|
Post by BHTvsTFC on Dec 16, 2019 18:26:44 GMT
I was just thinking about James Dreyfuss earlier and the update to the Psychic Circus cover that removes his name and was wondering, in this day and age, when so much is written down and can come back to haunt and create so many shit storms within an individuals life. In Doctor Who terms Dreyfuss, Gareth Roberts, and Bruno Langley have found themselves in the doghouse due to making contemptuous mistakes in their lives of late, certainly mistakes that don't fit with the current norm.
Don't get me wrong I'm not apologising for any comments or actions made on someone else's behalf, and for the record I've always found Gareth Roberts contemptuous, but I sometimes wonder if ostracising people is always the right thing either. I've never liked Gareth Roberts as a writer much, but his contributions to Doctor Who brought others a lot of pleasure, and I wouldn't want to deprive anyone of that. As far as Doctor Who is concerned we are stuck with their contributions whether we like it or not.
Also in time people's views change - Eddie Murphy was terribly homophobic as a young man but asked people not to associate the views of an ignorant youth with the man he is now. Some people are unapologetic - Madonna, after a pre-fame nude pics scandal, once famously refused to take anything off at a show in case people held it against her 'ten years from now.' And some are historic icons that have fallen out of vogue - Margaret Court, a tennis player with more major titles to her belt than anyone in the history of the sport is now considered a bigot, yet an anniversary of her achievements is coming and the major titles record is yet to be equalled, let alone broken. In Doctor Who terms William Hartnell was well known to be anti semitic and homophobic - imagine what his tweets would have been like!
Being afraid to talk, in danger of being wrong, is a form of oppression that no one should have to suffer. Being an brat now and again is a basic human right we all take advantage of now and again - I'm no Saint and have held abhorrent views of my own that I had to be educated out of. The danger is not to abuse it.
I guess this has wandered a little but what I wondered is do people believe in redemption - can someone like James Dreyfuss, Gareth Roberts or Bruno Langley return to the DW fold and how would they go about achieving it in a way that would appease the majority of people they've hurt and let down. On a similar note if William Hartnell was still alive and willing to do an audio would we be fine if it was on the grounds that no gays or Jews were involved.
Once again please note I am not apologising for any of the above and I'm an Aspie and part of the LGBTQIA community (for starters) so I've known my fair share of nastiness in terms of abuse, but, when you have the world just the way you like it, how do you go forward?
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Dec 16, 2019 18:55:28 GMT
Famous German example- the once vice- Chancellor of Germany, Joschka Fischer of the Greens, was a violent activist in his youth and there was this infamous video of him in a motorcycle helmet beating a policeman. This video came back to haunt him. Then he did something unexpected (for a modern politician): He stepped in front of the cameras, confessed openly that it was him, denied nothing, apologized and explained that people learn from their past mistakes and can indeed change. I still admire him as one of the politicians with the biggest balls, independent from his political views. He once stood a good chance to become our leader, imagine that, a country led by an honest politician. But he left politics since he got fed up with the circus and it did not do his health any favours.
Sadly, in the case of the above mentioned gentlemen involved in Doctor Who... they appear to be quite stubborn and unapologetic. They would need A LOT of atonement to gain back even a little bit of respect. I think that is what made it worse- once called out, they kept on going and even increased the level of abuse they were spewing. They basically kept on digging the hole they were in. If they had apologized right away or at least kept their mouth shut and their social media fingers from twitching, it would have died down and at least not boiled over to such an extent. I cannot really understand why some people value their ego and their pride over their standing... at least when I realize I am not doing myself any favours with my views, I would at least shut up about them. So no idea what drove them.
But to redeem themselves... They would have to do something major now. A simple apology wont cut it.
|
|
|
Post by BHTvsTFC on Dec 16, 2019 19:15:05 GMT
Famous German example- the once vice- Chancellor of Germany, Joschka Fischer of the Greens, was a violent activist in his youth and there was this infamous video of him in a motorcycle helmet beating a policeman. This video came back to haunt him. Then he did something unexpected (for a modern politician): He stepped in front of the cameras, confessed openly that it was him, denied nothing, apologized and explained that people learn from their past mistakes and can indeed change. I still admire him as one of the politicians with the biggest balls, independent from his political views. He once stood a good chance to become our leader, imagine that, a country led by an honest politician. But he left politics since he got fed up with the circus and it did not do his health any favours. Politicians are not my favourite people by a considerable margin but there is a lot to be said about politicians who have the courage to change even over small things. The former British PM Theresa May was accused of being weak because she backtracked on many policies but I see that as someone who has been diligent and instead of arrogantly ploughing along, actually acknowledging that the policy would have been more harmful than successful. And I guess controversial figures who did similar to Fischer would be Nelson Mandela and Mikhail Gorbachev.
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Dec 16, 2019 19:27:45 GMT
Famous German example- the once vice- Chancellor of Germany, Joschka Fischer of the Greens, was a violent activist in his youth and there was this infamous video of him in a motorcycle helmet beating a policeman. This video came back to haunt him. Then he did something unexpected (for a modern politician): He stepped in front of the cameras, confessed openly that it was him, denied nothing, apologized and explained that people learn from their past mistakes and can indeed change. I still admire him as one of the politicians with the biggest balls, independent from his political views. He once stood a good chance to become our leader, imagine that, a country led by an honest politician. But he left politics since he got fed up with the circus and it did not do his health any favours. Politicians are not my favourite people by a considerable margin but there is a lot to be said about politicians who have the courage to change even over small things. The former British PM Theresa May was accused of being weak because she backtracked on many policies but I see that as someone who has been diligent and instead of arrogantly ploughing along, actually acknowledging that the policy would have been more harmful than successful. And I guess controversial figures who did similar to Fischer would be Nelson Mandela and Mikhail Gorbachev. Agreed. Sadly, when I look at any leading politician of any party of any Western country right now... the only thing I see is an army of straw men (and women).
But back to the topic.
I have seen there is now also a politics thread for this type of thing. Maybe someone else would like to share their views on the recent ousting of the above mentioned gentlemen formerly involved in Who...
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Dec 16, 2019 19:31:24 GMT
I'm reminded of a transphobic line from a certain story from the last decade. It came up last year and to his credit, the author addressed it head on, basically saying, "The line was bad. I wouldn't write it today."
He took ownership, admitted fault, showed contrition and demonstrated that he's grown into someone who wouldn't repeat the mistake.
Of course, the circumstances here are a little different. He's well-known as a profoundly decent person, and all the evidence points towards it being an act of ignorance than one of malice.
I do believe in redemption. And the template is right there. Ownership, contrition, understanding, amends. If any of the individuals you mention were willing to start on that path, then I would be willing to extend them the benefit of the doubt.
However, all of that is easy for me to say because I'm not the wronged party.
|
|
|
Post by BHTvsTFC on Dec 16, 2019 20:13:08 GMT
^ Yes, there are a few people capable of giving potentially contemptuous statements but their life experiences put them in a position to make those statements. People like the late Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have made comments about Islam that would have finished off third rate celebrities on Twitter. But they are generally, through their work, considered intelligent people whose conclusions could be respected even if disagreed with.
An interesting example for me is Stephen Fry. He made a comment about the 'bashing of mp's over their expenses' being a waste of everyone's time and we should have better things to discuss. At the time I was unemployed and I knew how much people on benefits get maligned - until the Syria crisis David Cameron couldn't give a speech without swiping at people on benefits and it really irked me. Interestingly it was one of the few times Fry did apologise, but (unconsciously) I've never watched QI since! But Fry does interest me as a speaker - for me he's either really profound or really crass; never anything in between!
The wrong parties interest me as well. Again, looking at Dreyfus, wasn't his argument that he knew trans gendered people who supported his views on the trans community, and that was part of the reason he wouldn't back down, despite that other people in the trans community took issues?
|
|
|
Post by Star Platinum on Dec 16, 2019 20:52:24 GMT
It's an interesting topic you've got here BHT.
I do like the idea of redemption, as I know that we are not the same person that we were ten years ago. We grow and change and learn from our experiences.
I think that as a start, if Roberts and Dreyfuss did some charity work and a public apology would be a good start. But I'd be concerned that in this day of social media trial by mob, that there would ever be enough to satisfy the twitter mobs.
I'm not surprised that Big Finish has discontinued their business partnerships with Roberts and Dreyfuss, but I do believe in a separation of who they are as a person. While James Dreyfuss is the Master, the Master is not solely James Dreyfuss. Fortunately their rhetoric has been kept separate from their work which has made this distinction easy to maintain.
My biggest disappointment is that we now have a master who, after this will go unused, which hurts seeing as The Master has been a rising star at Big Finish these last few years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2019 21:06:52 GMT
Interesting topic. As a white straight man though I would be interested to hear more from those who have been the target groups of these comments.
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Dec 16, 2019 21:10:26 GMT
Interesting topic. As a white straight man though I would be interested to hear more from those who have been the target groups of these comments. I think if I remember correctly one of our trans members made a thread about the whole debacle months ago when it happened.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Dec 17, 2019 0:46:52 GMT
On a selfish note, we, as consumers, want talented people (*) to also be decent people. That's not always the case. I don't like the "court of public opinion" usually, however, when people who have behaved badly, yet not illegally (so far) do not see the error of their ways, like the above mentioned writer, then it does kick in, whether anyone approves or not. And in this media saturated age where nothing is ever forgotten or deleted they should know this and at the least be wary of it. They seem to have chosen not to.
As for William Hartnell, well, he was (a) the product of his time and (b) he'd get the same treatment as the others did if he expressed those views today.
(*) For a given value of what you like.
I grew up being a Morrissey fan, and now I've put his music away because I just can't listen to it without being reminded of his odious political views.
|
|
|
Post by elkawho on Dec 17, 2019 2:16:00 GMT
I think about this topic a lot. I hate this whole "cancel culture" atmosphere that we have right now. I do believe that people who aren't bigots, homophobes, etc can say things that will ultimately get them "in trouble" with society, and once the ball starts rolling, it's hard to stop it. I don't think anyone should have their livelihood destroyed or a reputation tainted by a misspoken word or a poorly thought out statement or conversation, or even their ignorance on a topic. This has all started reminding me of the modern McCarthyism, and I hate to see someone blacklisted because of their thoughts or beliefs. Pattens of behavior that do harm, or a history of hateful or damaging views and statements, now that is something else.
I am a Jewish single mother with a trans daughter. I have seen comments that disparage all three of those boxes that I have just put myself in. Last week others of my religion were targeted in a horrible act of violence 20 miles from my home. And as much support that my daughter and my family have had since she has come out, there have been some thoughtless comments and downright terrible things said to and about her by people in our lives. However, I still think that people can change if they are willing and given a chance. Not all, but some. And some will even downright surprise you.
In short, humans are complicated beings. We all have good days and bad days, and all make mistakes. Some of us even make more than one. And I hope we are all capable of recognizing when we do and changing for the better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2019 4:34:20 GMT
I think redemption is an idea that's fundamentally tied to forgiveness. To be redeemed takes two. Speaking more on "cancel culture", I think part of the problem is that we haven't yet grown an emotional awareness, so to speak, for online interactions. I can remember being taught from a very young age that such exchanges weren't real, which -- when you think about it -- is a fundamentally dehumanising statement. These people are treated as not real and I fundamentally didn't like the idea. Suddenly, anything said or done to/against another is treated as immaterial. Fake. Irrelevant. Despite its unshakeable effect on a real person. I have a relative who was in Europe during the Second World War and, over the years, I've spent a lot of time in her company learning about how people were treated when they came back with these "immaterial" scars. On their bodies and in their minds, it's almost precisely the same attitude. It's not understood, so it's locked away. To the detriment of whoever is grappling with it. Over the years, we've shifted in the other direction, where everything said on the internet matters, but it's still not taken from a place of compassion. Social groups are defined by their worst persons. People are still not treated as people. That's the mistake, I feel. The way I write online is specifically with the knowledge that whomsoever exists behind the handle is a living person. I can condemn someone with a long history of questionable decisions and bad choices. There are some things which are fundamentally unforgiveable in an individual. Whether encountered in person or in prose. However, I cannot in good conscience say the same of someone who is having an uncharacteristically bad day. The character of someone speaks volumes to their capacity for redemption. On a selfish note, we, as consumers, want talented people (*) to also be decent people. That's not always the case. I don't like the "court of public opinion" usually, however, when people who have behaved badly, yet not illegally (so far) do not see the error of their ways, like the above mentioned writer, then it does kick in, whether anyone approves or not. And in this media saturated age where nothing is ever forgotten or deleted they should know this and at the least be wary of it. They seem to have chosen not to. As for William Hartnell, well, he was (a) the product of his time and (b) he'd get the same treatment as the others did if he expressed those views today.
(*) For a given value of what you like. I grew up being a Morrissey fan, and now I've put his music away because I just can't listen to it without being reminded of his odious political views. This was where I learnt to separate creator from creation, actually. I believe a character's sins are not the sins of their creator. The First Doctor remains one of my favourite childhood characters. He wasn't the musclebound action hero that everyone else seemed obsessed with at the time. He was the chap who you could point to and say you don't become obsolete when you grow old. Far from it. With a sharp mind and a strong sense of wanderlust, you could still live your life as richly as when you were young. William Hartnell is a fine actor. Yes, he had a harsh life and never knew his father. But, I am a product of a different time, a different culture, and those views will forever be a disappointment to me. However, I am fundamentally not defined by extremes. I know how complicated people's lives and personal histories can be, particularly those passed before our time. I can praise what is praiseworthy and condemn what is worth condemning without confusion. My heroes' prejudices are not my own, nor should they ever be.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,786
|
Post by lidar2 on Dec 17, 2019 10:23:56 GMT
I think there are actually a couple of topics here - firstly the internet/twitter based court of public opinion which can sometimes just be a sort of groupthink that is very unrepresentative of wider public opinion, and secondly, and much more fundamentally, the possibility of forgiveness and redemption.
The most important and necessary word in both conversations is "grace". Grace is a wonderful thing. It is, as the song says, amazing. I would recommend Philip Yancey's book What's So Amazing about Grace to anyone who hasn't read it.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Dec 17, 2019 16:51:08 GMT
Quick note to point out that those who seek redemption actually think they've done something wrong, not that they want the baying public off their back or that whatever they did was"harmless" (looking at you, Louis CK).
|
|
|
Post by BHTvsTFC on Dec 17, 2019 17:36:42 GMT
See, I don't really buy into the 'product of the age' argument. People protested the burning of witches, stood for green issues, were against racism, homophobia, apartheid and slavery long before the objections became part of the cultural norm. That said there could be deeply routed personal issues as to why anyone feels like a certain group is to be wary of - usually some kind of 'assault' during an indivudal's youth I would imagine.
Look at the issues now that don't get press to find similarities; people now taking to the streets because of benefit reforms and the thousands of deaths associated with them, when the only mainstream social commentary you get is 'well they can't sponge off the state forever.' Look at the people homeless on the street when there are thousands of empty homes. Look at the people killing themselves in the struggle to get clear of war torn countries. I sometimes think that getting at someone for saying something dodgy on Twitter is an easy option to make one feel like the good guy.
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Dec 17, 2019 18:31:08 GMT
See, I don't really buy into the 'product of the age' argument. People protested the burning of witches, stood for green issues, were against racism, homophobia, apartheid and slavery long before the objections became part of the cultural norm. That said there could be deeply routed personal issues as to why anyone feels like a certain group is to be wary of - usually some kind of 'assault' during an indivudal's youth I would imagine. Look at the issues now that don't get press to find similarities; people now taking to the streets because of benefit reforms and the thousands of deaths associated with them, when the only mainstream social commentary you get is 'well they can't sponge off the state forever.' Look at the people homeless on the street when there are thousands of empty homes. Look at the people killing themselves in the struggle to get clear of war torn countries. I sometimes think that getting at someone for saying something dodgy on Twitter is an easy option to make one feel like the good guy. Well, it is hard to protest against something when you are spoon-fed certain things from kindergarten on wards. Therefore, there is some truth to "person of their time". It takes extraordinary people to stand up and point out the issues, and not always does this go well for them. Historic examples: Galileo, Martin Luther (who himself was a HUGE xenophobe and hater of jews), Ghandi... and from today: Greta Thunberg.
My grandma was taught in kindergarten and primary school that jews brought all ill for the world. She lived in a little village, without any access to any media and ideas turning up in the big cities. Does this make my grandma a bad person just because she did not revolt against the Nazi regime?
Other example, I remember in primary school we had a special class for being taught what I now call Western Capitalist Propaganda (West Germany). Our teacher was reading from a big book about all the bad things they did in Eastern Germany and how much they were different from us. I remember sitting down to the Olympic games which my dad was watching, and they handed out the medals, and my dad cheered. I asked him why. He said, Germany has won! But I said: "But these are Eastern Germans, they are not real Germans." Man, was I in for a telling off by my dad! I think my parents were not even aware of the propaganda classes.
Later in life I met and befriended several Eastern Germans who became my best friends, and they told me they had basically the same thing going on in their classes. If there had been a war, we would have been primed to bash each others brains in, but since history turned out well for us, we became best friends.
And than is a pretty scary thought.
Look at the issues people like me still face with mental health. For the generation of my parents, this problem never existed because nobody ever dared talking about it. They still cannot understand me and are unable to talk about it.
It takes a whole lot of effort, and luck and the chance to be able to see the other side, to be able to develop revolutionary ideas. Or you are an exceptional person with a certain personality and intellect.
Just this week, a person who had been honored by the state with a medal for bravery for saving a kid from drowning gave it back- because 17 THOUSAND people have drowned in the past years in the Mediterranian and the people who try to rescue them are charged as criminals. I do not really see a lot of people revolting about that massacre down there, quite the opposite, I know people who demand warships to be sent to gun them down.
You are absolutely right- everybody can be a "hero" shouting down someone on Twitter.
Most of the times nothing more than hot air.
The real problems... just have a look at the news and tell me if they are tackled right now or not.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Dec 17, 2019 23:04:50 GMT
I can't add much to what has been said. I think it basically comes down to whether a person has shown contrition. How recent the action was certainly counts. But we can't simply burn down everyone who has ever done or said something wrong, at least without being massive hypocrites. We've all wronged others at some point.
So-called "cancel culture" has been going a tad too far....
Now what is it that Dreyfus did that led BF to dump him?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2019 23:35:50 GMT
See, I don't really buy into the 'product of the age' argument. People protested the burning of witches, stood for green issues, were against racism, homophobia, apartheid and slavery long before the objections became part of the cultural norm. That said there could be deeply routed personal issues as to why anyone feels like a certain group is to be wary of - usually some kind of 'assault' during an indivudal's youth I would imagine. Look at the issues now that don't get press to find similarities; people now taking to the streets because of benefit reforms and the thousands of deaths associated with them, when the only mainstream social commentary you get is 'well they can't sponge off the state forever.' Look at the people homeless on the street when there are thousands of empty homes. Look at the people killing themselves in the struggle to get clear of war torn countries. I sometimes think that getting at someone for saying something dodgy on Twitter is an easy option to make one feel like the good guy. Well, it is hard to protest against something when you are spoon-fed certain things from kindergarten on wards. Therefore, there is some truth to "person of their time". It takes extraordinary people to stand up and point out the issues, and not always does this go well for them. Historic examples: Galileo, Martin Luther (who himself was a HUGE xenophobe and hater of jews), Ghandi... and from today: Greta Thunberg. My grandma was taught in kindergarten and primary school that jews brought all ill for the world. She lived in a little village, without any access to any media and ideas turning up in the big cities. Does this make my grandma a bad person just because she did not revolt against the Nazi regime?
Other example, I remember in primary school we had a special class for being taught what I now call Western Capitalist Propaganda (West Germany). Our teacher was reading from a big book about all the bad things they did in Eastern Germany and how much they were different from us. I remember sitting down to the Olympic games which my dad was watching, and they handed out the medals, and my dad cheered. I asked him why. He said, Germany has won! But I said: "But these are Eastern Germans, they are not real Germans." Man, was I in for a telling off by my dad! I think my parents were not even aware of the propaganda classes.
Later in life I met and befriended several Eastern Germans who became my best friends, and they told me they had basically the same thing going on in their classes. If there had been a war, we would have been primed to bash each others brains in, but since history turned out well for us, we became best friends.
And than is a pretty scary thought.
Look at the issues people like me still face with mental health. For the generation of my parents, this problem never existed because nobody ever dared talking about it. They still cannot understand me and are unable to talk about it.
It takes a whole lot of effort, and luck and the chance to be able to see the other side, to be able to develop revolutionary ideas. Or you are an exceptional person with a certain personality and intellect. Just this week, a person who had been honored by the state with a medal for bravery for saving a kid from drowning gave it back- because 17 THOUSAND people have drowned in the past years in the Mediterranian and the people who try to rescue them are charged as criminals. I do not really see a lot of people revolting about that massacre down there, quite the opposite, I know people who demand warships to be sent to gun them down.
You are absolutely right- everybody can be a "hero" shouting down someone on Twitter.
Most of the times nothing more than hot air. The real problems... just have a look at the news and tell me if they are tackled right now or not. I know historians that bump into this issue all the time. A friend of mine called it the Vanilla Principle; i.e. the current worldview is a flavour of worldview too. It's not neutral, it's just as biassed as any other historical viewpoint. For instance, the idea of The Saint having a steady relationship out of wedlock is something that we typically wouldn't bat an eye at today. It's been largely normalised. During the 1930s, when the stories were originally crafted, it was considered a scandalous taboo and part of the main character's rebellious attitude. Historically, it's the difference between what Charteris called a person's upbringing versus their conviction. Active bigotry is one thing, but there are also unenviable gaps in people's social education based on the background of their era. Their education, specifically. Where one area receives focus, another might be overlooked. Creating what we can consider, in hindsight, to be naiveté. However, how many of us here wouldn't let a cloud-linked robot nanny our children? Why? Is it fear? Mistrust? The innate idea that childcaring should be done by a human being? That could easily become a prejudice in its own right after a few generations. The attitude towards cybernetics having long since moved on. And this isn't as far-flung as it might first appear: there are already robots being employed in the military, emergency services, even as hotel managers. Yet, the idea can still be scoffed at as an uncomfortable fantasy. Food for thought. What makes a difference is whether or not, when confronted by their preconceptions and prejudices, a person doubles down or chooses to overcome them. To try and be better than they were. That makes sense. It's a reasonable attitude to take... for the living who have that ability. How to judge the dead? Those who don't have the opportunity to change. That becomes all the more complicated and there is no easy, black-and-white, absolutely correct answer to it. For those still alive, still able to make that choice, it can become something like what happened in The Equalizer with Immanuel Pena, the former head of the Cuban secret police: c
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Dec 18, 2019 2:23:27 GMT
I thought Hartnell was unfairly castigated as being homophobic simply because he disliked a certain person, who happened to be Gay, and so directed certain slurs at that person.
As for redemption it taken work and, like Murphy and Mags mentioned earlier, an acknowledgement of error on your part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2019 6:26:16 GMT
I thought Hartnell was unfairly castigated as being homophobic simply because he disliked a certain person, who happened to be Gay, and so directed certain slurs at that person. As for redemption it taken work and, like Murphy and Mags mentioned earlier, an acknowledgement of error on your part. Oh, Hartnell's background is a lot more nuanced than the internet would typically have you believe. For instance: he adored Carole Ann Ford, as she did him, and could work quite professionally with Verity Lambert, who has spoken glowingly of Hartnell over the years. Both have Jewish backgrounds. His initially tumultous professional relationship with Warris Hussein (who is both of Asian descent and gay) settled to the point where, according to Hussein himself, Hartnell was rather upset to see him leave the production to pursue other projects. One of Hartnell's favourite jazz musicians was Louis Armstrong who he called the "kingpin" of the genre. He was irascible (possibly due to his upbringing, possibly to do with his illness), sure, but not cold-blooded. It's why I used the word "disappointing" rather than, say, "disgusting" above in my initial post. He had his fair share of compassionate moments in his time, as co-stars like Peter Purves can attest, and I'm not entirely certain that these prejudices/preconceptions remained unaltered over time either. I think he grew quite a bit over the course of Doctor Who. These sorts of analyses are far more complicated than a simple "Yes, they were this" or "No, they were that." We only have to look at Hartnell's successor, Patrick Troughton, for another example. Wonderful bouncy castle of a man that he was, Troughton was also known for his heavy drinking and heavy smoking. It was his suggestion, during the preliminary stages of production, that he could dress in blackface and a turban for his role. These are accepted facets of the man's life and the development of the Second Doctor. Does that diminish him or the role that he played by association? Or, is it a product of that historically-specific oversight?
|
|