Category Archives: Movies

220. A Cup of Tea with Corneliu Dragomirescu

15 Replies

aka “The Son of the Dragon Tamer!” or “The guy with the longest name ever on LEP”
*The conversation starts at 11.39 – so please skip my introduction if you like* Right-click here to download.

Small Donate ButtonThis is one of those episodes in which I invite a friend onto the podcast and we chat about various things. I like these episodes because it gives me a chance to get to know someone on the podcast, and you can listen to some natural free-flowing conversation in English.

Let me tell you a bit about Corneliu. He is a film maker and comedian originally from Romania. He lives in France now where he writes, directs, produces and acts in films and television projects. Corneliu is a polyglot (he speaks Romanian, French and English), he’s a movie-buff and an he’s an all-round great conversationalist and therefore is the perfect guest for another episode of LEP.

Corneliu also has the longest name of anyone ever to appear on LEP so far. His name (first name and surname, but not including middle names) has 9 syllables in it. As far as I know, that’s longest so far on LEP. It’s not a competition or anything – I mean, that’s not the purpose of LEP – to find the guy with the longest name, but still, it’s an achievement of sorts.

Speaking of competitions – thank you for voting for your favourite recordings in the YEP! series of podcasts – episodes 211-218. I’m getting votes all the time. Voting closes at midnight Paris time on 30th September of this year, that’s 2014. I’ll then count the votes and announce the winners – yes, winners. I’ve decided that there will be a winner from each episode. That’s how I roll, okay? Also, if you were wondering about how I will be counting votes, and if I can prevent people voting for themselves again and again – I can see unique codes for every person who comments, so I know when comments are coming from the same computer again and again. I’m not going to count votes which are obviously repeated votes from the same computer, either intentional ones or accidental ones. So, you can put your mind at rest on that one, if indeed you had been thinking about it.

Thank you too if you have left a comment on my last episode which was about Scottish Independence. It’s great to see that lots of people are interested in this subject, and can see parallels with the situations in their countries too in some cases. The referendum is going to take place tomorrow. We’re all waiting with bated breath to see what happens. Will Scotland leave the union? Is the UK as we know it going to change forever? Will the Scottish people make the right decision? Only time will tell.

Now, let’s get back to this episode. Corneliu is an awesome bloke with a proficient level of English and I’m really happy to have him on the podcast. I invited him into the flat and onto the podcast with the intention of asking him some of the usual questions, such as “What do you do?”, “How did you manage to learn English to your current level?”, “Could you tell us about the common myths around your home country?” We ended up chatting for something like 2 hours and got sidetracked by all kinds of interesting things including films, his son, the fall of communism in Romania and 90s pop music. In fact, it felt like it was hard to contain the inspiration in this episode, and the conversation flowed very freely. I hope that comes through in this episode.

Sometimes I find it a bit tricky to begin an episode, and I have to work out a little introduction, but in this one we had already been chatting over a pot of tea for about half an hour and I just hit the record button mid conversation, so we just hit the ground running at the beginning. If you “hit the ground running” it means you start when you’re already moving or in progress. Imagine running in the air, and then you fall, you’d hit the ground running and you’d immediately be off at some speed. That’s what happened in this episode – we hit the ground running because we were already quite deep in conversation and I just hit the record button. That’s why the episode begins quite abruptly.

You will hear a bit of strong language at the beginning – so be prepared for that. I say the “F” word quite early on. What’s the “F” word? Well… it’s the word “Fuck” isn’t it? It’s a bit silly to call it the “F” word – but I suppose it’s a way of referring to the word without actually saying it, because, you know that is a very rude word which you shouldn’t use because it’s not big and it’s not clever. I realise that I’ve just said the word, just a second ago, which defeats the purpose of warning you about the word in the first place… Anyway, you’ll hear me say it in a moment, in the form of the noun phrase “a fuck up” or “a couple of fuck ups”. “to make a fuck up” (noun phrase) = a mistake or “to fuck something up” (verb phrase) = to do something badly, to make a mess of something, to make an error and ruin something. It’s a versatile word – but remember, just because you’ve heard it on LEP it doesn’t mean you should start throwing it around in conversation. Ok, I don’t mean to patronise you, I just felt it was necessary to say that. Anyway, let’s now join my conversation with my mate Corneliu. And here it is…

In Part 1:
– Hitting the ground running, and talking about the challenges of beginning an episode of LEP
– How to say Corneliu’s full name, and how it actually means ‘son of the dragon tamer’, and how awesome that is
– How we know each other
– My (slight) obsession with the film “Taken” starring Liam Neeson
– Fatherhood, Star Wars and how lack of sleep caused Darth Vader turned to the dark side of the force
– The birth of Corneliu’s son Alexander
– The fall of communism in Romania and the film “Independence Day”
– The shock of discovering that Milli Vanilli were fake
– The effect of pop music & capitalist culture on Romania after communism
– Throwing a TV out of a window
– Seeing Hollywood films in Romania in the early 90s
– “Chaplin” by Richard Attenborough, starring Robert Downey Junior
– Martin Scorsese
– Summarising what we’ve said in part 1 so far!

Coming Up In Part 2 (soon):
– The difference “pleasshure” and “pleasure”, “bio” and “B.O.”
– The importance of ‘passion’ in France
– Jamie Oliver’s (fake?) cockney accent
– British & American English
– Corneliu’s experiences in America, his acting and his accent
– Corneliu’s learning experiences with a great teacher when he was a child
– The interesting course-book which Corneliu used in his English lessons
– The myth of ‘the English gentleman’
– Depictions of Englishness in films
– Stereotypes of Romania
– Romania & Bulgaria’s entry into the EU and the media panic related to migrant workers
– Vampires, Dracula and Romania

Please leave your comments in response to this episode! We want to read your thoughts here. Thank you!

202. British Comedy: Monty Python & The Holy Grail

15 Replies

[The Constitutional Peasants Scene] Here’s another episode about Monty Python’s Flying Circus, and in this one we’re going to be covering some very interesting topics, such as medieval history, old myths legends & folklore, the British monarchy, marxism and radical politics. In terms of language we’re going to look at some old fashioned formal poetic language, some political vocabulary and also some intonation and sentence stress, and we’ll be doing all of that while understanding and hopefully enjoying a funny scene from a classic British comedy film. So, you really are getting everything in this episode (well, maybe not everything but you know what I mean). A lot of this is transcribed at teacherluke.co.uk. If you find this episode on the website you’ll also see a video, a script for that video and more information. So let’s get started. Right-click here to download this episode.

Small Donate Button
Last time I did an episode about Monty Python we had a look at a sketch from the TV show. There are many more sketches which I hope to come back to in the future, but in this episode I’m going to focus on a scene from their first feature film, which is called “Monty Python & The Holy Grail”.

As a reminder: Do consider purchasing MP DVDs, CDs, audio & video downloads and even tickets to see live a live broadcast of their stage show. Details here: http://www.montypythonlive.com

Please remember – this is not a blog post, but an audio podcast episode. To get the full explanations and detail of this episode, you should listen to the whole podcast episode!

Monty Python & The Holy Grail
When was it made, who directed it, and all that stuff?
In 1975. It was written by all the Monty Python team but was directed by Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones. The two Terries were quite controlling & ambitious and decided they wanted to be in charge of the film, and in fact, during the production I think they agreed that the film could be directed by anyone called ‘Terry’, as an effort to keep control of the film.

What’s it about?
It’s about King Arthur’s search for the Holy Grail. It’s set in the 10th century – the middle ages, or ‘dark ages’, a time of mystery and legend! King Arthur is a legendary King of Britain. The legend of Arthur dates back to the 5th & 6th centuries and the story of Arthur has been told many times since. Historians disagree about whether Arthur really existed or not. In the stories, Arthur is said to be the magical leader who defended Britain against real and supernatural enemies. He carried a magical sword called Excalibur, which was given to him by a mysterious spirit known as The Lady of the Lake. The Lady of the Lake is an important figure in the Arthurian legend – she’s a kind of magical woman who got her powers from the wizard Merlin. She’s a bit like Galadriel in the Lord of the Rings stories. In Arthur’s story, This lady emerges from a lake, holding Excalibur and then presents it to Arthur, and in so doing chooses him as the rightful leader of the Britons. It’s hardly a democratic way to choose the executive commander of Britain, but that’s how things were done back in the 5th century!

The Grail in this story is another aspect of Arthurian legend. Apparently, this grail once carried the blood of Jesus, and was sent by Joseph to Britain where it would be protected. Perhaps this is true, perhaps this is just a myth, but the grail is still a potent symbol in British folklore, either as a connection to Jesus, or as a magical cup which can give magical powers to whoever drinks from it (it’s the same cup in the Indiana Jones movie “Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade”)

What happens in the film?
Arthur is sent on a mission by God to find the Holy Grail.
He travels around Britain, visiting castles and collecting a group of knights to help him on his quest.
It’s just an excuse to visit lots of old castles and film a bunch of medieval themed sketches.
Most of it was filmed in Scotland, and the scenery is absolutely beautiful.
It was filmed on a budget of just $400,000, which is tiny in comparison to today’s standards. The Hangover 3, for example, had a budget of $103 million!
The film was financed partly by rock stars Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin and Elton John.
It’s now considered one of the funniest British comedy films of all time, and in 2005 it was used by Eric Idle as the basis for the Monty Python musical “Spamalot” which you can see in theatres in London and around the world.
There are a few classic sketches in the film, and I’d like to play one of them for you.

“Constitutional Peasants” – King Arthur Has an Argument with Some Left-Wing Peasants
Arthur is travelling the land, trying to recruit knights to join him on his quest. He visits lots of castles. In this scene, he is approaching a castle, and meets some peasants working on the land. The peasants appear to just be collecting mud & filth from the floor in a field. They’re disgusting & dirty, and yet surprisingly articulate in the language of politics (which is part of the joke). King Arthur decides to ask them for information about the owner of the castle. The peasants don’t give him any useful information. Instead he gets into an argument with one of the peasants about the constitution, monarchy, democratic government and the oppression of the masses in an absolute monarchy.

Constitutional Peasants – Video (you’ll find a script below)

What’s So Funny About This?
One of the funny things about this scene is the anachronism (I mean, the fact that different time periods are mixed up). The king is from the medieval period, but the peasants are basically modern working class people. So it mixes up people from different time periods. The scene also mixes two different speech registers and two different political ideologies as the characters represent different political systems, and we see them argue. It’s unexpected because peasants in the middle ages were unaware of Marxist ideology, and certainly wouldn’t have been intelligent or educated enough to criticise the system in such an articulate way. Arthur speaks in a poetic & medieval way, and represents the system of absolute monarchy which was in place at the time. The peasant speaks like a modern left-wing radical using ideas founded by Karl Marx in the 19th century.

It’s also a joke about conventions of movies or stories set in medieval times in which peasants are always presented as old, dirty and inarticulate servants of the king. When these peasants speak like Marxists from the modern era, it’s quite a surprising & amusing shock.

I realise that now I’ve explained this scene, you probably won’t find it that funny, because explaining humour takes all the immediate fun out of it, but so be it. If you get the humour, good for you! The main thing is: We’re learning English aren’t we, so let’s focus on understanding the scene before trying to see the funny side. This scene is very rich in vocabulary, in either a poetic medieval register, or the language of left-wing politics. Listen to it once to see if you understand it all, and then I’ll explain it all to you afterwards. If you find any of it funny, then that’s a bonus as far as I’m concerned. :)

Vocabulary & Explanations
So, in a nutshell, King Arthur wants to know who lives in the castle, and he asks a couple of peasants, but they don’t help him. Instead he gets involved in an irritating argument about the exploitation of the working classes in this medieval monarchy.

Concepts
There are a few concepts which we need to study in order to fully appreciate this scene. Let’s look at some of those concepts before listening to the scene again. These concepts relate to different constitutional frameworks – I mean, different ways in which a country can be run. We’re talking about political systems like ‘absolute monarchy’, ‘democracy’, ‘Marxism’ and ‘anarchism’.

Absolute Monarchy – in this case a king (monarch) is not elected, but gets their supreme power by divine provenance. This means that the monarch has a special agreement with god. God has chosen the monarch to be the leader of these people. Usually, this is tied to old mythical stories which involve some supernatural intervention in which the king is chosen by god. In the case of King Arthur this was when he was given a holy sword (Excalibur) by a magical & mythical woman called The Lady of the Lake. The story goes that this lady is a kind of supernatural & mythical spirit who holds magical and religious authority. In the story she walks out of a lake and presents Arthur with his magical sword, which signifies that he is the divine ruler of Britain. Most monarchies justify their existence by suggesting they have some kind of special connection to god. In this sketch, Arthur believes he is the rightful ruler of the Britons because of his divine right given by god.

Democracy – in this case, the people give executive power (decision making power) to a representative by voting for him/her. The people give this leader a ‘mandate’ – which means a responsibility to run the country. It’s the government by the people, of the people and for the people. Churchill said that democracy is not perfect, but it’s better than the alternatives. In the UK today we have a democratic monarchy, which is basically a democracy (we vote for MPs in elections) but with a monarch as head of state with almost no executive power. The Queen has very minor powers, and she doesn’t exercise them. It’s like there is an understanding between parliament and the monarchy that the monarch just lets parliament run the country. The monarch doesn’t interfere. That’s the way our country works. Some people are concerned that Prince Charles might decide to exercise his power if/when he becomes king, which could cause a constitutional crisis, but that’s another story for another time.

Marxism – this isn’t really a constitutional system, but an political ideology, or a way of understanding the way in which most industrial/post-industrial capitalist systems work. Karl Marx was a German born philosopher, economist, sociologist and historian who basically stated that the ruling classes manage to maintain control of the system by owning the means of production, and that the working classes are therefore dominated and repressed. The only way in which true equality can exist is if the people own their own land, their own factories and the means of producing goods. His ideas formed the basis of many left-wing political models including communism, and also form the basis of many criticisms of the capitalist system in general. In the UK, we sometimes associate Marxist ideologies with certain types of people. Although their views may be valid, I think most ordinary people find Marxists to be a bit extreme and even boring – banging on about politics and the class system all the time, while not necessarily doing anything about it.

Anarchism – this is the idea that there should be no leaders at all, and in fact no formalised system of government or state at all. Instead, local communities should be run by free and open groups with no leader. The idea is, that formalised governments, or power structures are essentially corrupting – that when power is given to one or several representatives, elected or not, that this ultimately will corrupt them and that this leads to inequality. So, anarchists argue that there should be no system at all, and that people should be free to govern themselves in a completely open way – without adopting any kind of political ideology or dogma. For me, in principle this sounds great, but on a practical level it sounds chaotic, confusing and impractical. Ultimately, it would be great to remove the corrupting power of government, but are we ready for it? We’d need an intelligent and activated population. Education is key. The problem, to an extent, is that many people don’t really care about these issues and instead just find political discussion boring, therefore making it very hard for true anarchy to take effect. A bit like Marxism, many people find anarchists to be either boring, confusing or somehow threatening to normal life.

Vocabulary
OK, so we’ve looked at some ideological concepts at the heart of this sketch, but we’re not finished because there’s plenty of language to deal with too. It’s complex isn’t it!? You see – British comedy is intelligent and deep, particularly Monty Python. It’s not just weird.

Here’s some vocabulary that you should know in order to understand this sketch further. Remember that Arthur speaks in old fashioned language, and Dennis the peasant speaks like a modern man with radical political opinions. Listen to the episode to hear all the bold words defined.

What knight lives in that castle over there?
– a knight is (in the Middle Ages) a man who served his sovereign or lord as a mounted soldier in armour. In this context it means a leader.
you automatically treat me like an inferior

exploiting the workers!
– exploiting means to benefit unfairly from the work of (someone), typically by overworking or underpaying them: “women are exploited in the workplace”.

hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society
-dogma = a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true: the dogmas of faith | [ mass noun ] : “the rejection of political dogma”.

Dennis, there’s some lovely filth down here.

I didn’t know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
– autonomous = • having the freedom to act independently: “school governors are legally autonomous”.

You’re fooling yourself. We’re living in a dictatorship: a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes–
– an autocracy = a system of government by one person with absolute power.

Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.

Please! Please, good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?

Dennis: I told you. We’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,…
Arthur: Yes.
Dennis: …but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting…
Arthur: Yes, I see.
Dennis: …by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,…
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis: …but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major–
– ratify = sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid. “both countries were due to ratify the treaty by the end of the year”.
– a simple majority = this candidate receives more votes than anyone else (but it doesn’t have to be more than 50% of all votes cast) e.g. if Obama, Bush & Clinton are in an election and Clinton gets 40% and Obama & Bush get 30% each, Clinton gets a simple majority. She just gets more votes than the others.
– a two-thirds majority = at least 66% of all the votes
– an absolute majority = at least 51% of all votes

Woman: Well, how did you become King, then?
Arthur: The Lady of the Lake,… [angels sing] …her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
– samite = a rich silk fabric interwoven with gold and silver threads, used for dressmaking and decoration in the Middle Ages.

Dennis: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

I mean, if I went round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!

Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
Arthur: Bloody peasant!
Dennis: Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That’s what I’m on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn’t you?

What I love about this is that it’s a well written script, with different types of English and it manages to mock both the idea of a medieval monarchy, and also the irritating verbosity of political radicals. Monty Python are making fun of history & taking the piss out of everyone, while at the same time celebrating the language. Complex language, delivered at speed by colourful characters is at the heart of the humour in this sketch.

Intonation & Sentence Stress
I really enjoy the performances in this scene – particularly Michael Palin who plays Dennis the peasant. The lines are delivered with quite exaggerated and characterful intonation and sentence stress. To highlight this, I’m going to read the script of this scene, just to make it a bit clearer. You could listen to the original version again in order to, hopefully, appreciate it a bit more.

Constitutional Peasants – Script
Arthur: Old woman!
Dennis: Man!
Arthur: Man. Sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?
Dennis: I’m thirty-seven.
Arthur: I– what?
Dennis: I’m thirty-seven. I’m not old.
Arthur: Well, I can’t just call you ‘Man’.
Dennis: Well, you could say ‘Dennis’.
Arthur: Well, I didn’t know you were called ‘Dennis’.
Dennis: Well, you didn’t bother to find out, did you?
Arthur: I did say ‘sorry’ about the ‘old woman’, but from the behind you looked–
Dennis: What I object to is that you automatically treat me like an inferior!
Arthur: Well, I am King!
Dennis: Oh, King, eh, very nice. And how do you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers! By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there’s ever going to be any progress with the–
Woman: Dennis, there’s some lovely filth down here. Oh! How d’you do?
Arthur: How do you do, good lady? I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Whose castle is that?
Woman: King of the who?
Arthur: The Britons.
Woman: Who are the Britons?
Arthur: Well, we all are. We are all Britons, and I am your king.
Woman: I didn’t know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
Dennis: You’re fooling yourself. We’re living in a dictatorship: a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes–
Woman: Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.
Dennis: That’s what it’s all about. If only people were aware of–
Arthur: Please! Please, good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
Woman: No one lives there.
Arthur: Then who is your lord?
Woman: We don’t have a lord.
Arthur: What?
Dennis: I told you. We’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,…
Arthur: Yes.
Dennis: …but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting…
Arthur: Yes, I see.
Dennis: …by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,…
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis: …but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major–
Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
Woman: Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Heh.
Arthur: I am your king!
Woman: Well, I didn’t vote for you.
Arthur: You don’t vote for kings.
Woman: Well, how did you become King, then?
Arthur: The Lady of the Lake,… [angels sing] …her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
Dennis: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis: Well, but you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: Shut up!
Dennis: I mean, if I went round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Arthur: Shut up, will you? Shut up!
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
Arthur: Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
Arthur: Bloody peasant!
Dennis: Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That’s what I’m on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn’t you?

201. Nikolay Kulikov: A Russian Comedian in London

30 Replies

Nikolay Kulikov is an award-winning Russian screenwriter and stand-up comedian. This year he spent a couple of months living in London (and also briefly in Dublin) performing stand-up comedy. I saw one of his performances in English on video and thought he was very funny! So, I decided to contact him for an interview to find out more about him, his experiences learning English, his views on performing to British & Irish people, and how he feels about life in Russia these days. I hope you enjoy the episode! **Please be aware that this episode features some rude language and swearing** Right-click here to download.

Small Donate Button
Here is an email I sent to Nikolay, inviting him to be on the podcast, and his reply:

Dear Nikolay,

My name is Luke Thompson and I am an English teacher and stand-up comedian. I do a podcast called Luke’s English Podcast. It has listeners all around the world, and many of them are from Russia. Recently one of my Russian listeners sent me a message with a video of you performing stand-up in Ireland. I thought it was really funny. You’ve got great jokes and a lot of talent.

I was wondering if I could interview you by Skype some time and feature the interview on the podcast. Essentially, I’m interested in your story. How did you learn English? What made you start doing stand-up? Where have you performed around the world? How is your comedy received in Russia, particularly some of the slightly controversial things you say about the place?

I think you’d be a great guest and my listeners would enjoy hearing from you. You will also be heard by thousands of people around the world so it would work as publicity for you too. Let me know if you’re interested in being interviewed over Skype some time, perhaps next week.

I’m looking forward to hearing from you.

All the best,

Luke Thompson

Nikolay’s Reply:

Hi Luke!
It was a pleasure to receive such a wonderful letter.
Yes, let’s do this! I’ve got a lot to talk about and it can be real fun.
Next week is excellent.

ninja_tune_largeThanks to Anna Khazan and Natalia Dalik for bringing Nikolay to my attention and helping me to contact him. You’re my LEP Ninjas!

Nikolay’s Stand-Up in English in Ireland

Find Nikolay on Twitter, YouTube and VK Nikolay Kulikov
https://twitter.com/KolyaKulikov
http://www.youtube.com/user/krakvasha
http://vk.com/nobrainkolya

The Spoon Thing from The Matrix – “There Is No Spoon”
You might have heard Nikolay and me talking about a spoon in this episode, and wondered what we were talking about. You might have thought, “There is no spoon” – what do they mean? If you found that to be a little bit mysterious, let me explain it to you!

It’s from a scene in the movie The Matrix (1999).

I don’t know if you’ve seen the film, but the basic premise is that the human race has been enslaved by machines. The machines have connected everyone to a computer programme which replicates the real world. It’s an incredibly convincing simulation of real life. It’s so convincing that most people don’t realise that it’s just a dream, and that in reality they are slaves to machines. Some people have “woken up” and realised that the reality in which they are living is just a dream. Those people form a rebellion in order to fight against the machines. They are able to move in and out of the matrix whenever they want. One of the key members of the rebellion is a guy called Neo (Keanu Reeves). Some of the others believe he is the chosen one who will allow the humans to defeat the machines, but in order to do so he first has to learn to understand the nature of the matrix (in fact just a computer programme) and then to control it from within. In the first film we follow Neo as he learns about the matrix and begins to understand how to control it. One of the concepts at the heart of this film is that reality is just what we perceive – that there is no ‘reality’ there is just the way we perceive the world through our senses, and if you learn to control your senses, you can then control reality. The things we see are just our imagination. We’re living in a dream, and it may be possible for us to become lucid within the dream, and therefore control everything that happens all around us. It’s deep, man. There’s also some wicked kung fu.

So, the spoon thing.
There is a key scene in the film in which Neo learns about how to control the matrix. He encounters a boy who has learned to bend spoons using only the power of his mind. The boy holds up a spoon, and it bends. Neo is amazed and asks the boy how he does it. The boy says “You have to realise that there is no spoon. There is only you.” What he means is – you have to realise that the world you see is just created by your senses (which are being controlled by the matrix programme), so in order to bend the spoon you have to remember that the spoon does not exist, and that it is just the product of your senses. If you can control yourself, then you can control the world around you. Neo picks up the spoon and for a moment he manages to make it bend. This is an important moment for Neo, and after this he learns how to control the matrix, and then fight back against the machines which are enslaving the human race. You can see the scene below (YouTube video).

Some people think the film is a profound meditation about the nature of reality. Other people just think it’s an awesome kung-fu movie. For me, it’s a bit of both – philosophy and kung-fu. It’s a good combination!

153. The Talking Dog Story

3 Replies

Another funny improvised story to entertain you while you do more English listening practice.

Right-click here to download this episode.

In this episode I decided to improvise another story for you. A lot of listeners really liked episode 125. The Pink Gorilla Story (full transcript available), which I improvised into a microphone earlier this year. I received some very nicely written messages from people saying they’d like more of that kind of story on Luke’s English Podcast, so here is another one in a similar style. You’re a fan of Lukes English Podcast which means you must be a bright minded person, so I’m sure you’ll get a kick out of The Talking Dog Story!

The story is based on an old joke about a talking dog. The joke is usually just a minute long, but I decided to extend the joke into a longer story. Most of the details in this episode are just improvised while I talk. I’m just making it up off the top of my head. As a learner of English, your challenge is to keep up with me. Can you follow what is going on? Do you get the self-referential elements and the surreal or ironic humour? Can you identify the punch-line to the joke? I’m sure you can if you listen! As you are a fan of Luke’s English Podcast you are probably the kind of person who understands and appreciates this kind of  humourous story telling. So, get stuck in!

Keep listening to the end, because you’ll hear the short version of the story told by someone else. If you fancy it, why not have a go at transcribing some of this. It’s a really good way to develop your English in an intensive way.

Enjoy the story. You can listen to it by clicking “play” on the embedded player at the top of this page. You can download it by right clicking on the ‘download’ text, also at the top of this page.

All the best, and have a great day.

Luke

138. Discussing Movies (Part 2)

2 Replies

The second part of this discussion about films.

Small Donate ButtonRight-click here to download this episode.
This is the second in a 2-part series all about films. In this one, Henry and I answer listeners’ questions from Facebook. See below for more details.

Please feel free to leave your comments. I love talking about movies, and I have plenty of things to say about them in the future. In fact, I am planning episodes on these subjects: Zombies!
Classic Movie Scenes (listen to some movies scenes, then understand everything which is said)
Great British movies (what movies can I recommend?)
Star Wars
Superhero Movies
Back To The Future
Which ones would you like to listen to most? Let me know. The episodes should eventually be recorded for your listening pleasure…

As for this episode, here are the questions from Facebook, which I discuss with Henry. You can find the names of movies we mention under each question. Enjoy the episode!

Ilona Lolo Wysocka What’s the movie that every British should know?
*We dealt with this episode in part 1

Israel Mtz Hi Luke here’s Israel (a Spanish newcomer in London). Why people often overrate films like Casa Blanca, Amelie, etc.?
*We answered this one in part 1 too

K: Why do (most) men love action movies with guns, explosions, blood and sexy girls but no real storyline ?
17 June at 16:02
Movies mentioned:
The Fast & The Furious 6
Toy Story
Cars
Wall-E
A Bug’s Life

Amirzade Al-Alim Mutasodirin Do you know how much money animation software costs? For instance software for iron man movie.
17 June at 16:09 · Edited · Like
Iron Man
Motion (animation software)
The Simpsons Movie

Hamid Naveed English spoken in some Hollywood movies is very easy to understand while in others it is so difficult.Why? Right now i can’t think of any movie
17 June at 16:22 · Like
Apollo 13 (they use a lot of tecnhical language, which is hard to understand)
Taxi Driver (the director made a stylistic decision to make the dialogue natural and improvised and therefore less clear and harder to understand than other films)
Nacho Libre (a Jack Black comedy with simple English – the character is a Mexican monk who speaks pidgin English)
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (it’s difficult to understand because the characters mumble a lot – to create an atmosphere of mystery)

Rajesh Vt Master Luke , hi to the guest of our Pod , everyone likes comedy films so what are the all time best comedy films ? Who is his favourite comedian ?
Anchorman
Talledega Nights
Pineapple Express
Knocked Up
This is Forty
Superbad
Step Brothers
Night at the Roxbury
Superstar
Ace Ventura: Pet Detective
Ace Ventura: Pet Detective 2 – When Nature Calls
Monty Python & The Holy Grail
Spinal Tap (A fake documentary about a British rock band)

Thu Hien Nguyen Great. i have missed questions when you made a podcast Rickipedia. Now i can add a question. What makes a film excellent?
17 June at 17:48 · Edited · Like
Ace Ventura
Harry Potter films

Kohei Okutani Hi! I’d like you to ask him about the Cannes Film Fes!! Of course, your opinion, too. Japanese movie’s awarded this year. So, any comments on that, anything. Or, tell us what the decisive factor of the differences between the Cannes and other movie festivals from your points of views!!
17 June at 16:44 via mobile · Edited · Like
Like Father Like Son (a Japanese movie, which won the Jury’s Award at Cannes this year)

José Luis Sánchez González Hi, Monster!!!Here you have my questions: Could you tell us a few titles of movies which could be easy to understand for improving our level of english listening??? Which do you think that could be the best way to watch movies for learning english: with original subtitles or with subtitles in our language??? Thanks
17 June at 16:57 · Like · 1
Nacho Libre (again)
Advice for using films to improve English:
Stage 1 – Watch the film in English with subtitles in your language (to just enjoy and fully understand the movie)
Stage 2 – Watch the film again in English but with English subtitles (you can identify and pick up specific words or pronunciation)
Stage 3 – Watch the film a 3rd time in English but with no subtitles (it’s important to listen without subtitles because it replicates natural listening experiences
“Never watch dubbed versions!”

Ken Yorioka Hi Luke, here’s a question frim different angle of “movie”. Since when do you think popcorn became a symbol food of movie theater and why?
What British food do you think would replace popcorn? Don’t say fish n chips!!
Cheers
17 June at 17:12 via mobile · Like · 1
Crisps – Walkers Crisps (nut noisier than popcorn)
Biscuits!

Rom Hein Thoughts about the latest Tarantino movie? Is Christian Bale a good actor to you (The Prestige, The machinist…)?
17 June at 17:25 via mobile · Like
Rom Hein Cheers
Django Unchained
Pulp Fiction
Jackie Brown
Kill Bill
Deathproof
Inglourious Basterds

Karim Mrouj Do you agree that ‘citizen Kane’ is the best film made in the 20th century ?
17 June at 17:25 · Like
Citizen Kane
Taxi Driver
Pulp fiction

Артем Косенко Are people in the UK (or the US) familiar with russian movies? Did you watch any of those? By the way, if you find my name difficult to pronounce it is Arty.
17 June at 17:26 · Like · 1
Nightwatch & Daywatch (Russian vampire films)
The Battleship Potemkin

Mariana Ramirez What do you think about stereotypes of French movies? I really love French movies but I must admit i couldn’t understand the plot of some movies. Why do directors and plots get so hard to understand? See this parody with the cliches of French movies http://youtu.be/ajop7imecgc
Entre Les Murs
La Haine

Agnieska – what is an underrated film in your opinion?
Ace Ventura Pet Detective 2 – When Nature Calls!
The Mask

Aritz Jauregi Hi Luke. From Pamplona, living now in London. Do you like the trilogy of Back to the Future? What do you think about it? Could you do a complete episode talking about that? Thank you!!!
17 June at 17:38 · Like
*Yes, I would love to do a full episode about Back To The Future because it is one of my all-time favourite movies.

Luke’s English Podcast We’ve finished recording now. Thank you for your questions! We answered almost all of them… I will answer others at a later time…
17 June at 19:19 · Like

137. Discussing Movies (Part 1)

14 Replies

A cup of tea and a chat about movies with a student of film studies!

Right-click here to download this episode.
Henry Dean joins me for a cup of tea and a chat about movies. Part 2 will be available in the next few days.

In this episode, I talk to Henry about his background, his university course, his writing work and his interest in film and movies in general. We also explain and discuss various items of vocabulary related to film. We’ll teach you various words and phrases that you can use to talk about films with your friends. We also begin to answer questions which were sent in to us via Facebook. We continue to answer the questions in part 2, which will be available soon!

Click here to get Henry’s book “Stories from Paris” at Amazon.co.uk.

I know that a transcript of this episode would be useful. Unfortunately, a transcript of this episode is not available at the moment, but if you would like a challenge why not transcribe the episode yourself and send it to me? Then, eventually, I will be able to check/edit the transcript you have written and provide it for everyone. So, no transcript yet, but maybe in the future if I get help from a listener…

Thanks for listening. Your comments are welcome. I love talking about films, so there will be more film-related episodes in the future.

All the best, Luke

124. James Bond

1 Reply

This episode is all about the history of James Bond. You can also learn how to speak like Sean Connery or Roger Moore :)

Small Donate ButtonRight-click here to download this episode.

NEWS UPDATE: I won the Macmillan Dictionary Award for Best Blog 2012! Thank you very much for voting for me! I’m delighted to have won the award. I will record a podcast soon in order to thank you in person.

Also, you may have experienced some problems downloading the podcast recently. This was due to a technical difficulty by podomatic.com, my podcast host. Thankfully they have now fixed the problem and you should be able to download properly. In fact, since the problem was fixed I had over 5,000 downloads just yesterday!

ANYWAY! This episode is all about James Bond. You can read the blog post transcript below. Also, you can see the video of Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon from the trip, below.
50 Years of James Bond

This year the James Bond franchise celebrates its 50 year anniversary with the release of the new Bond movie Skyfall, which is receiving some very positive reviews. Some people are calling it the best Bond movie ever, and it is likely to become the highest earning film of the franchise so far. In this blog post I’m going to give a brief overview of the history of the franchise and then tell you what I thought about Skyfall.

You can find definitions of the words in bold at the bottom of this post.

50 Years of James Bond
First, some background info on the Bond films, released by Eon Productions. The series kicked off in 1962 with Sean Connery as 007 in Dr No. This was followed by four other films with Connery as Bond. These first five films really established all the hallmarks of the James Bond franchise. A cool and handsome Bond, sudden violence, stunning international locations, beautiful women, casual sexism, ironic jokes (usually made by Bond just after killing someone), gadgets, side characters such as M, Q and Miss Moneypenny, insane bad-guys who want to destroy the world and other trademarks such as Bond’s Aston Martin sports car and his Walther PPK handgun. Sean Connery is still widely considered to be the best Bond. It was his combination of good looks, self-confidence and aggression that really defined how we see Bond today.

In 1969 after Connery quit, the role of Bond went to a largely unknown actor called George Lazenby in the film On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Lazenby didn’t enjoy playing Bond, complaining that the producers hadn’t treated him with enough respect as an actor and that the character was a “brute”. The film is widely regarded as a flop, with Lazenby an unconvincing Bond. Personally I like the film. It’s full of amazing action sequences and has quite an emotional ending, unlike most of the other Bond films. Lazenby’s Bond is more vulnerable and human than Connery’s, which makes him a more realistic and three-dimensional character.

Connery was persuaded to return as Bond for Diamonds Are Forever in 1971. In contrast to the previous film, this one was more humourous in tone. In fact, during the 70s the films became less serious, prone to moments of silliness and generally quite formulaic.

Then in 1973 Roger Moore took over as James Bond, and the silliness continued. Moore’s acting style was more suited to comedy than action and many of Moore’s films contain moments of camp humour which many critics believe lessen the seriousness and dramatic impact of the franchise. Still, Roger Moore is an entertaining James Bond, even if he was less aggressive and dynamic than Connery and Lazenby.

Roger Moore made seven Bond films, and the last one A View to a Kill was considered to be a financial failure. Moore was too old to continue as Bond. The producers decided it was time to find a new actor for the role. Initially the job was offered to Pierce Brosnan, but then withdrawn because of his contractual commitments to a popular TV show called Remington Steele, but Brosnan would return later. It was Timothy Dalton who got the role in the end, playing Bond in two films from 1987 to 1989.

Dalton was a classically-trained actor and decided he would play Bond as a dark, serious character. In a similar way to George Lazenby he interpreted Bond as a more vulnerable character who questions his orders from his boss, M. Critics praised his two performances as bringing more weight to the films, but they also criticised the lack of humour and playfulness which had become an essential part of the franchise.

In 1995, after 6 years without Bond, the film GoldenEye was released with Pierce Brosnan in the lead role. It was a big box-office success and was generally considered to be a modernisation of the series. Pierce Brosnan was praised for his performance as Bond. He seemed to combine aspects of both Sean Connery and Roger Moore. He had the looks, the charisma and the aggressive brutality of Connery but also the suave sophistication and humourous touch of Roger Moore. He also managed to include some of the depth and psychological realism of the Dalton performances. The film also included Judi Dench in the role of M (Bond’s boss). This was considered to be a positive move because it addressed some of the sexism of the previous films in the franchise. In one scene, M refers to Bond as a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur”. Also, Judy Dench is just a great actress and she brought a new level of depth to the character of M. She remains a key character in the more recent Bond films, especially Skyfall.

Brosnan made five Bond films in total. They were all commercial successes but critical reactions were mixed. Goldeneye breathed new life into the Bond franchise, but the subsequent Brosnan Bond films quickly became formulaic and unoriginal, focusing on action rather than character and story.

Then in 2006 we were introduced to a new Bond, played by Daniel Craig. Casino Royale rebooted the Bond franchise, starting the whole storyline again from scratch. We see Bond doing his first assassination mission, earning his licence to kill and struggling with the psychological and physical pressure of being 007. The film was a massive commercial success, and was considered by critics to be a genuinely fresh version of Bond. Daniel Craig was considered the best Bond since Connery, perhaps even better than him. Casting Craig was a bold move. He doesn’t really look like the classic image of Bond. He is blond and doesn’t have the same classically handsome features as Connery, Moore or Brosnan. However, he has intensity, a sense of vulnerability and a very striking physical presence. Casino Royale showed us more than ever that James Bond is a human being. He gets hurt both physically and emotionally. We care about him and feel his pain.

Daniel Craig’s second James Bond film, Quantam of Solace is a bit of a confusing mess. The storyline is very hard to follow. The action sequences are bewildering. There is very little character development and the whole film is littered with product placement. The film damaged a lot of the achievements of Casino Royale, so with the third film, Skyfall, the producers were keen to fix those problems and put the Bond franchise back on track.

The result is that the latest Bond film is a big success. It’s already being described as possibly the best Bond film we’ve ever had, and it’s likely to make more money than any other Bond movie in the past. Most of the boxes are ticked. The film has a complex, serious storyline, yet it is also a lot of fun. There are plenty of exciting action. The bad-guy (played by Javier Bardem) is ridiculous, insane and funny. The story is involving. The character development is detailed and interesting. The film also pays homage to previous Bond films, and even reveals some new details about Bond’s history. It’s not perfect of course. While watching it I couldn’t help thinking “this is completely ridiculous!” but then I realised that it was a James Bond film and it’s supposed to be ridiculous, and then I started to enjoy it a lot more. Certainly, in Skyfall, Bond has become something of a superhero. Although he gets hurt and is clearly getting a bit old for the job, he still manages to do things which are completely impossible in the real world, but that’s all right because this is James Bond!

Daniel Craig is still contracted to appear in two more Bond films, and to be honest after this one I can’t imagine where they will go next with the franchise. Isn’t Daniel Craig getting a bit old to play Bond now? How will they move the franchise forward when Bond has already been deconstructed in these modern films? How can they do anything new? Will they just remake Dr No or Goldfinger? Will the Bond films just go back to being silly and misogynistic? I’m already looking forward to seeing the next film, just in order to find out what they do next.

If you’ve seen Skyfall, leave a comment below to tell us what you thought. Otherwise, why don’t you tell us what you think of James Bond in general? Feel free to share your thoughts below and thanks for reading this (rather long) blog post. Bye for now!

Luke

Vocabulary in this episode

  • franchise (n) – a series of films which have become a range of trademarked products including books, merchandise, toys etc. Other examples of a franchise are the Harry Potter films, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings.
  • kicked off (v) – started
  • hallmarks (n) – very typical features of something which allow you to recognise it. E.g. the hallmarks of a James Bond movie are the locations, the bond-girls, the violence, the gadgets etc.
  • gadgets (n) – little items of technology which are useful for specific things. E.g. an iPod, or a pen which shoots arrows.
  • trade marks (n) – similar to ‘hallmarks’ (above), these are symbols or features which represent something, or which allow you to recognise something easily. E.g. the 007 logo we see on James Bond posters is a kind of trade mark for the James Bond franchise.
  • brute (n) – a violent person who behaves like an animal
  • flop (n) – a commercial failure
  • unconvincing (adj) – unrealistic, looks fake
  • vulnerable (adj) – able to be easily physically or emotionally hurt
  • three dimensional (adj) – 3D, with depth, not just flat
  • tone (n) – feeling, atmosphere
  • prone to (v) – likely to suffer from
  • formulaic (adj) – consisting of fixed or repeated ideas
  • camp (adj) – deliberately exaggerated and theatrical
  • contractual commitments (n) – obligations that have to be met because of a contract
  • a classically-trained actor (n) – an actor who trained in a theature using classical techniques
  • interpreted (v) – decided what the intended meaning of something is
  • praise (v) – the opposite of ‘criticise’, to say good things about something
  • lack of (n) – not enough of something
  • suave (adj) – charming, pleasant and attractive, possibly insincere, slightly negative
  • addressed (v) – dealt with
  • misogynist (n) – a man who hates women, or who believes that women are inferior to men
  • mixed (adj) – inconsistent; some good some bad
  • breathed new life into (v phrase) – refreshed, revitalised
  • rebooted (v) – restarted
  • (from) scratch (n) – (from) the beginning, the starting point
  • a bold move (n) – a courageous decision/action
  • striking (adj) – very unusual or easily noticed and therefore attracting a lot of attention
  • mess (n) – something very untidy and disorganised
  • bewildering (adj) – confusing
  • littered (adj) – made untidy because of many things covering it. E.g. “The floor was littered with dirty clothes.” “The movie is littered with product placement.”
  • product placement (n) – a kind of advertising which involves putting products into a movie so the audience will see them.
  • (put something back) on track (phrase) – to return something to the correct way, to make something go back in the right direction again. E.g. “After a few problems, the project is now back on track.”
  • pays homage to (verb phrase) – to make reference to something as a way of showing respect to it. E.g. when a film makes a reference to a previous film.
  • contracted (adj) – obliged by contract
  • deconstructed (v) – to analyse something by taking it apart and looking at the elements that it is made of.

STEVE COOGAN AND ROB BRYDON “Come come Mr Bond…”

61. 127 Hours / ‘Hand’ Idioms

10 Replies

Listen to an interview with Aaron Ralston, learn about the movie 127 Hours and pick up some useful idioms with the word ‘hand’.

Small Donate ButtonRight-click here to download.
Luke’s English Podcast is completely free and a great way to improve your English. Luke focusses on British English, specifically on natural language which is really used by people in Britain every day. You can learn vocabulary and cultural information.

In this episode, I talk about the film 127 Hours, we listen to an interview with Aaron Ralston (who is the subject of the film) and then I teach you some really useful idioms with the word ‘hand’.

True or False Statements. There is a video and transcript below.

1. The week of April 26 – May 1st 2003 divided his life into two parts.
2. The hike he went on was one of the most extreme and dangerous hikes he had ever done.
3. As he was hiking above a canyon he dislodged a boulder and they both fell into the canyon. The boulder landed on his arm and trapped him in the canyon.
4. He was 5 hours from civilisation.
5. He hadn’t informed anyone of his plan to trek in that area.
6. He realised almost immediately that he was going to starve to death.
7. By the 5th day he had already tried every possible way to escape.
8. By day 5 he was still not convinced that he was going to die there.
9. He wasn’t able to deal with regrets that he had about his life.
10. He had a dream about himself as a boy and he wanted to go back to apologise to himself.
11. He got really angry because he felt he had failed himself.
12. He made a controlled decision to break his bones and to cut his arm off.
13. He was very happy to cut off his arm despite the pain.
14. He took a really good quality photo of his hand before he left.
15. He fell 60ft into a pool of water.
16. He hiked 7 miles even though he was losing strength all the time.
17. He climbed 800ft to his truck and then contacted a helicopterto rescue him.
17. His experience in Blue John canyon totally changed his life forever.

Video (transcript below)

Transcript of the Aaron Ralston Interview

[5:56]
When I think about the week of April 26 – May 1st 2003, there was what came before and there is what came after. It was such a watershed for me that literally cleaved not only my arm, but my life into these this kind of before and after. This pre and post Blue John.

I walked into that canyon not only with two hands, but just as an adventurer on a day trip for kind of a vacation (of sorts). And midway through this hike that was pretty low-key for the kinds of things that I was doing at that time of my life. I got to a drop-off in a slot canyon in the middle of very remote desert in Southern Utah and I dislodged a boulder. I pulled it down as I was descending, this drop off and the boulder fell from my head as I was now underneath it. And as I put my hands up to try to block it from crashing into my skull that my hands, one got smashed and as the boulder ricocheted my right hand became trapped by this rock as it slammed into a new spot between these very narrow walls.

So this like bus-tire size boulder now is trapping me in a fifty foot deep slot canyon five miles from the nearest dirt road and hours from a phone or pavement or running water or help. I was by myself and told anyone where I was going, didn’t leave any kind of a itinerary and so it was just me stuck and trapped basically standing in my grave and without being able to get free I was definitely going to die there via one or the other kind of mechanisma, see either infection, dehydration or starvation, perhaps a flash flood or just by succumbing a hyperthermia during the very cold nights.

I suffered through all of these various bodily and mental degradations over not just one day and one night, but two days, two nights, three days and three nights, four days and four nights, five days and a fifth night I knew that at this point I’ve tried everything there is to try including trying to cut my arm off to get myself free and being there, I etched my name and my birth month and what I thought was my death month in the wall off the canyon above my shoulder. I used this hand-held video camera sat on a rock in front of me to strapping my hand and recorded my will and testament, I mean my goodbyes to my family, my loved ones and I was resigned perhaps or at peace with, maybe another way to say it, the fact that I was going to die here. There was no more life in front of me. I found a lot of regrets in my life too, but also I came to, I think, an understanding with myself about it to let some of those regrets, just let them be. But as a turned out it was not the end. I had a vision during that last night, that fifth night, that I was there, of a little boy. I saw myself in some point in the future with a handless right arm playing with this little blond-haired three-year-old and lifting him up and I’m holding him up on my head then, the eye contact that I had with him told me that this is my future son. And if I used to have a future son, that meant that I was going to have a future. I was going to get out of this place, a few hours later the sun came up yet again in the sixth day in the canyon, but this time with this renewed hope that I would get out of there. I actually fell into a rage of sorts. I lost control of what had previously being very controlled experience for me and in this rage I felt my bones bend and as they bent I realised that I might actually be able to break the bones. If I can break them I might be able to then use the knife which was too dull to cut through the bones, but to use that just on a soft tissues and this smile came over me. I was euphoric as I… went about first breaking one bone and then contorting my body to break the second bone and then using that knife to cut through the various tissues and cleaving the nerve which was a thousand times worse than having that boulder crashing my hand. But even when I got through that most intense pain, I knew that I was going to get out of there. I’m going to die at some point, but I’m not going to die here. I’m going to get out of this place and sure enough after about an hour and five minutes of working through the imputation I was free. It was euphoric, ecstasy that I’ll probably ever feel in my life. And I gathered myself after a few deep breaths and picked up my rope, picked up my climbing gear, picked up my water bottle that then was full of urine. I took the last photograph of this, this was good riddance photograph, but the hand that nearly tra… killed me and the boulder and I started hiking down the canyon. I made it through a few hundred yards of third and fourth class canyon until I got to a rappel that I set up and rappelled a 60 food drop and I got to a pool of water and drank from that for about fifteen minutes and then started hiking. Walked through almost 7 miles then. Slowly losing energy as the adrenaline and just the effects of all of these sleep deprivation and everything else had been mounting on me.

And at the end of this hike, I was just a mile away from my truck, where I had to leave the canyon bottom and about eight hundred vertical feet of climbing at this moment now a helicopter came out of the sky that had been searching for me plucked me out of the canyon and off we fly to the hospital.

This was such a remarkable synchronicity of me getting myself free and out in the open when I could be found and that helicopter being there within minutes when I was otherwise bled to death. It’s to me still an astonishing miracle that I did what I did, but actually that I survived and the effect of it, got to medical attention.

Putting my life back together after again this is before and after of everything that had happened leading me up to that place than that where I was go after that. It still stands even now with being married and having a little six-month old boy Leo that the experience back in the Blue John is still the defining moment in my life, what came before and what came after.

[13:20]

Answers to the true or false sentences
1. The week of April 26 – May 1st 2003 divided his life into two parts. [TRUE]
2. The hike he went on was one of the most extreme and dangerous hikes he had ever done. [FALSE – it was fairly low key]
3. As he was hiking above a canyon he dislodged a boulder and they both fell into the canyon. The boulder landed on his arm and trapped him in the canyon. [TRUE]
4. He was 5 hours from civilisation. [FALSE – he was ‘hours’ from civilisation]
5. He hadn’t informed anyone of his plan to trek in that area. [TRUE]
6. He realised almost immediately that he was going to starve to death. [FALSE – he realised he was going to die, but by many possible ways – infection, dehydration, flash flood, starvation]
7. By the 5th day he had already tried every possible way to escape. [TRUE]
8. By day 5 he was still not convinced that he was going to die there. [FALSE – he was convinced that he was going to die]
9. He wasn’t able to deal with regrets that he had about his life. [FALSE – he made peace with himself]
10. He had a dream about himself as a boy and he wanted to go back to apologise to himself. [FALSE – he had a dream about his future son]
11. He got really angry because he felt he had failed himself. [FALSE]
12. He made a controlled decision to break his bones and to cut his arm off. [FALSE – he was in a rage – out of control]
13. He was very happy to cut off his arm despite the pain. [TRUE]
14. He took a really good quality photo of his hand before he left. [FALSE – it was a ‘good riddance’ photo]
15. He fell 60ft into a pool of water. [FALSE – he rappelled 60ft and then found the water]
16. He hiked 7 miles even though he was losing strength all the time. [TRUE]
17. He climbed 800ft to his truck and then contacted a helicopterto rescue him. [FALSE – his truck was an 800ft climb away, but he got rescued by a helicopter]
17. His experience in Blue John canyon totally changed his life forever. [TRUE]

Hand Idioms
Here are the hand idioms from this podcast. Listen to the episode to get definitions and examples:

1. to be good with your hands
2. to get your hands dirty
3. (get your/keep your) hands off!
4. hands up!
5. to have your hands full
6. in someone’s hands
7. to be in safe hands / in good hands
8. many hands make light work
9. off someone’s hands
10. on someone’s hands
11. out of someone’s hands
12. take something off someone’s hands
13. with your bare hands
14. give him a (big) hand
15. you’ve got to hand it to him
16. to hand something to someone
17. to hand something out
18. a handout
19. a hand-me-down
20. handed down from generation to generation
21. handy (adj)
22. on the one hand / on the other hand
23. I know it like the back of my hand
24. to shake hands
25. holding hands / hand in hand

That’s it!

Please donate some money to help me pay for the website. Just a couple of pounds/dollars/euros is enough. Click the ‘donate’ button at the bottom of this page. Thank you!

60. The King’s Speech / ‘Mouth’ Idioms

6 Replies

Hi! Learn some really useful idioms and listen to an authentic interview with a native speaker in this episode of Luke’s English Podcast.

Right-click here to download.
The King’s Speech / Stammering
This episode is about The King’s Speech – an excellent film which recently won 4 Academy Awards at The Oscars, including the award for Best Actor for Colin Firth. In the film Colin Firth plays the part of King George VI, who had to overcome a difficult stammer and become a strong leader of Great Britain at the beginning of The 2nd World War. A stammer is a speech problem which makes the stammerer (the person who has the stammer) unable to produce words or sentences clearly. For some stammerers, it is almost impossible to speak without long pauses and the inability to produce some words clearly. Basically, it prevents many people from speaking and therefore has a strongly negative affect on their lives. There are millions of people in the world who suffer from a stammer, and their struggle is not often discussed or understood fully. The King’s Speech is a very high profile movie, and has brought the subject of stammering back into the public eye.

Contents
This is quite a long episode with lots of detail and content. Here is what to expect from the episode:
A. Some background information to the story of The Kings Speech
B. An interview with a member of the British Stammering Association, which is a charity for people who have a stammer. In the interview he talks about the story of King George VI, the importance of the film for stammerers, and the subject of stammering. I explain what the man says in the interview, and clarify it for you
C. Useful vocabulary: I teach you some commonly used idioms which feature the words ‘mouth’ and ‘tongue’

This is definitely a useful podcast episode! You should listen to all of it several times to really get the benefit of it.

A. Some background Information
The King’s Speech is a true story of King George VI and his struggle with a speech impediment, or ‘stammer’. Here is a definition of ‘stammer’ from the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (which is available free online here http://dictionary.cambridge.org/):

stammer
verb /ˈstæm.ər/
Definition
to speak or say something with unusual pauses or repeated sounds, either because of speech problems or because of fear and anxiety
[+ speech] “Wh-when can we g-go?” she stammered.
He dialled 999 and stammered (out) his name and address.
Synonym: stutter

stammer
noun [C usually singular]
Robert has a bit of a stammer.
(Definition of stammer verb from the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary)

In the film, prince George has suffered from a very strong stammer ever since he could speak. His family would correct and punish him when he stammered. As a result, George suffers from a terrible lack of confidence, particularly when speaking in public. He cannot speak in publis as it causes him to stammer uncontrollably, causing total shame and embarrassment to all around. When he addresses the public it is a shocking and disappointing failure on a national level. This happened at a time when people were not sympathetic to someone with speech problems and in a king it would have been a huge sign of weakness. But, George must become the King when his country is about to go to war with Germany, so he has to learn to overcome his speech impediment in order to regularly address the public over the radio.

So, he takes speech therapy from a therapist called Lionel Logue. It is a tremendous struggle but together they manage to develop a relationship (between a king an an ‘ordinary’ man) which helps the king to learn to speak to the public in a confident manner. It’s a fantastic film about human struggle, challenge and bravery.

Here’s the trailer for the film:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzI4D6dyp_o&w=640&h=390]

B. The interview with a member of the British Stammering Association
This is an interview with a man who has a stammer. He has obviously overcome his speech problem and you can hear in this interview that he is now a clear speaker of English. Sometimes he has difficulty with individual words, but it does not prevent us from understanding what he says.

Questions
Here are the questions I ask you before the interview on the podcast: (you will find the answers further down the page)
1. How many high profile stemmerers have we had in the UK since George VI died in 1952?
2. How many decent films about stammerers have there been?
3. How have stammerers been shown in films?
4. What does The Kings Speech show people who don’t stammer?
5. Is the film historically accurate?
6. What do we know about stammering now?
7. Was the stammer caused by something that happened during his childhood?
8. How did his family and staff deal with George’s stammer?
9. How did this make him feel?
10. With today’s knowledge, what is the best way to help people with stammers?
11. What did George VI’s therapist do that the speaker’s (interviewee’s) therapist didn’t do?
12. What made George VI a difficult client?
13. What will The King’s Speech do for stammerers and non stammerers?
14. What is the danger about the near future?

Here is a video of the interview (it starts after 20 seconds): Answers below
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwuJklTw-Yw&w=480&h=390]
Transcript of the Video (Thank you Piotr from Poland)
[16:40 – The King’s Speech movie – a stammerer’s view]
Hello, I have a stammer.

There hasn’t been really high profile stammerer in the UK since king George VI died in 1952, a very long time ago, nor has there been a decent film featuring someone who stammers.

Generally speaking, we have been shown as figures of fun (ha ha). As a result of this and many other inaccuracies very few people know anything much about stammering.

But now at last we have “The King’s speech”, potentially Oscar winning film, which shows people who don’t stammer how life can be if you do. And Colin Firth does an incredibly realistic job of conveying how it is to be stuck in a block with no control over your speech, part of the audience staring at you and part staring at the ground. No film has ever done that before.

So it should be very helpful in terms of creating some greater understanding between stammerers and non-stammerers. But we need to remember that the action takes place about seventy five years ago, so it is history. From what we know, it’s a fairly realistic reenactment what was going on at that time.

Things are different now of course. We know that stammering it’s a symptom of a condition in which the brain’s neural circuits for speech have not wired normally. So the king would have been born with a neural propensity to stammer, it wasn’t caused by some deep rooted psychological problem. His character and behaviour would have been partly affected by this inability to say what he was trying to say, not vice versa.

It’s quite interesting there was a research exercise on at about the same time which is come to be known as the “monster study” in which a group of orphan children were cruelly encouraged to stammer. At the end of the exercise, none of them grew up stammering, but several of them developed psychological problems.

Of course, speech therapy techniques has changed considerably. When he was a child, stammering was thought to be a defect. So, the future king was corrected and even punished by his family and staff which made him very self-conscious and tense about speaking and that surely would just make his stammering even worse. Today where it is available and it’s available everywhere. Early intervention allows the vast majority of those very young children at-risk of persistent stammering to talk fluently for the rest of their lives.

Some adults do find ways to control their speech, but there is still no cure. The King continued to stammer, but as we see in the film, Logue helped him to control his stammering when he was making formal speeches. I must say though that the last time I went to see a speech therapist, she didn’t encourage me to swear. But then… I’m not a king, you understand. And that really is the main point of this film. It was how Lionel Logue found a way to form a relationship with a client, whose upbringing had made him reluctant to discuss anything personal.

As stammerers, we are one ideally equipped to stand up and change so many misconceptions. But we need to try. “The King’s speech” will give stammerers and non-stammerers a kind of a permission to talk to each other. It will be the greatest opportunity, I’ve ever seen, for this often embarrassing subject to be discussed openly and on such a broad scale.

So for all our sakes, please grasp it with both hands, talk about it. But remember that the opportunity will only last for a short while. After that, there is a danger that stammering will slip back into being inaudible and invisible. We don’t want that to happen. So if you feel you’d like to help, please stay tuned. But in the meantime, I just like to say: “Thank you for listening”.
[21:40]

Answers
1. How many high profile stammerers have we had in the UK since George VI died in 1952?
(None)
2. How many decent films about stammerers have there been? (none)
3. How have stammerers been shown in films? (they have been shown as figures of fun)
4. What does The Kings Speech show people who don’t stammer? (it shows how life can be if you do)
5. Is the film historically accurate? (yes – it’s a fairly realistic reenactment)
6. What do we know about stammering now? (it’s a symptom of a condition in which the brain’s neural circuits for speech have not wired normally)
7. Was the stammer caused by something that happened during his childhood? (no – he was probably born with it)
8. How did his family and staff deal with George’s stammer? (they corrected him and punished him)
9. How did this make him feel? (very self conscious and tense about speaking)
10. With today’s knowledge, what is the best way to help people with stammers? (early intervention)
11. What did George VI’s therapist do that the speaker’s (interviewee’s) therapist didn’t do? (he encouraged him to swear – to say rude words like f*ck and sh*t)
12. What made George VI a difficult client? (his upbringing had made him reluctant to discuss anything personal)
13. What will The King’s Speech do for stammerers and non stammerers? What will The King’s Speech do for stammerers and non-stammerers? (it will give them permission to talk to each other about stammering – “for all our sakes, please grasp it with both hands, talk about it”)
14. What is the danger about the near future? (after a while, stammering will slip back into being inaudible and invisible – “please stay tuned”)

Here is some information about the video interview
n The King’s Speech, Colin Firth did an incredibly realistic job of conveying how it is to be stuck in a block with no control over your speech. No major film had ever done that before, and I’m sure it has been helpful in terms of creating greater awareness of something which is largely inaudible and invisible in our society.

But there is still a great deal of ignorance about why we stammer, and very inaccurate assumptions are made about our characters. We are not ideally equipped to stand up and change these misconceptions, but we need to try. The King’s Speech has given everyone – stammerers and non-stammerers – a kind of ‘permission’ to talk to each other about stammering. It has been the best opportunity, almost in living memory, for this often embarrassing subject to be discussed openly and on such a broad scale. So, for all of our sakes, please keep talking about it!

For an interview with Colin Firth about his role as the King, please go to www.stammering.org/colinfirth.html And for more information on The Monster Study, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_study

If you want to know more about the National Appeal for Change, or to make a donation, please go to www.stammering.org/change

If you want to talk about helping in some other way, please send a message to Leys Geddes through the speakingout2 channel on YouTube or by emailing chair@stammering.org

If you are in the UK, and want help with your speech, please ring the British Stammering Association helpline on 0845 603 2001 or visit www.stammering.org

The BSA is the national charity and is run by people who stammer, for the benefit of all those whose lives are affected by stammering.

If you live outside the UK, and want advice about stammering/stuttering – or simply want to learn more – you can still go to www.stammering.org or to any of these other leading sites: www.stutterisa.org (International Stuttering Association), www.stutteringhelp.org (USA), www.stutteringhomepage.org (USA) or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stammering.

If you like to see an adaptation of this video, spoken in Swedish, please go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB9TDLkovm4

C. Useful Vocabulary – Idioms with the words ‘mouth’ and ‘tongue’
I thought it would be appropriate to teach you some commonly used fixed expressions which feature these two parts of the body which are so important for speech. Here are the idioms with examples and definitions. All this for free? You lucky people!

“Me and my big mouth!”
-use this when you have said something you shouldn’t have said, like when you give away a secret by accident. “Oh, me and my big mouth!”

“to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth”
-this means to be born into a rich family. It is often used to complain about people who are born into a rich life.
“Prince William doesn’t know what it is like to work hard like normal people. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.”

“don’t look a gift horse in the mouth”
-use this to say that you should accept a gift without checking it for problems first. Don’t look for problems in the gift too much, just accept it. “I didn’t want to accept my uncle’s old car, but he told me not to look a gift horse in the mouth”

“live from hand to mouth’
-this is when someone lives on very little money – they spend the money they earn and can’t save anything. “There’s no way we can go on holiday this year, we are living from hand to mouth”

“melt in your mouth”
-use this to describe delicious food that is so soft and tender that it feels like it is melting in your mouth. “The steak here is so delicious, it just melts in your mouth”

“put your money where your mouth is”
-show that you really mean what you say, by doing it rather than just talking about it. “You’re always talking about running a marathon, so come on, put your money where your mouth is. Why don’t you run the London Marathon with me next year?”

“Keep your mouth shut! / Shut your mouth!”
-this means ‘shut up’ or ‘don’t way anything’. It’s a bit rude. “When the police arrive, just keep your mouth shut, all right?!”

“to leave a bad taste in your mouth”
-for food it means that it tastes disgusting and the bad taste stays in your mouth. We can also use it to describe a bad experience, which leaves us feeling bad afterwards. “The argument just left a bad taste in my mouth”

“Watch your mouth!”
-be careful what you say!

“by word of mouth”
-use this to say that information is transferred by people talking to each other. “Publicity for the film spread by word of mouth”

“to put words into someone’s mouth”
-this means to suggest that someone has said something which in fact they haven’t said. “I didn’t say that! You’re putting words into my mouth!”

“to bite your tongue”
-this means that you stop yourself saying something
“When he asked me about the missing biscuits, I just bit my tongue and kept quiet”

“has the cat got your tongue?”
-use this to challenge someone who is unable to say something, keeping quiet
“So, what about the missing biscuits then? Huh? What’s the matter? Cat got your tongue?”

“mother tongue”
-your first language
“English is not his mother tongue”

“on the tip of my tongue”
-this means you can’t quite remember the word – you can nearly remember it
“What’s his name? Errrmmmm…. wait, I can remember… oh! It’s on the tip of my tongue! Oh, no, I can’t remember”

So, that is it for this episode. There’s a lot of content here for you. I recommend you listen to this episode several times. Try to use the idioms and other words you have learned here. Use them in conversation, or just say a few sentences to yourself. Personalise the sentences. Use the idioms to talk about your own life and experience. This will help you learn it.

You could donate some money to me to help me with the podcast, but really I think it would be better to donate money to help people in Japan who are suffering from the terrible tsunami which struck last week. There are many many people who have no food, shelter or electricity. Search on google for your local charity organisation, or give money here http://www.redcross.org.uk/japantsunami/?approachcode=68816_googlePAD10JpTs&gclid=CNqNvd-70acCFdFX4QodMVXiDA .
You could save some lives.

Thanks for listening.

Luke

32. Doctor Who (with Lee Arnott)

12 Replies

This episode is all about Doctor Who. There are some announcements at the beginning of the episode, then an interview with an expert on Dr Who.

The interview begins at approximately 10.00 minutes into the episode.

Small Donate ButtonRight-click here to download this episode.

Transcript available below. Luke’s English Podcast is a free service for people who are learning English as a foreign language. Luke is a well qualified teacher of English with over 12 years’ experience in Japan, the UK and France. He speaks British English, and teaches at a language school in London, and now at a university in Paris. You can use this podcast to get exposure to native speakers using natural English. Learn phrasal verbs, idioms, useful expressions, linkers, etc. Find Luke on Facebook (search for Luke’s English Podcast) or Twitter (@EnglishPodcast). Cheers!

Some good advice for iPhone users (courtesy of a helpful listener from Russia, called Nikita Kolganov): Copy and paste the tapescript from a podcast into the ‘lyrics’ section of each podcast on your iPhone. To do this, first copy the text from this webpage. Then go into iTunes and ‘right click’ the podcast episode there. Then choose ‘Get Info’, then select ‘Lyrics’. You can add the transcript into the text box there, and then read while you listen to the podcast. Thanks Nick!

Here’s the tapescript for the interview with Lee, about Dr Who:

Luke: Right, if you imagine somebody who’s never heard of Dr Who before, right, how can you explain who he really is. So, so, if, what are the most important things that you should know about Dr Who if you’ve never heard of him before, basically.

Lee: Well, Dr Who is, err, a TV show that it’s main character, a character called The Doctor, who is in fact an alien, has a machine that can travel through time and space, which means that he is able to go anywhere in any planet, any point in the future, the past, whenever.

Luke: Erm, what’s the name of that machine?

Lee: It’s called The Tardis.

Luke : And can you just describe The Tardis? That’s like his spaceship, yeah? Can you describe The Tardis for us? Because in Britain here, everybody knows The Tardis, like, almost everybody knows it. It’s very familiar to us. It’s almost like an icon of British culture. But what is The Tardis? What does it look like?

Lee: Well, The Tardis looks like a 1960s police box, and in the days before mobile telephones and actually people having telephones in their houses, these blue police boxes were like an old phone box, and they also had a double function in that if a criminal caught a policeman [if a policeman caught a criminal] they would be locked up inside this police box, and they also had a phone, so they were a very common object in 1960s Britain, early 1960s Britain when Dr Who started.

Luke: So, it looks a bit like a red telephone box, but it’s blue, and it’s something the police use to make telephone calls. And they could use it to keep criminals in. They could lock a criminal in there if they needed to.

Lee: Exactly. It was a very everyday object which everybody would have known.

Luke: Ok, so everybody knows about what a police box is so…

Lee: But of course it’s not really just a police box because it’s actually bigger on the inside than on the outside.

Luke: Ok, so Dr Who’s spaceship is in the shape of a police box. It’s called The Tardis but it’s actually bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. Ok, right, fine. Um, actually, people these days often use the word Tardis to mean something that’s bigger on the inside than on the outside. Can you give me an example of how we might use the word Tardis to mean something else?

Lee: Well actually there’s quite a famous example when Tony Blair was Prime Minister, in one of the last interviews he did before he left the post, I think it was with The Guardian, the interviewer asked him what was 10 Downing Street like…

Luke: That’s the Prime Minister’s house.

Lee: And he said, oh it’s like The Tardis, and he didn’t need to say anything else but everybody would know that he means it looks smaller on the outside but it’s much bigger on the inside.

Luke: Right, ok. I’ve heard people say that, like, a woman’s handbag is like The Tardis, sometimes, because it looks like a small handbag, but you can actually keep lots and lots of things inside it…

Lee: And such is the power of the programme that even if you’ve never seen Dr Who in this country, you will know if somebody says “It’s like a Tardis”, you will know that it’s bigger on the inside than the outside.

Luke: Right, ok, so that’s what Tardis means to everybody now. OK, what are the other important things that we need to know about Dr Who?

Lee: Erm, well, we need to know the fact that the programme started in 1963, and that means that you get a very good representation of how British society evolved in a kind of televisual way. A record of the times, our changing attitudes to race, to women’s lib, to even things like joining of the common market in the early 70s…

Luke: What do you mean by women’s lib?

Lee: Well The Doctor, traditionally is always accompanied by a female companion, and this was specifically because the programme’s original remit was to entertain a family audience on Saturday afternoon.

Luke: It’s a family show

Lee: Yeah, it’s very much a family show. One that was designed to catch the fathers who’d been watching an afternoon of sport on a saturday, with family who watched, like a pop music programme… it was designed to keep everybody watching, and of course it was hugely successful when it started so it achieved its aim.

Luke: Ok. So, ok, so basically err, he always has a female companion. I think that Dr Who has also had, like, a robot companion as well, right?

Lee: He has, he has, and err, he had a robot companion in the late 70s but he actually… people have thought that it was because Star Wars came out, and C3PO and R2-D2 but actually Dr Who was a year before Star Wars, so…

Luke: Really? So before… everybody knows about Star Wars, they know about R2-D2 and C3P0, but Dr Who before Star Wars had K9. K9 was like a robot dog! (laughs)

Lee: Of course the most important thing to remember is that when the show first started in 1963, the guy who was playing The Doctor was a very old guy, and after 3 years playing the role, it became very obvious that he was ill and he couldn’t do it, and they were like “what are we going to do?”. So, they devised… because we didn’t know who this character was, or where he came from, in 1966 they changed the actor, but made it a part of his personality, and that allows… has allowed the programme to continue to this day nearly 50 years later.

Luke: OK, so this is another important thing about Dr Who, is that you have to know that… How many actors have played him now, actually?

Lee: Erm, well we’re now on number 10 and number 11 starts filming next month.

Luke: OK, erm, the interesting thing about Dr Who is that when Dr Who dies, he doesn’t die. He doesn’t die, instead he changes into a new form, so he becomes a new person, but it’s still Dr Who but he becomes a new person, and it’s like a really important event when Dr Who. It’s… to be honest it’s a way for them to change the actor, right? But in the show, Dr Who… one Dr Who dies and he changes into a new Dr Who, and it’s always like a really big event for the show, right? Erm, so it’s really just a way for them to continue the show. It’s a bit like James Bond in that sense.

Lee: Hmm, but I think it’s more believable than James Bond because its not supposed to be exactly the same character. So each Doctor, well each actor has been allowed to have his own, his own way of playing the part.

Luke: So, his own personality. So every time it’s like a new, different kind of Doctor with a different personality.

Lee: Even though it’s the same, we know it’s the same character behind it, but it’s like a new person to get used to and that keeps the show fresh and it’s kept it going all this time.

Luke: OK, so there have been 10 Doctors, and the 11th Doctor is coming very soon. Who do you think is the nation’s favourite Dr Who so far?

Lee: Well, for many years, everybody would have said immediately, Tom Baker, an actor who played the part from 1974 to 1981.

Luke: Tom Baker actually, err, the Tom Baker Dr Who is probably the most famous one until the most recent one. And he’s famous for having a long scarf, and he was in The Simpsons. He was in the American comedy show The Simpsons.

Lee: He was also in Family Guy …

Luke: He’s in Family Guy as well

Lee: Until Dr Who, because Dr Who was off the air, it stopped being made in 1989 until 2005 when it came back. And until 2005, everybody would have said Tom Baker was the Doctor, but as you’ve said in 2006 the current Doctor David Tenant has taken the programme to new heights of success that it never ever had in it’s original format.

Luke: So Dr Who, even before, erm, the latest Doctor, Dr Who was really really big and really successful, but it’s become even more successful with this new Doctor played by David Tenant, who’s like a great actor, Shakespearian actor

Lee; Yeah, he’s just done Hamlet, and they’re going to be filming Hamlet for television

Luke: It’s a great thing. Because David Tenant is so popular as Dr Who, now he’s playing Hamlet, it’s going to be shown on TV, millions of people in the UK are going to watch Hamlet, which is written by Shakespeare, so it’s a really good way of

Lee: And that kind of fits in with the original, the kind of format of Dr Who in that, because he’s able to go back in the past and meet people like Shakespeare and Agatha Christie, it inspires people to go out and learn more about… you know… the original brief of the show was that it had to go to the future and then the past. So not only would it educate the viewers in a very 1960s BBC way, but it would also entertain, and it would inspire people to go and learn about things

Luke: That’s what the BBC was all about. It was to educate, to entertain and to inform, right? Ok, actually I think I need to clarify just a little bit more about Dr Who just to make sure everybody understands who he is. Dr Who is a Timelord, and that means he’s a kind of alien. He’s not a human, he’s from another planet, but he came to Earth because he, he loves humans, right?

Lee: Yeah, but he doesn’t live on earth, he’s always… just Earth happens to be convenient because that’s where they can film on the cheap

Luke: So, he doesn’t live on earth, but he comes to earth quite a lot

Lee: but he can go anywhere, in time or space. But we have to remember that The Doctor, ok he’s the main character, but what really really made the programme successful and which we cannot not talk about are The Daleks.

Luke: Right, ok, so we’ve talked about, err, Dr Who’s spaceship, his companions, err K9, but another very important thing is to know the enemies that Dr Who has, and you just mentioned The Daleks, right? So who are Dr Who’s enemies? There’s probably, like, three maybe four most popular, most famous enemies

Lee: Well, The Daleks are, if you, again it’s like the word Tardis, if you say to somebody who’s never seen Dr Who in their life, they’ll know, if you say Dalek, they will know what you mean and may even do an impression of one by talking like this

Luke: Exterminate! Exterminate!

Lee: Exactly! Exterminate. So, I mean, Dr Who’s first story in 1963 was a bit of a dull… and it was set in caveman times. It’s very much introducing the characters. It was four weeks later, the introduction of these things called The Daleks, which just literally took the public imagination by storm. You can’t work out why. If you see them they look like a pepper-pot walking around. Maybe it’s the voice. There’s been lots of theories of why people just, why they’re so important to people, but whether they’re reseblent [reminiscent] of Nazis, because you remember the war had finished just 20 years before, you know. There’s just something about a Dalek, and again it’s just a proper cultural icon. So much so that in 1996 there was a survey to find out icons of British culture the public wanted put on stamps, and the first class stamp was The Dalek.

Luke: So there was a survey, and the British public voted The Dalek as the number 1 icon to put on a stamp! That’s even before the Queen, so they didn’t want the Queen’s head, they wanted a Dalek on there. So, just again to clarify a Dalek is like a robot…

Lee: It’s a robot but it’s got a creature inside it controlling it that hates anything … (laughter) …if you see them, it’s like “What is it?”, but there’s something about them. It’s a creature inside that controls them, and this creature wants to kill anything that is not like yourself [itself]. Now, I have to stress, the programme, although it sounds violent again is for a family audience, so y’know, the kids were watching, with their parents and although they were scary, it was a safe kind of fear because you could hide in Mum and Dad’s arms, you know, or hide behind the sofa, which is very much again the tradition of the…

Luke: These are other important things about Dr Who, is that it’s a family show, so so, erm, most people in the UK grew up as children watching Dr Who on a Saturday night. I watched it with my family…

Lee: I watched it with my Mum, my Mum watched it with her Mum, you know…

Luke: Everybody knows it, it’s like something really important about British culture. Erm, one of the things that everybody says about Dr Who is that because it’s quite scary, erm, you end up watching it from behind the sofa. So you can’t just sit in front of the TV and watch it. You have to hide behind the sofa, and sort of like, y’know, look over the top of the sofa to watch it because it’s so scary.

Lee: Now, you see, you’re lucky because when I was a child, our sofa was pushed against the wall. So I had to hide behind a cushion.

Luke: So you couldn’t hide behind the sofa.

Lee: Which is very very scary…

Luke: But that’s another expression, it’s another bit of erm, vocabulary that everybody knows now ‘to hide behind the sofa’, because of Dr Who. OK, so we’ve talked about The Daleks… now another thing about Dr Who is that it’s kind of funny, isn’t it?

Lee: Mmmm, it’s got a very British dry sense of humour, and partly because the programme has never had much money spent on it, so… rather than have lots of special effects you have to have a very good script that’s sharp, that’s funny. The Doctor is a character who never carries a weapon. He uses words, he uses his brains, he uses his intellect to get out of situations, so… and it has an, it it has a kind of humour that’s very British, but also, as you say very funny, you know, so…

Luke: I…

Lee: It doesn’t take itself too seriously

Luke: It’s not a serious show. It’s very much a kind of camp, funny kind of show. And also, one of the…

Lee: …and scary and exciting

Luke: That’s right, it manages to mix, like, comedy and erm, like, satire and fashion or something, and serious science fiction as well. It’s just great. Erm, what was I going to say? Oh yeah, err, one of the funny things about Dr Who is, like, the special effects.

Lee: Mmm, they were. In the old series, which as I said started in 1963, ended in 1989… famously, Dr Who never had any money, which means that there was no money for special effects, but you have to remember, the news series is different. It’s got amazing spe… award winning special effects. But you have to remember that the BBC as an institution in the 1960s and the 1970s was at the cutting edge, was at the front of this new technology, and all the stuff you see with green screen now is because of the stuff the BBC were doing with Dr Who in 1969 when colour television had just been invented, and you see that early experiments in yellow screen it was then, but you know this is why we have these special effects now.

Luke: So Dr Who innovated a lot of special effects.

Lee: Exactly. People like Ridley Scott was one of the designers…

Luke: Ridley Scott is now a famous director who’s directed films like Gladiator, but, and Ridley Scott worked on Doctor Who in the 60s. But I remember when I was younger when I watched Doctor Who on TV in the 80s, the special effects were quite funny because usually the monster was, a kind of man in a suit. It was basically a man in a suit. You know? In a bit… in a similar way to, in Japan, the way Godzilla was so popular. Godzilla when you watch the original movie, it’s obviously a man in a rubber suit.

Lee: Well I think the thing about 80s Doctor Who is, it’s very 80s. You know, 70s Doctor Who, 60s Doctor Who is, and to a certain extent it’s all very scary but there’s something about 80s Doctor Who which just looks over lit, the colours are really garish, and it’s just very 80s. Very much a product of its time. And maybe in a way that 60s and 70s Doctor Who was very much ahead of its time.

Luke: Ok, so Now though, Dr Who is very popular, more popular than it was before.

Lee: More popular than it’s ever been before. It’s the top rated drama on the BBC, it gets the highest ratings for a drama. The audience appreciation figures, which are a rating of how much the audience actually enjoys it are always in the lower 90% which for a drama which is very popular which is unheard of, umm. It’s always in the press because remember the newspapers have a 50 year history to draw back on and public interest in Dr Who at the moment has never ever been higher and now with David Tenant, the most, arguably the most popular Doctor ever, about to change at Christmas and New Year, then the future once again looks…

Luke: Great. So basically, umm, the important thing about Dr Who, if you’re a learner of English right, is it important to know about Dr Who? Why is it important for learners of English to know about something like Dr Who?

Lee: I wouldn’t say it was important but I would say it offers a very good insight into British culture, the British view of things, the British sense of humour, and also it’s just a great way to pass 50 minutes just lapping up British culture.

Luke: It’s just a great show, it’s very fun, very entertaining.

Lee: It’s very easy to watch. You don’t have to know everything about it. Each week there’s somewhere new, you know, so

Luke: It’s one of those things I guess, that … if a learner of English listens to two English people, often they don’t understand it because often the English people will talk about things that the learner of English doesn’t understand, and one of those things might be Dr Who. It’s kind of something that everybody knows about, something that people talk about quite a lot. For example, like, mentioning the Tardis or The Daleks

Lee: I think there was a great interview with, erm, when the Queen’s golden jubilee about 5 years ago, 6 years ??. there’s an interview with Prince Andrew and he said he had really happy memories of watching Dr Who with his Mum and Dad in the early 70s.

Luke: So even the royal family watch Dr Who

Lee: David Beckham gets the box sets for Christmas, delivered to his house. Everybody watches it.

Luke: OK, so there you go. Everybody is a fan of Dr Who. Is it possible to watch Dr Who in other countries?

Lee: Yes, it’s the BBC’s biggest export in terms of where it’s sold to, and it’s currently available in 42 different countries, you know. It has a regular audience of 165,000,000 viewers, so… everywhere from Saudi Arabia… it’s the number 1 export show in South Korea, so…

Luke: Really? So, a lot of South Korean people…

Lee: It even beats CSI

Luke: Even more popular than CSI? …in South Korea. So if you’re from South Korea and you’re listening to this, then send me a message if you’ve seen Dr Who, tell me what you think of it. Now, I think that they did show Dr Who in Japan, but I heard that nobody understood it at all. They didn’t get it, and erm, I think…

Lee: But they did, to be fair, they did show this back in the 1980s when they showed the last 3 years of the show and, quite frankly, unless you were a fan of Dr Who it probably would have been the weirdest thing that definitely may even have got a cult audience, but not a…

Luke: I think the late 80s Dr Who was probably the worst Dr Who. It’s terrible, right?

Lee: That’s a bone of argument I have to say

Luke: For me, after Peter Davidson, it wasn’t very interesting. I didn’t like it myself. I stopped watching it at that point.

Lee: Anyway, shall we end on a positive note?

Luke: Yeah. Umm, ahh, just a thing about in Japan. They even changed the name of Dr Who, they put it into katakana, that’s Japanese characters. And in Japan everybody knows Dr Who as Do-ku-ta-fhooo. Dokuta-fhuuu, which is kind of funny. Ok, so, right, are you looking forward to the new Doctor?

Lee: Yes, again, you know, the, having been a fan of Dr Who since I was 5 years old, errm… I’m still very young… ermm, I errr,… I love it when he changes. It’s so exciting, you never know what’s going to happen

Luke: Do you think this new guy is going to be a good Doctor?

Lee: I’m sure… because, they guy who’s now in charge of the show is one of the best writers of the last couple of years, so I’m sure it’s in very safe hands, and you know, I think it’s going to be great.

Luke: OK, great, so, erm… If you’re interested in Dr Who you can buy the box set, the DVDs on Amazon. You could probably watch some Dr Who clips on YouTube

Lee: Yeah, for real…

Luke: Erm, if you’re interested, you can watch it. But otherwise, just umm, errr I don’t know what I’m going to say now! I hope you enjoyed that conversation anyway. Thank you very much Lee.

Lee: Bye, thank you

Luke: Oh oh, one more thing. Why do you know so much about Dr Who?
Lee: As I said, because I’ve loved it since I was 5 years old, and erm, for me it’s just, I don’t know, I have a really strong emotional attachment to Dr Who, you know, he was always there… because he was such a constant character in my childhood and even in my adulthood.
Luke: You’re also an expert, aren’t you, on Dr Who
Lee: Yeah, but I have my limits… My house is not full of toy daleks of every description
Luke: Just a few… because you’re not a total geek or anything
Lee: No, I’m not. I haven’t got Dalek pajamas or… which are available!
Luke: If you’re wondering what to buy Lee for his birthday or Christmas
Lee: Dalek underpants or pajamas please
Luke: Dalek underpants or pajamas. I think they’re available on the internet
Lee: Marks and Spencer!
Luke: or Marks and Spencer, do they do them? Right, well I think on that note, err, I’ll end the conversation. Thanks very much Lee.
Lee: Thank you very much
Luke: OK

An interview with Matt Smith, the 11th Doctor:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zog-6SrGxE0&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00]

Language Analysis

The following language analysis was written by Richard Gallen, a fellow teacher at The London School of English. Richard has written analysis of part of the interview between me and Lee. Use this in order to get a detailed understanding of some of the useful language used in the interview. If you a teacher, you may be interested in using this language analysis as a way of adapting the podcast for teaching in the classroom. Thanks to Richard Gallen.

Lee and Luke explain Doctor Who – language for explaining and describing

Luke: Right, if you imagine somebody who’s never heard of Dr Who before, right, how can you explain who he really is. So, so, if, what are the most important things that you should know about Dr Who if you’ve never heard of him before, basically.

Lee: Well, Dr Who is, err, a TV show that it’s main character, a character called The Doctor, who is in fact an alien, has a machine that can travel through time and space, which means that he is able to go anywhere in any planet, any point in the future, the past, whenever.

Luke: Erm, what’s the name of that machine?

Lee: It’s called The Tardis.

Luke : And can you just describe The Tardis? That’s like his spaceship, yeah? Can you describe The Tardis for us? Because in Britain here, everybody knows The Tardis, like, almost everybody knows it. It’s very familiar to us. It’s almost like an icon of British culture. But what is The Tardis? What does it look like?

Lee: Well, The Tardis looks like a 1960s police box, and in the days before mobile telephones and actually people having telephones in their houses, these blue police boxes were like an old phone box, and they also had a double function in that if a criminal caught a policeman [if a policeman caught a criminal] they would be locked up inside this police box, and they also had a phone, so they were a very common object in 1960s Britain, early 1960s Britain when Dr Who started.

Extra information clauses

Describing a film or book can be a little difficult. It’s quite hard to keep people interested. That’s why when we introduce a character we sometimes say something interesting or exciting about them

a character called The Doctor, who is in fact an alien

..then there’s Princess Leia who is fact Luke’s sister

In 1988 she met this man called Greenlee, who was in fact the top CIA agent in Bolivia at the time.

In the examples above ‘who’ refers to the noun before it (The Doctor/Princess Leia/ this man called Greenlee). In the example below ‘which means that’ doen’t only refer to the noun before, it refers to the whole clause before:

It’s a machine that can travel through time and space, which means that he is able to go anywhere in any planet, any point in the future, the past, whenever

The most common verb after ‘which’ in extra information clauses is ‘means’ .It often says something about the result of an event

I slept through my alarm clock which meant that I had to run like crazy for the train

Gilardino scored a goal very late in the match which meant that Italy qualified for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.

In that..

When Lee was describing police boxes in England he said:

they had a double function in that if a policeman caught a criminal they would be locked up inside this police box

we use ‘in that’ when we think we could be more precise about something we’ve just said :  ‘in that’+example

He was quite reserved in many ways but he was also very sociable in that he liked entertaining,

It’s already old news (in that it was announced 6 hours ago…) but President Obama has been awarded the Nobel peace prize

The most common adjectives that come just before ‘in that’ are:

unique / unlucky / unusual/ fortunate

UNICEF is unique in that they are in countries, before, during and after emergency situations and humanitarian crises

Gordon Brown was unlucky, in that he became PM when we were on the edge of a disaster

She was fortunate, in that she had so much money she didn’t need to work

Like

‘Like’ is very common when we describe:

And can you just describe The TARDIS? That’s like his spaceship, yeah?

Luke is trying to explain what the TARDIS is…. But he can’t find exactly the right words. This is very common in conversation and when we describe things because it’s difficult to be precise all the time

As the examples below show, sometimes we are imprecise because we want to exaggerate. ‘Like’ is very common to introduce an exaggeration:

It’s [almost] like….. an icon of British culture

Because in Britain here, everybody knows The TARDIS, like, almost everybody knows it

Some other examples:

..and it was so good, it was like, one the best meals I ever had.

..and for a few months he was like, crazy about me, he was calling me and sending me flowers

Notice how we pause just after ‘like’ when we use it in this way

Other uses of  ‘like’

We use ‘like’ in questions to ask for a description:

But what is The TARDIS? What does it look like?

‘Like’ also means similar to:

These blue police boxes were like an old phone box

When ‘like’ means ‘similar to’ we use adverbs to make the comparison softer or stronger

a bit like /rather like /  (to soften)

just like /exactly / a lot like (to strengthen)

Horse surfing is a lot like surfing, just with horses

The currents in the sea were really strong and, for a minute, it is was almost like a huge monster was sucking me under

The following ‘sense’ verbs are common before ‘like’ when we use it in this way.

feel/ taste/ sound/ look/ smell

It felt like I had been waiting for hours but it was in fact only 20 minutes

He smelt like he hadn’t had a shower for weeks

She looks like she’s been crying