his social circle expects him to do. He is a character that struggles to define himself by what he desires being lead by his peers and his libido.

It is the film's setting and attention to detail that marks it out. Certainly the core elements of the romantic comedy are far from new, nor are the characters (excepting Brian) particularly developed, yet the film's quiz show and period setting helps it to feel fresh.

Crucially the film also has a number of big laughs. Brian's spats with Benedict Cumberbatch's glorious twit of a team captain are amongst the highlight, culminating in an amusing brawl shortly before the quiz show begins, whilst the trip to visit a girl at her parents' house is nailbitingly awkward.

Tom Vaughan's direction is unadventurous but solid. Perhaps that is the best description of this film as a whole. It never really goes anywhere uncomfortable and is a very pleasant movie that never challenges us to think about whether we like its characters, all of whom are presented in a fairly sympathetic light.

Whilst the film does touch upon the issue of class that is more to help us understand Brian than to tackle the subject in and of itself. Apparently working class people fall into two categories - those who strive for knowledge and to better themselves and those who spend all day drinking and embezzling money from work.

Yet in its defence Starter for 10 knows what it is - a romantic comedy in a pleasant, nostalgic setting. James McAvoy and Rebecca Hall have good screen chemistry and make for an appealing couple and the film has a soundtrack that any child of the 80s will enjoy.

...ever feel like they might be an alien?

...feel bad about killing slugs (or indeed any other garden pest)?

....have trouble understanding why so many people find Little Britain and Catherine Tate amusing?

...wonder how people can ever say they have no regrets?

...like to eat chocolate with pickled gherkins?

As Catherine Tate might say...The British Library's 'Taking Liberties' exhibition - co-curated by Linda Colley and Shami Chakrabati - isn't open yet, but judging by the advance publicity there's already some cause for concern.

Outside the main building, a large poster displays clenched fists (grrr! militant!) surrounded by text which declares that more young people now vote for contestants on the X-factor than do in general elections. The problem is that this is a much-repeated urban myth which doesn't take into account the very different nature of voting in a reality-tv competition (namely, you can vote more than once and, unlike in a general election, each individual vote counts.)

Why has the BL persisted in trotting out this lazy cliché? The next piece of text probably gives a clue.

'In some countries you wouldn't have the right to visit an exhibtion about your rights.'

Or, 'if you like Iraq so much, why don't you go and live there?'

This statement smacks strongly of the Blair government's much repeated line at the time of the massive protests against the Iraq war: that protestors should be jolly grateful that they could express their opposition - they wouldn't be allowed to by Saddam. The suggestion is that the British public somehow 'luxuriate' in their capacious freedoms (by exercising them) and so don't understand how terribly lucky they are.

Underlying all of this, and much of Labour's recent rhetoric on rights and citizenship, is the repellent idea that fundamental human rights like freedom of expression and association are somehow in the gift of our generous politicians and that we, as citizens, have to 'earn'  them.

Some newspapers have suggested the 'Taking Liberties' is one in the eye for Brown, who reportedly wanted the BL to mount an exhibition on Britishness instead. I'll reserve full judgment until the exhibition opens, (I'm slightly reassured by Chakrabati's statement to the press:

"Liberty has been delighted to work with the British Library on its exciting new "Taking Liberties" project. The oldest unbroken democracy has become rather complacent about hard-won rights and freedoms. This important exhibition will remind us how much we have to lose.")

but from the advance publicity at least, it looks as if it's actually right up this government's street.

Here's the happy couple.

Here's us ladies all dolled up.

I'm gonna go check out Dara tonight at Seminar for some old skool bizness. Should be fun.

Toodles

Chris Inperspective - Inpodspective Preview

Tracklist

Profane - Venomous States Reprise
LIS - Something Makes More Sense
ASC - Juno
Chris Inperspective - Spidsville
Paul T - Here Comes the Sun
??? - ??? (Sorry)
TVG - Rusted Instruments (Fracture Rmx)
Grimm & Sconeboy - Cheers VIP
Fanu & Silentium - Hangman's Lullaby - Fanu Rmx (Lightless Records Dub)
Calibre - New Cons (Exit)
LIS - 1001
Chris Inperspective - Geek Chic
Chris Inperspective - Sisters
Profane - Nazereth Crime

Unlike the previous two seasons, I couldn’t wait any longer for the CBC to air it. I won’t say anything about the content, but the two excellent BBC trailers below should be adequate for anyone who is patiently waiting.

The CBC could try to adapt the first trailer, squeezing it to 30 seconds (end with Donna’s line that I used as my post title then have the CBC announcer for five seconds). If they want to push it, they could air the whole thing, and add clips to bring it to 60 seconds.

Or if you really haven’t seen or heard anything, the second video is a good teaser, incorporating clips from the first seven episodes:

(Second trailer also updated in my other pre-S4 post.)

You bet I'm going to watch it again, and I urge everyone else to do so, if only to show the CBC that Doctor Who is still going strong.

Yes, the banter is good. Donna Noble is fine as far as assistants go, but really I thought the writers were pandering to her actor's comedy roots (that's Catherine Tate). I did like the "Oh, no ... we're not ... together" lines in the first six or so episodes, and I am liking that she's finally proving to be an able foil to The Doctor, bringing a new kind of humanity to the Tardis, questioning his motives and intentions. And the running. I am enjoying the running. Oh, and I'm intrigued by Jenny.

But something was missing.

I figured out what it was - Stephen Moffat. In each series so far he's pulled out a stunningly good episode. Blink is my all time favourite Who but I have to say Season Four, Episode Eight "Silence in the Library" is close on its heels.

Moffat's just been named as the new show runner for Doctor Who following Russell T. Davies' departure. His acceptance lines were great.

"My entire career has been a secret plan to get this job. I applied before but I got knocked back because the BBC wanted someone else. Also I was seven.

"Anyway, I'm glad the BBC has finally seen the light, and it's a huge honour to be following Russell into the best - and the toughest - job in television."

It's annoying. I had toyed with a Doctor Who idea or two myself. I always wondered why whenever the current doctor was In Danger to such a degree he had to call on previous Doctors to help.. I had visions of an episode where The Doctor calls on future Doctors and we see a female Doctor, one with three heads, future Tardises and so on.

I had visions of the assistant du jour running through a jungle crying out for the Doc only to find the Tardis not where she left it. She rips open the door and... the interior is different and a strange old man stumbles out and says "who the hell are you?" I might ask you the same question, she replies. Well, I am The Doctor, he says, cue title music, out on assistant looking gobsmacked.

Now of course that future looking episode doesn't fly because Moffat's produced someone from the future, from The Doctor's future, and done it in such a beautiful way that it restores my faith. Not that I'd lost it entirely, just that I was getting a bit bored with Glib and Glib Run Amok.

The good news is he's saved not only this series of Doctor Who with this episode but (in true Time Lord fashion) all future, past and parallel alternatives as well. That mediocre episode or three that you saw as a kid (probably starring the vet guy if you ask me)... well it's now brilliant because it's fed into Moffat's brain and lead to the development of this episode.

And he's turned down the chance to work with Spielberg and Peter J on the new Tintin films to be the showrunner for Doctor Who. And why wouldn't you?

It is "the proper duty of every British subject to come to the aid of the TARDIS".

Under The Blue Sky by David Eldridge stars FRANCESCA ANNIS, LISA DILLON, NIGEL LINDSAY, CHRIS O’DOWD, DOMINIC ROWAN and CATHERINE TATE.

at the Duke of York's Theatre
St. Martin's Lane
London
WC2N 4BG

Ends 20th September

Tags: UnderThe Blue Sky, Duke of York's, CATHERINE TATE

The post below contains spoilers for Doctor Who Season Four.

When the BBC announced that Catherine Tate was joining Doctor Who as the companion for the 4th season, I was a little leery. While I enjoyed The Runaway Bride episode that Tate had appeared in between the 2nd and 3rd seasons, I though her character, Donna Noble, was going to be a bit too intense for a full-time companion. She was a loud-mouthed, ill-informed and rather ribald low level secretary who spent half the episode screaming at the Doctor (although she did prove sympathetic in the end.) I was worried that 13 episodes of that would be too much. But having just seen the season finale for Season Four (or Series Four if you are British), I now must admit how wrong I was.

I think I knew by the end of the season's first episode Partners in Crime that Donna was going to be a good companion. First off, she and David Tennant have marvelous chemistry and you can tell they really enjoy working with each other. This was evident in the pantomime routine that occurs in Partners in Crime when Donna sees the Doctor again after many months of searching for him and the Doctor responds by being somewhat comically horrified. It showed some hilarious physical comedy between Tate and Tennant that boded well for their on-screen partnership.

Second, the fact that Donna in no way, shape or form had a crush on the Doctor was a well needed change of pace after what he went through with both Rose (whose feelings he did seem to reciprocate) and Martha's (whose he didn't). Having a third companion crushing on the Doctor would have been too much no matter how dreamy one finds David Tennant (and I'll admit as a geek girl, he's pretty dreamy). But Donna was having none of it, calling him a skinny beanpole and being rather insulted when anyone suggested they were a couple. Some fans didn't like this, thinking it was disrespectful, but I thought it was hilarious.

The fact that Donna was older than Martha and Rose and had been around the block a few times, also gave her actions added weight. While being excited to travel the universe with the Doctor, she wasn't awestruck and she was willing him to call him on it when she thought he was wrong. In The Fires of Pompeii and Planet of the Ood, Donna's distinct sense of morality and innate human decency made a character that initially seemed overbearing become very sympathetic.

Throughout the rest of the season, I thought Donna made a wonderful companion. So much so that what happened to her character in the season finale was all the more heartbreaking. As Doctor Who season finales normally are, this one was jam packed and spread across three episodes. Not only did we see the return of Rose Tyler, but we saw former companions Martha Jones, Captain Jack Harkness and the crew from Torchwood, Sarah Jane Smith along with Jackie Tyler and Mickey Clarke. All of these past characters join the Doctor and Donna for another world ending battle against the Daleks (again!!! For a decimated race, there are an awful lot of them hanging about) and Davros.

Everyone has their little part to play in the finale but Donna winds up having the most important role. While she has spent many episodes saying she was nothing special and just a secretary, there have been hints that something huge and possibly tragic was going to happen to Donna and that she had a key role to play. It's a little complicated to describe but in one scene, Donna gets what is basically a Time Lord brain boost and with the knowledge she gets access to she saves the entire universe from what would be certain destruction by the Daleks.

But unfortunately a human brain cannot handle having half a Time Lord brain and it starts to kill her (reminiscent of when Rose absorbed the Time Vortex in Season One's finale and it started to kill her). In order to save her, the Doctor must erase all traces of himself and their travels together from her brain. And this reverts Donna back to the loud, ill-informed character that we met in The Runaway Bride, a woman who has no idea how special she really is and how she helped save the world. She meets the Doctor and has no idea who he is and barely bothers to say hello. For fans who came to love Donna (and I will admit that there are some that never warmed to her), this was absolutely crushing and almost crueler than if she had been killed. Not only did she not know how many brave and important things she did, all the progress her character made was destroyed in the process.

Doctor Who has long established that traveling with the Doctor can be devastating to his companions but I don't think it was ever so evident as it was in this development. Although this plot twist made me sad, I also thought it was brutally effective. I knew that Catherine Tate was too big a star in Britain to stay on as a companion for more than one season so Donna's presence was necessarily short-lived. But short as it was, it was definitely memorable.

DAVID Tennant was reportedly forced to flee a theatre where Catherine Tate was performing in her new play, after he was spotted by an anorak of geeks (“anorak" being the collective noun, obviously).

Have these people no shame? Or girlfriends, even? Well, obviously not, but shame?

Donna is brilliant; she speaks her mind, she gives the Doctor a hard time, she moans, she complains, she back chats, she questions the good Doctor's authority, she questions his decisions, his choices, his beliefs, she shouts, she swears, she threatens and she makes the Doctor THINK. She is also a winner because she doesn't make Bambi eyes at him. Hurray!

The funny thing is that The MIlkman can't stand Donna. Probably for all the reasons that I like her. Oh yeah and probably because she's not running around in tight jeans and high heels screaming for help like a bloody princess. Donna's more your fish wife than damsel in distress.

Yes, Martha Jones was clever. But Donna Noble is clever and normal and this makes it more possible for the average Doctor Who fan (I know we're all special really!) to live vicariously through her.

My old partner Sling who's switched from Hot Talented Advertising Art Director to Hot New Commercials Female Director was in town from KL to visit her parents.

We worked together for over five years, having moved from the agency where we teamed up and found we worked well together, to our last agency where we spent four and a half years until we took different career paths (she changed hers and I stopped mine, hah). We've been though hell and worse, and have probably seen both the better and worser sides of one another. We shared a room for a month because the agency didn't have the budget to give us our own rooms (which was bs — MZ, who was my art director and co-group head at my last gig, and the one who helped Sling and I get into our last agency, says he doesn't know why we're always so unlucky with our projects; MZ should know, he's stayed at the Mondrian in LA, we stayed at the Best Western in LA). Later, on another project, we got our own rooms but the apartment only had one bath (so it would be one showers while the other pulls the hairdryer wire out the gap in the door). Sometimes it's creepy how well we know each other. It happens, I guess, when you sit in the same tiny room across from the same person 15 hours a day for 5 years. At times, we don't even need words. We've even evolved beyond whispering "three o'clock"; just a split-second sideways glance to that cute guy walking past would suffice. Sometimes something would happen and I would just look up and she would know exactly what mood I'm in. Most times we just talk shit, like her plan to marry a coconut tycoon, whereupon she'll introduce some oil palm tycoon, or any geek, to me.

Anyway, it was good to see her again. We're online all the time, she messages me whenever she has a question, but we've not met for over half a year. I said I'll let her settle down in KL first, then visit her so we can shop and eat our way around the city. But I suspect she would be too busy.

Her colleagues were with her. They came down to do some colour grading at one of the production houses. She's doing very well. For a director who's just six months old, she's been working non-stop. As her fellow director said: if you've just started as a director, don't complain that you've got too much work.

From one reunion coffee session to another. A reunion-and-farewell coffee session, rather.

For O, the Former-Regional-Big-Kahuna-Serving-The-Pantheon-Of-Those-Who-Must-Not-Be-Mentioned. O worked with MZ and I on that crazy gig. But no matter how insane things got — and things did get quite insane — we never saw him lose it.

In the midst of the insanity, such as clients calling the APAC CEO to tell them that their team was wasting paper by printing layouts and mounting them on presentation boards (because as we know, APAC CEOs have nothing else better to do between golf games and buying up companies in the high growth regions of India and China except twiddle their thumbs and entertain calls like that), O, who would eventually have to answer the APAC CEO's call, would tell us: "Look at my face. Am I bothered?" And he'd smile.

He would get stressed — we'd pass by his office and he'd be on some concall with the big client in New York frowning away — but he never showed it to us; he was always a gentleman to MZ and I. If he had a crisis, it was always a proper discussion on how best to solve it, not some melodrama or some hissy fit (he saved his flamboyance for after work).

When we left, MZ found some pictures of him in the main server and comped up an inspirational moment, motivational-type of poster with his big happy grin, titled "OPTIMISM", with the caption "Look at my face."

So, now that he was leaving to work (not in agency, thank goodness) in Shanghai, the whole team met up for coffee. Even MZ, who was in the office on a Sunday, left early to join us for the tail end. It was fun. The girls had a good time coz we share a common interest with O — guys. And MZ had fun coz all he wanted to do was pinch O's butt.

As for "Look at my face. Am I bothered?", it comes from Lauren Cooper, a fictional character played by Catherine Tate, a British comedienne, on her show The Catherine Tate Show. The schtick is the same, lightning fast repartee, "Face? Bothered?", but I still find the variations funny. Like this one (only coz it involves Shakespeare and a Scottish guy).

Otherwise, the French Oral Exam sketch is also funny (it helps if you grew up watching 'Allo 'Allo). And this skit also, on some live show.

Monday. It's back to the office again. I'm in a white tee, flouncy light green skirt with a light green flower brooch and my favourite (but falling apart) ballet flats — happy clothes to beat the Monday blues. But Velvet Underground's Venus in Furs is playing in my head, together with images of guys, hot women in skimpy bikinis and leather. It's for work. Honest. And I'm not bothered.

Now pay attention, class. Dr David Eldridge (DLitt) has a very starry production of Under The Blue Sky previewing in the West End. It's about the, umm, "grown-up" relationships between three pairs of teachers.

Child A and Child P!: Your homework this week is to to go on a field trip with your classmates to see Under The Blue Sky before it opens.

I want essays from both of you on my desk before it opens on Friday evening.

Child P

we wasent doing enthing els so we went to the theeter which is big bilding in Lundun namd after a nursry rime and Andrew bort me a drink and it was nice the play was vry long and did'nt have an intervul so i had to hold my pee in. Sum peeple cooked dinner in the furst bit but they did'nt eet it wich gordon brown says is rong. at the end you cood see thruogh a womans skurt becoues the lihgt shun thro it. a woman of doctr hoo was in it and she wore a brown dres but it did'nt luk very nice (SATs mark: 6/10)

Child A

David Eldridge's exploration of the relationships of three pairs of teachers is simply but elegantly structured work. Each half-hour act is a self-contained two-hander although in each act we learn a little more about the previous characters. The writer displays a deftness of touch lighting on each story with all the delicacy of a butterfly gently and patiently probing a flower for nectar before flitting effortlessly to the next. (SATs mark: 7/10)

Child A and Child P

Well, with 15 in the Whingers' entourage it was quite an evening, but not quite as chaotic as the one Dr Eldridge nearly ended up having when he set Under the Blue Sky up as an event on Facebook and invited all of his friends to come. The result was a flurry of follow-up emails in which he clarified that he wasn't actually giving away free tickets, just inviting people to buy tickets and see the show.

Of course, it could have been worse. He could have invited them all to come to the first preview which would have resulted in something of a riot as it was cancelled when Catherine Tate twisted her ankle during the dress rehearsal. It has to be said that - although not personally affected - the Whingers were not impressed by this "show can't go on" approach. When Elizabeth Taylor was injured during her West End début in The Little Foxes in 1982 she did the whole darned thing in a wheelchair - now that's a star!

Anyway, the Dr Eldridge marketing machine was doing very clever things. They probably call it CRM or micro-marketing or somesuch, but anyway he did point out to the Whingers that Under The Blue Sky featured two people from Cranford - Lisa Dillon (Mary Smith) and Francesca Annis (Lady Ludlow). In a cast of six that's a pretty impressive Cranford-factor.

Dr Eldridge also teased the Whingers with the promise of on-stage wine drinking and food preparation and indeed the latter was quite impressive as there was actually on-stage cooking (although Phil was no more comfortable with the hygiene arrangements here than he had been the last time the Whingers witnessed such a scene. Thankfully on this occasion Phil is too busy to write a letter to the relevant authorities on the matter).

The earlier scenes are quite difficult as none of the characters is particularly likeable. In the first a stressed Lisa Dillon is finally defeated in her unrequited love for Chris O’Dowd who plays a complete arsehole (although Phil thought he was quite reasonable and couldn't understand what all the fuss was about).

In the second act, Catherine Tate plays a self-obsessed nymphomaniac teacher seducing a loser colleague (Dominic Rowan). It is a shame that Tate is so over-exposed at the moment following her shows and her first-rate stint on Doctor Who because this character is a bit too near the Lauren/Nan/early Donna characters for her to break out of over-familiar territory. But she goes at it hammer and tongs. And her with her ankle and all.

But thankfully the last scene provides an uplifting finale as best friends Nigel Lindsay (who sounds like Bernard Cribbins) and Francesca Annis decide to get together despite the gap in their ages. It was a real feel-good ending to the 100 minute marathon after which Andrew confessed to being slightly moist.

Presumably the moral of the play is that teachers are too busy having "relations" and that is why the education system is in such a sorry state.

Anyway, all of this was delivered in a super-slick set by Lez Brotherston with fluid direction by Anna Mackmin.

Dr Eldridge insisted on dropping by afterwards to see the Whingers and their classmates (whose homework can be found here, here, here and presumably at some point here) at the Garrick (Arms, not Club regrettably) and was instantly bombarded with questions about his play.

"Was that knife she waved at him really sharp?" "Was the hob gas or electric?" "The set moves, so how are the wires connected to the cooker?""How old is Francesca Annis?"

On some of these points Dr Eldridge was - it has to be said - disappointingly ignorant or gentlemanly and it quickly became apparent that he is no expert on the finer points of electrical conduits. To his credit, he was big enough to admit this.

Our own research reveals that Francesca Annis is 63 but she looks much, much younger. Much younger than Child P.

The one thing we are kicking ourselves for not asking was "Why is there a photocopied cast list slipped into the programme next to the published cast list?" Is it a spot-the-difference competition in compensation for there being no crossword? If so, it was far too difficult for the Whingers who couldn't spot a single difference.

Ostensibly this should segue right into a review of a show, but I have to pause and take a moment to praise the company. To go see a show with the Whingers means that, for once, I am surrounded by a crowd of people who can talk really intelligently about theater. By this, I don't mean "namedrop famous actors/productions they've seen" (God only knows a lot of people think that constitutes clever conversation on the topic), and I also don't mean "try to top each other in snarkiness" (because while they will baste and roast a turkey when they find one, it's the underlying enthusiasm for the medium that makes the conversation even possible). No, I mean they can talk about other shows, new ones worth seeing, old ones worth remembering, connecting them to other plays and other works of art ... letting me listen, learn and participate in great conversation in a company of my peers (and beyond). Sue, CitySlicker, Helen, Phil, Andrew, Graham, Paul (the GWTW Twitter man) ... spending the evening with you is like a dream come true for me.

Anyway, I was naughty and didn't read anything about the show before I went. Basically, it had Catherine Tate in it, whom I've had a good time watching on YouTube (even though it's frequently been in car crash mode - it's embarrassing but I can't turn away), and, well, I was invited to go by people I wanted to hang out with, so I just went for it. The day of I realized I didn't actually even know what theater it was in! And when I got there, I had a "bad theater experience" flashback (rather like the ones caused by Fram nowadays) right before the show started, as I remembered struggling through almost two hours (so it seemed) of the first act of Rock and Roll with seven cups of tea crying for a quick departure from my body. I finally leapt over four or five other audience members to make it to an exit door during a between-scene dark bit (and there were rather a lot of them) and spending the rest of the act watching the play through a bit of scratched-off paint on a window while the assistant director whispered to me a summary of the dialogue.

Er, so, back to the show. Uhhh .... well, it's about teachers shagging teachers, and it's kind of funny in bits, but touching in others (I cried during the last scene and felt just horribly manipulated, even though I liked it), and it plays straight through with no interval. I'd find it okay to recommend to people in general, in a great deal because it knows when to stop - it's not a bad night out, really.

But. (I'm sorry, I just can't stop myself, I have to say more.) The play is ... incoherent. It has three scenes that don't really seem to have anything to do with each other, even though the playwright has ensured that the characters in scene one are mentioned in the subsequent ones. The acting in the first scene is wooden - Chris O'Dowd's first lines read to me as, "Hi! I'm acting in a play and these are the words I am supposed to say!" And while I don't know what his accent was supposed to be, it seemed kind of ... fluid. Lisa Dillon seemed to jump more readily into her character, but for both of them I found neither their words nor their actions made any sense. There was a sense to the situation ... but not their responses to it or to each other. They seemed just like people who existed only as words written on a page. Only the writer can ultimately take the blame for this. (That said, huge kudos to the both of the actors for actually succeeding in making chile on stage during a show. I could smell each of the ingredients cooking in the pan from my second row seats and it smelled good.)

The second scene was the big blow out (well, in terms of "what the audience came to see") with Catherine Tate and some actor that wasn't Catherine Tate (in the minds of the audience - but seriously, it was Dominic Rowan, who gets brownie points for conjuring up tears on stage). This was a sort of sex farce scene that cracked me up because, er, the one teacher I know in the UK public school system is really as much of a ballbreaker as Catherine Tate's character was and it all just seemed too likely to be true. That said ... as she got meaner and the guy got weaselier/creepier ... I found myself not liking either of them. In fact, I wanted terrible things to happen to both of them just to spice up the scene. (I thought this during the first act, too.) Since neither of them really managed to seem real, it just didn't matter to me what happened to them. I laughed at the crude bits and thanked God that actual nudity was never involved as it would have been Too Much, and while something terrible did happen, I was happy about it.

The final scene was for me the best part of the play, even though the long speech in the middle was, once again, completely unrealistic and took me out of the "lost in the show" mindset (and made me firmly aware of being at a play). Actorially speaking, we had two powerhouses: Francesca Annis (whom I had not previously seen but who held the stage ... I mean, she just had it) and Nigel Lindsay (who smoked the Almeida in Homecoming and was quite charismatic in a rather limp production of Awake And Sing at the same theater). Lindsay was brilliant, utterly unselfconscious, perfectly in character, completely believable - I hung off of every word that came out of his mouth. His body language, everything was perfect for the character he was portraying. (And who knows, maybe the playwright understood this language better than that of the other characters he was creating dialogue for.) Watching him interact with Annis was a pleasure for me. That said ... when they said that another character was dead, my feeling was actually one of relief, that I wasn't going to have to see the rest of the wooden characters brought back on stage for some sort of horrible resolution (a la any number of cheesy movies) after the interval, but just instead could walk out of the theater with the show wrapped and on a bit of an up note.

Anyway, my summary is that this show was flawed but, still, not a bad night out, and, in fact, I think most people who would enjoy it wouldn't really care about the stuff that bothered me. For the folks who are super diehards: it's not a bad way to spend a free night, but, you know, there are likely to be other options. Try Brief Encounter first if you still haven't been - it's still the best thing on right now.

(This review is for a preview performance that took place on July 22nd, 2008.)

So I'm all done with Alan for the evening. Alan's my counselor. And he wants me to set a goal for myself to bring this weight loss journey into sharper focus (which strikes me as a good change from drifting from excuse to excuse whining about how "I'm trying, trying, trying." I'm not trying when I'm not trying, if you get my idea. So I shall, and I shall post it here too. I'm a bit nervous, but apparently that's a good thing. He told me to stop feeling sorry for myself, that self-pity is something I use to avoid responsibility and to continue my self-BS and my BSing others. I dunno. Whine whine whine. :) Out goes the bottom lip, and off AngloAm goes on a vacation from all the rules. At least that would have been my pattern, and it may still be - I hope not, but hope's not really enough, is it? Like faith without works, right?

But I still feel like I'm losing all my pillows, my soft refuges, my exit doors. It'll be tough - there's left-over cake (CAKE!) in the fridge in the break room at work. CAKE! Cake can seem to solve problems so fast - so fast are problems solved, so fast they're unsolved again, so fast they're even added to, once you fall into its soft sweet grip. Get this - when I had a slab of it today, I knew to walk with it squarely in front of my body (so people from behind couldn't see, and to sort of bend the edges of the paper plate on which it resplended up, so that anyone seeing me from in front or the side might not know how big a chunk I'd carved for myself. If I do that - I must know it's wrong and not something normal people do.

What if the only thing that stops me from being one of those normal people is my belief that I'm not? Do I have to give up being uniquely pitiably me? Do I have to stop being an exception ("better get him a larger chair"..."better not ask him to do this or that...")? I've been able to get a fuss made of myself for years and years, since elementary school, by the simple dint of being an object of pity. Crap. When I read that - crap.

What do you think?

Readin's for Loozas

Just to cheer us all up, here's the studly Scot and the hilarious Catherine Tate (also from et.al. Dr. Who). Give it a watch and it'll give you a larf, you'll grin just like his very own delectable self.

(He does get my ... spirits...up. How about yours?)

To celebrate the end of Series Four, the BBC are delighted to add the last update to the Doctor Who Comic Maker for the time being.

Joining the Doctor in the Comic Maker are Mickey Smith and former companion, Sarah Jane Smith.

The villainous Davros and fearsome Supreme Dalek have also been added to make your comics even scarier.

For the first time your'll also be able to include Torchwood in your stories, with both an interior and exterior of the Torchwood Hub provided.

The Doctor Who team look forward to seeing your new creations featuring the new Comic Maker characters.

Let's "turn" to the review.  Turn Left is a Doctor Who episode, that I did enjoy, written by Russell T. Davies (RTD).  First I have to say that I must have Joss Whedon's Firefly on the brain, because that is all I could think of as the show started in an alien type of Chinatown...  Anywho, Donna and The Doctor are in a market doing a bit of touring and shopping when Donna gets "pulled" into a fortune teller's booth.  I could have told her, from a Christian perspective, that no good could come of this, if she'd only asked (ha)...  We, the audience, quickly realize that this isn't a nice woman we are dealing with here, it takes Donna a bit longer.  By the way, this is where an aspect of Doctor Who that all of us fans know and love makes an appearance -- a really cheesy "monster," this time a gigantic, obviously fake beetle that gets a bit friendly with Donna's back shows up; it latches on to her shoulders like a parasite.

The main theme of this eppy is an idea that I believe we've all kicked around at one time or another; do the smallest action and choices we make affect our futures in some profound way?  They do with Donna at least...the "bug" takes her back into her past and influences her to make a right turn when she originally made a left turn...literally.  She is at a crossroads in her car...thanks RTD...yes, we get it, the scene brings to mind the important crossroads in life.

The whole span of universes go down hill from there; Donna's change in choice sends major ripples through the multiverse...and Catherine Tate's wonderful acting is supposed to send ripples through us.  I think she pulled it off really well.  Choice and consequence, what-if's, is there really coincidence, do we have free will in our choices?  Yes, RTD's plot is set up to make us think.

Eventually Donna is able to return to her past again, and "right" the wrong; making herself turn left once more.  The universe is righted, the cheesy parasite insectoid falls off, and The Doctor finally finds her in the fortune teller's shop.  The Doctor soon freaks out a bit himself, as Donna passes on a message from a certain blonde ex-companion, the message consists of two words, "Bad Wolf."  Which, sets Tennant up to beautifully emote the Doctor's internal feelings to us via facial expression.

So what stood out to me in this episode?  First, the central role of Christmas in the Doctor Who universe (yes, I understand that's when the execs want a Who special on TV, but nevertheless...it was featured in this eppy as well).  Big alien invasion time?  Christmas.  Time to evacuate London? Christmas.  Pivitol character introduction or development for The Doctor? Christmas.  It's amazing how the celebration of the Lord's birth (notice I didn't say, the actual date of the Lord's birth, but rather the celebration of it) has such a high rate of "coincidence."

Moving on; the messiah-like quality of The Doctor, as discussed in a previous post, was actually shared this time with Donna.  I both liked and disliked this plot device; at first I thought RTD was trying to make the very deep, very true point that all humans, regardless of station in life are pivotal (as The Doctor himself has alluded to in the past)...but then RTD changes track a bit and makes sure we know that Donna Noble is really really special, not like the rest of us ordinary slobs.

I, as a non-Arminian, non-Calvinist Christian have my own ideas about choice, free will, etc... and I couldn't help but be reminded of the most important Cross-roads of everyone's life...that point, or points, where we each, with our own free will, answer the question posed by Christ in Matthew 16, "13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?"  That choice, that answer, really does have world changing implications for each of us.  I do realize that it can come across as "cheesy" for me to mention that, but when terms such as "crossroad" and "life-changing choices" comes to mind, that's what my thoughts turn to.

The philosophical questions RTD brings up through the storyline are really interesting, and he does such a good job balancing the story; if you want to read something deeper and ask those deep questions because of the plot...well and good.  If, however, you just want to kick back, relax, and enjoy an hour long sci-fi show with the fam without giving it too much thought, it works just as well.  It was a fun, but serious episode and well acted by Tate; worth watching and mulling over.

Hearing the Cloister Bell will send a chill down your spine every time, even if you have just been in a very Firefly setting and have just gotten to see the wonderful Chipo Chung again. Eli's coming, folks.

"Turn Left" makes me want to go hug Jimmy Stewart, which might not be as great as I'd like to think, since he's been dead over a decade. But these kinds of Christmas Carol/It's A Wonderful Life stories get to me, and this is a bigger one than usual. The loss of the Doctor affects things both great (mushroom cloud over London; 60 million dead in the US) and small (breaking Donna's mother, sending the fakely exuberant Italian man to a labor camp). Compared to the wonderful but smaller-scale "Love and Monsters" and "Blink," this Doctor-lite episode is the one that best shows how special and, well, massive he is. With Russell T Davies heading out the door, this scope makes us wonder if we're heading to a super-gigantic finale, particularly since Davies' finales tend to get a bit sloppy as they get bigger.

The presence of Trickster technology from The Sarah Jane Advenures raises the question of whether the Who universe may be getting to be a little incestuous, but for the most part we're excited to see how that will play out in the finale. It's creepy to see the Doctor's "death", but it's at least equally moving and sad to hear about Martha's and Sarah Jane's demise, artfully done to suggest Martha survived and then pulling back on the despairing reveal of Oliver Morgenstern. For all Davies may not keep all the balls in the air for his big finales, he weaves details from previous episodes in impressively. Can't wait to see how the gang plays together over the next two weeks!

Fo the most part. While some folks will likely think the thing on Donna's back was less frightening for being so obviously plastic (point taken, but the way it played in her hair was wiggins-giving), our questions revolved more around whether it was made of the same stuff as Rose's teeth. Here's hoping the usually compelling Billie Piper eventually found Rose's voice again. "Bad Wolf" makes for a nice, creepy end, but we're concerned they're going to ruin the hell out of "Doomsday" by bringing Rose back. There isn't a whole lot of need for her in "Turn Left"--yes, someone needs to be there to guide Donna to her final decision, but there will need to be some fancy dancing in the remaining episodes to explain why it needs to be Rose (besides Davies wanting the whole crew around). She can say she's so sorry and enjoy Donna's reaction to the TARDIS, but she can't be the Doctor. Is this trip across the boundaries separating universes really necessary?

Since Donna is so fabulous, it's nice to see she's the most important woman in creation but also that she isn't the person she was in "The Runaway Bride"--she doesn't miss the lights in the sky because she's sleeping off a hangover. She has a good job and good friends. In spite of her cold mother, all of the potential she realizes traveling with the Doctor was always in her, and she becomes amazing essentially on her own here. And what will she become? Catherine Tate has been amazing all season, adding new dimensions to the show. This episode is no exception, allowing her to show off both her comedic and dramatic talents. She can claim our stapler any day, but the terror she displays as she faces what's on her back for the first time will be what stays with us. If they ever decide to leave Doctor Who, we'd pay to watch Tennant, Tate, and Bernard Cribbens just sit around and chat.

We're BIG fans of Doctor Who. It's back on Australian TV now, Sunday night at 7:30pm. Sadly enough this is its fourth and final season. Which sucks, I wanted it to go for at least six. Hopefully they'll pick it up again at a later date. I'll just have to borrow all the DVDs off my friend.

I think season four though will live up to season 3, which definitely raised the bar. Martha was the sidekick

then, and she was awesome. Catherine Tate (who plays Donna) has done pretty well though so far. And Rose

is also making a return sooner or later in the series, as well as Martha so I've been told. It'll definitely go out with a bang.

The latest episode aired was the one in Pompeii, which was really intense. But in the next episode the Ood are making a return. I love these guys, they're a weird looking slave race who have this little ball thing that makes them look like they're constantly drinking. LOVE this show, can't wait to see the rest of the season.