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....