I was describing the character's qualities in "The Assets" that Jodie as playing rather than ascribing them to herself or as inherent personality attributes she possesses. I think if you can evoke these qualities in one character you can probably do the same in another, hence my prediction that she will do well as the Doctor.
But as to what an actor inherent is as a person, I agree that courage is not necessary to do a good job in portraying a courageous character (just the awareness of courage might look like and mean). I think a story's writing is vitally important as you do, but it will require good actors to interpret well the writing and thus help make the show a success. I would suggest that Jodie's personal apparent charisma will actually inform how she styles her performance - her personal tone will colour her interpretation of the character's tone. This seems the norm for character actors if you look at performances of the past - the actor doesn't completely disguise their personalities/personal awareness behind the artifice they create, their performance has a certain signature or style.
It's an interesting question as to what fans find attractive or will win their support. I wouldn't blame them for suspecting that the decision to cast a female lead as the Doctor is contrived or political, but I think the other point is that maybe the PR department has mishandled the introduction and explanation of why the decision has been made. A neutral reception of the new actor without prejudgement or "angles" of any kind that create bias is probably the right way to view the change. Allow the actor to show their abilities and assessments can be made in light of actual knowledge and experience. Doctor Who was blessed in the early days with interesting actors who were invested in entertaining the audience as well as good writing, but modern sensibilities and an attachment to political agendas and gimmicks as made this a bit difficult to release today it seems.
reply
share
keithmovies (627)
7 years ago
I think if this is a bad decision it's because of the social agenda of the producers and the BBC, who are attempting to carry forth the broad liberal political agenda of trying to create social harmony in the UK, particularly by socialising people to not discriminate based on gender or race. They want to utilise popular television to promote the message. I guess the question is - is this appropriate and should we as an audience be manipulated? Important social issues surely are a matter of conscious moral awareness and self-reflection rather than coercive social training?
I'm supportive of gender equality without dubious PR propaganda or social engineering. It doesn't mean I should need to agree with blanket applications of the gender equality ethic. I think it's about individual merit and minimal prescriptive influence from policy makers.
reply
share
[deleted]
7 years ago
I think most people are cool with equality, it's when T'Nia Miller pops up as a regenerated General and belittles men straight off the bat that people find fault with.
Imagine the scorn social media would produce if the roles were reversed.
That's the inequality which people are trying to highlight.
I've no doubt in Jodie's ability to be a great Doctor, it's what scripts she gets which makes me pause for thought regarding what the BBC are hoping to achieve here.
reply
share
McQualude (4231)
7 years ago
I don't know if this Doctor will be popular but the series is already struggling and casting a female doctor is very risky. It comes off as an agenda especially since male roles are being supplanted left and right in the industry. The right time would have been after Tennant when they had a surplus of fan good will and the social climate was less charged. I think she better be Tennant good, and the writing to match or the series is in big trouble.
reply
share