I'd been vaguely miffed that
a cartoon show I liked had been taken off for this new programme, but I was
looking forward to it all the same. I'd
loved the Pathfinders series ITV had put on over the previous couple of
years (Pathfinders into Space, Pathfinders to Mars, Pathfinders to Venus)
and was hoping it would be as good. I
was pretty much hooked by the time the unearthly title music had faded away.
Doctor Who quickly became my favourite programme, though I can't
actually claim to have watched every single episode from the Sixties. There was no recording in those days, no
iPlayer, no endless repeats on BBC3 (no BBC3, or even BBC2 at first) and
sometimes I had to be out at Saturday teatime — usually for a treat, though it
tended to be a close-run thing whether the treat was worth it.
Still, I saw probably 95% of
the episodes, many now lost: the first sight of the Dalek and the Cybermen (not
to mention the recently returned Great Intelligence and Ice-Warriors), the
comings and goings of companions, and the Doctor's first regeneration. It's difficult to pick out a high point, but
I think it might be the amazing (and largely lost) twelve-parter The Daleks
Master Plan, memorable among other things for killing off two companions.
Not that I knew it as The
Daleks Master Plan at the time. For
the first three years, only episode titles were ever given, and the stories
were, Friends-style, The One With the Daleks Invading Earth or The
One With the Voords. This was The
One With the Time Destructor.
Whatever it was called, though, I loved it. I've seen the surviving episodes and reconstructions of the lost
ones since, and as far as it's possible to tell it still holds up well.
Not all the stories from the
Sixties have survived as well in reputation, but my experience of them was a
bit different from people discovering them now. Back then, they were slick and beautifully made, with totally
convincing sets and effects. I'm sure
they've been tampered with since — the same as the way that, when puppet shows
like Thunderbirds were shown back then, the strings were totally
invisible and have only been added on modern copies.
Of course, nothing's really
good or bad except in reference to its own time and context. One story that has a poor reputation among
fans is The Web Planet (aka The One With the Zarbi) but my
experience of it was very different. To
an eleven-year-old watching it in the Sixties, it was absolutely awesome, and
the story was one I remembered as a high point. Even from a twenty-first-century perspective, I think it's a much
better story than it's given credit for, although it does have serious holes in
it. Mainly to do with the Optera.
Another reason for negative
views of some of these stories today is that most people now experience them by
getting the DVD and watching straight through, or at most in two chunks for the
longer stories. They were never
designed to be seen that way, and watching them in twenty-five-minute doses a
week apart played up the excitement and tension.
What Doctor Who mostly did
in the 60s was to play to its strengths.
An excellent example of the this is The Dead Planet, episode one
of The Daleks. It finishes with
the iconic shot of the view down the Dalek eyestalk of Barbara cowering away in
terror, but the episode as a whole consists of the four regular characters
wandering around cardboard sets, handling awful props and talking a lot. And it's an absolute master-class in how to
build up tension with few resources.
I'm certainly not advocating making programmes exactly like that now,
but I think it might not be a bad thing, in the days of effects-led
storytelling, for the makers to take a step back and relearn some of the
basics.
The Sixties version of
Doctor Who was my childhood, and nothing can compete with childhood memories,
but I continued to watch through the Seventies. The images and the feelings they generated didn't stick so firmly
in my memory in this era (I was busy growing up, going to university, getting a
job and all the things associated with those processes) and when I started
rewatching them I often found I'd totally forgotten excellent stories, but I
watched faithfully throughout the Pertwee and Baker eras.
A few things stick in my
memory. I recall, in late 1975, while Pyramids
of Mars was on, I was taking a course in Greek philosophy at
university. The lecturer was explaining
one philosopher's attempt to "Platonise" Egyptian mythology and gave
a brief account of the murder of Osiris by Set, or Sutekh — then gave a slight
laugh and added, "Currently appearing on Doctor Who."
The Eighties were when I
lost touch with the show. There were a
number of reasons for this, not least that I didn't have a TV for part of the
decade. Anyway, when they messed around
with the schedules and put it on during a weekday evening, I wasn't usually in
at the time.
In any case, I felt less
motivated to make an effort. I felt Tom
Baker's last couple of series were noticeably slipping (a view I still hold,
with certain honourable exceptions like City of Death and Logopolis);
at the time, I didn't much like Peter Davison's Doctor (though I've revised my
opinion there); and I wasn't very impressed with the current crop of
companions.
In any case, I stopped
watching, apart from an occasional catch-up that wasn't enough to get back into
it. I've now acquainted myself with
Eighties Doctor Who, and my feeling now is that it was a very uneven period,
but with plenty well worth watching and occasionally as good as any era. I personally think that the very last
classic series, in 1989, was probably the best since the high days of Tom
Baker.
That was later, though. I still had fond memories of the old
stories, and I watched them on the rare occasions they were reshown, but
nothing much more. As I discussed in a previous piece, I'm not actually very good at "being a fan", and I've
never really been into tie-ins, conventions or merchandise for anything, so I
didn't have anything much to keep up with.
I watched the 1996 movie and felt (as I still do) that McGann and McCoy
were brilliant, but overall it was a disappointment.
Then the channel UK Gold
started running the classics (or maybe they'd been running them and that was
when I got the channel — I can't remember).
Anyway, I watched loads of stories and taped quite a few, and for a while
I just watched those ones over and over, before I eventually discovered the
joys of cheap DVDs being sold online.
As of now, I have most of the stories and can vary my Who-watching a
good deal more.
In the meantime, of course,
the show was rebooted in 2005. I wasn't
sure what to expect, after the experience of the movie, but I loved it. I have some quibbles, but they're more to do
with how TV is generally made today rather than specific to Doctor Who — the
tendency to be led by effects and action, as against the intelligent storytelling
of the past (though Doctor Who's better than most at blending them), overuse
(for me) of music, and an over-reliance on story arcs.
Nevertheless, I think
Russell T. Davies, Stephen Moffett and the rest have done a wonderful job of
updating the show without losing what always made it special — the way it
balances fun and gravitas, action and intellect, scary monsters and social
relevance. Saturday's Fiftieth
Anniversary Special, which had a really hard job living up to its hype, blew me
away, managing to be at the same time a brilliant story and a fan's wet-dream
of reappearances, in-references and in-jokes (they even got a reference in to
the notorious UNIT dating controversy).
And the ending opened up a whole new vista of possibilities for the next
fifty years.
So where now? Although I'll be sorry to see the end of
Matt Smith, who's become one of my favourite Doctors, I'll be fascinated to see
what Peter Capaldi makes of the role. For
companions, I love Clara, but I hope when she does go they'll be more
adventurous. Although the string of
primary companions we've had since 2005 have all been distinct and interesting
characters, they've essentially all (or mostly) been twenty-something
contemporary women. I'd like to see an
occasional one who isn't — someone from the past or future, or from another
planet. Maybe an alien.
Similarly, I'd love to see
more variation in destinations for the TARDIS, particularly more historical
settings that aren't nineteenth or twentieth century (seriously, the 1980s as historical?)
and more well-realised planets. Not
just desolate planets with crashed spaceships, or barren rocks that aren't
being pulled into black holes (much as I loved those stories) but living,
complexly populated planets. The
twenty-first-century equivalents of Skaro, Marinus, Peladon, Tara or Androzani.
Whether or not they take my
advice (and why wouldn't they? I keep telling myself till I believe it) I'll
keep watching. Maybe, if medical
science keeps the pace it promises to, I'll just about still be around to watch
the hundredth anniversary on the care home TV.
It's cool seeing the perspective of someone who grew up with the series.
ReplyDeleteI'm a few years younger than you (and what a difference a few years make in terms of having many coherent memories of the 60s). I was born a week and a half after the first episode of Dr. Who, and in the US to boot, so my earliest TV memories are of Sesame Street and the Apollo Moon Landing (but of course, I don't remember the Silence telling us to kill them :D ). I discovered the series in the 80s when the local public TV station was showing the Tom Baker episodes over and over on Saturdays. In spite of the variable quality and (by 1980s standards of someone who also watched Star Trek Nex gen) bargain basement special effects, I loved the show. When they started showing the Davidson episodes, I was skeptical, because the notion of a show where the main actor changes was so foreign, but I already loved him from All Creatures, so I carried on. And eventually, the PBS stations started showing the older episodes too. I lost track of the show in the 1990s but also have enjoyed the reboot. Eccleston took some getting used to for me, and by the time I got used to his more serious Doctor, we were on to Tennant.
I hope the show continues to prosper and Capaldi is able to fill the shoes of his predecessors.
Yes, the whole thing was done on a shoestring throughout the classic run. I've heard, for instance, that the entire budget for creating the Daleks was £60. That was worth a lot more than it is now, of course, but still only about £1,000, or $1,500.
DeleteClassic Star Trek, which I do remember from my Childhood, also had pretty inexpensive effects. For example, I believe that little device McCoy used to scan his patients was a salt cellar from a thrift shop, and Nomad doubled as the Romulan Cloaking Device. In those days, though, these kinds of things just didn't matter. Better special effects are cool, but one down side is that they can come to drive the story. Just because you can do something visually, doesn't mean every story has to have it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's just me getting older, but it does seem as though The Doctor has been a skinny young man for decades now. Tom Baker passed for young when he took over, but they've been getting younger ever since. Could this be yet more evidence of ageism in the media? Once you're past 22 you're over the hill? I don't remember William Hartnell, and even Patrck Troughton is a bit fuzzy, but I loved Jon Pertwee who was no spring chicken. I can't take the series seriously anymore with the new style of fast-talking, rather slick Doctors.
ReplyDelete