REVIEW OVERVIEW: WHICH DOCTOR IS THE BEST AT VISUAL COMEDY? PROLOGUE: BASIC GROUND RULES

...And we're back into REVIEW OVERVIEW essays. For some reason, I've been having quite a few ideas for this topic, lately. So we're probably going to do a large number of these over the next little while. I will try to intersperse them with other topics just so this doesn't turn into a blog that does nothing but reviews. The internet has plenty of those, already!   

LAYING THE GROUND RULES 

There are a few things we should probably clearly establish before analysing our candidates. The first should be what actually constitutes visual comedy. Let's go with one of those dictionary-style dissertations (The dictionary! Anybody remember that thing?!):

Visual Comedy: (origins: Greek)  A style of humor that is conveyed with little or no dialogue accompanying it. The joke lies in what you are seeing rather than words that are spoken. Gestures from the actors involved in the comedy are usually crucial to the success of the joke. But all sorts of banal imagery can also be created around them as they react to it in a manner that elicits laughter from the audience.  It should be emphasised that there still might be dialogue involved in a visual gag. Some of that dialogue might even contain jokes. But the real laugh stems mainly from what is shown rather than told.    

Okay, dictionary-style definition has been composed. On  to the next important point: 

It should be noted that, overall, the Doctor and visual comedy have been friends for a long time. We see a great example of it right in the very second story, ever. During a later episode of The Daleks, the Doctor sabotages some important equipment and then spends too long congratulating himself on how clever he was. As he finally decides to run off, a whole gang of Daleks glide in and capture him. Hartnell makes a bit of a goofy expression as he realizes the consequences of his vanity. It's a very nice little tonal shift in a story that is mainly focused on being an intense drama. 

This sort of thing continues throughout the era. It even takes a center stage in certain stories like The Romans or The Gunfighters. That scene within Nero's palace where Doctor Who turns into High Farce for just a bit still elicits a chuckle from me every time I watch it. I love that moment where several key characters that need to meet keep narrowly avoiding each other at a cross-section of corridors. It's great stuff! Farce is, in fact, one of my favorite forms of humor. It can be quite clever while still remaining very simple. And, of course, it's extremely visual. 

Having said that, I would still not consider the First Doctor to be highly comedic. Yes, he had moments of lightness. Even told a few a jokes ("What's this, then?! A space helmet for a cow?!" - is still one of my all-time favorites!). But, overall, Hartnell hits a lot more dramatic beats with the character than he does humorous ones. He's not overly serious. There's still lots of charm in the portrayal. Or, as many point out, he often delivers his lines with a twinkle in his eye. But I still wouldn't say he's a "funny Doctor". 

The most current incarnation would be a much better example of someone who is going a bit harder for the laughs. Of course, she still has some very powerful speeches that she delivers in a very dramatic tone. But, more times than others, she likes to be silly. Just look at how she behaves at the beginning of Part Two of  Spyfall. There she is, trapped alone in the sinister dimension of the Kasaavins. Within seconds of arriving, she's talking about being in peoples' livers! I can't quite see Hartnell doing that sort of dialogue in the same situation! 

STILL JUST A BIT MORE GROUND RULES

While there are Doctors who are more serious and other incarnations who behave in a more comedic fashion, there is still a need to narrow things down more. To, essentially, create one more category of Doctor. 

The "funny versions" of this Time Lord can break down into two forms: 

1) Those that are just amusing, in general. 

2) Those that rely more heavily on visual humor. 

Again, if we go with Jodie's portrayal, this is a Doctor that is funny but doesn't really use visual comedy. It's not to say we don't get such sequences at all. Getting rid of Ryan's Hopper Virus in Orphan 55, for instance, is definitely a sight gag (although, really, it's more Tosin Cole that's creating the comedy in this instance than her). But, overall, the jokes she delivers are done more through verbal means. 

Again, every actor that has taken on the role will have, at least, a few scenes that use this style of humor. Whether they are "serious Doctors" or not. Twelve, for example, really does look like a giraffe with his ass on fire when he runs! But Capaldi gets far more laughs from the things he says than his mannerisms and actions. Especially since a lot of what he does say drips with sarcasm. While I wouldn't quite label him a full-on "funny Doctor" (he is one of those portrayals that sits somewhere in the middle with equal measures of comedy and drama), when he is going for laughs - it's more of a verbal thing. 

But, among these Doctors who are very funny or even just mildly funny, is a breed of incarnation that truly bases their performance on visual humor. They, literally, move around in a very silly way. When they can incorporate a little slapstick into a scene, they will. They will look for funny ways to handle a prop they have to use. And so on.... 

They will still reveal their serious side from time-to-time (usually when standing up to a villain), but their default setting is to make us laugh. And much of that amusement is elicited through what we see of them rather than what we hear. 

There are, in my opinion, three incarnations that fit into this very specific category (and a fourth that nearly does). These will be the three that we will submit to the rigors of this Review Overview to determine who used this style of comedy best. 

Which incarnations are they? You'll find out later! Right now, we have to establish how we will be rating them. 

FINAL GROUND RULE: CRITERIA 

So, we've gone to great lengths to explain what exactly constitutes a visually humorous Doctor. That was actually quite important to do before moving forward so that we're all on the same page. There can be a huge range of opinions on what a "funny Doctor" might be. Some fans even believe all actors play up the role mainly for comedy. So we needed to be clear on how I define it.  

Having done that, we need to move on to the REVIEW OVERVIEW essay, itself.  As usual, I'm not just going to base things purely on my own opinion. That would make for a short entry. At this point, I would simply say: "This Doctor is the funniest at visual comedy. This Doctor is the second funniest. This Doctor is third."  And, for the most part, we'd be done with it! 

A REVIEW OVERVIEW is always meant to have a bit of a scientific process behind it. A system of checks and balances that I go by to reach my final conclusions. So that it's not just completely my own feelings on the matter. There's some measure of objectivity involved!

For this particular pursuit, we're going use five basic points of criteria. On a scale of one to ten  (one being the worst, ten being the best) we'll rate how well each of our Doctors met those points. We'll, then, tally up those scores and see who did the best. 

So the last thing we must do before we get started is enumerate and explain the criteria. Here goes: 

1) How well the jokes actually "land"

Ever hear someone tell a really funny joke that gets a great laugh?! A few days later, you try to say the same joke to a different group of people and you can hear the crickets chirping! What happened?

Comedy is about delivery. You can use the exact same words that the last person used, but if you don't say them in the right way - the joke doesn't work. The same goes for visual comedy. The actor's reactions and mannerisms have to be done in just the right way or it doesn't actually come across as funny. 

"Prat falls" are great examples of this. An actor can trip and fall with limbs flailing in a wild manner and a certain type of look on their face and we will laugh hysterically at the situation. Change the action and expression ever-so-slightly and, maybe, add a little bit fake blood to their forehead when they get back up, and the whole thing looks disturbing, instead. 

With this point, then, we will look at how often the visual humor these actors created succeeded. In the cases of all three candidates, there are times when their attempts at comedy landed well. And other times when it wasn't so good. We'll try to come up with a rating based on the frequency of successful landings. 

2) How well it's counterbalanced against the drama

The Doctor being fun and silly is a great way to interpret the character. It is nice when the hero of a franchise doesn't take themselves' too seriously. But there are times when we still need some drama in the mix. How well the actor can shift from one polarised tone to the other can actually enhance the comedy significantly. It throws those humorous moments into a sort of sharp relief and makes them stand out all the more. Whereas if the actor isn't so good at playing up the darker sides of the character, the funniness feels less effective. 

Levels of silliness also fall under this criteria. Sometimes, a performer can really go far with their range of expression. Making an intensely goofy face at just the right moment works for the scene. Other times, they need to hold back a bit. Ultimately, they are still trying to get a laugh, but the effort shouldn't seem quite so concerted. How and when the actor makes these choices is also crucial to how well the visual gags come across. 

3) Room for improvisation

This seems to have always been an integral element for creating comedy in Doctor Who. There have been so many occasions where the script didn't have any kind of joke written into a certain scene but the actors involved decided to put one there. Oftentimes, the suggestion still needed to be approved by the director. But it was still a joke that was created, very much, on-the-spot. 

Visual comedy was inserted even more frequently in such a fashion. Particularly since it would often have no bearing on what was actually written on the page. Performers would still be saying the dialogue they had been given, there would just be some sort of sight gag thrown in on top of things. 

A trained eye is capable of spotting when such a thing occurs in a scene. But it does help that I have done a large amount of behind-the-scenes research, too. Learning about how the show was made has revealed to me where most of this little add-ons have occurred. 

How well these little improvisations were put together and executed will be a special category that will add to the overall score of each candidate. 

4) Overall Aesthetics 

Part of what can make comedic timing effective is the "flow" an actor creates with body movement and mannerisms. Even if they are not actually trying to execute a sight gag, a good comic still moves in a certain way. Their body language almost indicates that they are ready, at any given moment, to "become funny". In the very way that they stand or walk around, we can see visual humor waiting to come out of them. 

How our "Funny Doctors" hold themselves during their various scenes is yet one more category that will be allotted a specific point system to determine just how good they are at visual comedy. 

5) Personal Taste 

While there is a certain level of subjectivity to any of these categories, this one will be based the most on my own personal opinion. 

The truth of the matter is: a Doctor might be great at making his visual gags "land". But their humor, in general, might not appeal as much to my tastes. I just find certain styles of comedic performance to be funnier than others. So I've reserved one item of criteria to be solely about how amused I am by what the actor does to make me laugh. 

Well, laying out all those ground rules took far more word-count than I had, initially, imagined. But, when it comes to comedy, it's important to be clear about these things. The subjectivity of humor can cloud issues very quickly! 

So, I've decided this entry will be the "Prologue" to the REVIEW OVERVIEW. We'll actually start picking things apart in the next essay. 

Of course, I still haven't revealed which three incarnations are the true "Visual Comedy Doctors". For that, you'll just have to wait and see....