It’s part of the magic of Doctor Who. You know the old warhorse, “Wherever you go, there you are”? I propose this logic can be used to argue that any actor playing the Doctor is the right Doctor, as sort of a tautology or definition.
I was not yet born when Doctor Who first aired in 1963, nor would I have been in a location that would have received the broadcast. And yet, I’m able to imagine watching Susan lead her teachers to the TARDIS, and the surprise that would come from seeing inside. I can put myself in the place of a viewer who would define her Doctor solely as Hartnell. Who else would it be, during the earliest years? It’s certainly not the norm to have a main character regenerate, after all, even today. So all the wonder and excitement that would have come from seeing the Doctor for the first time would be rekindled when Hartnell changed into Troughton, the first regeneration, if for no other reason than this transformation was unexpected, the first of its kind.
I won’t take you through regeneration by regeneration, as I think you get the point. I would, however, lead you to a more uncertain time for the show, during John Nathan Turner’s tenure as show runner. Many Whovians would argue that some combination of Doctors 5, 6, and 7 would constitute a weak link in the show’s lineage. And while you can certainly make valid points about things affected by budget, such as costumes, sets, special effects, etc., it’s trickier to tag the actual Doctors and their eras as deficient. Here’s one reason why. Moffat recently said that anyone cast as the Doctor would have to be a star, meaning (my interpretation) a versatile actor who had the acting chops to carry the role. Looking at the character as one spanning almost 51 years, it would be impossible to fully understand his journey without the contributions of each actor. Every last one of them is necessary to form the Doctor’s complex personality.
Every actor playing the Doctor has had his detractors, and every era’s show runners have been questioned (some more than others, of course). It’s part of the balance of the fandom. Speaking to the fans, I would say that whatever your personal opinions are about any given Doctor, to love any one of them is to be benefiting from the contributions made by all. And I don’t just mean that linearly. Not only do we have to appreciate the First Doctor to know and love the Twelfth, but we must also appreciate the Twelfth if we have love for any before him. It’s funny that the show has the element of time travel in it, as it illustrates what’s going on in the contributions of each actor and each era’s creators: there are fixed points in the character’s development that can be likened to the fixed points in time that the Doctor describes as Ten. Specifically, the casting of each actor sinks an anchor into seas of interpretation that all must navigate. If an anchor had been laid down at a different point–if the show had cast a different actor–it would change the entire boundaries of the story. The world of the Doctor would be metamorphosed just as surely as if the show runner had been altered.
Why does this matter? It matters to me because it tempers the frustration I sometimes feel towards particular regenerations and eras. This perspective is more generous, more supportive, and ultimately, shows more goodwill towards the show than other, narrower, views I have held. (Sorry Peter Davison. I’m working on it.)
So, if you do not already, I invite you to say with me, “If I’m not near the Doctor I love, I love the Doctor I’m near.”
Thoughts? All input is welcome!
We're All Just Stories in the End 