Talk:William Hartnell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Who Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Re: difficult personality. Most of the remarks by his colleagues on the value added portions R1 DVD's currently extant (The Aztecs, The Dalek Invasion of Earth, and The Three Doctors) are fairly laudatory in the nature of "he was a great actor, but I heard that...[insert some second-hand uncomplimentary remark or anecdote]...but then, he was nice enough to me." Ellsworth 23:24, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Heard that?

Contents 1 Alcoholism? 2 Filmography 3 Inability to remember lines? 4 Arteriosclerosis again 5 "Hartnellisms" 6 Was he a B-----? 7 Sylvia Young Theatre School?.... 8 Conflict with Wiles and Lloyd 9 Racism

[edit] Alcoholism?

I don't recall hearing that Hartnell was actually an alcoholic in the medical sense of being addicted. I know he was known for liking a drink, but can we be sure enough to say either that he was an alcoholic, or that this brought on his arteriosclerosis? I don't think we can unless we have access to his medical records. I would suggest removal of "brought on by years of alcoholism" unless someone can justify its inclusion. User:DavidFarmbrough 17:00 (BST) 2 June 2005

I thought that it was pretty well established that his years of heavy-duty boozing are what brought on his AS. PMA 10:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have read recently that Arteriosclerosis is quite complex (it's a symptom rather than an illness itself) and only now beginning to be understood. The re-wording is fine, BTW. DavidFarmbrough 16:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Filmography

I would like to include a filmography but am conscious of the fact that this is likely to at least start as a straight copy of information from Who's There or IMDB. Presumably if the information in both sources is identical, there should be no copyright issues, but can someone confirm whether my understanding is correct? I think once the basic filmography data is added, it can be fleshed out. DavidFarmbrough 16:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inability to remember lines?

I am not happy with "Inability to remember lines". Hartnell prided himself on his ability to learn and remember lines very quickly in twice weekly rep. The fluffs do not seem to be caused by memory problems, but due to speech difficulties. A classic example is his saying 'spain' instead of 'Space'. Clearly he didn't mis-remember the line, he just mispronounced it. I think we can do better. DavidFarmbrough 12:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

He didn't misremember the line, he just mispronounced it? That's too fine of a distinction. I've never heard anyone giving George W. Bush that much room to make a bad speech, except perhaps for his advocates who won't disagree with him under normal circumstances.

It was Hartnell's job to remember and deliver the lines; he failed to do that on occasion, far more than Troughton or Pertwee (whose recording schedules best match Hartnell's). How many fluffs did William Russell have? One? (I.e., "Cockylikken" vs. "Koquillion".) How many lines did Kevin Stoney have in The Daleks' Master Plan? At least as many as Hartnell's, and he had fewer fluffs. And the reason Stoney was given so many lines was not accidental. The production team was hoping to reduce Hartnell's delivery problems by reducing his time onscreen. Once that hope vanished, so did his job. (Years later, Hartnell would claim he left first. I expect that's revisionism.)

Hartnell may have had a great memory doing twice weekly rep back when he was in his 20's, but he didn't do as well as he should have in 'Doctor Who'. Looking back, the whole thing is fun and cute, but at the time, directors and producers had to be pulling their hair out. ("Why can't he just say 'flourescent' for goodness sake?!") If there had been studio time, the fluffs would have been rerecorded. These were not left in because someone thought, "It's OK that he remembers his lines but can't pronounce them."

This reasoning smacks of hagiography to me, which I don't buy. Hartnell was a man who put his trousers on the same way everyone else does. He was a brilliant actor, but that doesn't mean we should sugar-coat his mistakes.

So, to conclude my mini-rant, I don't object to the rewrite, just some of the assumptions behind it.

proteus71 15:58, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

It's not hagiography - it's accuracy. I am not making assumptions, but suggesting revision of received wisdom/cliché. DavidFarmbrough 17:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

From the POV of a dispassionate historian (and I mean that in its best sense), you're right: there is a difference between not remembering lines and having a problem delivering the lines. From the POV of a serious amateur or professional, it's a meaningless distinction. It was a case where actor simply couldn't perform to spec at all times. Hartnell was a professional: it was his job to say "anti-radiation drugs", and he didn't. So, to-MAY-to, to-MAH-to.

The suggestion that Hartnell's speech rather than his memory was an issue is interesting. Is there any verification for this?

proteus71 19:03, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The evidence of it being speech rather than memory that was an issue is in the recordings of his performances. I don't want any speculation I might have to go in the article of course, but he may have had an undocumented or undiagnosed stroke during his time in Doctor Who (he certainly had some afterwards). As a 'fan', I have usually accepted the received wisdon that he had memory problems due to arteriosclerosis in the same way as I accepted that the first four episodes were called 'An Unearthly Child'. It might be time to look again. DavidFarmbrough 12:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The idea of a previously undocumented stroke is intriguing. I doubt Jessica Carney would release such info, if she had any. This might be a case for a medical historican to look over the facts and render an opinion. How we would go about that, I don't know.

proteus71 16:25, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arteriosclerosis again

Having looked at the wiki article on arteriosclerosis there is no mention of alcohol as a cause, so we may need to revise this yet again. It is not possible for us to say what caused this particular person's arteriosclerosis, (although I might speculate that it could have more to do with Hartnell's stress and depression than with his drinking) even if heavy drinking could have been an indirect cause. DavidFarmbrough 12:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Alchohol certainly puts quite a strain on the heart, and frequently makes pre-existing heart conditions worse. I woudn't be surprised if Hartnell's stressful work schedule caused it, and that the drinking worsened it significantly.--Sean|Black 23:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Is the current wording "(arteriosclerosis, possibly exacerbated by years of drinking)" acceptable to all? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine with me.--Sean|Black 00:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

That is a helpful re-wording, thanks Josiah. DavidFarmbrough 12:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Hartnellisms"

Personally I wouldn't have this ridiculous and even vaguely insulting list in the article, but hey-ho. However, I do have a serious challenge - I've read a fair few cast and crew interviews from the show down the years, and I've not once seen a single reference to the terms "Hartnellism" or "Billy-fluff" outside of fandom. But the article claims they were called this by "cast, production team and fans". Any sources, anyone? Angmering 00:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Can't say I disagree: We can have the notable fluffs in the serial articles, which would then eliminate the misleading "production team" bit. Thoughts?--Sean|Black 00:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Plenty of actors have messed up lines, this seems slightly out of proportion, and as you say, unsourced. --TimPope 21:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree that this section might give undue weight to Hartnell's line fluffs, but I do think that they're notable. I took out the reference to cast and production team; perhaps a note should also be added explaining that the nature of television production at the time made it more likely for line fluffs to be included in the final broadcast than is common today. (I'm not necessarily opposing a move to delete this section entirely, just seeing if it can be improved as another possible course.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It might be fair for these to be put in a separate article if they're considered notable enough. It is perhaps worth just mentioning the line fluffs in the main Hartnell article as it is fair comment on his later years as an actor, but I agree that it is probably disproportionate, and his last few years as an actor are not representative of his previous forty. DavidFarmbrough 09:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I doubt that an article of "Hartnellisms" would pass a vote for deletion. Perhaps we could just cite a few examples and send the rest to Wikiquote, with a link? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sending the bulk to Wikiquote would be a good idea. There are more quotes available than the ones already listed, but the more quotes listed, the more "insulting" it begins to seem. Perhaps keep three? (Esp. "fornicator".) As to the notion that "plenty of actors have messed up lines", no. You have only to compare the number of Troughton's fluffs to Hartnell's to see this. proteus71 16:45, 22 Nov 2005.

However a) By Troughton's time there were more recording breaks and more editing of tape and b) Troughton's fluffs may be less noticeable as his style often involved deviation from the scripted lines. Agree with wikiquote idea thoughDavidFarmbrough 10:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd support a move to Wikiquote as well.--Sean|Black 22:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Proteus71 has, rightly, moved the bulk of the "Hartnellisms" to Wikiquote. Good man. But I'd kind of like the "cinders in Spain" and "matron" fluffs both to be included. I understand the reasoning behind keeping the "anti-radiation gloves" and especially the fornicator, but do you think we could have four entries instead of three? What do other folks think are the best to include in the (smaller) list? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI: I'm reading About Time Vol. 1 by Tat Wood and Lawrence Miles, and it frequently refers to "Billy Fluffs". (I hadn't heard that term before it was added to this page, but now we do have a published souce using it.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was he a B-----?

I do not know to what extent it is relevant these days to mention Hartnell's supposed illegitimacy. This is deduced from his birth certificate (a copy of which I have) which shows a gap for the father's name. This is USUALLY an indication of illegitimacy, but not necessarily, and without information as to whether his mother was married we cannot know for certain (Not even the retention of her surname is conclusive). Also, these days illegitimacy is becoming quite common and the former stigma that was attached to it is less than it was at the time. The articles on Michael Caine and Derek Jameson don't mention their subjects' illegitimacies, so I was wondering if we ought to remove it. DavidFarmbrough 12:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless it can be shown from a cited source that being illegitimate somehow affected his life in some significant way, then it should be removed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It is implied by Who's There that the stigma of illegitimacy made him invent a different background when talking to journalists, however this could be for a number of reasons, romanticism, vanity, or even self-delusion. I don't think the illegitimacy per se can be seen to have affected him so much as other aspects of his background. DavidFarmbrough 13:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that illegitimacy isn't as big a deal now as it used to be, but it was still a pretty big deal when Hartnell was a young man. I understand the impulse to remove "out of wedlock", but we should be careful to avoid the appearance of whitewashing. I don't feel terribly strongly about it, but my inclination is to leave it in, especially since we have a citation for it (which can be reformatted, if anyone wishes to do so). Wood and Miles may be overly glib, but aren't we supposed to report the facts as they are recorded in secondary sources? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty is that it's notable... how? "Born out of wedlock" is such an archaic phrase, as well. I am all in favour of putting in facts, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts, as they say. Context is key, as I used to tell my history undergrads — ask yourself, "So what?" If one can make an argument for how it is actually significant, hey, let's go for it. If not, it seems rather pointless. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not mad about the phrase "out of wedlock" either, and would support a more neutral wording if anyone comes up with it. ("Illegitimate" has a connotation of inheritance which doesn't seem entirely appropriate either.) I haven't read Who's There, so can't really speak to the issue of exactly how the circumstances of Hartnell's birth did or didn't affect his life — I suppose I was just assuming that an illegitimate birth in 1908 would affect one's life and attitudes, although I admit that I can't really specify how. As I said, I don't feel that strongly about it, and if those who have read the biography say it didn't really affect his life that much I suppose there's no need for us to mention it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's true that the term 'illegitimate' has connotations, and there are groups of people who think that the term either shouldn't be used or that someone born illegitimately can be legitimised by a subsequent marriage. DavidFarmbrough 14:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sylvia Young Theatre School?....

....First opened in 1981. Time travel maybe?

No - It was Italia Conti - now corrected with my apologies. DavidFarmbrough 21:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict with Wiles and Lloyd

Some commentators now contend that reports of Hartnell's illness were subsequently exaggerated by Lambert's successors in the role of producer, John Wiles and Innes Lloyd, to justify a desire (ultimately successful) to remove the expensive actor from the series. Others suggest that it was a mutual decision between Hartnell and the production team that he should leave the programme.

This rather avoids the huges clashes between Wiles & Hartnell over the direction of the series - in crude terms Wiles & Tosh wanted to take the serious in a more adult and darker direction whilst Hartnell, who as the only remaining member of the original team, saw himself as the guardian of what he considered to be the show's core values. Wiles tried to replace Hartnell but was overruled by his superiors (although there's a story, probably apocryphal, that the contract department simply issued Hartnell with a new one) and in frustration with this and other problems on the series that he had little control over (for instance he didn't commission The Daleks' Master Plan and found it a nightmare, whilst his plan for a Cockney speaking companion was vetoed from on high) he resigned. By contrast Lloyd's tenure coincided with a change of superior so he was able to make some of the very changes Wiles had been denied. I've never heard the suggestion that Hartnell's fees were seen as a problem. Does anyone feel confident enough to tackle all this in the article? Timrollpickering 10:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racism

From much of my reading it seems that the man was quite the racist, and openly so -- which is a disappointment to me, finding his Doctor exceedingly charming in a dickish way, but I digress. Am debating whether that would be worth mentioning, as it seems to have affected casting, relationships with other cast members, etc. due to his refusal to work with minorities..... Mainly thinking aloud. Thoughts? --John Kenneth Fisher 05:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That Hartnell was racist was my understanding as well, but before we add anything about that to the article we should be damn sure to have solid citations for the claims that he was racist, as well as any claims that he wasn't. I seem to recall lots of quotations along the lines of "I've heard Bill was terribly racist, but he never said anything in front of me..." Did Hartnell's granddaughter address the issue in the biography she wrote? (I've never read it.)

Insofar as we can provide reliable sources for Hartnell's views and prejudices, I think the matter is encyclopedic, but we shouldn't add anything this inflammatory without proper citations of reliable sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)