MY NOTES ON THE DOCTOR

As a few may know, I am working my way through the entirety of nearly 50 years of British television show, Doctor Who.  I am doing this in order to gain knowledge and credentials for the purpose of writing, and submitting for publication, a Doctor Who novel.  Upon completion, I will be submitting my manuscript to Random House UK for their very popular and active Doctor Who novel series.

                As I have been exposed more and more to the show, I have encountered a great many items involving its fandom.  There seems to be an enmity between “true” fans – those who identify themselves as fans of the “entire” show – and “new” fans – those of us here in America who were only exposed to the show beginning with its 2005 revival.  “True” fans claim that “new” fans are somehow less than themselves due to the limited exposure to the show.  Where this may be a valid point, I’m sure it doesn’t lessen the enthusiasm the “new” fans feel for what they have seen.  “True” fans beat their drums and hail praises to the fourth Doctor (played by Tom Baker).  This is the actor they consider to be the ultimate Doctor.  It is also the era of the show that “true” fans consider the most amazing.  “New” fans, however, sing their praises to the tenth Doctor (played by David Tennant).

                I have to admit, I throw my lot in with that second bunch.  However, unlike many of them, mine is an educated vote.  Not many Americans have even seen any of the show prior to 2005.  Though I am still making my way through the entirety of the series, I have managed to complete my viewing of all episodes available from Tom Baker’s reign as the very singular Doctor.  I have also forged ahead into the fifth Doctor (played by Peter Davison), and it is my comparison between the fourth and fifth Doctors (as opposed to the 4^th and 10^th) that really explains why I think the Tom Baker years just didn’t have the quality that many of its supporters will defend to their graves. 

                When the series first began back in 1963, television was still very new and still not predicted to become the big business, significant life fixture we know of today.  Because of this, shows were very low budget.  Filming was still done in black and white, and the concept of “television acting” had still not come about.  When television began, you had film acting and stage acting.  In stage acting, one has to project the voice in order to be heard by the entire audience.  As a result, a stage actor cannot affect much in the way of tone and inflection to convey the subtle moods, feelings and emotions that are nowadays essential to the intimate development of character.  The same can be said of subtle facial expressions, the very intimate expression in the eyes and small gestures.  None of these could even be seen from the audience of a stage production, and so they were not used.  Instead, you had booming voices, exacting over-exaggerated gestures and animated facial expressions; oratory and over-acting.  To experience a story performed in this manner is very much like having it told to you.  For instance, an actor’s words and large acting might say to you, “the Doctor was anxious for his companion’s safety” by using a larger than life worried expression along with a stiff extended arm, a flourish of the hand and a booming “nooooooo!!!”

                For film, however, through the use of close-ups and microphones, actors could speak in low tones and whispers, using a full range of tone and inflection.  Nothing would be missed.  Also, small gestures could be seen and any emotion could be clearly read on the face – if the actor was particularly skilled with acting with facial expression.  Not many are adept at it.  Because of all this, a film audience could experience the story WITH the characters, instead of the characters telling them about it.  For the scenario above – the Doctor being anxious for the safety of his companion – it might be more effectively conveyed by the simple closing of the Doctor’s eyes after a cloud of fear crossed them.  He might even increase the labor of his breathing.  This intimacy speaks far louder of the Doctor’s feelings for his companion than the description of how it might have been done on stage.  This creates a kind of characterization that stage acting never could.

                This all being said, when television began, there was no such thing as a television actor.  With the exception of comedians, not many film actors did television, and so all you had to work with was stage actors, acting on television the only way they knew how – like they would in a stage production.   Since it started that way, not many people ever got the idea to do it any differently until the dramas of the 1980’s…and that period of stage acting for television includes Tom Baker and his performances as the Doctor.

                In my observations, Baker’s physical acting was most often stiff and awkward in scenes where his blocking brought him into close quarters with other actors.  He seemed to bend only at the major joints; always seeming posed, and therefore, not natural.  His voice and demeanor were always confident and in charge, even in scenes where he was supposed to be frightened or confused.  Nothing at all in his facial expressions or body language ever gave me the impression that he felt anything at all for any of his companions.  They were an incidental attachment, at best, and occasionally he would get angry with them, or they would amuse him.  For the most part, however, they were there to get into trouble so he could do heroic things.  I never got the impression he rescued any of them because he cared for them.  It was more like a responsibility, like keeping track of his watch.  He most often delivered his lines like an orator giving a speech, and I rarely got the impression that what he was saying matched in any way what he was feeling.  The fourth Doctor was like an actor, acting.  In all of this, Tom Baker’s Doctor was a very limited character.  Doctor Who, during these years, could only be enjoyed on the surface level of looking through a window.  I was being told a plot story only, because there was scant characterization.  I may as well have been reading the news.  It had no warmth.  No heart.  Even in Baker’s final scene – fallen from a tower, injured badly enough to regenerate…facing his faithful companions – he was as calm and casual as if ordering a slice of pizza. 

                When the fifth Doctor arrived, however, all of this changed.  It was 1981, and television producers were catching onto the idea that a camera and microphones could let them sink more intimately into characterization, thus enhancing the experience for viewers.   Peter Davison still delivered many of his lines in the manner of an actor who was acting, but he was making significant strides in delivering his lines like a guy talking instead of an actor, acting.  He was more fluid and graceful in his blocking and body language and most definitely an improvement over Baker in the area of facial acting.  Beginning with the episodes featuring the 5^th Doctor, I was suddenly able to enjoy the stories because, in addition to plot, there was also characterization.   Never before had the episodes included storyline involving the relationships between the Doctor and his companions, or even how he felt about them.  With the possible exception of the second Doctor, never before had the Doctor exhibited any sign of emotional or character vulnerability.  With the exception of the Doctor’s “granddaughter” – the very first companion of the show – the Doctor had never embraced any of his companions.

                There is a scene from an episode called “The Black Orchid” in which one of the three companions was in danger of being thrown off a building by a murderer.  On one side was the Doctor, trying desperately to talk the murderer into letting Nyssa go.  On the other side was the murderer’s brother, trying to do the same.  Once the girl was released, she ran to the Doctor, who folded her into a very relieved embrace with closed eyes and body language that indicated how scared he’d been and how much he cherished his friend.  There was genuine emotion in this gesture that no Doctor prior to the fifth had ever displayed.

                The fifth Doctor is far more approachable and much less the unflaggable figurehead leader.  He’s more on the journey WITH his companions, instead of in spite of them.  They argue.  They have anxious times.  They worry…and for once, the Doctor is doing it all along with them.   He’s still the leader, but he’s also, for lack of a more appropriate word, human.  David Tennant, as the tenth Doctor, has been the quintessential, consummate actor in the role, allowing viewers to not only see the Doctor’s soul and psyche laid bare and naked, but also to finally see a side of the Doctor that had never before been explored…his capacity for romantic love.

                But the fifth Doctor is where it began to turn around.  I have not yet seen the sixth, seventh or eighth Doctors, and so I cannot yet state that the acting progressed steadily between Doctors 5 and 9, but five sure is off on the right foot.  He was the first Doctor to lose a companion to death.  He was the first Doctor to behave in a familiar and casual manner with his companions.  He was the first Doctor to exhibit humility and vulnerability.  He was also the first Doctor to bend more frequently to the advice or suggestions of his companions. 

                A final memorable scene from Davison’s fifth Doctor that places Baker’s fourth Doctor into stiff, 2-dimensional relief was a scene from an episode called “The Visitation”.   With Baker, if he ever had to grapple with a female character, it would most often be at arm’s length, gripping wrists.  At most intimate, he might place a hand over her mouth or restrain her awkwardly from behind.  In the Davison scene, however, his companion, Tegan, was under alien control via a device around her wrist.  In a swift and fluid motion, the Doctor approached, dipping down then swooping up to catch her in a restraining embrace from the front.  With his whole body, he forced her toward the wall, then snaked his arms around to both avoid her attack and relieve her of the wrist device.  What’s more, this maneuver was not executed with mastery and control, as we may have seen with Baker.  Instead, Davison’s execution of the scene was with an air of “try and hope it works”, while at the same time saying with entreaty “I don’t have time to fight!” to Tegan as he wrestled the device away.

                I apologize to all the diehard Baker fans out there.  It’s not that I didn’t enjoy watching him, but due to the conventions of the day, television making methods and technologies, character-less scripting and minimal directing, he simply came across and two-dimensional.  On my meter of enjoyment for the full experience of watching a Doctor Who episode, he comes in not only under David Tennent (10) and Christopher Eccleston (9), but also below Peter Davison (5). 

                For the curious, my full rating of Doctors is as follows (with the exception of Doctors 6-8, which I haven’t see yet):

10

9

5

4

2

1

3

11  – yes, 11 is at the bottom of the list!

MY SHELTER PHOTOGRAPHY MISSION

There used to be a time when families would spend a couple of days visiting shelters and meeting all the animals in person when they wanted to adopt a new pet.  With all our lives now being so fast paced and full of activity, most people will visit websites first, and only venture out to the shelters if they find an animal they want to meet.  This would mean that the very first chance an animal has to make an impression is the photograph posted on the shelter website.  If this photograph is blurry, out of focus, over or under exposed, taken through cage bars, in cluttered or unattractive surroundings, or simply at an angle that doesn’t provide a clear visual of what the animal looks like, then that first impression will fail.  If a potential adopter is browsing a pet search engine, then the photo could potentially appear as a mere thumbnail on a page of dozens.  It is in the nature of the human mind that when scanning a collection of objects, those that do not stand out will be dismissed or passed over.  The animal may be a wonderful candidate for a new pet, but if the photograph does not provide a clear and easily identifiable image, then it will mostly likely be passed over.  The photo has to catch the attention first before a browser will stop and investigate further.  Only then will a potential adopter learn more about the wonderful personality.  This made me wonder how many perfectly suitable animals have been needlessly euthanized in the past decade in this country, not because they had behavioral or other issues, but simply because their online photo was inadequate for the task of catching the attention of a browsing eye.  This is not the animals fault…it is ours.

It is such a simple thing to remedy, and the very least any of us can do in the effort to find these animals good and loving homes.

During my time at Angels of Assisi, the adoption rates have increased almost 35%, and the website has many dedicated visitors who come back each week to see the new photos.  My success at Angels of Assisi, however, is no fluke.  Thankfully, I have had the opportunity to pass on the very simple methods I have developed to others.  Two women specifically – one in Merriam, Kansas and the other in Pulaski County, Virginia – have adopted my methods and have been able to produce images consistent with the kinds of images I produce at Angels of Assisi.  Both shelters have reported an increase in calls and an increase in adoptions. 

It is proven.  Better photographs on adoption websites DO increase adoptions, and in the case of shelters that practice euthanasia (which is most of them) better photographs save lives.

Also proven are the methods and procedures I have developed at Angels of Assisi.  Even in the hands of amateur photographers, these methods work.  When comparing photographs taken by myself and these two other women, there is remarkable consistency to be seen.  It’s very easy and inexpensive to accomplish, and it is my mission to spread this knowledge to all shelters across the nation so that they can also do this one very simple thing to save thousands of lives every year.  Until the entire nation adopts the No Kill philosophy embraced by shelters like Angels of Assisi, it is the duty of every human heart to do everything possible to find a home for every animal before its time is up.  An effective online photo is a great first step.

To this end, I am writing a book that will contain detailed explanations of the procedures I use, and how to get these great photographs easily, quickly and inexpensively.  I am also reaching out to fellow photographers and other shelters through online sites such as Facebook, BetterPhoto.com and Pawzitiveprints.com.  I have made connections with organizations such as The No Kill Revolution, who have the facilities to spread word of my mission to thousands of shelters and other people involved in animal adoption.  I also hope that individual citizens who hear about my mission will then contact their local shelters to let them know how better photography can help save their animals and increase their adoption rates.  I also make myself available to teach at other shelters, and I even encourage those who want to help to come learn from me at Angels of Assisi.

I am proud that my work at Angels of Assisi has been lauded and is appreciated as a unique effort, but it is my mission to become simply one amongst thousands doing the same.

  Going forward, a good photographer will need to be an essential part of any shelter or rescue effort that hopes to remain successful in getting their animals adopted. Society has moved forward and we have become a nation of online shoppers.  Most industries have realized this, which is why we are able to shop for everything from auto insurance to movie tickets from the comfort of our own homes.  Of all the animal shelters and rescue organizations in this country, however, it would not be out of the question to estimate that 90% have not kept up with these times.  They have websites, yes, but most have not recognized how good/clear images can make or break the “sale”.  Unfortunately, “break” in this case can mean the tragic loss of life.  There is a lot of work ahead.  First, they need to be convinced that better photographs do have an impact.  Once convinced, they need to be taught how to do it.  This is my mission.

For brief articles on how Vickie gets the pictures she does in a shelter setting, please visit : www.pawzitiveprints.com

WHY DON’T THEY EVER CONSULT ME ON THESE THINGS?

As a writer, it gets under my skin when I see fiction miss great opportunities.  For example, in the second Bill & Ted movie, they went to Heaven and were standing at the bottom of a great stair case…BUT NO ONE MADE A “STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN” REFERENCE! 

For another, far more obscure example: some may remember the Bugs Bunny cartoon where Bugs found himself in the middle of a Hansel and Gretel story.  It’s the one where all the characters kept repeating “Hansel” with different pronunciations as they encountered the confounding name.  Later on, these same Hansel and Gretel characters showed up in an Animaniacs cartoon.  I think it was Pinky and the Brain.  Someone had gone to the extreme detail of drawing these kids to look exactly like their Bugs Bunny counterparts, but they didn’t continue the “Hansel” gag when the name was mentioned.  It would have been BRILLIANT if they had!  Why doesn’t anyone ever call me about these things?

What has most recently happened to compel me to this post is a scene from season four of Doctor Who.  If you have not seen all the Doctor Who episodes through to the end of season four, (or indeed, the final episodes of season two) please stop reading.  Come back again after you’ve gotten that far.

Here’s how the scene went:  The Doctor, the duplicate Doctor, Donna, Rose and Jackie arrived on Bad Wolf Bay in Norway.  The plan was to drop off Jackie and Rose, but Rose protested.  She’d gone through so much to be with the Doctor again, and he was getting ready to leave her behind.  What’s more, he suggested leaving the duplicate Doctor behind, as well, because “he’s too dangerous to be out there on his own”.  After more protests, the duplicate Doctor tells Rose he has only one heart and one life and suggests they spend it together.

Still feeling it wasn’t right, Rose calls both Doctors to her side and asks the original Doctor what he’d said to her last time they were standing on that beach.  “I said ‘Rose Tyler’” he admits with a hard swallow for the emotion involved.  “Yeah, and how was that sentence going to end?” she asked.  The Doctor can’t bring himself to say the “I love you” he was going to say at the end of season two, so instead he says “Does it need saying?”  Not satisfied, Rose turned to the duplicate Doctor and asked the same question.  He leaned in close to her ear, whispered “I love you” (which WE don’t hear!) and then Rose pulled him to her and kissed him.  Despite the passion Rose was showing, we didn’t get much out of the Doctor, even after the depth of his feelings for her had been well established.  This kiss didn’t last very long because the original Doctor and Donna snuck away into the Tardis and took off.

Now…here’s how that scene should have gone, had anyone asked me.  As a writer, they could have done a few simple things to make that moment far more emotional and character-impacting.  First of all, though we did see grief in the eyes of the original Doctor, I think we could have seen a little more.  Secondly, I think when Rose asked the duplicate Doctor how that sentence would have ended, we should have had a brief moment of eye contact between both Doctors, and a painful nod of direction from the original to convey he wanted the duplicate to say it.  THEN, we should have heard him say it, instead of seeing the silent whisper.

And here’s the really frustrating part.  Despite the fact that the kiss was brief and mostly one sided (on Rose’s part), there was actually a better one filmed!  It can be seen here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FglJmPbrs&NR=1   The Doctor’s feelings for Rose were a very important part not only of the plot but of the tenth Doctor’s character drive.  To not have him react in kind to the kiss was a mistake, I think.  The kiss that was actually filmed, however, shows the duplicate Doctor wrapping his arms around Rose and showing equal passion.  I think they should have left that in, along with a more painful expression on the face of the original Doctor as he turned to retreat to the Tardis. 

If there was ever a job position called “Improvement Consultant”, I would be happy to apply, and feel like I could offer a great deal to the movie industry.  Had I been on the job, the last four Harry Potter movies would have actually dealt with the plot, instead of showcasing the silly adolescent stuff.  The second Terminator movie would have been set in the future and would have dealt with an adult John Conner meeting Kyle Reese and bringing himself to the decision to send him back in time while Michael Biehn was still young enough to play him!  And I would surely have put my foot down with the Star Trek people after learning that their plan for the new movie was to make it a two-hour review of catch-phrases, original series character and sight-gags, mixed with base slapstick comedy!

PHOTOGRAPHY – AN ESSENTIAL ADOPTION TOOL

This is an article that was recently published in the Rescue Groups national newsletter about how photography and better pictures of adoptable animals will be an essential tool for any shelter or rescue organization that hopes to get their animals adopted:

iPhone has recently aired a new commercial in which a fictional family uses their phone to search for a new dog online.    The dog, Bailey, was found amongst hundreds of photos from dozens of shelters and lived happily ever after with her new forever family.   This commercial illustrates the rapidly growing and widespread practice in this country of searching online first, and only going to a shelter after a picture is found that captures the searcher’s heart.  Unfortunately, as Bailey’s photo in the commercial demonstrates, the nation’s shelters have not kept up with the times. 

If a shelter animal’s future happiness – and indeed, its life – depends on a single picture standing out amongst the hundreds a searcher might scan while online, then that photo has got to really shine and show the animal in the clearest and best manner possible.  Unfortunately, the photographs found on most adoption websites fail in this respect.  They show animals in cages, from above, with reflecting eyes and in dismal surroundings.  How many animals have been passed over and euthanized when a better online photo may have united them with a loving home?

Most shelters are non-profit and operate on a shoestring budget, and so most would not have the resources to hire a professional photographer.  Most photos are taken by shelter staff with no photography training and no real time to devote to taking photo after photo to get a good one.  Many shelters have not yet recognized just how important good photography is becoming, and so not much effort is made to improve.  Everyone may find, however, that going forward, good photography is going to play an essential and indispensible role in any shelter or rescue organization’s efforts to find homes for their adoptable animals.  Online shopping isn’t the future…it’s right now, and pets are no exception.

My name is Vickie Holt, and I have had absolutely no photography training, yet I started taking photos for the Angels of Assisi adoption website in 2007.  Since that time, the shelter’s adoption rates have skyrocketed, allowing them to not only adopt out their own animals, but to rescue and adopt out animals from other shelters in the eleventh hour before euthanasia, or worse.   They have been able to save more lives than ever before.  We have learned that Southwest Virginia keeps a close eye on the Angels of Assisi website, because applications pour in when new photos are added – depending on the animal, of course.  There have even been comments from many in the public community stating that they view the site weekly, just to see the photos.

With a modest camera and a few common and inexpensive tools, I have managed to create photos like these for almost every animal to come through Angels of Assisi in the last three years.  I operate during the shelter’s normal business hours, amongst staff and visitors without getting in anyone’s way and without being interrupted, myself.  Most photos are achieved within a matter of minutes with only moderate effort.  I have learned a lot by trial and error, and have achieved better and better results through innovation, and now I’d like to share my experience and innovation with shelters across the nation.  It’s my hope that, after learning a few methods and techniques, the staff in other shelters might also create pictures like these for their own websites so that even more little lives can be saved.  Any shelter staff or volunteer can learn the tricks and techniques for easily taking pictures like the ones shown here.  All these (photos appeared in the original publication) were taken inside the shelter, with little effort, and with easily obtained materials. 

The first thing to consider when using photography as an adoption tool, of course, is the camera.  Rule of thumb: if it fits in your pocket, don’t use it!  It doesn’t have the features necessary to take these kinds of photographs.  If the budget allows, go ahead and buy a SLR, but it is by no means necessary.  There are many fixed-lens cameras on the market that mimic SLRs, but do not have interchangeable lenses.  What they do have, however, are all the features necessary to take photos of all the different varieties and sizes of animal to be found in a shelter.  Cameras such as the Canon PowerShot, Nikon Coolpix, Kodak EasyShare and the Sony Cybershot are all recommended.  They can be found online, on Ebay or in your local department store for between $100 and $500.  The investment may sound heavy, but when you think of the notoriety it can bring your shelter, and how many animals could be saved, it’s a meager sacrifice.  You’ll also want to get a couple common shop lights, some white fleece from your local fabric store, a 100 gallon or more storage tub and a donated baby’s playpen.  With these basic materials, anyone in any shelter can take photos that will have them lining up outside your door to adopt your animals. 

It’s fairly easy to learn about the features on the camera, why they are used and how and when to use them during shelter photography.  You can also learn handling tips for almost every kind of personality of cat, kitten, dog and puppy and what to do each time in order to get the great poses and expressions.    These techniques, together with a little knowledge about lighting, setting and color, can help you to take great adoption photos using the interior and exterior of your shelter facility. 

Here’s an example:

This is Lady (photo appeared in the original publication).  She’s a min-pin I just photographed on April 25, 2010.  She’s a small breed, so I used a little innovation I developed for photographing puppies and small breed dogs.  I keep an old, donated baby’s playpen on hand.  It has to be sturdy in order to withstand the weight and antics of small dogs.  It’s best to find one with a metal frame and wooden bottom that folds away for storage.  I set up the playpen and draped a solid color length of fleece from front to back, covering the bottom.  On the front of the playpen, I clamped three shop lights, each with a 100 watt GE Energy Smart Daylight bulb.  It must be the “daylight” bulb, which creates natural sunlight.  Any other kind of bulb will cast a yellowish light that will ruin the photo.

Once the “studio” is set up, I simply placed Lady in the playpen and encouraged her to lie still and look at me.  I did this by barking harshly at her to convey who was in command, then spoke in sweet tones and nudged her gently into a position lying down.  I then continued to whine at her like a puppy to keep her attention on me while I took the shot (on macro setting) from the rim of the playpen.  Taking the shot from the rim is important because it allows for a more face-on view of the dog, rather than a shot from above of an upturned nose.  The whole thing, from setting up the studio, to finished shot, was about ten minutes.  When compared to the picture of Bailey from the iPhone commercial – or indeed, to any of the shelter photos that can be seen during that commercial – it’s plain to see how Lady’s picture would easily stand out.  A photo that stands out gets noticed, and a noticed shelter animal gets adopted.

The explanation of Lady’s photo is only an abbreviated slice of the methods I have learned and developed in my time at Angels of Assisi, and anyone else can learn to do the same for cats, kittens, small and large breed dogs, as well as that most challenging of all photography models…puppies. 

Please join me in taking the next step in a revolution that will help animal shelters and rescue organizations maximize their efforts and save the lives of thousands of animals per year.  The internet is the canvas.  It’s up to us to paint the pictures that will change lives across the nation.