Doctor Who - Vincent and the Doctor

“Saving the World has Never Been so Ginger!”

No, that’s not the tagline of the new Adventure Eddy story (although perhaps it should be.) That’s the tagline of Vincent and the Doctor – one of the new episodes of the fifth and latest season of Doctor Who. I was duly nervous when I approached it – knowing that there’s been a bit of controversy regarding Doctor Who and so-called ‘Gingerism’ recently.

The story itself saw the Doctor and gorgeous ginger companion Amy perusing the pictures in the Musee d’Orsay – and the Doctor spotting something iffy in his painting The Church at Auvers. Jumping into the TARDIS, they whisk back to 19th century Provence to ask the man himself about the oddity in his impressionist masterpiece.

Karen Gillan and Sunflowers. Two reasons to watch this episode.

Scottish actor Tony Curran is en place as Van Gogh – looking every bit the part (including the red hair), despite his inexplicable Scottish accent (which is dismissed as a TARDIS translation gliche, as explained when Van Gogh asks the similarly-accented Amy if ‘she’s from Holland, like he is.’ )

Dynamic, likeable, excitable and a bit bonkers, Van Gogh is portrayed as the quintessential tortured artist – his suffering made even worse by the fact that a fiendish beast is stalking the cobbled streets of Auvers-sur-Ois and only he can see it. When they do eventually track it down, tragedy taints their victory when they realize the monster was just as much of a victim as the people it slaughtered.

In Soviet Russia, Doctor Who hides behind the sofa from you.

But like the majority of the new Doctor Who episodes, the hunt for the alien-beastie is in reality just a subplot – the story focuses more on the Doctor and Amy’s interactions with Vincent Van Gogh. Writer Richard Curtis – yes, he of Four Weddings and a Funeral – presents the episode as more of a history lesson, giving us a glimpse into Van Gogh’s fractured mental state and a lovingly detailed examination of his artistic talent.

The best point in the episode is when the three of them are gazing into the moonlit Provence sky and the stars and moon melt into Van Gogh’s vision of them – the swirls of color that later become The Starry Night.

Faced with the foreknowledge of Van Gogh’s tragic suicide, Amy and the Doctor break the commandments of time travel and whisk their new friend to the 21st century, where he tearfully sees what he considered his ‘worthless’ paintings on display in the Musee d’Orsay – and a curator (a cameo by Bill Nighy) describes him as the most talented painter in history.

Vincent adapts pretty well to the 21st century - but he can't get his head around iPods either

But after they return him home, Amy and the Doctor are dismayed to discover that they didn’t change anything – Van Gogh’s appointment with a revolver occurs as predestined. But it’s tragedy tinged with optimism – as the Doctor explains to Amy, the good things in somebody’s life aren’t canceled out by the bad and at least what they did for Vincent added to those ‘good things.’

As far as I was concerned, this was one of the best episodes of Doctor Who I’d ever seen – even in a series that continues to impress. When David Tennant and Russell T. Davies left the show at the end of the last season, I was certain things would go downhill (how could you top Tennant’s performance?)

Yet Stephen Moffatt and Matt Smith have managed to make things get consistently better and better. Tighter scripts, deeper characterization and none of that contrived politicizing that Davies is so fond of.

I think what appealed to me about this episode – aside from the French setting and impressionist art – was the way in which they examined what Van Gogh was like during his life compared to the legacy left by his paintings. Drunk, mad, untalented and alone – he was a truly tragic figure who killed himself considering his life a failure.

It’s only from outside of his insular perspective that it’s possible to see the significance of the legacy he left, and the generations of lives he touched. I think for people living with their own flash of Van Gogh’s madness – call it depression, bi-polarism or whatever you want – it’s a reminder that even if you consider yourself utterly insignificant during your bleakest moments, there are probably more people than you realize who think just the opposite about you.

The other noteworthy thing about this episode was, of course, ‘the ginger thing.’ People have complained that Doctor Who is ‘gingerist’ after both David Tennant and Matt Davies noted that their new incarnations weren’t redheaded. Actually, it was just the opposite – both new regenerations were actually disappointed, as the doctor ‘had never been ginger before.’

The final lines of dialogue – in which Amy discusses Van Gogh’s marriage proposal to her and muses ‘our kids would have really, really red hair’ is followed up by a joking reference to a Pond/Van Gogh child being ‘the ultimate ginger.’ It was actually a little trite and counterproductive.

And since we’re talking about the few negative spots in this episode – I’m sure I wasn’t the only person to point out that while Van Gogh apparently lived in Provence during his adventure with the Doctor and Amy, the Church of Auvers they coolly strolled down the road to visit is actually located in the suburbs of Paris – about 500 miles north.

Creative license, I guess – and hardly a significant criticism given just how great the rest of the episode was.

Darwin Versus God

My continued research into the rich history of the United States has reached the brink of the Great Depression, and the revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the southern states.

Steve Wiegand's book on the history of America touched on a subject very close to my heart - the uniquely American obsession with doctrine of creationism.

"The Ku Klux Klan's greatest influence," Wiegand writes, "developed in small and mid-sized cities and in rural areas, and the repressive attitudes it catered to were also quick to embrace 'fundamentalism,' or the idea that everything in the Bible was literally true."

"In 1925, the Klan succeeded in passing a law in Tennessee that prohibited the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in public schools."

Now I don't think Monsieur Wiegand was suggesting a link between modern proponents of creationist theory and the Ku Klux Klan. However, as in all things, it's important to look at the origin of one's beliefs and the legacy they carry.

Most modern supporters of the doctrine of creationism are God-fearing Americans. Good people who love their families and are passionate in their beliefs. The fact that they believe in Creationism - that the world was created 6,000 years ago despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary - does not reflect on their good spirit and kind hearts.

Yet the fact remains, incontrovertible, that the modern creationist movement was forged at least in part in the fires of racism. It was the Ku Klux Klan, rejecting logic, science and reason, who helped give birth to modern creationist doctrine and fought to give it the legitimacy of the Tennessee state legislature.

Modern creationists, even if they're good hearted, patriotic and tolerant of other people's beliefs, should remain aware of their doctrine's sordid history. Their efforts to further the medieval thinking of 'Creationist Doctrine' is furthering the work of some of the 20th century's most despicable men.

America is a Secular Nation

If you repeat a lie often enough, it almost becomes the truth.

One such lie is: "The United States was founded on Christian Principles!"

This 'misconception' is often touted as truth by conservative Christians. It appeals to the more evangelical of them. Popular history paints the pilgrims as pious and protestant and it's affirming for conservatives to believe there is a direct link between the beliefs they hold today and the beliefs of the people who built the American nation.

But however affirming and appealing the idea is, it remains a lie.

America is a secular nation, founded on secular principles. All it takes to dispel the fantasy of America's 'Judeo-Christian roots' is to open a history book.

America's Secular Roots

Conservative Christians often argue that the founding fathers themselves - as devout Christians - would have incorporated their faith when penning the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The problem is, the founding fathers weren't necessarily devout - or even Christian. This is just an assumption conservatives make because the founding fathers lived during the tail-end of the eighteenth century.

In fact, out of the 55 delegates at the Philadelphia Convention (who we now refer to as the 'Founding Fathers') many belonged to no particular Christian affiliation at all.

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, was a confirmed atheist. He penned the 'Jefferson Bible' which removed all superstition and supernatural references from the Bible. It presented the story of Jesus as if he was just a wise, yet mortal man - similar to how I've come to consider the story of the New Testament.

George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine wrote extensively against organised religion and many of the 'Christian values' conservatives claim America was founded on.

Franklin, Jefferson, Paine and Ethan Allen were deists - believing that if there was a heavenly creator, he did not come to mankind through religion, but by granting man the gift of rationality and reason.

In short - the founding fathers were not all pious Christians. In fact, the most American of Americans (like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin) would be horrified at 21st century evangelical superstition.

The Proof - On Paper

If there are any lingering doubts about the secular background of many of the founding fathers, it's worth looking at the documents they penned. The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution are clearly and indisputably secular in nature.

The "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" entitle people - not a Christian God.

"The Creator" grants all men "with certain unalienable Rights." Not God. Not Jesus. In fact, not not necessarily a deity at all. Just that which has created man.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is interpreted by no less than Thomas Jefferson as "a wall of separation between church and state." This clearly establishes that the foundation of the United States of America took place entirely independently of any religious considerations.

Further irrefutable proof

If that mountain of evidence is not enough to satisfy the more rabid conservative Christian, the following will. The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by the founding fathers without any discussion, debate or opposition, states the following firmly in black and white:

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

These words were written by - and signed into law by - the founding fathers of the United States. The 55 delegates who created the American nation - comprising atheists, deists, protestants and catholics amongst them - were unified on this important principle.

The United States has was never founded on Christian principles. Anybody who tells you differently is either ignorant - or a liar.

Robin Hood and his Merry Men who wear tights but are NOT GAY!

I'm sorry I haven't posted for a while. I've just spent the last few days in Nottingham, at Trent FM, finding out a bit more about how my wonderful script ideas get turned into brilliant commercials.



Nottingham is Robin Hood country and I peeked into the Robin Hood museum while I was there. They were unable to explain how Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman, in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, managed to walk from the White Cliffs of Dover to Sherwood Forest in the space of a single day.