The Answer to the Next Question | Doctor Who: The Time Of The Doctor - Review

Naturally, as River Song would say - 'Spoilers!'

In an earlier post, written just after news broke of Matt Smith leaving the role of The Doctor, I asked who would replace him. The answer came in the form of a rather over-the-top live BBC One special, announcing the Twelfth Doctor as Peter Capaldi. This man seems to be as splintered across the Doctor Who universe (and beyond) as Clara Oswald was duplicated across the Doc's timelines at the end of The Name Of The Doctor. Firstly, we saw Capaldi as the Roman, Caecilius, in the 2008 Tenth Doctor episode, The Fires Of Pompeii, followed by his turn as Dr. Frobisher in 2009's Torchwood: Children Of Earth, Capaldi then played 'W.H.O Doctor' (as in World Health Organisation) in this year's World War Z. Now, Capaldi is THE Doctor, finally taking his place in the TARDIS at the end of The Time Of The Doctor, the 2013 Christmas special. He also turns up in the 1996 Vicar Of Dibley Christmas special (broadcast after Time, on Christmas Day) as Tristram Campbell, a Songs Of Praise producer. He appears with his fiancee, Aoife, played by Orla Brady, who portrays Tasha Lem - an old flame of our hero's - in Time Of The Doctor. Of course, Richard Curtis, who created Vicar Of Dibley wrote the 2010 Eleventh Doctor episode, Vincent And The Doctor. Good Lord, I'm lonely…

As to Time itself, I found it a mixed bag. It starts off all light and breezy, with Clara trying to get The Doctor to act as her boyfriend at her family Christmas dinner. Things thankfully get all dark and serious after he has embarrassed himself (and Clara) in front of her family, then resuming his investigation of a mysterious signal emanating from what turns out to be Trenzalore - The Doctor's resting place. Meanwhile, he discovers an old crack in time through which The Doctor's newly resurrected people, the Time Lords, are sending a signal. It's that old question, the first question, in fact - 'the one that must never be answered' - 'Doctor WHO?' (One would think that such an advanced race would know proper grammar and ask Doctor WHOM but I guess their idea of true English is different to humans.)

Once again, the question remains unanswered, at least to us. Here, The Doc knows that, to answer would bring the Time Lords back through the crack to be attacked by the vast army made up of The Doctor's enemies, including Daleks, Cybermen, etc, potentially kicking off another Time War. The Doctor (all thirteen of him) only just got done sorting out the last one, no need for another. So, our hero spends a thousand years defending the town of Christmas (hey, Moffat had to make it Christmassy somehow) from said villains, resisting the temptation to reunite with his lost people in the process. In the end, of course, something must give and, The Doctor being the self-sacrificial character he is, makes sure it's him, fighting to the point of death from old age. This regeneration - his twelfth (not forgetting John Hurt's 'Captain Grumpy') - is his final one and he knows it. It's a good job, then, that Clara Oswald is on hand once again to persuade those stubborn old Time Lords to grant their finest a new regeneration cycle, just in time for the Doctor to see off the encroaching Dalek force before they obliterate Christmas. The Doctor saves Christmas. Does the man never take a holiday?!

The Doctor expends a ludicrous amount of regeneration energy in blowing up the Dalek ships (who surely could've just shot him off that church tower he hid in? Also, when did The Doctor take to destroying his enemies so violently? When he's no other choice, presumably).

With the threat dispelled and now safely back in the TARDIS, The Doctor handily 'resets' to the youthful Matt Smith looks we first saw this Doctor with, in time to give an understated, bittersweet farewell speech to Clara. The scene we have all been waiting for turns out to be almost as drawn out as David Tennant's departure in The End Of Time but thankfully kept the former companion quotient to a minimum. Here, The Doctor experiences visions of little Amelia Pond - 'The first face this face ever saw' - and the grown up version, requiring a touchingly welcome Karen Gillan cameo.

Then, with a final lurch and a flash of that old golden-yellow regen-energy, Matt Smith is gone and there stands Peter Capaldi - eyebrows in attack position as he glares at an amusingly shocked Clara. The transition is so abrupt, I thought I'd missed a bit - the usual moment where we see an old Doctor's face morph into the new one's. Sadly not, and, without that satisfying change, it's oddly disjointed and anticlimactic. At least Capaldi's first lines are an improvement over Smith's first dialogue about still having legs, not being ginger, or a girl, then bellowing 'geronimo!' Instead, The Thirteenth Doctor  complains about the colour of his new kidneys and seems to have forgotten how to fly the TARDIS. Oh dear. Better bring back River Song (only to help The Doc relearn his piloting skills, I've had enough of her otherwise), or that nice Tasha Lem, whom I much prefer as a romantic interest for the Doctor. Well, Brady and Capaldi looked good together in Vicar Of Dibley, so why not?

After the exciting Name Of The Doctor and Day Of The Doctor, it's a bit of a shame that Doctor Who's fiftieth anniversary year had to end on a messy and slightly disappointing note with Time, which at least gives Matt Smith a rousing, epic exit and Peter Capaldi a funny and surprising introduction.

Images courtesy of the BBC Doctor Who website

It's A Wonderful Life - Review

I had the privilege of watching what has become known as a perennial Christmas classic, 'It's A Wonderful Life', at the cinema last Friday, which, aptly for a film concerning fate, was 67 years to the day it was first, released in 1946.

Screen 3 was almost fully packed with a wider age bracket of people than I expected, ranging from children to OAP’s (with myself somewhere in between). The only annoyances were having to pay nearly full whack for a ticket to see a very old film that's on TV this week and has been every Christmas week since TV was invented, as well as having to watch the usual adverts and trailers tacked on to the start of any new film release.

I sympathised with George Bailey (James Stewart)'s efforts to flee the constraints of his 'crummy' hometown, Bedford Falls, to seek adventure in foreign lands. Instead, he finds himself forced to take over Bailey’s Building and Loan Association, his father's company, when the old man pops his clogs, since it is the only way to stop it falling into the greedy, selfish hands of Mr. Potter (Lionel Barrymore), a slumlord and majority shareholder in the Association, who is as equally contemptuous of George as he was of his father. For George, the feeling is mutual and he gives his life to supporting the poor people of the town who would suffer from Potter's financial restrictions, were it not for George continuing his Dad's good work. He is also able to marry his teenage sweetheart Mary Hatch (Donna Reed) and they have four children.

However, fate transpires to test George, when $8,000 of his money goes missing at, wouldn’t you know it, the exact same time that the Association receives a visit from the bank examiner. George searches frantically for the missing dough but to no avail, leading him to appeal to his nemesis, Potter, whom we know has, by twist of fortune, acquired the money for himself and refuses to tell George, instead using the situation to his advantage by reporting George to the Police for bank fraud.

Desperate, George goes drinking, gets in a fight and crashes his car, leading the poor man to a bridge, which he contemplates jumping off. He is beaten to it by someone else that, George being the selfless hero he is, he jumps in to save. This jumper reveals himself to be Clarence Oddbody (Henry Travers).

Revealing his problems to this strange man, George ends up wishing he were dead, given that his life insurance amounts to more than his lost $8,000. Clarence declares George's wish granted, leading him into a nightmarish alternate reality where the latter never existed.

This was a happy reminder of Back To The Future Part II, in which Marty McFly finds himself in a dark future 1985 where his nemesis, Biff Tannen, has acquired a Sports Almanac from 2015 - stolen from Marty following his return from a future trip - and used it to make a fortune. You can see the two film's similarities in this video. 

Could George Bailey’s name have inspired George McFly’s, perhaps? 

IAWL itself has its own sci-fi (more accurately, fantasy) moments that came as a pleasant surprise, such as an early scene in space where two heavenly bodies - one being 'Joseph', the other, more authoritative one presumably being God - flicker as they discuss the fate of George Bailey, calling on Clarence, ‘Angel, Second Class’, represented as a little star, who may earn his wings if he is able to help George get his life back on track. His doing this through an alternate reality thread is pretty sci-fi and this plot device of an angelic figure showing a down-on-their-luck human character an different take on their life crops up in everything from Doctor Who to The Simpsons.

The film has a reputation as a sentimental Christmas movie and this is justified to some extent by it being joyfully old-fashioned (which it would be, given its age, ‘hot dog!’ indeed. For 1946, though, it still feels quite fresh and ambitious with the fantasy elements), also sweet, funny and schmaltzy - especially that ending. That said, only the last 20 minutes or so actually take place at Christmas and I was surprised by the story’s darker elements, such as the aforementioned alternate reality (which everyone watching surely knows won't last from having seen oft-shown clips of George back with his family at the end, winking and saying 'attaboy, Clarence!'). Darker still is the way in which certain male characters take out their frustrations on children, first Mr. Gower clouting a young George around his bad ear (which he acquired through diving into freezing water to save his younger brother as a child), even making it bleed. This is made even more uncomfortable by George's quick forgiveness of and efforts to help the old man, who ends up as a drunk in the George-less reality, ostracized by the community. Later, George himself unleashes his anger at losing 8 grand on his own children. Schmaltzy in part the film may be but it doesn't shirk from going to difficult places. It's also not as cheesy as I expected it to be, presenting quite a believable character and his troubles.

IAWL’s Christmas favourite status may have been influenced by its nods to the Nativity story, such as a (albeit fleeting) character named Joseph,as well as Mary, of course and George even jokingly calls Clarence 'Gabriel' at one point, drawing parallels between this angel's message of goodwill and the other guy's.

In the end, Clarence's mission is a success and George regains his sense of self worth yet, crucially, does not miraculously find 8 grand or escape arrest. He does at least resist suicide and live to be repaid for his life of sacrifice for the people of Bedford Falls, who do a whip-round to make up that lost money.

This is all very nice but I couldn't help receiving a mixed message from the ending about money being the be-all-end-all of people's happiness. Even Clarence, despite being an angel, still acts out of personal want, rather than selflessness, in taking on George’s case in order to win his wings. It's really George Bailey who's the 'angel', here, given his life of self-sacrifice. Although it’s easy to see him as a long-suffering victim of circumstance, having to give up his dream of seeing the world in order to continue his father’s business and keep nasty old Mr. Potter at bay.

Their nice home and clothes notwithstanding, the Baileys are not greedy or miserly, like Mr. Potter (surely this film’s Scrooge) but the image of their being so happy about people lending them all that money seemed materialistic, even though what it really represented was people repaying George’s kindness and his family not losing him to the clanger. Perhaps that's the point, as, at Christmas, it's when most people really begin to feel the pinch and the comparatively rich (usually, sometimes) extend a helping hand to those in need.

It’s A Wonderful Life also projects a message of hope for the future and challenges us about duty versus desire, selfishness versus selflessness. Did George lose his life to find it? I like to think that, after avoiding bankruptcy, George had saved enough money to pass on the reigns of the Association to someone else for a while and fulfill his dream of travelling the world, only now joined by his family.

(Images courtesy of IMDb)

Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa - Review

I didn't enjoy Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa and I'm not entirely sure why not. I guess just because I wasn't in the mood for it, following a downer of a day, which, surprisingly, didn't make me feel more in need of a good laugh. All reviews are subjective up to a point but, with my mood in mind, my review of a film that is doing very well critically and commercially - it's topped the UK box office and went down well with pretty much everybody else I saw it with - is a little too subjective. That said, however objectively one tries to review a comedy, the main criterion is whether it is funny or not and, in the case of Alpha Papa, for me, it was, yet it wasn't.

It wasn't really the fault of the film itself. It was well made, with uniformly good performances by a raft of familiar faces from British comedy, loads of jokes, a well-chosen soundtrack (John Farnham and Example being my highlights), good use of Norfolk locations and a storyline worthy and believable of Alan Partridge. Even his hair looks the best it ever has. I have always found Steve Coogan's most enduring character somewhat funny but rarely hilarious. I enjoyed Knowing Me, Knowing You - With Alan Partridge in the '90's and used to reenact scenes and catchphrases with friends (Alan's defining chant, 'Ah-haaaaa!!' is oddly absent from the film) Yet, I didn't find it as funny as they did. I recall finding it too believable and awkward to really make me laugh. I watched a couple of I'm Alan Partridge episodes but I've more recently enjoyed The Day Today, where the character first appeared on TV, albeit in a short Sports desk sketch. So, the fact that I am only a fairweather Partridge fan no doubt contributed to my feelings toward Alpha Papa.

I had looked forward to seeing Alpha Papa as a work outing but not even that or the fact that my six other colleagues immensely enjoyed it was enough to help me get into it more. Two of them had just attended a funeral and so were more in need of having their spirits lightened than me. In the barely half-full Screen 1 of Norwich's Cinema City, most of the audience sounded like they enjoyed the film but our group (apart from me) showed it the loudest. And why not? Apart from the gales of laughter, my workmates 'awwed' Partidge's assistant Lynne during her makeover and sad moments; cheering when Norwich exteriors were onscreen, including St Peter Mancroft, the location of the aforementioned funeral. I was more excited by the appearance of the nearby Television and Movie Store, having been a regular visitor there over the years. The sort of films which that store sells merchandise for, e.g. Star Trek Into Darkness or Man Of Steel, are more my thing than Alpha Papa but aren't really my workmates' favourite sort of film.

I did genuinely chuckle during some scenes and tried joining in with the laughter at the start of the film in order to feel part of the occasion, as if afraid I would be judged for not being amused like the others but soon decided that was silly. What did anyone else care if I laughed or not? No one was paying attention to me. Why pay £7 to fake-laugh at a film? If it wasn't funny to me, then it wasn't funny. That said, I felt like a total nerdy-nerd-nerd with no sense of humour but that's just my self-consciousness. Afterwards, one colleague said something to the effect of 'You know how other people set you off laughing?...' in reference to how hard she had laughed with the others during the film, implying that maybe she wouldn't have laughed as much had she not seen it with them. Laughter is contagious, apparently but with this film, I guess I was immune. (Is that a Patridgeism?)

I got the jokes in Alpha Papa; they were well-written (by seasoned Partridge scribes Peter Baynham and Armando Ianucci, etc) and performed but I just didn't get into it. I wasn't bored but I felt disconnected from the film throughout. Wierdly, I found myself laughing at certain gags a few hours after seeing it, such as when Alan has to face an armed policeman butt naked from the waist down. Perhaps my mood had just generally improved by then? Even though I enjoy toilet humour, the scene where Alan hides in the septic tank of a portaloo, only made titter a bit, where I would have wet myself laughing another time (pun intended). Neither of these things featured heavily in Alpha Papa, although Alan's seductive purr of 'yes, that is my damn todger' to a new ladyfriend kept me amused after watching the film. 

Comedy's a funny thing. I don't often see humourous films at the cinema, or in general. I prefer TV shows like Family Guy that play to my base sense of humour. Filmwise, I ideally, I prefer really surreal, daft comedy. Zoolander is one of my favourite funny films, as is The Magic Christian - a bonkers '60's film with Peter Sellers and Ringo Starr, co-written by some of the Monty Python team. Austin Powers is a favourite, particularly the first one. I even enjoyed parts of Myers' derided The Love Guru ('BALLGAZER!') I am usually quite conservative in my humour in everyday life, depending on who I'm with. I dislike hearing dirty jokes in church or about Christianity (Family Guy has lots of these, though), which got a fair treatment in Alpha Papa.  Contrarily, I watched atheist comedian Richard Herring's stand-up show Christ On A Bike a few years back, plus, I can be dirtier in thought than word, which is probably something to do with my Id battling my Superego...and such. Although I enjoy some edgy comedy, I'm not generally a fan of Frankie Boyle or Jimmy Carr-type humour. Alpha Papa wasn't dark like them, or Four Lions (Directed by Chris Morris, a fellow alumnus of Coogan's from The Day Today), another film I didn't laugh with very much but more so than with Alpha Papa.

Four Lions takes schadenfreude - something else I find funny - to an explosive extreme in making a lot of its jokes revolve around people blowing themselves up, not a usual subject for comedy. This sort of humour (although on a much lighter level) is an essential element to Partridge; watching him make an absolute tool of himself. This happens intermittently in the film but, of course, being his film, he has to become the hero and save the day, which is nice to watch but not very funny. Even schadenfreude has its limits, though. When it becomes about practically bullying others, such as the extent to which Gervais and Stephen Merchant pick on Karl Pilkington in The Ricky Gervais Show, it gets uncomfortable.

Maybe I just am Alan Partridge? He reminds me a little too much of myself in his ineptitude, awkwardness and self-delusion. Not that I'm all of these all the time, no one is (even him) but, still...seeing believable, realistic comedic characters like Partridge and David Brent make me squirm and remind me of when I've been the butt of the joke but found it hard to laugh at myself. That's meant to be part of their overall appeal, I know - the fact that they reflect the ridiculousness of certain traits displayed by most people at some point. Plus, both Alan and I hail from Norwich (or at least, he's based his career there). Maybe, though, after a crap day and despite the fact that the fool becomes the hero, I would have been better served by a more outlandish comedy that helped me escape Reality, rather than one that was, literally and metaphorically. a little too close to home.

Merry Christmas, Mr Logan | The Wolverine - Review

SPOILERS AHEAD!

This is the sixth film in which Hugh Jackman has played the titular Mutant hero - including his X-Men: First Class cameo - and, although a fan of the X-Men films, the Wolverine character in particular, as well as someone who didn't think X-Men Origins: Wolverine - the character's first solo film - was all that bad, I felt reticent about yet another story about the tortured soul that the original X-Men trilogy featured as the main hero amongst the ensemble, even if they didn't delve as fully into the dark past of Wolverine, aka Logan, aka James Howlett.

In The Wolverine, it's mostly Logan's dark future we're treated to, as we find him roughing it in the Canadian wilderness, with shaggy hair and beard to match the fur of the grizzly bear with whom he keeps company. It's not long, though, before trouble comes a-knockin' and our hirsute hero is whisked off to Japan to resume his acquaintance with a man whose life Logan once saved during his last visit to Japan, in Nagasaki, 1945.

Initially under the impression that he was summoned merely to say goodbye to Yashida (Ken Yamamura/Hal Yamanouchi); formerly a POW camp soldier, now a wealthy tycoon whose name is peppered all over Tokyo as Toshiba is in the real world. Logan discovers that the old codger also wants to give him the 'gift' of a normal mortal life by removing his mutative ability to heal from any wound that helped him save Yashida's life in WWII but which has also cursed Logan to immortality. Having been dragged away from his comfy forest patch to suffer the indignities of a fifteen hour plane flight, a nude bath involving a violent scrubbing from broom-wielding ancient Japanese women, just to exchange parting words with a man he only knew briefly over half a century ago is bad enough but his wanting to nick Logan's mutant power just adds insult to injury. Fortunately, Logan heals fast from this dishonourable slight and, managing to restrain his infamous rage, bids Yashida goodbye, telling him that, 'you don't want what I got.' He leaves the old git on his pin point impression bed, left with his annoyance at the considerable effort made to find Logan and bring him to Japan, only to be rejected. Of course, this is only the beginning.

Things then get complicated in a plot involving Yashida's granddaughter, Mariko (Tao Okamoto) and a power struggle with the rest of her family, from whose assassins Logan forsakes a return to his nice forest to protect her from, confident he can also see off his competition for her affections in the form of an ex-boyfriend and the fiance of an arranged marriage. This, rather excitingly, involves him taking on the entire spectrum of the Japanese warrior caste, including Yakuza, Samurai and ninjas. The highlight of these myriad battles is surely one aboard and on top of a speeding bullet train, which easily beats Skyfall's train fight. Here, an injured and mysteriously unhealing Logan must use his claws to stay attached to the speeding vehicle, whilst seeing off Mariko's would-be murderers. That said, some of the action is cut too choppily to be truly satisfying, such as the preceding funeral fight, possibly to subdue the violence for a 12A rating. A later sword vs. claw fight takes place almost completely in the dark, At least there's no climactic duel between Wolverine and the femme fatale - Svetlana Khodchenkova's Viper in this case - as became the norm with the X-Men films. One of those femme fatales, now just a mere femme, returns here in Logan's dreams, providing an interesting subplot and a nice link to X-Men III: The Last Stand, from which this new chapter follows on.

The Wolverine is one of the better films of the X-Men series. Although, whilst an improvement on Last Stand and Origins, it doesn't match X-Men 2 or First Class. Like those films - and most comic book/action movies - it follows a fairly safe formula, which is especially apparent in the final act, when Logan must rescue the damsel in distress from the villain's lair, wherein he finds it is Logan himself whom the villain really wants. Quite why, then, he has to wade through a hundred ninjas to get there, rather than be allowed all the way inside before capture, I didn't understand. Also perplexing was how Logan's claws didn't leave bloody wounds in his hands during the scenes where he couldn't heal, as well as how, when Yashida was extracting Logan's blood and thereby his healing ability, the old man reverted to the exact age he was when he met the Wolverine. Maybe I'm taking a comic book film too seriously - only as seriously as it takes itself, although it's no Dark Knight - but its internal logic is weird; most of the non-Mutant supporting characters don't make enough of an impact early on for them or their motives to be interesting enough later on. 

The script is better than Origins, despite the slight plot similarities with previous films toward the end. At least there's no dialogue clangers like 'Coocoo-catchoo got screwed.' There are some intentional good laughs, too, as well as a self-surgery scene that was almost as intense - more so, in a way - than the one in Prometheus.

The sound effects, particularly when Logan and Yukio (Rila Fukushima) first arrive in Japan, were also impressive. The noise of the cars, birds, etc is very immersive. The special effects are well handled, although the grizzly bear at the start was a little unconvincing, yet Jackman's performance helped here.

The Wolverine is an enjoyable addition to Marvel's most profitable franchise but I know enough of the character's history to not need another standalone film about him. An end credits coda reveals that he'll be back on the team for the next X-Men film, Days Of Future Past.

'This...is...KRYPTON!' | Man Of Steel - Review

(SPOILERS AHEAD...)

My feelings toward Man Of Steel were mixed when the it was announced that Zack Snyder would direct it. His 2004 Dawn Of The Dead remake and 300 - his first comic book adaptation - are both watchable films but hardly classics and Watchmen, another comic-to-film translation, was reasonable but too slavish to Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' source material to work on the screen.

In Man Of Steel's favour was the fact that David S Goyer and Christopher Nolan - the men behind the Dark Knight trilogy - were the catalysts for this Superman reboot, with both creating the story, Goyer scriptwriting and Nolan producing. It was these names that piqued my interest and for Nolan to produce a Snyder film meant that at least he had some faith in the latter. The fact that actors like Russell Crowe, Laurence Fishburne and Amy Adams signed on was further encouragement. Henry Cavill also looked right as Superman in early promo shots, without appearing to steal Christopher Reeve's style, as Brandon Routh had done in 2006's Superman Returns, Bryan Singer's belated sequel to Richard Donner's Superman II from 1980. Singer kicked ass with his previous comic-book adaptations, X-Men and X-Men 2 but his Superman was disappointing. Could Snyder do better?

Yes and no. Whilst Man Of Steel is an overall better film than Singer's effort - not to mention any movie about the Big Blue Boy Scout since 1980 - it is clearly Zack Snyder's attempt at a Christopher Nolan film. This is both literally, given Nolan's actual input, as well as figuratively, in terms of style. We get a fragmented origin story, mostly told through the orphaned hero's memories, where he lives an itinerant existence before truly finding himself and his place in the world, just in time to face an enemy from his past. The film's title doesn't appear until the end credits, either, when it could just as well have said Superman Begins.

Man Of Steel keeps up Snyder's reputation as a CG-loving visual stylist. The effects are almost all well executed, except for the rare case of jerky, obviously computerized super-people. The look of the film is cool and goes to great lengths to differentiate itself from Richard Donner's majestic Superman - The Movie (1978), even though it lacks the granduer of the earlier film. The opening scenes on Superman's home planet of Krypton, particularly some of the landscapes and flying creatures, were rather reminiscent of Avatar. The look and purpose of the Genesis Chamber - where new Kryptonians are created, was ripped straight from the human battery pods in The Matrix, with the Neo vs. Smith final fight in The Matrix Revolutions an obvious reference for the climactic, city-levelling battle between Kal-El (Superman's proper Kryptonian name) and General Zod.

Some shots are ruined by wobbly camerwork when it should be slower pans and tracking shots to capture the beauty of a spaceship orbiting the Earth, for example. Snyder is also guilty of replicating the lens flare prominent in JJ Abrams' Star Trek films, particularly during shots with Earth's sun - presumably to highlight that our hero's powers are drawn from it. The influence of Abrams' films extends further, with Zod's World Engines reminiscent of Star Trek 2009's villain Nero's anti-matter drill, although Zod's weapons of mass destruction have a cooler sound effect and don't need to be attached to a ship to work - it is one in itself.

The Engineers' technology in Prometheus also seemed to be an influence, perhaps fittingly, given the suggestion that Kryptonians - like the Engineers - seeded life throughout the universe, possibly on Earth, too. What if they exist in the same universe? The Engineers create the original Alien, whom Superman has fought in the comics before? What if the Engineers seeded life on Krypton? What would a battle between an Engineer and a Kryptonian look like? We'll probably never know. The Engineer's design ethic is of course inspired by HR Giger, who designed the Alien, giving it a very sexual look and the the pods used to imprison Zod and his soldiers early on looked distractingly like flying dildos, so there's a slight theme, there - very slight.

Previous Superman films have depicted Kal-El as a messiah figure and Man Of Steel is no exception, although here, the religious symbolism is laid on with a trowel. Kal's 33 (Christ's supposed age when he was crucified) and during a scene where he seeks spiritual direction from a priest, there are stained glass depictions of the crucified Christ right behind him and later on, Kal mirrors Christ’s pose on the cross, after being told by his father - or a (holy) ghostly version of him - that 'you can save them all, Kal'. OK, we get it - Superman is an allegory for Jesus.

Gripes aside, Henry Cavill is the embodiment of Clark Kent/Kal-El (continuing Nolan's style of referring to character's costumed alter-egos as little as possible, calling him 'Superman' is so 2006, except in a muted, apologetic way, here). He continues with the current trend of Brit actors successfully taking on American characters - such as Christian Bale playing Batman - making the role his own in a way not seen since Christopher Reeve, although a little influenced by him. In a scene where Kal takes on Zod's World Engine, Cavill briefly looks just like Reeve. His physique is bulkily perfect - the ripped Christ, perhaps - and those piercing blue eyes cast the right notes of 'steel'-iness, empathy, kindness but also an inner loneliness. Who cares if he doesn't wear his pants outside his trousers anymore? His whole suit is Kryptonian underwear! He really convinced me that he was the character, which helped me rise above the film's other problems.

The team of Nolan, Goyer and composer Hans Zimmer did a better job with Batman than Superman, though. Whilst Man Of Steel has some fantastic twists and ideas, e.g. Zod being just a fanatical product of his artificial breeding, serving only 'the greater good', like a fundamentalist bomber might. The dialogue is generally of a lower standard than in the recent Batman films. Poor Russell Crowe as Jor-El is saddled with a lot of it, busting out a version of his Gladiator accent for the occasion. He always sounds like he is about to go into the whole, 'my name is Maximus Decimus Meridius...' speech.

Michael Shannon's generally cool General Zod also gets a few clunkers and not even a 'KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!' Boo! The catchphrase of Terence Stamp's Zod in Superman II could have been a defining line here, like Leonidas' 'This...is...SPARTA!' was one of 300's. Still, Zod, also a shouty military leader like Leonidas, does at least still get to have a scrap with Jor, which unfortunately did not happen between more veteran actors, Terence Stamp and Marlon Brando, playing the same respective characters in Donner's films. Shannon's Zod also confronts Kal-El - their final melee a case of 'let's get this over with' after all the sturm and drang of the World Engines beforehand.

Other niggles were the fortuitousness of the ancient Kryptonian scout ship buried in the Arctic, just waiting, ready for Kal to find and learn all about his heritage, create his super-suit and play a role in the climax. It looks nice but it's no Fortress of Solitude. Kal himself destroys this ship before the end, which, after everything else Kryptonian on Earth having been blown up, leaves Superman as the only relic of his dead people - that we know of. Also, with the whole planet to chose from, Zod's ship - as part of the World Engine with which he plans to terraform Earth into a New Krypton - hovers over Metropolis, seemingly just to place people like Daily Planet editor Perry White (The Matrix's Laurence Fishbone) in peril. Also, why do the idiot Earth soldiers continue to fire at Zod's minions when clearly, their bullets do no harm? Colonel Hardy (Christopher Meloni) even whips out his knife to combat Zod's lieutenant, Faora-Ul (Antje Traue) after he runs out of bullets. Fool!

Hans Zimmer's music is serviceable and unobrusive, with a nice electronic twang in certain parts. It's not as distinctive as his Dark Knight work, however and definitely not a patch on John Williams' iconic theme from the Christopher Reeve films.

As affecting as scenes such as young Clark's interactions with his adoptive parents, Martha and Jonathan Kent (Diane Lane and Kevin Costner) are, none of the more emotional moments quite hit the highs of Donner's 1978 original. In that film, Jonathan Kent dies of a heart attack, something young Clark can do nothing to prevent - 'All those powers and I couldn't save him.' In Man Of Steel, Jonathan and Clark both know the latter can use his power to save Jonathan from a roaring tornado but Jonathan refuses his adopted son's help just because he doesn't want the crowd watching from a safe distance -or the world  at large- to learn of Clark's alien nature, then possibly reject him...and Clark accepts this? The crowd have all just survived a tornado strike, are they likely to remember a man rescuing his father using super-speed, especially if the Kents deny it? No one has their smartphone out in this scene, so Clark could easily get away with it but so ingrained in him is his surrogate dad's fear of Clark's true nature being discovered and so strong is Clark's love for him, that he accepts his dad's wishes to stay put. He does this at this stage but has already saved a bus full of schoolchildren from drowning and, after Jonathan's death, goes on to use his abilities to save others too, so it rings false that he does not save daddy.

Despite the script's flaws, though, I was engrossed, thanks mainly to Cavill but also the well-cast younger Clarks, Dylan Sprayberry and Cooper Timberline. Watching Clark get to grips with his alien nature is a joy, particularly in learning to focus his x-ray vision or testing his limits when he learns to fly...and fly he does. I look forward to his further adventures as the Man Of Steel.

More Brown Magic | 'Infamous'

Derren Brown always warns his live audiences to keep details of the show a secret, which makes them difficult to talk or write about without spoiling them, since it's the juicy bits that are the most discussable. So, if anyone reading this (if anyone is actually reading this, then many thanks) intends to watch Infamous, then it's best not to read ahead.

Prior to attending Infamous at Norwich Theatre Royal, I was told by a friend who had been to an earlier performance that one lady had to be ushered out during a particularly intense part of the show involving hypnotism, having felt as if her whole body had tensed up. During the interval, Brown apparently had to come to see her and work his magic upon her to undo the negative effects.

This story played on my mind in the day or so leading up to watching Infamous - the title given an extra edge with my foreknowledge of what happened to the woman. Would Brown be secretly trying to hypnotize us all during the show, with only those more suggestible types (possibly including me) becoming really affected by it? Would I end up as stiff as a board and have to be carried out of the auditorium like a frightened mannequin by a handful of ushers? Or maybe my superego would give way to my id - my inner demons unleashed upon unsuspecting people after the show?

In an effort to gain mental mastery over these worrisome thoughts, I once again turned to the section on Hypnosis and Suggestibility in Brown's book, Tricks of the Mind; repeating a helpful sentence over and over again to myself...'His (the subject's) belief is everything. There is only his belief.' Derren Brown could only affect my mind and actions as far as I believed he could. Given that he makes clear in his book that a trance state is not real, it was highly unlikely I would find myself in a similar scenario to the woman. That said, perhaps Brown had something more edgy up his sleeve than we had seen before?

So, once at the theatre, my friend and I rushed to our seats and waited on the edge of them as the lights went down. The announcer was greeted with nervous laughter as he told everybody that, if we felt woozy or uncomfortable at any time during the performance, we were to look away for a few seconds and we would be fine. This only heightened my trepidation, before he finally said, 'Ladies and gentlemen...Derren Brown!' Rapturous applause.

We were then exposed to our host sat on a simple wooden chair in the middle of a set that was more stripped down than the usual, more extravagant ones in previous stage shows like Enigma.  Derren Brown's head was bowed, as if in deep thought. Eventually, he spoke. 'We are all trapped inside our own heads,' he told us, 'our beliefs and understandings about the world are limited by that perspective.'

His following small talk helped me relax, before he settled into the show proper. Most of it was made up of the kind of tricks we'd all seen him do in previous stage or TV shows, although obviously with different people, repartee and results. Applauding and laughing with everyone else, I still felt sceptical about Brown's usual insistence that he did not use stooges in the show, particularly during one gag that would not have worked, had a certain combination of people not been in attendance. Then again, I'm sure that Brown, familiar as he is with probability and the law of averages, would know that there is always likely to be at least one of the kind of people that he needs for a particular trick to work at every show. Had there not been, it wouldn't have hurt the show to cut this bit out.

Then came the part of the performance where I guessed the tensed-up woman had had to be removed. Brown asked everyone to take part in an extravagant procedure involving all of us who wished to. I had to remind myself - there is only my belief, there is only my belief... Like a wuss, I opted out. Once he had finished this trick, I exhaled. Some more engaging wierdness happened before Brown announced the interval and an invite for anyone interested in psychic mediumship to come up to the stage to watch him at work in Act II.

My companion and I opted to go up, hoping for a closer glimpse into Derren's world than most people get, thinking we were to congragate near the stage to watch whatever Brown did during the interval. Instead, we were ushered onto the stage itself and made to wait until the second act started for our host's return. We sat right in front of the set, facing out into the main auditorium. Nervous about what the next act held, we tried to reassure each other that, whatever lay in store in the second half was as much a trick of our minds as was everything we had witnessed thus far. Surely we would not be hypnotized into getting naked onstage or into believing we were possessed by ghosts, for example? Not unless we wanted to, we reasoned...if hypnotism if all about the power of suggestion, then it was a concern that nudity and possession were on our minds. Were we to fall under Derren's spell, at least one of these things would probably occur.

When Brown came onstage, the reason for our being there with him was revealed - to give a different perspective on the whole show. The idea being that, as in life, we can see things afresh if we only look at them from a different angle. In this case, however, all we saw were various props and stage signs, normally hidden from the main audience's view, who themselves were now in plain sight and it was quite breathtaking to see all those people. I felt like I was being watched, when, in fact, they were all probably oblivious to me, amongst the other audience members onstage. During my time onstage, I was still none the wiser regarding the workings of Brown's tricks, even though they were being done only a few feet away from me and that I had seen him do at least one of them (albeit a little differently) on TV.

Up this close, I could see there was no way that the other audience members around me could have been stooges, as they were, like myself, randomly selected, unless they were actors chosen way in advance and Brown memorized their names, faces and whatever other details were necessary. To do this for an entire tour would surely be impossible without someone revealing anything, not to mention a hell of a lot of work for the production team, just to convince us of Brown's abilities. If this were true, he would not likely allow lots of people to get onstage with him and watch him work. Seeing the show from this angle was exciting but, unlike (spoiler alert!) finding an old man behind the curtain at the end of The Wizard of Oz, it served only to deepen the mystery. A mystery wrapped inside a riddle, hidden within an enigma.

Despite this, more was revealed to me than was intended, when I looked behind me to see that the bottom half of the set had fallen back slightly, allowing me a glimpse behind the stage. Rather than some X-Men-style telepathy-enhancing apparatus, I saw a more prosaic Apple Mac laptop, a desk and some lights. I also heard someone tapping on the other side of the large painted wooden section and wondered if whomever it was might be sending signals to Brown onstage, or that it could be the theatre's resident ghost (that was about to possess me). It was probably just someone trying to figure out why the part of the stage had been dislodged.

The reason for the show's title was not as apparent as those of Brown's previous stage shows. As far as I could tell, Infamous referred to his reputation, which he touched on during one card trick, telling us about having been banned from casinos for using his magic skills to win games. This show was all about perception, being 'trapped inside our own heads' as our host had put it. In Brown's case, he was still affected by taunts from his schooldays. He has admitted in his book that he got into magic as a way of impressing others and gaining their approval. Although he has done very well out of it and that his output has gone beyond playing tricks and into exposing charlatans and spreading positive messages, I did wonder if, at forty-two, he should really get over it but this was, I suppose, Infamous' message - to be happy with who you are. This gave the show a different, more personal aspect than Brown's other live shows, as well as creating a springboard for particular stunts and a couple of laughs.

I left Infamous laughing at the trick my own mind had played on me with my concerns about the effects of hypnotism in the show and, thankfully, still in full control of mind, body and soul. Even if the show did not entertain me as much as previous Derren Brown experiences, I was at least more aware that the ideas and beliefs I myself create have the potential to be better or worse than whatever else anyone could suggest.

Image credit: http://www.atgtickets.com/shows/derren-brown/edinburgh-playhouse/

Brown Magic | 'Tricks of the Mind' by Derren Brown - Book Review

I didn't used to like Derren Brown. Having only seen odd bits from his TV shows, I found him annoyingly smug, scarily manipulative and a little bit disturbing, so I avoided his work. Yet, perhaps due to Brown using his perceptive abilities to figure out my disdain for him through the telly when I caught a bit of one of his programmes, and placing subtle mental cues throughout my everyday life in a ploy to persuade me to like him, I found myself watching the televised version of his last stage show, Svengali, in early 2012. Despite the fact that the show didn't engage me enough to view it in its entirety, the wicked illusionist's spell had been truly cast on me and I watched as many as I could of the curiously well-timed run of Brown's previous shows that all the '4' channels (C4, E4, etc) helpfully broadcast across the following months. It started with the 2012 Fear and Faith two-parter; the second including a shocking scenario where Brown used suggestion to apparently give an atheist scientist an experience of 'unconditional love' that she attributed to God, in an effort to show how the mind can be manipulated into such beliefs. As a Christian, this was disturbing and fascinating in equal measure.

I was dubious about Brown's disclaimer that his intention was not to debunk Christianity itself but to show how such experiences of faith can be manipulated within the mind of even an apparent sceptic, how all our minds have the capacity, the need, even, to believe in the supernatural, which certain religious leaders sometimes exploit, intentionally or otherwise. Yet, The fact that Brown's work often deals with exposing the tricks behind belief in the supernatural and paranormal is what drew me to him, as well as making his earlier, edgier work more fun to watch. Brown had explored this theme of psychology and belief in a different way with his earlier documentaries, 2005's Messiah (which I disliked the first time I saw a bit but appreciated on the second) and 2011's Miracles For Sale.

Part One of Brown's 2006 book, Tricks of the Mind, entitled Disillusionment, begins with the bold claim that 'the Bible is not history'. Brown then goes on to explain this statement, as well as what lead him to accept it, including a short history of his own Christian belief, which he left behind when he started getting into magic, a process that lead him to question some of the ideas behind his faith and eventually reject it. Brown cites Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion as a major influence and this section ends up reading like an almighty plug for that book. Brown's tome sometimes feels like he is trying and struggling to match Dawkins' tome in terms of word count (although Dawkins beats him by 16 pages - including bibliography and index). Tricks doesn't need to be as long as it is. As entertainingly intricate as Brown's prose is, goodwill wears thin when, nearing the book's end, one reaches the umpteenth page on his diatribe against alternative medicines. It's interesting but could easily have been shortened. Thankfully, it becomes more sprightly once Brown gets onto psychics and mediums.

More fascinating areas are covered earlier in the book, which deals more with the easier-to-learn tricks such as mnemonics (I struggled with the Peg System, though, particularly for recalling numbers), as well as the sections on hypnosis and suggestibility and unconscious communication. A winning aspect of Tricks is its author's humour - sly jokes creep up on you when you aren't expecting it. A small early segment called A Card Trick had me laughing out loud. Here, Brown describes how to perform a 'sucker trick' (e.g. one that makes a fool of the spectator), employing as many archaic synonyms for 'idiot' as he can. 'Punchinello' and 'Tom-noddy' are two favourites that I will employ. They are certainly easier to learn for a 'merry-Andrew' like me than the actual card trick. Even if it may make me look 'as clever as Jesus'.

For Brown, this book is clearly another opportunity to dazzle us with his cleverness, tempered with the recollection of embarrassing and/or amusing episodes from his past and self-deprecating jokes. As with the card trick, we are also shown how to impress others with trickery, as well as how not to fall for others' attempts to trick us, be it through simple face-to-face lying or larger deceptions like alternative medicine or psychic readings. The magic man clearly has a lot on his mind and spills it all out here. Additionally, he makes no bones about how magic itself is not real and, at its heart, is just a clever means of showing off, yet he gives clear direction for anyone wanting to follow in his foot steps  (albeit with admirable cautions for anyone seriously considering becoming a hypnotist - as Brown himself started out as). For me, learning memory and card tricks are enough to be getting on with, as my intellect doesn't match Brown's. Still, I really enjoyed the fascinating insights he provides into his own mind, the world of magic, the psychology of belief and how these are all mental illusions. In Derren Brown's mind, at least.

Clearly, the Brown magic (not nice enough to be white magic, not nasty enough to be black) continued to work on me through this book. The old Devil has got me attending his new live show Infamous this week. What new trickery awaits all who dare venture there?

(Image credit http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/derren+brown/tricks+of+the+mind/5724894/)

Doctor Who | The Next Question

'Doctor who?' The question has been asked countless times during Matt Smith's tenure as the mysterious Time Lord and with the latest series finale, The Name Of The Doctor, it looked like it might well be answered once and for all. Such a reveal would be much to fans' disdain and surely involve having to change the show's title to something less enigmatic. Doctor Charles, for instance, doesn't quite carry the same ring; besides, isn't the Doctor's name actually John Smith? (No. It's just an alias he occasionally uses but then, so is 'The Doctor'. Who knows his real real name?)

However, in a nice bluff typical of current Head Writer and Executive Producer Steven Moffat (AKA 'The Moff), the title referred more to the Doctor's reputation, rather than his actual moniker. Of course we weren't going to find out the Doctor's real name. Perish the thought. The question was asked, though and, indeed, answered. Not by The Doctor himself, to whom the query was addressed but by his wife, River Song (Alex Kingston) - one of the few people in the universe to know his true name, only no one heard her say it, because she whispered it behind a massive door. The door of a grotesquely enlarged TARDIS, incidentally, its 'dimensioning forces' having gone funny with old age, or something.

Now, with the Doctor having retained some of his mystery and the show its title (although Doctor Whom is more grammatically accurate), life imitates art as Matt Smith has announced his departure from the role, leaving the show's fans asking a similar question...who will be the next Doctor?

I felt sad at hearing the news that Smith was leaving, despite having gone off the Eleventh Doctor slightly during the latest series (I won't use the American word for a collection of episodes, 'season'. That describes a part of a year, not a TV show). When Smith started in 2010, I thought he was great, Doctor number eleven was mad, clever, funny and demonstrated more of the Doctor's alien side than David Tennant's Tenth Doctor, such as his being less prone to 'humany-wumany' (womany?) lovey-dovey stuff. I loved it when The Doc got angry with Amy Pond (Karen Gillan) because she made a difficult decision for him in his second episode - and only her first proper excursion with the Time Lord, The Beast Below; at one point crying, 'NO HUMAN HAS ANYTHING TO SAY TO ME TODAY!' Smith really sold the moment in his first series' penultimate episode, The Pandorica Opens, when The Doctor's mortal enemies banded together to trap him within the titular Pandorica - a magic box built especially to imprison him- so as to keep him from interfering with their destructive schemes. Smith made me really feel for the Time Lord potentially spending the slow, natural creep of eternity in a box that was not bigger on the inside and without the ability to move through the time/space vortex like his TARDIS.

Thankfully, The Doctor was rescued in one of the bonkers turnarounds that have been a staple during The Moff's time on the show. These have seen the series finales, like the two-part Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang (and, by association, the episodes leading up to them) go from the increasingly over the top Big Villain Attempts To Conquer The Earth/Galaxy/Universe/Reality showstoppers of the Russell 'OTT' Davies era ('era' being a word often used to describe far shorter timespans than it's meant to) to more specific villainous plans to get rid of The Doctor himself, either by trapping or even killing him. Whilst entertaining, this has itself become a cliche and The Name Of The Doctor is no exception. It sends the show literally right up its own time-stream when the nasty Great Intelligence threw itself into the Doctor's personal timestream in order to rewrite the Time Lord's entire existence and undo all his good work. The Intelligence was followed by Clara (Jenna Coleman), the 'Impossible Girl', who managed to bring her Time Lord back from the brink of oblivion, just as Amy Pond did in her own way during The Big Bang, as well as The Doctor himself, when a robotic double, constructed by the alien Teselecta, to cheat death in the series two finale, The Wedding Of River Song. These finales have been clever and fun and I know that Name leads into the 50th Anniversary Special, so it was fitting to see Clara interact with all the other Doctors but, perhaps in future series climaxes, the villains could concoct a plan that doesn't involve just killing The Doctor.

Smith has always been reliably good in Doctor Who but, perhaps it's just me growing old, his tics have grown somewhat tiresome over the last three series (none spring to mind right now, so they weren't too distracting!) His clothing's grown a little sillier (enough with all those silly hats, Doctor. Fezes aren't that cool!) But when he's serious, oh, he's good. In the opening to series 3's first episode, Asylum Of The Daleks, The Doctor gazes out upon the rainy, starshipwreck-strewn landscape of his greatest enemy's home planet from the top of a gigantic Dalek statue and mournfully intones, 'Skaro...look at the state of it.' There was some fantastic work during Name, too, as The Doctor was forced to visit his own grave on an equally dark and desolate planet (complete with the now monolithic TARDIS), the mere mention of which (whisper it...Trenzalore) brought tears to his eyes and mine too, nearly.

I'm sure Smith will accomplish great emotion once more when his regeneration comes. Doctor Ten had become a little annoying by the time he came to regenerate but the sadness of his dying moments caused a lump in my throat then, so I think Smith will probably do the same. I just hope that it's not as drawn out as Ten's exit, with that Buffy/Harry Potter-esque 'He Will Knock Four Times' prophecy stuff and having the time to visit past companions. It's a shame that news of Smith's leaving really only comes two episodes before he actually goes, even if the first is five months away, by which time, it'll be a PR coup if we don't know who Doctor Twelve will be.

So, who will be the next Doctor? I hope they get someone older and crotchetier - a bit like William Hartnell, or Jon Pertwee. John Hurt was introduced as "The Doctor" at the very end of Name but Smith's Doctor knew him as 'the one that broke the promise' of the Doctor's good name (possibly through his actions during The Last Great Time War), so it's highly unlikely Hurt will be Doctor Twelve, unless he redeems himself in the 50th Anniversary Special. How cool would that be, though? No, I think someone like Bill Nighy would work. In 2009, Steven Moffat had said he wanted an older actor to play the Doctor, prior to casting the then 26-year-old Matt Smith. He has been the youngest actor in the role at the time of casting since Peter Davison accepted the role at 29 during the 1980's.

Of course, the Doctor himself is, roughly, around 1000 years old and is a Time Lord, so his physical 'age' doesn't matter. Plus, the producers would have a tough job finding a living millenarian to take on the role. Smith is roughly my age, which endeared him to me even more but played the role primarily for kids' enjoyment. I hope that an older actor might mature it a bit, maybe take The Doctor back to being the Grandfather type character of William Hartnell, or the eccentric Uncle that Troughton and Pertwee played. The thing with this character, though, is that virtually any actor of any age, colour (or gender, even, although it might be too much to have a lady Doctor) could play him (her?) and do something new and cool with it. The show is in safe hands as long as The Moff is on board, along with his trusty team of writers, including Mark Gatiss (whose Matt Smith Who scripts are improvements over his David Tennant stories), Neil Gaiman and now Neil Cross, whose recent episode, Hide, was a highlight of the most recent series.

Before hearing that Smith was leaving, I thought he was signed up for at least one more series. Clearly not. Yet his departure was on the cards, given his burgeoning film career, having recently been cast in Ryan Gosling's directorial debut, How To Catch A Monster (a very fitting-sounding project for a Doctor Who star to involve himself with). Maybe Smith could have fit in  films and other TV roles like his predecessor but it seems not. Still, Smith's last episode is the 2013 Christmas Special, hot on the heels of November's 50th Anniversary Special, so he'll hopefully go out with a (big) bang.

How will he go? He's escaped eternity in the Pandorica, cracks in time and space, death at the hands of his own wife under the control of The Silence, as well as being rewritten by the Great Intelligence; what could possibly see the fall of the Eleventh Doctor after those? Probably something totally ignominious, like K9 turning up and accidentally shooting The Doctor when a stray lazer bolt meant for a foe ricochets into him. Unlikely. Whatever it is, it's bound to be something timey-wimey.

(Image credit - http://basementrejects.com/review/doctor-who-season-5/)

It's All Academic? | Religion + Media

Last month, I attended a UEA debate between academics and students about the relationship between religion and the media. I wrote an article about it for Network Norwich. As mentioned in it, there were controversial comments made, particularly by Dr Lee Marsden that, regrettably, went unchallenged by myself or anyone else. Of course, with my article being objective journalism, I couldn’t offer my opinions on what was said there, either but I will do so here.

Firstly, the word ‘media’ was bandied about with great abandon, usually in reference to the press or the news, i.e. how they represent religion, regardless of all the different biases that the various channels and publications have, although mention was made of the futility of seeking accurate journalism in redtop tabloids like The Sun. According to my Media (Intermediate) GNVQ, the eleven forms of mass media, which are - as I remember them – television, print, radio, cinema, internet, music, video (DVD and Blu-Ray, now) advertising, live music and...well, the other two slip my mind. Video games? Answers in the comments section, please. Fair enough, it’s hard to cover all of those in a two-hour discussion but, whilst comedy got a broad mention (with little detail) we failed to cover how much positive representation religion, particularly Christianity (the only one I can confidently talk about) gets on TV, for example. How much has the media itself,  particularly TV, cinema and video games, become a many-headed god, with people worshipping at its altar through a multitude of devices?

BBC One's Are You Having A Laugh? – Comedy And Christianity featured Ann Widdecombe, a Catholic Christian, exploring the treatment her faith gets in comedy. OK, the choice of her as presenter may have caused further ridicule by those ready to mock Christianity but clips of her larking about in panto and on Strictly Come Dancing crucially showed she was up for a laugh (or having descended to self-parody to stay in the public eye after the end of her political career). A lot of focus was given to one sketch in particular - a banned one from Goodness Gracious Me that showed an Asian couple attempting to fit in to their local community by taking communion at church but mistake a communion wafer for a delicacy and dip it in chutney before eating it. Ann admitted to feeling ‘wounded’ by the sketch, that it attacked the very core of her faith – the body and blood of Jesus Christ. As a Catholic, she believes in the idea of Transubstantiation, i.e. the wafer and wine literally transform into Christ’s body and blood during the ceremony. Other churches see the communion as metaphorical, so, for them, the sketch could potentially be offensive in its mockery of Christian imagery, as opposed to insulting Christ’s actual physicality.

Nevertheless, her show was a serious and interesting look at comedy’s current approach to Christianity that demonstrated the BBC’s own objective stance on religious programming. Rev, a believable, sympathetic series charting the life of a London vicar, has also been a roaring success. Songs of Praise, although hardly cool and relevant (two very relative words, depending on the audience), is still going. Christianity is a thriving subgenre in various media, there are films, bands and whole channels dedicated to spreading the gospel but, I for one would rather watch BBC One than God TV.

The website Ship Of Fools pokes fun at a lot of things within the worldwide Church but is run by Christians. However, most of that is aimed at followers of Christ, so why would anyone else pay attention? Not enough of them to warrant such sites' exposure on a wider scale. So the church may often suffer a negative portrayal in the press and, as Widdy’s documentary showed, in comedy, too but it doesn’t in all forms of media. On balance, for every story about paedophile priests, there’s one about a new church leader being installed, such as Pope Francis and the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby (ABC) gaining widespread coverage for their recent inductions. 

However, the atheists still have the upper hand and religion, as Widdy’s programme showed, is perhaps an easier target for mockery and criticism than ever, with God-knocking figures like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Ricky Gervais having gained great popularity, although perhaps not on the global level of the Pope or ABC who have greater positions of influence and will always be reported on, whether positively or negatively. To what extent can they communicate their gospel message through the media without it being edited or spun in some way? Lesser ‘celebrities’ within Christian media, such as US preachers like Mark Driscoll or Rob Bell for example, or authors who directly respond to atheist critiques, like Alistair McGrath and his Dawkins Delusion, would be unlikely to gain the same level of exposure and recognition as Dawkins, et al because general consumers might feel Bible-bashed if their views reached a more secular audience, or they just don’t want to know and ignore it. Dawkins has for some years led the New Atheist charge in dismantling religion from a scientific approach and science is more popular on TV now than ever. 

In the UEA debate, it was suggested that the Church needed to engage people in the media from a more scientific standpoint, perhaps with a sexy 'actor' (Dr Marsden’s esoteric word for a spokesperson) in the vein of Professor Brian Cox, who I believe is agnostic, if not atheist. Who could be a Christian version of him? All the scientists that also happen to be Christians that I’m aware of are pretty old and could possibly rival Sir Patrick Moore (RIP) or Sir David Attenborough but not Cox in terms of sprightly jois de vivre. Actually, the idea of creating a sexier, trendier image for the Church in media is still pandering to people’s tastes and offering up a 'Christian' version of something secular is just a case of the church riding on the coat-tails of culture.

Obviously, the church needs people to stay alive but I think that the more mainstream ones – Anglican, Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical alike - try too hard to be more seeker sensitive, attempting to draw people in through modern trappings like coffee shops, room hire and the adoption of a casual, ‘hey kids, you’re wicked, yeah?’ worship presentation style that can jar with some of the centuries-old, certainly uncool beliefs professed during worship. It’s as if the actual faith aspect is like a Kinder Egg surprise beyond the attractive surface. It’s a tender balance between possible exclusion through archaic, irrelevant imagery and worship and Bible-bashing non-believers, or trying too hard to pander to them. The worst example of this is those dodgy posters on church notice boards that try to tempt in passers-by with bad pun slogans or pastiches of well-known secular commercial brands. It's the dear old church trying to lure people in using imagery they recognise, when it can have the opposite effect and non-believers see right through it.

Christian theologian Dr Robert Beckford has put together several C4 documentaries that present but also challenge traditional Christian beliefs, such as those regarding the end of the world. Whilst not a scientist, he is still a relatively young, cool academic who happens to be a Christian. The thing is that not many science shows (which are many – Wonders Of Life, Bang Goes The Theory, Stargazing Live, etc) mention religion, so should there be a Christian science show that aims to present science from a biblical standpoint, when this does not necessarily contradict secular views or offer anything new? It would be interesting to have a scientist-who-happens-to-be-a-Christian (as opposed to a Christian Scientist, whose beliefs are somewhat different) explaining how evolution and God can coexist. Such views are available in books and websites if one knows where to look but not so much on the BBC. It seems that Songs Of Praise and comedy (if one cares to make a distinction) are the main representations of Christianity on TV, currently, apart from news stories.

Returning to the comedy theme, what might really catch people’s eye is a subversive Christian comedy show like Brass Eye that mocks the media’s representation of religion, as well as aspects of secular society in the way that that show did in the late 1990’s. Not wanting to compare Chris Morris to the Messiah but Jesus’ approach to authority and society was similarly iconoclastic, although, of course, he took it a lot further than most would ever consider. I think it could wake people up to see that there's more to Christianity than singing for the camera and being the butt of the joke.

Whilst concise and engaging, Dr Marsden sometimes used pretentiously ‘academic’ terms to describe things where the normal words such things would have sufficed, e.g. he kept saying ‘actors’ instead of ‘spokespeople’ and ‘fundamentalist’ to mean the evangelical or charismatic church. I had to ask him after the debate to clarify his meanings. With the first example, he presumably drew a connection between the two in that they both communicate a prepared message (e.g. a script, press release or party line) to an audience. To me, calling media representatives of whatever religion ‘actors’ implies that they are performing or, basically, ‘lying’ in the sense that acting is deceit intended to communicate a dramatic truth.

When we see the Archbishop of Canterbury give his opinion on something or a statement to the media, is he acting? Are we meant to read between the lines of his words to find the true meaning? There is an element of performance in any medium. An interview, or even a church service, is not a spontaneous situation but an organised one, a ‘scene’, even, with lights, mics, clothing, liturgy or questions, etc prepared in advance and the subject, religious or otherwise, speaks in a way that they would not with a friend or congregation member in general conversation. Therefore, they are performing for people, in a sense, in an artificial situation. They are, hopefully, still being natural and not playing a character in the way we pay to watch a dramatic or comedic actor do, or even an actor being interviewed as an established character, e.g. Sacha Baron Cohen as Borat, or even Rowan Atkinson as a fictional ABC during the latest Comic Relief, or "Children's Nose Day", as he put it.

Using 'Fundamentalist' as an umbrella term for "Evangelical" or "Charismatic" is more problematic and possibly dangerous. The three words mean very different things (at least to Christians like me, if not to secular academics like Marsden). ‘Fundamentalist’ has the most negative connotations of the three, as it’s most readily associated with religious fanaticism in any faith. Marsden says that “Fundamentalist churches are the only ones worth paying attention to, the more traditional ones are irrelevant...if you want to see growth and impact on people’s lives, look at the fundamentalists, not the Church of England.” This is completely inaccurate, implying that it’s the nutters who gain the most followers. That wasn’t what he meant but could be construed that way. Of course, there’s a larger difference between Muslim and Christian Fundies but the difference between Christian Fundies and Christian Evangelicals or Charismatics is still there. Local vicars are often asked for a quote in a news story regarding their community. How often is that the case with an evangelical pastor?

"Fundamentalist" implies someone with radically black and white views that are out of step with those of the majority of society and even with other sections or denominations of their faith, e.g. Abu Hamza and other Muslim clerics. They are worth keeping an eye on, at least. They certainly do get a lot of media coverage, which, in turn, can create an unfairly negative portrayal of the whole faith as a result. In terms of Christianity, it’s usually the Fundamentalist groups like Westboro Baptist Church that interested Louis Theroux, for example but these aren’t the people with the heaving congregations that Marsden talks of.

It may be that, as Dr Marsden says, the media sometimes focuses on Fundies for their extreme views but, in using that word to really imply mostly harmless Evangelicals and Charismatics it lazily and inaccurately lumps them all in the same boat – the former focusing on modern worship styles and community outreach, the latter being more about gifts of the spirit and more experiential, emotional worship. Evangelical and Charismatic are interchangeable terms to an extent in that they both share a similar approach and outlook. Both kinds of church can become fundamentalist in their beliefs if pushed in that direction by leadership but 'fundamentalist' does not have to mean 'evangelical' or 'charismatic'. If we take Marsden’s above quote and swap ‘Fundamentalist’ for ‘Evangelical’ or ‘Charismatic’, then that makes more sense in my understanding, because I have seen bigger numbers in Evangelical services than Anglican ones.

This is not to agree with the good Doctor that the C of E is irrelevant and boring. He’s obviously not aware of how broad it is as a denomination – it’ll take anyone in! There are evangelical-styled Anglican services, with modern worship mixed in with liturgy; the vicar in a suit and dog collar, rather than robes, with a worship band in place of a choir and organ. Stretching things further, there’s ‘Fresh Expressions’ – the Anglican Church’s initiative to explore new worship forms. The Greenbelt festival has led the way here, featuring many alternative worship sessions each year. The groups that create them are usually extensions of existing Anglican churches across the UK, among them, Grace, based at St Mary’s, South Ealing and Norwich Cathedral's Soul Circus.

So, perhaps Dr Marsden in not quite the ‘expert’ he is proclaimed to be on the UEA website. In contrast to mainstream churches of whichever domination, though, these alternative worship groups, whilst open to all, are formed by existing believers for existing believers, many of whom prefer to stick with what they know in the usual Sunday services. Perhaps the alt-worship lot need to better promote themselves outside of believing circles? They all have websites but, having been to a few services, I’m not aware of them attracting the masses that the happy-clappy evangelicals do, or that this is even a bad thing, since it isn’t all about numbers.

In the case of a lot of cathedrals, much of their appeal lies in their history and, of course, they need to keep the money rolling in to maintain the ancient buildings but there’s a difference between drawing in the punters and the worship-hunters (worshippers?) Tangentially, St Paul’s Cathedral took a media beating when it was made the villain for its treatment of Occupy London in 2011. Dr Giles Fraser, as supporter of the Occupy movement, resigned over the situation, due to his concerns over St Paul’s taking legal action over the protesters. The overall message of The Big Bad Church attacking the poor minority (or the self-appointed representatives of the 99%) is an example of why some Christians, perhaps rightly, feel somewhat persecuted by the press.

Dr Marsden said he was ‘tired of British Christians bleating about their portrayal in the media’ because of Christ-mocking shows like Jerry Springer - The Opera, since 'our whole calendar and country are based on Christianity...Christians are killed for their faith in other countries!’ Well, yes but why should that make the Church, her leaders and followers easy targets? OK, the press and comedians have a go at other things but its shaky logic to basically say that Christians need to grin and bear it just because everyone gets two holidays a year that they might not have had if Christianity had never come to our fair isle. Alright, Christmas and Easter were originally Pagan festivals, so perhaps we would still have had them as holidays but what I mean is, I’m not sure Christians do ‘bleat’ about their treatment by the press as much as Marsden thinks. Perhaps any sort of media backlash against the church is kicking back against how much Christianity has affected our culture over the centuries but now there's a new god in town and its name is Media. The TV, laptop and cinema screens are our altars, the actors, presenters and reporters our new priests and mediums linking us to realms unseen. God is dead. Long live god. 

Not that Christians’ media image is so bad. It certainly improves around Christmas and Easter, with new dramatizations of the Nativity and Passion narratives in recent years, as well as versions set to modern music, e.g. The Liverpool Nativity. Their varying quality notwithstanding, they’re still there to be seen. Is Christianity's general impact on culture reduced to quaint customs like two holidays a year that are now dominated by commercialism?

‘If you want to get noticed.’ Marsden said of the Church, ‘do something newsworthy, or sink into obscurity.’ Thanks, Lee, yeah, I think the Church – in the broadest possible sense you refer to it here – has been doing pretty well in being newsworthy, if only mainly the Anglicans and Catholics and not always for positive reasons. An example of a positive and generally Christian news story is the whole ‘Pray 4 Muamba’ campaign that began when footballer Fabrice Muamba collapsed from a heart attack early in 2012. Whatever one thinks about prayer, the reaction to the footie player’s family plea for prayer was overwhelmingly positive, rather than critical of prayer’s effectiveness.

Update - #Pray4Paris 2015. Hebdo artist's comments.

The UEA debate was merely ‘academic’ in that it was all theoretical rhetoric and opinion (dare I say hot air?) from 'actors' in a contrived situation of debate. What difference will it make? It remains to be seen whether Christians in the media will use their skills and influence to perhaps improve the perception of our faith from within the secular media.