Who dunnit?
- Publication: Daily Mail
- Date: 1987-09-12
- Author: Andrew Beech
- Page: 19
- Language: English
Investigating the 'murder' of our oldest sci-fi series ...
THIS morning some 750 members of the Doctor Who Appreciation Society will sit down to their eighth annual convention at Imperial College, London.
There will be one topic exercising their minds: the return, after nine months. of the world's longest running science fantasy television series and the performance of the new Doctor, played by Sylvester McCoy.
This won't be a gathering of maladjusted weirdos wearing long scarves and floppy hats. I myself am a respectable 28-year-old solicitor. Barristers, chartered accountants, doctors, company directors and computer systems analysts are among my fellow-fans.
The pantomime antics now being witnessed by viewers on Monday evenings (BBC 1) are bound to trigger further debate among us upon a topic which Director of Programmes Michael Grade brought sharply into focus 2 1/2 years ago — the present state of Doctor Who.
For me, in spite of one or two moments when Sylvester McCoy showed the glimmerings of a believable performance, the sight of the Doctor grinning inanely, prancing and doing pratfalls over nonexistent obstacles, uttering lines such as 'absence makes the nose grow longer' and 'fit as a banjo' and generally making a cheap joke of the role, does not inspire confidence.
As co-ordinator of the DWAS, it is difficult to represent the views of a society which is divided. There are those (usually the under-20s) who enjoy the bright colours, the starry cast and the glitzy 'production values' which the show now embraces.
BUT, others believe that there is something radically wrong with a show which 24 years ago had something indefinable, but sufficiently attractive to capture the hearts and imagination of the British public.
I attribute its early success to the integrity with which the central character was played, coupled with an air of mystery and intrigue long since lost, and the drive of a production team not bound to a formula.
It was a true drama production and yet tried out new ideas and methods, pushing at the boundaries of state-of-the-art television.
And what do we have now? A newly regenerated bulioon surrounded by over-bright lights and tinsel sets, who mutters about sending the Tardis in for her 'bicentennial service'. Where did everything go so drastically wrong? 'Undoubtedly a major influence on Dr Who's decline was the film Star Wars — which brought a sudden change of emphasis away from the storyline (surely the lifeblood of the show) to the 'look' of the programme — despite the fact that Doctor Who can never hope to compete in terms of special effects.
We have now reached the stage where the introduction of 'guest stars' makes it impossible for the audience to suspend its disbelief any longer.
Last week the producer reportedly hailed the programme as 'the new Morecambe And Wise Show', saying: 'Everyone wants to do It' — and most of the fans despaired. What next — Angela Rippon as the dancing alien newscaster?
Fatal errors have also been made in the casting of the lead role. Successful though the Tom Baker Doctor was, It was a mistake to keep him in the role for seven years — he was a tough act to follow.
It was an even bigger mistake to attempt to replace him with a watered-down character played by 'Peter Davison — tagged 'the Wet Vet In Space'. In his time, the Doctor degenerated into a kind of juvenile public school Biggles.
Both Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy have continued a tendency to 'ham it up'.
A case in point is villainess Kate. O'Mara, who last played 'the Rani', an evil Time Lord nearly four years ago in austere makeup and utilitarian leather costume. This week she reappeared in full Dynasty hairdo, shoulder pads and lurex.
And why bring back the same production team after an 18 month break?
After eight years, no television producer can bring new enthusiasm and a fresh eye to Doctor Who. It was surely time for new blood.
Producer John Nathan-Turner has placed his own light entertainment interpretation upon the programme, resulting in a plethora of spangles, sequins and lurex. And yet the viewing figures show that this approach is not popular.
Whether through the shortsighted ineptitude of the planners or the excesses of the production team, Doctor Who (as a popular' television show) is slowly but surely being killed.
I SUSPECT that by scheduling the show against Coronation Street, the BBC may be hoping to kill It off for good after this season — or at most allow it to limp into its 25th Anniversary next year before the end.
Michael Grade said last week that 'the jury is still out on this show'.
He's thrown down the gauntlet but he's making a tragic mistake. In the light of its versatile format, most of us are convinced that a change of production team and a return to serious plotting and good casting could well see the programme on its way to a most satisfactory regeneration.
Otherwise, perhaps the BBC would consider selling the rights to Channel 4 ...
Caption: Who was Who (left to right, from top): William Hartnell, Patrick. Troughton, Jon Pertwee, Tom Baker, Peter Davison, Colin Baker
Disclaimer: These citations are created on-the-fly using primitive parsing techniques. You should double-check all citations. Send feedback to whovian@cuttingsarchive.org
- APA 6th ed.: Beech, Andrew (1987-09-12). Who dunnit?. Daily Mail p. 19.
- MLA 7th ed.: Beech, Andrew. "Who dunnit?." Daily Mail [add city] 1987-09-12, 19. Print.
- Chicago 15th ed.: Beech, Andrew. "Who dunnit?." Daily Mail, edition, sec., 1987-09-12
- Turabian: Beech, Andrew. "Who dunnit?." Daily Mail, 1987-09-12, section, 19 edition.
- Wikipedia (this article): <ref>{{cite news| title=Who dunnit? | url=http://cuttingsarchive.org/index.php/Who_dunnit%3F | work=Daily Mail | pages=19 | date=1987-09-12 | via=Doctor Who Cuttings Archive | accessdate=18 June 2024 }}</ref>
- Wikipedia (this page): <ref>{{cite web | title=Who dunnit? | url=http://cuttingsarchive.org/index.php/Who_dunnit%3F | work=Doctor Who Cuttings Archive | accessdate=18 June 2024}}</ref>
