If I was about to cast the role of companion in “Doctor Who”, the first person I would have in my office would be children’s television presenter Anna Williamson. She currently co-hosts “Toonattik”, in the GMTV weekend slot, which I presume is aimed at pre-teens, mainly running imported cartoon fare. Quite probably, the main reason I’d consider her for a major part in “Doctor Who” is that she looks like a younger version of Caroline Harker, whom I’ve always thought would’ve been terrific in the programme. Anna is lively and spirited in a job which isn’t exactly awe-inspiring, but maybe she enjoys it, although, unfortunately, she has been absent rather a lot just recently!
Of course, it doesn’t follow that being good looking means Anna can necessarily act. In the past, this hasn’t stopped casting directors on “Doctor Who”, or indeed many other series, when choosing a new, usually female, face to play alongside the leading man. I wouldn’t have chosen Billie Piper to play Rose but then I wouldn’t have cast Sophie Aldred as a companion in the classic series either, and, like Anna, her talents lay mainly in presenting shows for a younger audience. Back in the late 80s, they had a choice between Sara Griffiths, as Welsh tomboy Ray in “Delta and the Bannermen”, and Sophie, as teen tearaway Ace in “Dragonfire”. They went with the latter while, based on the evidence of those two stories, I’d have gone with the former.
Quite why Freema Agyeman has been cast as Martha is beyond me. Yes, again she is good looking but, on the evidence of “Crossroads”, as well as her very brief appearance as Adeola in the penultimate episode of last year’s season of “Doctor Who”, I wouldn’t have chosen her. As I’ve said before, had I been choosing from the actresses appearing in year two, I’d have gone with MyAnna Buring (Scooti) simply on the level of commitment she showed, getting in the water tank for such a short scene, in recording “The Impossible Planet”. I’m no doubt considered old fashioned in my choice but I see Ms Williamson playing a character along the lines of Polly, Anneke Wills’ mid 60s companion who saw Hartnell regenerate into Troughton. The above picture shows Anna in pantomime “Jack and the Beanstalk”!
8 comments:
I don't know those people...who's Caroline Harker? I guess as you're a Dad you get to see more of children's tv than me...?!
You're right,looks do seem to be a major factor when it comes to casting a new lady (or fella!) for the part of the Dr's latest companion, for better or worse. Billie is a case in point of course. But I think she surprised everyone by proving that she really could act as well as look alluring (pre-Dr Who she'd already shown promise in "The Canterbury Tales"). Who would you have cast as Rose instead of Billie then?
Sophie Aldred I'm sure is actually a decent actress but for some reason I just found her intensely irritating as Ace. Probably cos of the whole kiddie-emphasis the character had.
For me, the the best and most "adult" companions were:
Liz Shaw - Cool, crisp and together. She was an equal with Pertwee's Doc. Which of course posed problems for the scriptwriters as she didn't keep asking the Dr all the typical companion questions: "But why does that happen, Dr?" "What does that mean"? Etc etc. Loved her alternative Earth self in "Inferno". And her very groovy 70s outfits.
Sarah Jane - Liz Sladen giving a superlative performance - Sarah was independent, feisty, spoke her mind but also had a sense of playfulness and a great rapport with Tom B!
Leela - gusty, tough, sometimes a bit intellectually challenged but likeable nevertheless - Louise Jameson made the part her own.
Romanas 1 and 2 - Excellently portrayed by Mary Tamn and Lalla Ward respectively. I loved the fact that they were on an intellectual level with the Doc. Mary T was wonderfully aloof and snobbish whilst the second Romana was a bit more playful and had some great costumes!
Tegan - Not everyone's cup of tea and she could be grating. But I liked her outspoken qualities and sarcastic sense of humour. And she was so much more gutsy than Nyssa and the whining petulant brat that was Adric.
Thank you for indulging me there!
As for Freema A, I haven't seen her in anything else and pray that she CAN act. You don't sound too sure yourself Tim! I think it's the good-looking companion syndrome striking again. I hope she's different to Rose though, we do need a contrast. Personally I would have thought that an alien companion would have been a good idea, after the very English and Earthbound Rose. Freema does look like another "innit" girl. We shall see.
I liked Scooti's character too, shame she didn't last long.
Caroline Harker is my favourite actress. She’s the younger sister of Susannah (“Chancer”, “House of Cards”, “Pride and Prejudice”). Caroline is probably best known for her role in “A Touch of Frost” but has also appeared on TV in “Middlemarch” and “Growing Rich”, the Fay Weldon story I recently mentioned in your blog. In cinema, she appeared in “The Madness of King George”. Anna Williamson very much resembles her in both appearance and voice. Anna is an actress, currently languishing on kid’s telly, presumably looking for the break that might come with a part in “Doctor Who”!
I’m not a Dad (breathes a sigh of relief!) but am an Uncle, so it probably sounds as though I watch a lot of TV but the truth is I hardly watch any! I try and keep in touch with what’s happening without necessarily watching much of it, “CBB” being a case in point! I’ve watched quite a lot of drama in the past, though.
When I first heard Billie was cast in “Who”, I thought RTD was making the same mistake as did JNT, casting Bonnie. Both Bs brought baggage. The latter was actually in her element in “Delta and the Bannermen” while Billie initially played emotion brilliantly as Rose, her peak being, I think, the “I’ve lost him, Mum” speech in “The Christmas Invasion”. It’s probably not a question of who played Rose but more that the character doesn’t work, for me, in the context of how I see “Doctor Who”. The programme lasted 26 years without obvious outward displays of affection so why this fundamental change? Consider the following, more satisfying, scenario. Davison’s Doctor sacrifices himself for Peri in “Caves”. He is dying but physically, against the odds, carries her back to the TARDIS and gives her all the antidote. He shows immense affection for his companion, understated but more effective, through his actions without the need to say “I love you”, which in “Doctor Who” is just so cloying. Realism, too, always seems to equal gritty housing estates on TV these days (“Shameless”, “Skins”) but there are other, equally valid, realities out there to explore. It’s just the product of a lazy imagination, in my opinion, or one with a keener eye on marketing than drama.
Regarding Freema, I saw a clip of her the other day from “Crossroads” and I admit to thinking, “Oh, God”! But she may well have improved. Some of my lack of enjoyment of new “Who” might be partly my own fault in that I know too much about the storylines before transmission. I already know how season three ends and while it sounds interesting it depends on how they handle it. But knowing spoils any surprise. The last genuine surprise I had from “Doctor Who”, other than the quality of “Caves”, was the return of the Cybermen, after an absence of seven years, back in 1982!
You’re right about Adric. Together with Beryl Reid’s character, he’s the reason I don’t think of “Earthshock” as highly as I did when first transmitted and also one of the problems I have with the current DVD set. Again, why did RTD reprise JNT’s earlier mistake and resurrect him briefly in Adam? My favourite companions, in order of appearance, are Susan, Polly, Victoria, Zoë and Peri. Whilst keen on Zoë actress Wendy Padbury, she was also in children’s action-adventure series “Freewheelers” around the same time, Debbie Watling’s orphaned Victoria Waterfield is my all-time favourite.
Billie surprised me too. When I first heard that she would be playing Rose I thought that was the end of new DW before it had even begun. I do agree with there being no need to show how much the Dr and companion love each other. It was never needed before and sometimes (most of the time) it takes away from the story rather than adds to it. Rose' affection of the Dr sometime verged on neediness which irritated me.
My favourite companions were Zoe and Harry. Zoe because she had a brain in her head. Harry because he amused me. I still wish he had stayed in the show longer.
Not sure who I would chose as a companion now. Would definitely be nice to see a male in there (not another Adric or Adam).
I think, Karen, as long as the Doctor is male, a male companion, without a female presence, would upset the programme’s balance and possibly remove some of the appeal the series currently enjoys with audience members of both sexes. For better or for worse, many guys no doubt fancy Billie (me included, to a certain degree!) and admire the Doc while girls relate to Rose whilst having the hots for David! If there were three regulars aboard the TARDIS then I’d agree, one companion of each sex is likely to be the most successful dynamic.
Maybe it’s time somebody had the courage to call Tom Baker’s bluff and actually cast a female Doctor. Then the producers could cast a succession of male companions while retaining the preferred setup of two regulars aboard the ship. In a sense it’s already been done. Remember Sam West as the Rani’s companion in “Dimensions in Time”? Imagine the surprise for viewers if the next Doctor was a woman whose identity had been kept from the press. If handled properly, I see no reason why turning traditional expectations on their head shouldn’t work!
What about Jamie and the Doctor? They worked well together. Although I realise they weren't alone for long. To be honest I wasn't actually suggesting that it would be the Doctor and a male companion only. Still I don't really see what is wrong with that. I think with a female companion there is always going to be that 'will they, won't they' theme and that was never what Doctor Who was about for me. Having a male companion could take some of that away and then there would be more concentration on the adventures themselves.
I do understand though that in todays society some people are less likely to watch if the eye candy isn't there (this goes for both men and women). It is a little bit sad that people can't enjoy something without that. I know that a lot of women out there like to see a strong female character that they can relate to (me included) but that can be brought in in other ways.
Once again you are a mine of information when it comes to actors and TV shows Tim! And that's interesting that you know so much about TV without actually watching that much...it is possible of course!
I'm not sure what led me to think you were a Daddy - apologies!! You must have mentioned your nieces/nephews or something like that.
I too had some reservations about Billie Piper at first (it must have been the memories of her singing "Because We Want To") but she proved us wrong. As for the displays of emotion "issue" it's true that this has been brought much more to the fore in the new "Who". I'm in two minds about it - I think the show has to move with the times, and it's acknowledging the reality of human relationships by having characters admit that they care about and look out for each other. I don't mind that but I agree that the Dr-Rose relationship did become cloying and overdone after a while. In virtually every episode there was some piece of dialogue in which Rose would seek reasurance from the Dr that they would always be together, or telling him how amazing it was to be travelling with him etc. I agree with Karen's comment too about Rose's neediness, it did come across like that at times and all got a bit too much. RTD's influence I think.
It's true that the female companion is often there for added sex appeal - JNT as good as admitted that in his day when casting people like Nicola Bryant as Peri. There's nothing wrong with having an attractive female companion (or male one - at least with Mickey and Captain Jack we have two good looking, buff fellas!! Several million times sexier than Matthew Waterhouse!! About time!!) But again I agree with Karen that this can be brought out in other ways. For me the good thing about Rose was that whilst being obviously physically atttractive, in terms of personality she was feisty, had a certain amount of independence (in spite of her allegiance to the Dr) and wasn't a shrinking violet. The days of the old "screamer" girl companions are long gone, thank goodness.
And I guess we have to give Freema the benefit of the doubt. I mean, "Crossroads" is hardly the best vehicle for a talented actress, so it's maybe wrong to judge her on the basis of that! Dr Who will surely serve her with better quality scripts that will give us a chance to see what she's capable of.
So, you know how Season Three finishes eh?!! Did you find that information on the "Eye of Horus" website by any chance? I had a quick peek there but didn't read it properly. Part of me is very curious, the other half doesn't want to spoil the surprise...
I don't think Adam was any where near as bad as Adric. He was a kind of post-modern Adric and the way his character was written was far more knowing i.e. he was MEANT to be a smug, clever-know-it-all who got too big for his boots and then f*cked up and lost the respect of the Dr. He was a kind of anti-companion in a way and an exercise in how NOT to behave (I think the original title for "The Long Game" was "The Companion Who Couldn't" which says it all!)
I read somewhere a rumour that Victoria was coming back in the new series! A little on the older side now perhaps...I wonder.
I remember there being rumours about Anna Friel being cast as the Doctor's companion before Billie Piper got the role,I'm a huge Anna Friel fan but couldn't really see her as the Doctor's assistant,maybe as a guest star though !!
I remember Anna Friel as Bella Wilfer in “Our Mutual Friend”, about ten years ago, with eighth Doctor Paul McGann playing Eugene Wrayburn!
Post a Comment