REVIEW OVERVIEW: SUPPORTING ACTORS WHO HAVE DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB PLAYING MULTIPLE ROLES

 I quite enjoyed doing the REVIEW OVERVIEW earlier this month and felt that there was more to say on the subject.

In the first installment of this latest series, we looked at how effectively lead actors in the show portrayed characters outside of the main roles they were given. From some of the more famous double-castings like Colin Baker playing Maxil and Six or Peter Capaldi playing Caelis and Twelve to the more obscure ones like Karen Gillan playing Amy and a Soothsayer in Fires of Pompeii. We looked at all of them and ranked how good of a job the performers did to make the characters seem distinct from each other. 

As is always the case with a REVIEW OVERVIEW essay, this is not merely a judgement call made purely on my own personal preferences. I tried to set up a legitimate method of critique that is, at least, slightly scientific in nature. If you would like to know my actual basis for criticism, it's in the previous entry. Here is the link:  https://robtymec.blogspot.com/2021/01/review-overview-when-leads-play.html.

What I'd like to do with this particular entry is look at five supporting actors that have done an outstanding job playing multiple roles throughout the span of the show. They will be submitted to the same criteria as our leads were and they will be ranked from least favorite to most. 

Let's get straight into it: 

NUMBER FIVE: 

LYNDA BARON

ROLES: 

Singer in The Gunfighters

Captain Wrack in Enlightenment 

Val in Closing Time 

One of the facts that puts her on this list is that Lynda has always gotten some fairly juicy parts whenever she's been on Doctor Who. When you're playing colorful characters, it can be easier to make them unique and different from each other. Mind you, you can only really achieve this if you're actually skilled at what you do. 

And that is certainly the case with Lynda Baron. Probably her most popular role of the three was Wrack. Which she plays with just the right level of relish that a villainess of her calibre requires. She's deadly and evil - but still great fun to watch! Her evil laugh is especially delightful. 

Val, on the other hand, is a much more grounded character. After being an Eternal hell-bent on universal domination, she is now just an older woman working in a shop who loves to gossip and make presumptions. But Lynda still makes her a very enjoyable character to watch. The whole gag about her thinking Craig and the Doctor are lovers plays out quite amusingly. Much of this is due to Baron's comedic timing.

And then, of course, there's her most unusual contribution to the series. In one of the oddest Doctor Who stories of all, she plays one of the strangest of roles. Donald Cotton (one of my fave writers for 60s Who) made the decision to link various scenes in the plot to The Gunfighters through verses of a song that were performed in voice-over. Lynda Baron, of course, was the vocalist hired to do the song. She is never actually seen onscreen. But she is, very much, a character in the story. Much of the lyrics she sings are quite humorous. So, once more, she has some fun with it. 

In some ways, she does suffer from a similar problem that Jean Marsh did. All of her characters are quite colorful and eccentric. If she played something a bit more low-key, we might have been even more impressed with her range. But it's still hard to deny that she is awesome in all her roles.    

NUMBER FOUR: 

MARK GATISS

ROLES: 

Professor Lazarus in The Lazarus Experiment 

Gantok in The Wedding of River Song (under the strange pseudonym of Rondo Haxton)

Captain Archibald Hamish Lethbridge-Stewart in Twice Upon a Time 

The only exclusively New Who actor that makes it onto this list. The Revived Series rarely has any performers play multiple parts. But, because of his unique relationship with the show, Gatiss manages to secure three very separate and unusual roles. All of which he performs to perfection.

Lazarus and the Captain (his full name, of course, is only revealed right at the end of the tale) are, pretty much, polar opposites. Lazarus is an arrogant rich man who gets whatever he wants. Including, of course, a second chance at life. The Captain is a noble gentleman living out what he believes to be the final moments of his existence. He accepts his fate meekly and is even willing to sacrifice himself so that someone else may live. The roles are so contrary that it becomes quite easy to see them as being two different people. The little mustache Gatiss grows for one of the parts is hardly necessary. We aren't sitting there going: "It's totally Lazarus all over again!". 

Of course, you can write two roles very differently from each other and if the actor isn't good at what he does, then the whole thing will fall flat. So Gatiss makes sure to deliver. I'm particularly impressed by the mannerisms he assigns to both characters. Lazarus' gestures are broad and expansive while the Captain keeps himself upright and reserved. I love when an actor shows that level of attention to detail.

And then there's Gantok. Yes, he disguised his voice, wore heavy prosthetics and used a false name in the credits. But still, you can't conceal an unconvincing performance. If Gatiss hadn't made the same commitment to the part that he did with his other roles, he wouldn't have fooled us. We really had no idea he was under there. It, literally, took me years before I found out. That's how good he is.

  

NUMBER THREE:

JOHN WOODNUTT   

ROLES: 

Hibbert in Spearhead from Space 

Draconian Emperor in Frontier in Space 

Duke of Forgill in Terror of the Zygons 

Seron in Keeper of Traken 

Admittedly, Woodnutt does suffer from a touch of typecasting. He has a certain penchant for regal characters. His Draconian Emperor is the best example of this. He's only in Frontier in Space for a very short while so he needed to have a lot of presence in that moment. Considering he's also in a mask and never really gets out of his weird throne much - he delivers quite well. 

Duke of Forgill is also of royal blood - but he's on a very different end of the spectrum. There seems to be no respect for his lineage anymore. So the character has a very different emphasis to it. And Woodnutt dons a nice thick Scottish accent for the part. Oddly enough, he's cast as Broton too. Which he also does a good job with. 

I find Seron doesn't get the attention he deserves. Everyone seems to care most about Terror of the Zygons and virtually ignores his final role in the show. Seron also has that regal air to him but is more of an elder statesman, this time. So, again, there's some versatility. He's not just the same character over and over. I also think Seron has a really great death scene. 

But Woodnutt really shows off his range in his very first role on the show. Hibbert is definitely more of an everyman than a king. The struggle he undergoes as he constantly tries to break free of Nestene control is also very well done. We do see a lot of what the character is meant to be like underneath the hypnotised slave. This is due to some very solid chops on Woodnutt's part.  

So, yes, his range isn't always so well-displayed with some of his roles. But, at least, he accented whatever little differences he could find with his more royal characters. And he was given, at least, one portrayal that showed off that he could do more than play people who tended to stand a lot on pomp and circumstance. 

NUMBER TWO:

DAVID COLLINS 

ROLES:

Vorus in Revenge of the Cybermen 

Poul in Robots of Death 

Mawdryn in Mawdryn Undead

I actually don't think there's a supporting actor that has shown greater versatility in Doctor Who than this one. In many ways, he should be first place in this ranking system. 

Vorus must have been a pretty tricky role to play under such restrictions. Most other alien characters, of late, had been given half-masks so that a certain range of expression was still possible. Collins had to bring out a personality with his face, more or less, completely covered. And he does a great job of it. Vorus is proud and arrogant. Full of bluster. Collins makes all of that obvious with strong gestures and a powerful voice. He really dives into the part and displays tremendous energy. This more-than-compensates for how much the mask conceals him. 

Poul shows off a completely different range from the actor. During some of the lighter moments of Robots of Death, he's quite charming and pleasant. The scene where he gives Leela a tablet for her water shows this off quite nicely. Even when he is more upset about the murders that are going on, he seems somewhat restrained. Never going over-the-top like he did with Vorus. He pays much better attention to subtler details in this portrayal. Leela remarks "He moves like a hunter." and Collins makes sure that there is a sort of slyer edge to his mannerisms to back the statement up. When he does finally have to "go big" with his robophobia, he gives Poul a lot of vulnerability and weakness. None of what he does as Poul resembles Vorus in the slightest. Were it not for certain vocal similarities, I doubt we would have been able to guess that these roles were played by the same person. 

Mawdryn, however, goes in a whole different direction from the other two. He's performed in a much more classical style. Almost like one of those regal characters that are so often handed to Woodnutt. His very prosaic dialogue lends itself to such behavior. He's meant to be a scientist but he comes across more as a lord. And, of course, there's a very tragic quality to the character. His life has been so long and miserable that he is now desperate for death. His incredible joy during his final moments was a very interesting direction to take the role in. Of the three, I do think Mawdryn was the best note for him to go out on. He has a larger-than-life air like Vorus while still displaying layers and delicacy like Poul. But is also his own unique character, too. 

It really is some fantastic acting work. Collins is amazing in all three parts.    

NUMBER ONE:

BERNARD HORSEFALL 

ROLES:

Lemuel Gulliver in The Mind Robber

First Time Lord in The War Games 

Taron in Planet of the Daleks 

Chancellor Goth in The Deadly Assassin 

Admittedly, I could be allowing personal preference to interfere ever-so-slightly with my supposedly scientific method. 

By my own system of evaluation, David Collins really does do the best job of making all his characters very distinct from each other. As I even said as I was discussing him, he should be Number One. But, I must confess, I do like Horsefall just a little bit better. 

There is a certain consistent trait that seems to run through all of Horsefall's roles. All his characters do seem to have a certain "hard edge" to them. They're not the tenderest of people. Even Taron, who's meant to be in love with Rebec, isn't exactly a sweetheart to her when she arrives on Spiridon. I wouldn't say he's one of those "tough guy actors" that you see in action movies. But he does have just a bit of that vibe going on.  

Having said that, however, there is a large range of variance that is also incorporated into all of his portrayals. He recognizes, for instance, that he is playing a fictional character who is quoting from the book he hails from and creates an air of absurdity whenever Gulliver is in a scene. Or that he is a god-like character in The War Games and gives him a strong sense of power. Even as Goth, who might actually be the same character we saw in War Games (a popular fan theory), he plays him differently. Part of the point of Deadly Assassin was to show that the Time Lords aren't quite as awesome and majestic as they have seemed. So Horsefall adjusts his portrayal accordingly. In this tale, he is a consummate politician who harbors a dark secret.    

Taron the Thal was his "everyman part". Or as close to one that he could get. His other characters in the show were somewhat larger-than-life. But Taron was a man on a desperate mission who had leadership thrust upon him. After seeing him in those more grandiose roles, the adjustment is slightly difficult when he is playing someone more average. But he does he pull it off. We do still end up liking Taron a lot - even if he's not that nice to his girlfriend! And, by the end, that's how we should feel about the character. He's a bit of a tortured hero.

Goth, however, is probably everyone's favorite. I do feel he deserves the appreciation he gets. Horesefall really does get us to believe that he's merely an innocent statesman who is just doing his job to find out who is truly behind the presidential assassination. I don't think any of us suspected that it was actually him. When he reveals his involvement with the Master in Episode Three - we're genuinely shocked. And yet, when you go back and watch the story a second time - it's totally obvious that it was him, all along. Just by the way he is manipulating events in the first two episodes, it makes sense that he would execute things the way he does. To have the skills to put that into your performance is the mark of a truly talented actor. You have to skew things just right so that we don't suspect Goth the first time around but can still see clearly that it was him when we do a re-watch. That's damned fine acting if you ask me! 

Good enough acting to make him Number One. Even though, according to my methodology,  he shouldn't be!    

And that is, in my opinion, the five supporting actors who did the best job of playing multiple roles in Doctor Who.  

I had been tempted, when I was first conceiving the essay, to discuss an actor who has done multiple roles but I always thought was terrible at it. But I changed my mind. I do feel there is enough negativity in Fandom these days, so I try to emphasise positives as much as I can when I write in here. Not to mention that I am an actor, myself. While I specialise in Stage, I consider TV actors to be "bigger stars" than I am. So to heavily criticise someone in television would just make me seem like I am jealous of their success. 

So, instead, I chose to take the High Road. 

For once. 

 

 

 

REVIEW OVERVIEW: WHEN LEADS PLAY MULTIPLE PARTS

Welcome to 2021! I had some fun doing those Appendixes to some of my BOOK OF LISTS essays, but now it's time to get back to some more regular entries. 

With REVIEW OVERVIEWs still being a relatively new concept, I thought I ought to do a few more of them. So I've got an idea for something that has more of a behind-the-scenes sort of slant to it. My ANALYTICAL series that I did last year about the Death and Resurrection of Doctor Who was quite well-received. It dealt with production issues that went on at the time the show went off the air and came back on. It was the first time I wrote about the making of the Doctor Who rather than the mythology of the show, itself. I figure it's time to take another shot in a similar vein.   

In something as long-running as Doctor Who, it's no surprise that actors do end up playing several different roles throughout the course of the show. It helps even more that the central premise of the programme is that a time machine is going to a different location and time period every new story. While other shows use a lot of recurring characters, Who needs to constantly re-cast. So there are all kind of opportunities to work on the show but only so many performers who are qualified to do the job. Inevitably, actors are going to come back from time-to-time.

Of course, it's even more surreal when someone who plays a major part in the show pops up elsewhere as another character. It's easy, for instance, to ignore the many different portrayals of Bernard Horsefall throughout the 60s and 70s because he is only in one story and then disappears again for a while. We can almost forget him as Taron the Thal when he returns, again, a few seasons later as Chancellor Goth (harder to do that when he played Gulliver and Time Lord #3 in The War Games - they both happened in the same season!). But, when someone who plays the Doctor or a companion has also played another character, that can be a bigger adjustment for an audience. 

Still, it has happened several times, now, that an actor that took on the part of a minor character and then goes on to play a lead. I thought it might be interesting to critique how effectively they made their characters distinct from each other.    

THE METHOD OF CRITERIA

On the simplest of levels, there are two ways to judge how well the re-cast worked: How the characters were written and how they were performed. It seems pretty basic but some of this should still probably get broken down a bit more before we get into the actual rankings. 

Writing:

This is the one that really needs to be scrutinised a bit. Some actors have been at a tremendous disadvantage because the characters they've played have only been so well-crafted. Usually, of course, the larger role was written competently. But the alternate character(s) did not, necessarily, show off their range much. Let's examine those factors a bit: 

1. Diversity: 

This can be the biggest problem with multiple parts. Many actors deal with typecasting. They are only seen as a certain kind of character. So the smaller part they played is quite similar to the lead they finally got. Which, in turn, makes it difficult for us to believe that these roles are separate people. It's always easier to get the audience to suspend their disbelief when the multiple portrayals are radically different from each other. 

2. Presence

The actual amount of screentime a performer has can have a huge bearing on how we accept the credulity of multiple roles. Sometimes, if we don't really see much of the alternate character, the actor playing them doesn't get much of a chance to make them distinct from the lead they played. 

3. Explanation

Although this doesn't happen often, a writer will still try to come up with a legitimate explanation as to why these seemingly distinct characters resemble each other. If the reason they supply is clever enough, it helps us to accept the situation a bit more easily. 

Acting:

Not as much of a need for a breakdown, here. But I will admit, this will also be a bit more on the subjective side. Actors are very talented and hardworking and can overcome any obstacles created by the writers and still convince us that these multiple roles are not the same person. So even if the character lacks diversity, presence or a proper explanation, the actor can still "sell" the multiple roles.   

I will even say that I don't think any of the performers I'm about to go through did a legitimately bad job of creating different characters. I have always felt that people that were assigned leads in Doctor Who were above-average actors and did a good job with any role they got. It's more a case that some of them did a better job than others. 

RANKING

With some basic stipulations established, we can now move into actually critiquing. I am just going to list the actors and their roles in order of preference. Starting at the bottom and working our way up to the person who I felt did the best job of making their roles distinct from each other. Again, I'd like to stress  that I don't think anyone did a legitimately bad job, here. Everyone was great. Some were just greater. 

* SPECIAL NOTE: If you go all the way back to my very second entry, ("Doin' It With Style" https://robtymec.blogspot.com/2015/03/doin-it-with-style.html), you'll notice that I don't accept spin-offs as canon. Some actors that had a lead in Doctor Who have also played someone else in Torchwood or something like that. The role they played in the spin off will not be included in this analysis.

** SPECIAL SPECIAL NOTE: There has always been an ongoing debate about whether or not the Brigadier was a companion or a recurring character. I prefer to see him as the latter. So, we will not include Nicholas Courtney's contributions as Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart and Bret Vyon in this analysis. 

*** SPECIAL SPECIAL SPECIAL NOTE: Intentional efforts to have leads play doubles will also not get mentioned in this entry. Examples of this would be William Hartnell also playing the Abbot of Amboise or Noel Clarke doubling up as Micky and Ricky.   

FREEMA AGYEMAN 

MAIN ROLE: Martha Jones

SECONDARY PART: Adeola 

No disrespect to Freema, of course, I think she was great as Martha and have even enjoyed her in other shows like Sense 8 (and not just because of how much she revealed of herself in it!). But, ultimately, someone has to finish up at the bottom. 

A lot of the problem lies in how little she is given with the character of Adeola. Fairly early on, the Cybermen convert her to a zombie. It's hard to leave your mark as an actress when you are just playing a hypnotised slave! 

The explanation that is given for why Martha comes along a short while later and completely resembles Adeola is also quite silly. Would mere cousins really look that much the same?! I really believe it would have been better to have just ignored the whole thing and let Freema just be two different characters without trying to, somehow, make sense of it. Letting it all just, sort of, fly under the radar would have probably been a smarter choice on the writer's behalf.

IAN MARTER

MAIN ROLE: Harry Sullivan (a complete imbecile!)

SECONDARY PART: Lt. John Andrews

I think the biggest problem with this one is typecasting. Marter excels at playing the mild-mannered British gentleman. So both characters seem nearly identical. The actor does what he can to try to make them a bit distinct. But, really, Lt. Andrews just seems like Harry Sullivan during the early 1900s! 

It also doesn't help that Andrews pops in and out of the story quite a bit. Like Adeola, he just doesn't have a whole lot of screentime. There are even instances where the character is also having his will influenced by external forces. He's not, necessarily, made into a zombie - but he does have his aggression heightened for a bit. Once more, it's difficult to shape a role when you actually have to be out of character for some of your scenes. 

I do think that his more classical training does give him just a bit of an advantage in getting the roles to feel distinct. Marter really does pay a lot of attention to detail when he acts. We can see that. And that does translate well on film. But still, it's somewhat difficult to set these two characters apart. 

JEAN MARSH 

MAIN ROLE: Sara Kingdom

SECONDARY PARTS: Lady Joanna and Morgaine 

The lack of presence that Sara Kingdom gets is definitely a large part of the problem, here. The character is in Doctor Who for so short a period of time that we question whether or not she truly qualifies as a companion. It was difficult to establish Sara's personality when she's only given a handful of episodes. 

Typecasting is also an issue. All three characters do have significant differences. Particularly Morgaine. Marsh has a great time being evil in that part. But, overall, she is always playing very strong-willed women. Which, in many ways, is a good thing. Science Fiction can be quite horrible with its treatment of female characters. However, if Marsh had been given one part that was a bit more meek or delicate, she would have been able to show off her range a bit more. But the fact that she's always portraying someone very independent and outspoken causes the roles to blur together a bit. 

Ultimately, I'm pleased that we've been given some females in the show that weren't treated in a sexist manner by the writers. But, in terms of helping Marsh's multiple roles to stand out from each other, this works to her detriment. Still, there are other things that distinguish the parts from each other. And Marsh is, of course, an excellent actress. These are all factors that help her to climb this list a bit. 

KAREN GILLAN 

MAIN ROLE: Amy Pond 

SECONDARY PART: Soothsayer 

This one is a bit tricky. There are any number of people that don't even realize that Gillan has played two parts in Doctor Who. This must mean that she did her double-role very effectively. And, in many ways, she did. If you can't recognize an actor at all in their alternate performance, then they must be doing something right! 

But the very fact that the role she plays in Fires of Pompeii doesn't even have a proper name shows just how much work went into its development. The Soothsayer is very incidental in this plot. Karen is also under some pretty heavy make-up and costume. From a purely visual sense, it's very difficult to recognize her. On top of that, we don't see much of her anyway!

Still, Gillan's performance must be commended. Her mannerisms and tone do not resemble Amy in the slightest. So we can't put this all down to the limitations of the secondary part. There is still some skillful acting going on here, too. 

DAVID BRADLEY

MAIN ROLE: The First Doctor 

SECONDARY PART: Solomon 

Our first Doctor to appear on this list. Who is, of course, the First Doctor! 

Some might argue that he shouldn't be here at all. He wasn't truly the First Doctor. But, rather, a replacement for Hartnell. But I feel he should still be a part of this whole exercise (also, I was really getting tired of making "Special Notes"!). 

The biggest problem with this one lies in the fact that both characters only get an episode each. With such little time onscreen, it's difficult for either role to flesh out too much. Still, Bradley is damned good at what he does. He, especially, puts a lot of effort into his portrayal of the Doctor. He knows that the role has some real history behind it and he needs to do it justice. This definitely helps him to distinguish the character from Solomon.

It also helps that the roles are written very differently from each other. Yes, one is a villain and the other a hero - but there's more to it than that. Solomon is a much grittier character and behaves in the most unsavory of manners. Whereas Doctor One is quite upright and proper. Almost even a bit intrepid. But both Bradley and Moffat remember that this version of the Doctor still hasn't quite become the hero that we would know him as in later years. The moral compass is still in the process of forming. It's little subtleties like this that really put some layers into the part. Which, in turn, helps to create that overall distinction between the two. 

COLIN BAKER 

MAIN ROLE: The Sixth Doctor

SECONDARY PART: Commander Maxil 

Some might think that he would rank higher on this list due to the huge bias I have for him (or, as I like to call it, my "Colin Crush"). But I can be objective about such things if I'm required to.

Working hardest against Colin is the fact that there is a pretty strong resemblance between Maxil and the early days of Sixie. Both play up the fact that they are unlikeable. Admittedly, Maxil is downright villainous whereas Six from Twin Dilemma to Revelation of the Daleks is more of an anti-hero. But the characters do have a lot of similar beats  

Colin gets to show off his range better as he starts to soften in Season 23. If he had been given more time to complete his arc, we would have probably seen an even stronger sense of distinction between the two parts. Sadly, however, this was never meant to be. Within the context of the show, at least. Big Finish does show off a "nicer" Sixth Doctor. But, puritan that I am, I don't factor that in. Instead, I just weep over the lost opportunities of this era. 

Another lost opportunity. of course, is how nice it would have been to have the Sixth Doctor make a visit to Gallifrey and have a whole "mistaken identity" adventure with himself and Maxil. That could have really shown off Colin's chops! 

JACQUELINE HILL

MAIN ROLE: Barbara Wright

SECONDARY PART: Deon Lexa

One of the rare instances where the performer played the lead first and the secondary part after (that, sort of, happened with Jean Marsh, too).

What impresses me the most about this double-role is that I had seen Hill as Barbara in quite a few stories and then saw her in Meglos and did not realize, in the slightest, that this was the same person. I only learnt later that these two characters were played by Hill. Never would I have figured it out on my own.  

Yes, Hill is wearing a bit of a silly hat.  That does make it a bit more difficult to recognize her. But it's far more about the performance she puts in. Even the voices she uses for the two roles don't sound all that much the same.  Every once in a while, you hear the slightest hint of Barbara in her. Otherwise, she's totally Lexa. 

On paper, the characters are largely different from each other. That does help a lot. But Hill goes to great lengths to punctuate that difference. Even the way she holds herself as Lexa is radically different from the posture she gave to Barbara. Which is all-the-more impressive since Lexa does have a pretty strong presence in the adventure. Jacqueline Hill had to put in a lot of concentration and effort to achieve that distinction for so long a period of time during shooting. I have a lot of respect for her excellent work and dedication. 

PETER CAPALDI

MAIN ROLE: The Twelfth Doctor 

SECONDARY CHARACTER: Caecilius

Another double-role that is helped by the fact that the characters are written very differently. But, like Hill, Capaldi does show a great measure of talent with how he played the two parts. He really does pull off a convincing Roman who is greatly concerned with pomp and circumstance and the status he can give to his family. And does an equally-effective job as the curmudgeonly Twelfth Doctor that we first experience in Series 8 (who, just like Sixie, gradually softens) that, quite frankly, does not give a rat's ass what anyone thinks about him and cannot be bothered with social niceties. Had it not been brought so firmly to our attention that he had played Caecilius in Fires of Pompeii, he would have probably fooled me just as well as Hill did. 

This is another one of those occasions where an attempt is made to explain why two characters in the Whoniverse look the same. It is much better handled than the Freema Agyeman scenario. Right in his first full story, it's part of a fun little monologue that he has about his new face. We think that's all we'll ever hear about it but it comes up a second time in the next season. Admittedly, it's a very well-executed moment (to me, at least). Suddenly realizing where his face first came from and what it's meant to represent gets the Doctor to make a crucial decision about an action that affects the rest of the direction of Series Nine. And I think Moffat did a great job with using this accidental piece of casting to his advantage. Capaldi is excellent in that scene, too. 

But, really, Capaldi is just a top-notch actor. If we do start considering roles that he has played outside Doctor Who (not just his stint on Torchwood - Series Three but, of course, the notorious Malcolm Tucker) we can see that he is a man of tremendous range. Able to make all of his characters very different from each other. So, when he did have to play two different roles in the same show, it was inevitable that he would do an awesome job with it.

PETER PURVES

MAIN ROLE: Steven Taylor

SECONDARY CHARACTER: The Incredible Morton Dill

This one really does sit at the top for me. Much of it has to do with the amount of entertainment value that we get out of Purves' first role. Morton Dill is a dorky Southern Yankee who borders ever-so-slightly on being offensive to rural Americans but still manages to land on the right side of comedic. And, quite frankly, I love watching the character. He's just so much fun. I really wish he'd been in The Chase longer. The fact that Purves can then switch gears a few episodes later to become a very warm approachable character who we really are glad to see travelling with the Doctor (should I ever do a BOOK OF LISTS of favorite companions, you will see that he ranks quite highly) really does show off his talents as an actor. 

A few cosmetic tricks are done to help. Morton has the cowboy hat and Steven grows some facial hair. But so much more of this is down to the talent of Peter Purves. It really is hard to believe that he was someone completely different only a few episodes earlier. He does a great job of crafting two very distinct characters. 

Some might dispute that he should not be on this list at all. That he is, in fact, the result of that "intentional double-casting" that I said I would steer clear of. Behind-the-scenes details about 60s Who can be sketchy. But, to the best of my knowledge, the production crew loved Purves so much as Dill that he was asked to take on the role of Steven Taylor later in the same story. A casting director did not approach him and say: "We want you to play two different characters in the same story." This is another example of a sense of double-casting that was more accidental than planned. 

Which means that the production team was so convinced in Purves' abilities that they knew he could pull two roles off convincingly in such a short span of time. And they were right. He really knocked both parts out of the ball park. 

He's a pretty good kids' show host, too!   

Well, I think that's everyone that meets the stipulations of this particular REVIEW OVERVIEW. If I did forget someone, we might almost consider it a testament to the skills of that particular actor!

I'm not quite done with this, though. I want to continue with this analysis and look at some notable instances where certain actors have played multiple supporting characters over the years. 

When I say "notable", however, I'm not necessarily saying that all the actors I'm going to be discussing actually did a good job at it! Some are remembered for all the wrong reasons....