Blog - "Monty Python"

Monty Python's Flying Circus is, in fact, a comedy sketch show that has few to no recurring characters at all, and yet it's one of those programmes that draws me in the strongest.

Over the years, many secrets have emerged concerning the lives and lifestyles of the six original members of Monty Python. Some of them come out of the blue, while some of them are no surprise to anybody. Being able to look back on the lives that these people led previously is impossible, but art does have a wonderful way of imitating art.

A perfect example of the truth emerging is a Michael Palin moment, where a mention of The Spanish Inquisition, long after this particular sketch had been played out, confronts him with the giggles.

Another is any number of Palin and Cleese sketches when the two of them were on stage. They did absolutely everything in their power to put each other off and make it as difficult as possible to perform, with Palin often coming up short under the immense comedic presence of John Cleese.

In the films, and the series, tricks come out via preferences. Eric Idle is the one most often called on to impersonate a female because the others believed him the most attractive when donning female dress. This might also be something to do with the fact that the rest of them, when in long dresses and push-up bras, often wore fake moustaches. Idle's own sketches mostly involved either a lot of talking or singing, and singing is the path that he eventually pursued.

Palin and Jones seemed at their best when writing sketches involving outdoor travel, such as the entire episode dedicated to Palin's 'Mr. Pither' travelling on a bike tour. Palin now makes a living travelling around the world.

Graham Chapman, arguably the best actor of the six, is, unfortunately, no longer with us. As everybody in the world is sure he would have wanted, John Cleese ensured that his entire funeral ended up roaring with laughter. How often do you see that?

Nowadays, you'd be hard pressed to get them all in the same room together. However, at the time, these men were inseperable, and it shows in their obvious devotion and respect to and for each other.

Blog - "Doctor Who?"

I'd just like to ask who on Earth that was masquerading as The Doctor in the most recent episode of Doctor Who?
 

Now, to start from the beginning.

In this last episode, The Day Of The Moon, Doctor Who, a character of over nine hundred years, completely changed before our very eyes. Let me explain how.

The Doctor, as it were, has a strong character foundation that follows certain rules, and strives to uphold certain concepts above all else. For example, Martha Jones once asked Davros to surrender in the firm belief that The Doctor would always ensure that whatever opponent he faces was given the opportunity to leave by its own merit before he ever considered violence. He abhored violence in fact and consistently attempted to instil this virtue in his companions.

There were moments when this broke, but he was so proud of his companions for saving him from himself.

In this episode, he specifically encouraged the entire human race to commit murder from 1969 until the end of the universe. That includes every man, woman and child. Not only that, but he encouraged absolute genocide. Not even the Daleks, his greatest enemy, have taken him to that point.

Also, he was impressed at River's ability to kill his opponents, encouraging more violence there instead of bothering with rational thought. This gets worse when you realise that, using his screwdriver (a tool for repairs) to attack.

This is never something that The Doctor, as he has been since his first incarnation, has been happy to do. Tennant's Doctor was completely depressed to see anybody fighting for him and killing in his name. Smith's has already offered to help a race of people, be it fish people, that tried to destroy an entire city and their population. In order to avoid any chance of genocide, he offered whatever help he could give, despite any misgivings.

What's the answer then? His reasonings? Simple. This episode was designed for a false American stereotype. It was Doctor Who, but designed to appeal to what a Scottish writer believes an American audience to want. It was predictable, it continually labelled the President the most powerful man on Earth (which the Doctor would never admit was anybody other than himself) and it gave several far too obvious answers to the key questions that people actually tuned in to learn about.

This was not inventive, and it was not even an episode of Doctor Who, because it didn't star the Doctor. It just starred somebody in his skin.

The fans, and those who firmly believe that this is one of the greatest English exports since Monty Python, should be insulted.

Blog - "Digimon"

So far, I've detailed two rather intellectual programmes, if I do say so myself. Six Feet Under and Bones are both about exploring the human condition, and I plan to continue that theme, in a way. My next programme though, is a little different.

Some of the most popular films, television shows and stories revolve around the infamous 'coming of age' story, and this is most often told to those younger than the people coming of age themselves. With that in mind, let's have a look at the first season of Digimon: Digital Monsters.

Digimon follows the story of seven children, who become eight later during the story, who find a gate to the Digital World. In the Digital World, digital data, such as that transferred over the internet, evolves and gains a life of its own, as information often does. The children interpret this world using ideas and memories that they are familiar with, such as snowmen, dogs and dinosaurs, as well as a monkey Elvis impersonator.

The most obvious and remarkable thing about Digimon is how obviously rooted it is in science. It holds up to close scrutiny very well, after a little examination. Much like Silent Hill, the world is prone to interpretation, while the science behind the digital constructs is quite solid. It won't be foolproof at all, but there are plenty of lessons there.

Then, we have the characters, and this is what is truly impressive. Each of the main characters have clear and defined character traits and abilities. Their arguments are caused by their differing personalities, and the psychology behind their reactions is entirely plausable. This isn't Pokémon, where you have one entirely flat character and then a pervert and a girl. These are believable characters where you can find parallels.

The two lead characters of Tai and Matt, for example, and two very different personalities. While Tai, the natural leader, shows clear optimism, guides using a courageous example and goes into every fight ahead of everybody else, Matt is the opposite. He encourages people to play to their strengths, is more of a realist and fights mainly as a supporting offensive. Their digital monsters are, in fact, a solitary balancing figure in their lives. Tai's is just as courageous, strong and eager to battle. Matt's is primarily just a friend to him, since his honest and somewhat pessimistic character often makes him difficult to get along with. The truth is that all leaders need this counter-balance.

The coming of age part is very well done due to how the group dynamic develops. At first, they all show similarities, hold together as strongly as possible and all is very obvious and clear in their development. When split up, the reality comes out, and, depending on the people that they're with, certain characters move to compensate, while others do not.

There does come a point where you realise, quite suddenly, that everybody's own story has developed right under your nose, and they're all going off in their own way to pursue it.

It's quite an emotional finale too. Like a lot of stories of a similar ilk, such as Dragonball Z, you have a bad guy, then another bad guy, then another bad guy. Ultimately, this is supposed to be the most interesting stuff. It doesn't work that way though. The different characters traits will offer you a parallel, and you get drawn in.

For me, of course, it's Matt. I love him.

Blog - "Bones"

Next up on my list of Friday favourites: Bones.

I should likely start with the similars.

CSI, in all of it's incarnations, bores me. Law and Order, in all of it's incarnations, bores me. NCIS, in all of it's incarnations, bores me.

Bones does not, despite the remarkable strand of similarities between them. I'll tell you why; the characters.

The two main characters, portrayed by Emily Deschanel and David Boreanaz, are best described as both sides of the human coin/condition. One is more rational, one more passionate. I've always found myself admiring the way that Deschanel's character views the world. The utter simplicity of her reasoning, and the meaning behind each and every thought and action. She can be entirely devoid of aggression or religious input, yet still retain her own personal impetus. It's thrilling to see such a character shown as anything other than 'wrong'.

The bad guys, as well, play a part in dividing this show from the rest. The Gravedigger, as an example, is a criminal who chooses to kidnap people, bury them alive, then demand a ransom in exchange for GPS co-ordinates to them. Rather than catching said opponent in a single episode, it takes multiple, including a trial, before the bad guy is the victim of a murder themself. These are obviously well layered and thought out characters.

All in all, still thrilling.

I am, however, thoroughly infuriated that my favourite character left at the end of the third season, though I understand.

The real message to take away from this one though is not the characters, but what they do. The meaning, as can be seen in each and every piece, is that you can always be recognised. Even if people take your life, your skin, your teeth, your clothes, your flesh and your family from you, people can work out everything about you just from a piece of bone.

When I write, I grind into a piece of bone that I lean my pen on. Years from now, when I am nothing but bones, I'll still be a writer.