This After Russell Davies' Interview Segment
(As I was randomly tagging entries in this journal's archive, I found this from December 2005, which I had written, and for some reason, privacy'd instead of posted. I can only guess I meant to add more and never did. I thought it still a worthy point for discussion, regardless of its age and datedness.)
Seems that the web magazine Online Recruitment has taken Russell T Davies to task after his comments about not casting a Doctor (actor) over the age of forty-five.
(Irony being, Tim and I weren't long past discussing that as being almost the minimum 'age' we thought of for the Doctor.)
The article did make me think a few things, though. About equity (and Equity) and casting/acting, mostly. It really is one of the last industries where you can get away with discriminating between people on grounds you'd never get away with elsewhere. I've read casting calls and they often call for people of specific age, gender, appearance or some combination thereof. Can you imagine if you advertised an office job under those considerations? Wouldn't like to be facing that backlash.
But, one of the key elements in both jobs (the office worker and the actor), and in fact in any job is the ability to carry out that job regardless. Well, what I am talking about? It's the key element in a job. Well, that and not and saying daft things during the interview. 'hem. For the office worker, this means the ability to sit at a desk and...well, do whatever it is people do in offices all day. For the actor, this means the ability to be believable in whichever role they're playing. And the truth is that sometimes this might mean wanting certain attributes in your actor. These might be important to the plot, especially if you're making a historical or biopic.
A hypothetical: If you were making a film about the last days of Martin Luther King jr, you probably wouldn't cast a young white woman as King. (Although, now I think about it, that could be interesting to watch.) You'd want someone who bore at least a passing resemblance to the man. And a history of King is going to be one where the colour of the lead's skin is likely to factor into the story. (Yep, 'likely'. I've learnt that whenever I state an absolute, I end up in trouble.)
2008 additional: Of course, I doubt that if Russell were to be casting a new Doctor, he wouldn't get to someone absolutely perfect then to drop them upon finding out they were 46. Also, what I kind of brush over in the above is that the Doctor has usually been a bit of 'clean' casting, with actors of many ages and manners playing him. Even that he's male is as much a matter of precedent than anything *. There's not even a 'theme', the way that the Last of the Summer Wine leads are old men, even though each new actor is a new character.
However, what Russell is probably thinking of, as much as anything, is historical context (what common themes there have been in 'older' and 'younger' Doctors), audience reactions to those he and others have cast, current media trends, the shape of the show he's running and just what's been on the screen lately. So I don't agree with 'never over 45', especially as 'policy', but I'm not sure he was intending to be as ageist as he comes across.
*Albiet very strong precedent.
Seems that the web magazine Online Recruitment has taken Russell T Davies to task after his comments about not casting a Doctor (actor) over the age of forty-five.
(Irony being, Tim and I weren't long past discussing that as being almost the minimum 'age' we thought of for the Doctor.)
The article did make me think a few things, though. About equity (and Equity) and casting/acting, mostly. It really is one of the last industries where you can get away with discriminating between people on grounds you'd never get away with elsewhere. I've read casting calls and they often call for people of specific age, gender, appearance or some combination thereof. Can you imagine if you advertised an office job under those considerations? Wouldn't like to be facing that backlash.
But, one of the key elements in both jobs (the office worker and the actor), and in fact in any job is the ability to carry out that job regardless. Well, what I am talking about? It's the key element in a job. Well, that and not and saying daft things during the interview. 'hem. For the office worker, this means the ability to sit at a desk and...well, do whatever it is people do in offices all day. For the actor, this means the ability to be believable in whichever role they're playing. And the truth is that sometimes this might mean wanting certain attributes in your actor. These might be important to the plot, especially if you're making a historical or biopic.
A hypothetical: If you were making a film about the last days of Martin Luther King jr, you probably wouldn't cast a young white woman as King. (Although, now I think about it, that could be interesting to watch.) You'd want someone who bore at least a passing resemblance to the man. And a history of King is going to be one where the colour of the lead's skin is likely to factor into the story. (Yep, 'likely'. I've learnt that whenever I state an absolute, I end up in trouble.)
2008 additional: Of course, I doubt that if Russell were to be casting a new Doctor, he wouldn't get to someone absolutely perfect then to drop them upon finding out they were 46. Also, what I kind of brush over in the above is that the Doctor has usually been a bit of 'clean' casting, with actors of many ages and manners playing him. Even that he's male is as much a matter of precedent than anything *. There's not even a 'theme', the way that the Last of the Summer Wine leads are old men, even though each new actor is a new character.
However, what Russell is probably thinking of, as much as anything, is historical context (what common themes there have been in 'older' and 'younger' Doctors), audience reactions to those he and others have cast, current media trends, the shape of the show he's running and just what's been on the screen lately. So I don't agree with 'never over 45', especially as 'policy', but I'm not sure he was intending to be as ageist as he comes across.
*Albiet very strong precedent.