Indeed, before that, it had been really bothering me how aggressively English the people in the Cafe were, but they played it off with a TARDIS translation joke.
Oh no nothing of the sort. Van Gogh was Dutch, but Tony Curran is Scottish. Van Gogh in the story therefore speaking with a Scottish accent. The idea being that the TARDIS is "translating" his Dutch into a Scottish accent, and he upon hearing Amy's Scottish accent (similar to his) therefore assumed she was Dutch. Since Amy is not Dutch and didn't "get it", she said "no". Rather than wanting to have to explain the whole thing to Van Gogh, the Doctor decided to keep it simple and said "yes".
It was interesting to see the posters burnt off the Tardis when it traveled through time. Yet Jack didn't get burnt to a crisp when he jumped onto the Tardis in "Utopia".
The actor playing Van Gogh was Scottish, Amy is Scottish, it was a joke that they both sounded the same so he assumed she was from the same place as him... at least that's how I took it.
Paper burns easier than Jack, remember he went into that radiation room that would vaporize normal people. Jack is unique, surely by now you should know why.
Yep. It's a bit of a call-back to "The Fires of Pompeii," in which Donna's attempts to speak in Latin are translated by the TARDIS into the language of the ancient Celts, causing the Romans of Pomepii to believe that Donna was Celtic.
Well, I've rewatched it and there is still no explanation given for Van Gogh being pant-less outside the church. Nothing like 'I prefer to paint with my pants off' or anything. Given this, one must assume that it is either sloppy editing of some longer scene since annexed, or that it is one of the oddest timed bit of hanky panky ever seen in Doctor Who. I mean, in the middle of stalking a huge, dangerous, alien creature, it's like the moment the Doctor leaves them on their own (to confront the monster in the church) Amy must have said to Vincent, 'Quick! He's gone. Get your pants off!' It's just odd and incongruous in an otherwise sensical story..
They weren't his pants. He was wearing brown pants; that article of clothing was blue. If you look at the scene where they're walking down the road to the church, you can see it and his art case strapped to the chair with a belt. It looks like an extra shirt - an art smock maybe?
Are you certain? And if they weren't his pants, whose were they? Why does he pick them up in the same manner as if he was about to put them on? Why is it that he is delayed getting to the church, as if he had stopped to get dressed first? ETA - You know, I think you may be right. Looking at a vidcap of one scene I can see the blue (looks like denim) clothing slung over the chair Vincent is sitting on. And that was taken in the daylight, so either he had his pants off for an awful long time (which I think is contradicted by other shots of Vincent in that sequence) or it is another article of clothing or something.
Yes, I just rewatched those parts. At 23:38 or so you can see the blue item belted to his chair. Watch them walking down the road, around 22:16, you can clearly see he's wearing brown pants (might be pin stripes?). Why are you convinced they're pants? The belt you see was used to strap stuff to his chair. No idea what took him so long - maybe Amy's a faster runner?
It was the way he picked them up that made me think they were pants. Thanks for setting me straight though, I was thoroughly confused about that
No problem! Yeah, painting sans pants would be a tad odd, especially considering it was so cold you could see their breath!
Ahem: this is a British series, and Amy is British: if she were to say 'Quick! He's gone. Get your pants off!', she wouldn't be talking about the long things that stretch from the waist to the ankles (ie, trousers), she'd mean the shorter things worn underneath them around the pelvis... Cue fanboy theories!