ckuppe@spock.UUCP (Charles A. Kupperman '87 ) (12/17/85)
As the title suggests, I am about to defend the brilliant portrayal of Peter Davison as the Doctor. The title does not reflect the fact that I do not plan to impugn any critics of Davison in any way or indeed to indulge in gratuitous "Flame" remarks. To judge Davison by the quality of his adventures and scripts is silly. All the Doctors have had brilliant as well as horrendous stories, and Tom Baker never "saved" a story: He only stole them. This is not necessarily bad: Invasion of Time revolves around Baker's performance. It is also a hastily written story to fill in for one that fell through. (According to Producer Graham Williams, it took them 15 minutes to think of the idea, and a week without sleep to write the script.) Davison had many constraints on his performance. He could, under no conditions, behave anything like Baker would have done. This is made obvious in Castrovalva, where all his predecessors except for Baker are represented in Davison's madness. He could also not change the scripts, which often saw the Doctor as a secondary or even a minor character, and which betrayed a singular lack of interest in the Doctor. (At Panopticon VI, Davison said in all his time, he was only allowed to change one scene: the start of Time Flight, which in its original form was inappropriate.) This is vastly different from the Baker era, in which Baker, Liz Sladen, Ian Marter, and Lalla Ward have all confessed they vastly rewrote scripts. In my opinion, Davison was, from an acting standpoint, impeccable. He took a character whose possibilities had been stretched to an extreme by Tom Baker, and made the Doctor distinctively his own. The Doctor under Davison developed from story one until story 20, and never stopped growing and changing. Watching all the Davison stories back-to-back (I've come close, but never quite done it.), there is a sense of progression and growth to the character. Unlike Baker, Davison never fully allows his performance to stagnate. Also unlike Baker, Davison poured all his acting ability into the part. Baker himself said on several occasions that the role of the Doctor was "not an acting part", and that the "job of the actor is to continually surprise the audience." In other words, he never approached the Doctor as a real, changing, growing character, because the Doctor, as a "hero", could not change, and in fact was not realistic. Baker's approach works better than Davison's, because the show demands a hero who is "larger-than-life" and unpredictable. Davison, a superior actor, was bound to approach the part in a way befitting an actor, from the standpoint of building up the character until the actor can become the character. He developed mannerisms, expressions, hand gestures, and posture for the character that were completely unlike his own. And he did it in a flawless fashion, so that you can see the charcter develop right up to Androzani. I will always maintain that Davison was a better actor than Baker, at least in this role, but Baker was the better Doctor. (Having seen Baker in other roles, I can also testify that he's quite capable of a stunning performance, too.) Davison will never be recognised for his acting skills until fans view the Doctor objectively, and he will never be my favorite Doctor, but I will always enjoy his stories and his fine performance. _____ "Of course I can. And kindly refrain from adressing me as `Doc'!" --Five Doctors. (By the way, I think I should explain that whole mess. Five Doctors WAS shown un-cut in England, and it ran to just about 91.5 minutes. So when it was shown over here, earlier on, they edited out a few unimportant scenes to make it 90 minutes exactly. In Britain, they don't care for that sort of thing.) ----- By the way, recent quotes: "Three of 'em! I didn't know when I was well off!" comes from Three Doctors. "I know a computer when I talk to one." comes from Six Doctors. And here's a couple you'll have trouble with: Doctor: I don't know much about art, but I know what I like. and K9: Cannot ascertain, Master. Doctor: You never did f***ing know, did you?
percus@acf4.UUCP (Allon G. Percus) (12/21/85)
* FLAME ON * > To judge Davison by the quality of his adventures and scripts is > silly. All the Doctors have had brilliant as well as horrendous > stories, and Tom Baker never "saved" a story: He only stole them. I think your primary error is thinking that Davison as an actor is regarded by most with the same dislike as Davison as The Doctor. I doubt anyone (at least anyone on the net) would go so far as to think that the poor qualities of many of the Davison stories reflect on Davison's "poor acting." Also, you would never know if Tom Baker saved a story. For all I know, some the best Baker stories may have been terrible to start with, but were extensively rewritten by Baker until they were good (for example, most of "City of Death" was written by Tom Baker. I wonder how it would have been in the Douglas Adams original version -- also, "Shada" was basically all written by Tom Baker). > ...[Davison] could also not change > the scripts, which often saw the Doctor as a secondary or even a minor > character, and which betrayed a singular lack of interest in the Doctor. > (At Panopticon VI, Davison said in all his time, he was only allowed to > change one scene: the start of Time Flight, which in its original form > was inappropriate.) I'd say that this was Davison's fault. Contrast this to when Tom Baker was working under John Nathan-Turner. Baker wasn't "allowed" to change any scritpts either (such was JN-T's way of "working"), but he did anyway, through the use of threats if necessary. Davison could have similarly said "You have a choice: either I extensively change this, or I do not renew my contract for next season," and then compromised half-way at partially changing some things. > ...This is vastly different from the Baker era, in which > Baker, Liz Sladen, Ian Marter, and Lalla Ward have all confessed they > vastly rewrote scripts. Quite true, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. > In my opinion, Davison was, from an acting standpoint, impeccable. I do not think that this can even be debated. > I will always maintain that Davison was a better actor than > Baker, at least in this role, but Baker was the better Doctor. Same here. > ...(Having > seen Baker in other roles, I can also testify that he's quite capable of > a stunning performance, too.) Well, that's debateable, especially in The Hound of the Baskervilles. * FLAME OFF * . ------- |-----| A. G. Percus |II II| (ARPA) percus@acf4 |II II| (NYU) percus.acf4 |II II| (UUCP) ...{allegra!ihnp4!seismo}!cmcl2!acf4!percus |II II| ------- "These lords of yours -- how long have they ruled over you?" "Forever." "Really -- as long as that. Well, that's a long time..."
trudel@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Jonathan D.) (12/22/85)
> > And here's a couple you'll have trouble with: > > Doctor: I don't know much about art, but I know what I like. > Spoken to Romana II, in City of Death. I loved John Cleese's cameo too. -- -- Jonathan D. Trudel -- arpa: trudel@blue.rutgers.edu uucp:{seismo,allegra,ihnp4}!topaz!blue!trudel Why, Crusher! It's good to see you!
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (12/23/85)
"I don't know much about art, but I know what I like"
is from "The Two Doctors", and after the word "art", Colin
Baker peers down Peri's cleavage.
(That fact initially pointed out to me by a friend who has had that happen
to her more often than she cares to remember!
--
James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa
"Getting a bit rough, is it?"
"Remain silent, or you will die" Who said them, what story?