Airdate: January 10, 1970Jon Pertwee, Caroline John
Written by Robert Holmes
Produced by Derek Sherwin
Directed by Derek Martinus
We've talked before about what defines a "companion". This is an issue that crops up frequently among fans, particularly with reference to the UNIT era that we have now begun. There is no generally agreed upon definitional test. Individual fans have their own ideas about what it means to be a companion, and therefore which characters qualify, but any test that is straightforward enough to be useful will also produce results that are difficult to accept. The rule of thumb that I use is simple: any character that travels with the Doctor, in the TARDIS, from one story to the next. This is a very simple rule to apply, but it omits Liz Shaw. She's only in this season, and the TARDIS isn't working. She never travels in the TARDIS on television. So, according to my rule, she's not a companion. But she obviously is.
Many fans consider the Brigadier to be a companion. I don't, which is why I haven't included the name Nicholas Courtney up there under the airdate. Many fans feel that the Brigadier deserves to be a companion because of his importance as a character, but I think that's the wrong way of looking at it. The companion has a very specific relationship to the Doctor. The relationship that the Doctor and the Brigadier have is certainly very special, but it's not a companion relationship. It's entirely distinct.
This episode introduces a new story thread and a couple of new characters. Because the first episode had to focus so much time on the Doctor, which continues here, the development of the actual story is lagging far behind where it would normally be. The introduction of the plastics factory, along with the characters of Hibbert and Ransome, would have happened in Episode 1 in any other story. The script is basically keeping the story puttering along just long enough for the Doctor to catch up. And that's fine, although it's a little weird to end an episode on a threat to a character we've only just met.
The Doctor does get more to do in this episode, and while most of it is unconnected to the story, it's marvelous. He steals an outfit, steals a car, pushes his way into UNIT HQ through sheer force of personality, and then charms Liz almost instantly. Incidentally, Jon Pertwee was the first actor to offer himself for the role, and he was at the time the most well-known actor to take on the part. But he was known mainly for comedy. This role was something very different for Pertwee. The producers basically wanted him to play himself, which wasn't something he'd ever really done before1. We get little more than a brief sample of the new Doctor in this episode, but he manages to make quite an impression. Although the Brigadier may be carrying this story thus far, there's no question who the star is.
1 Many people accuse actors of "playing themselves" as a way of insinuating that they aren't really very good. These people don't know what they're talking about. Acting isn't always about creating a character distinct from yourself. It's also about portraying a character believably in fictional situations. When you watch this episode, Jon Pertwee doesn't look like he's playing around in front of television cameras. Playing yourself still means that you have to respond to fictional situations as though you believed that they were real. That's acting.
4 comments:
Poppycock! Actors don't get a reputation for playing themselves because they mold one or two characters around their own personality. People talk about actors "playing themself" because over the course of a larger number of works they don't so much disapear into a role as make the role themself but with some minor accent or flare put on.
Pertwee may have modeled his Doctor on himself, but based on what you say here it sounds like most of his other roles were very different.
None of this is to say that it can't be enjoyable watching an actor play themself. The only role I can think of where Jack Black wasn't playing himself is in King Kong, which is probably the role in which I enjoyed him least. But just because I enjoy the "Jack Black" character, that doesn't mean I think he's a gifted actor. He is, however, a gifted entertainer.
You're talking about range. That's just a part of acting, and not a particularly important part. As with singing. Jack Black is a gifted actor, even if he doesn't have great range, because he's always believable. Look at School of Rock. His character goes through a very strong arc, where his attitude towards those kids changes dramatically, and he navigates those changes deftly. That's what acting is, and he does it well. You or I couldn't do that, even with characters written specifically for us.
If you're opening the analogy door, let me push Mr. Cohen into the room. His singing voice may be the antithesis of range, but he is an acclaimed and beloved singer, and has been for decades. He may not be good in a classical sense, but he is certainly a good pop/rock singer.
Good example. I think it's fair to say that, all else being equal, an actor with a better range is a better actor. But the key phrase there is "all else being equal". People like Jack Black, Woody Allen, and Tom Baker are good actors because they are convincing in the roles they take on, no matter that those roles don't demonstrate much in the way of range.
Post a Comment