![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Smith & Pertwee & Shakespeare
WD (non reaction post) lj user="neadods"> a href="http://neadods.livejournal.com/968506.html">talks about Matt Smith compared to previous actors playing the Doctor and the importance of Shakespeare (feel free to edit link text)
This is the non-spoiler Doctor Who post, wherein I expand on a conversation I just had with my roommate M about Smith as compared to other actors playing the Doctor.
If there's one thing that RTD introduced into the Whoniverse, it's major continuing angst. The Doctor is suddenly the last of his kind. Not only that, he's the one who committed the genocide, and he did it to (unsuccessfully, as we all find out) end a war.
Having turned a character once described as a "cosmic hobo" into this tragic figure, RTD then went out and hired a couple of Shakespearean actors to play him. And that was, in retrospect, absolutely key to their performance. Shakespeare's plays are stuffed to the gills with scenes where a character starts out intending to do X and ends up agreeing to do Y: "Richard you killed my husband, you monster... okay, I'll marry you." "But I'm loyal to the king of Scotland!... sure, I'll whack him, honey, anything you say." "I'll revenge my father's death... but not right now where I could do it easily, because there's still 2 hours of play left to go." "I love you more than a brother and your company is all I could ask for the rest of my life... but I'm totally ready to kill you to get that hot chick you just saw." "You just totally humiliated the hell out of me and took the one thing I said I'd never give you... let's have coffee and laugh about it." (Bonus points if you can name all the plays.)
There isn't a play where Shakespearean actors don't have to sell that whiplash with complete gravitas. And with that background, it becomes quite easy to sell a character who can flick from childlike enjoyment to worldshattering fury on a dime, as Eccleton and Tennant both did.
And then Matt Smith was hired. A lot of people have focused on his age as a problem, but I've been disappointed more by his lack of experience.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
wendymr said she felt that watching him was like watching a teenager play Hamlet, and in retrospect, I think that's almost EXACTLY the problem: he doesn't have the specific acting experience of trying to sell characters who encompass that wide a range of emotion.
I felt a lot better about his performance tonight - that's as close to a spoiler as this post is going to get - but M didn't. She's just not picking up the vibe of someone who is centuries old.
But she's also not familiar with any Doctor before Eight. So I agree with her about not feeling the weight of centuries in Smith's performance, but y'know what? I didn't feel that for many of the previous Doctors either. Yes, I know they've all done Shakespeare as well, but before 2005 they weren't being asked to be both the man who can say "What's the fun of being grownup if you can't act childishly" *and* sell the concept of being the Lonely God of Fire and Ice and Rage. The closest any of them got to that was Sylvester McCoy, who got the personal whiplash of being hired to be the clown and ending up as the guy who could do a Xanatos Gambit better than Xanatos.
The others weren't asked to be that. So while Smith isn't necessarily in the mold of Eccleston and Tennant, but he's a pretty good fit with Pertwee, Davison, and C Baker, all of whom talked about centuries but didn't act like it. Especially Pertwee. Exiled, time- and planet-bound Three had plenty of grief and anger of his own, but it came out like Smith's - shouting and stroppiness.
So... Smith!=Eccleston or Tennant, but Smith=Pertwee. It's a bit of a pity for those of us wanting another Eccleston or Tennant, but now I've seen that in him, he's fitting more into the role of the Doctor for me.
And to end on a shallow note, Jon Pertwee's companions also all ran around in micromini skirts...
This is the non-spoiler Doctor Who post, wherein I expand on a conversation I just had with my roommate M about Smith as compared to other actors playing the Doctor.
If there's one thing that RTD introduced into the Whoniverse, it's major continuing angst. The Doctor is suddenly the last of his kind. Not only that, he's the one who committed the genocide, and he did it to (unsuccessfully, as we all find out) end a war.
Having turned a character once described as a "cosmic hobo" into this tragic figure, RTD then went out and hired a couple of Shakespearean actors to play him. And that was, in retrospect, absolutely key to their performance. Shakespeare's plays are stuffed to the gills with scenes where a character starts out intending to do X and ends up agreeing to do Y: "Richard you killed my husband, you monster... okay, I'll marry you." "But I'm loyal to the king of Scotland!... sure, I'll whack him, honey, anything you say." "I'll revenge my father's death... but not right now where I could do it easily, because there's still 2 hours of play left to go." "I love you more than a brother and your company is all I could ask for the rest of my life... but I'm totally ready to kill you to get that hot chick you just saw." "You just totally humiliated the hell out of me and took the one thing I said I'd never give you... let's have coffee and laugh about it." (Bonus points if you can name all the plays.)
There isn't a play where Shakespearean actors don't have to sell that whiplash with complete gravitas. And with that background, it becomes quite easy to sell a character who can flick from childlike enjoyment to worldshattering fury on a dime, as Eccleton and Tennant both did.
And then Matt Smith was hired. A lot of people have focused on his age as a problem, but I've been disappointed more by his lack of experience.
wendymr said she felt that watching him was like watching a teenager play Hamlet, and in retrospect, I think that's almost EXACTLY the problem: he doesn't have the specific acting experience of trying to sell characters who encompass that wide a range of emotion.I felt a lot better about his performance tonight - that's as close to a spoiler as this post is going to get - but M didn't. She's just not picking up the vibe of someone who is centuries old.
But she's also not familiar with any Doctor before Eight. So I agree with her about not feeling the weight of centuries in Smith's performance, but y'know what? I didn't feel that for many of the previous Doctors either. Yes, I know they've all done Shakespeare as well, but before 2005 they weren't being asked to be both the man who can say "What's the fun of being grownup if you can't act childishly" *and* sell the concept of being the Lonely God of Fire and Ice and Rage. The closest any of them got to that was Sylvester McCoy, who got the personal whiplash of being hired to be the clown and ending up as the guy who could do a Xanatos Gambit better than Xanatos.
The others weren't asked to be that. So while Smith isn't necessarily in the mold of Eccleston and Tennant, but he's a pretty good fit with Pertwee, Davison, and C Baker, all of whom talked about centuries but didn't act like it. Especially Pertwee. Exiled, time- and planet-bound Three had plenty of grief and anger of his own, but it came out like Smith's - shouting and stroppiness.
So... Smith!=Eccleston or Tennant, but Smith=Pertwee. It's a bit of a pity for those of us wanting another Eccleston or Tennant, but now I've seen that in him, he's fitting more into the role of the Doctor for me.
And to end on a shallow note, Jon Pertwee's companions also all ran around in micromini skirts...
no subject
We got awfully close with little Amy, didn't we? :)
Whether that's direction (or lack thereof) or inexperience, I'm not sure.
There's been a lot of speculation that there's a longer story being told underneath and All Will Make Sense In The End. Which, okay fine - but you've got to hold us until the end!
no subject
And what you say about keeping us with the Doctor/Moff until the end of the season is spot on. I've said this somewhere before, but I want to like what I'm seeing now, not think, at the end of the series "oh, I get it - and of course, I like it so much better now!"
Most shows don't have that luxury, and if statistics are to believed, nor does DW. By which I mean, a high proportion of the viewing figures is made up of "casual" viewers rather than people like us who make an appointment to watch each week (despite the Beeb's continually cavalier approach to the scheduling). So far, they've been lucky in that there's been a massive amount of publicity - way more than back in 2005 for CE or when DT took over, so people are still tuning in to see what the fuss is about. But if those people don't get a good story or understand what the story is, then they're going to switch off pretty quickly. I confess I'm that way with most shows - if it doesn't grab me within the first 15-20 minutes, it loses me. That's nothing to do with a poor attention span, it's that I just don't have the time. I'm sure I've managed to miss out on some good programmes as a result, but I've probably given some of them more of a chance than the "average" viewer.
But I admit, I've started to wonder whether, if I wasn't so fond of DW, I would have kept watching after TBB, which I found to be rather a disappointment.
no subject
She did just drip with gravitas, didn't she? One of those kids that're 7 going on 37.
I've been wondering that about the casual viewers. Moffat's playing a rather dangerous game. But he's also got a set time limit - I think people will give 13 hours to something they wouldn't give 22 hours - and I think he's throwing in things like "Look! Angels!" "Look, the Doctor's snogging Amy!" "Look, daleks in Allied uniform!" to keep the casual viewers intrigued enough to watch the shiny and not worry about a deeper story.