The Romans

One of the more amusing aspects of watching William Hartnell episodes is the Doctor's sudden tendency in this incarnation for extreme violence. The comedy value of the episode is often enhanced by the use of a stunt double for Hartnell, such as in "The Chase" where the Daleks' robot replica gets nine shades kicked out of him by a very agile Edmund Warwick, or in fact where they didn't, such as in "The Romans". Here, Hartnell skilfully beats up Ascaris the assassin, cheerfully declaring it the most fun he's had in ages when he's finished! And to think of the trouble they went to later on to avoid marking the Doctor out as the culprit behind any violent act!

In fact, and as much as I want to avoid point-scoring in the war between the decades, Hartnell's gleeful propensity for personally disposing of his enemies or, as is usually the case, anyone who happens to get in the way, makes the Sixth Doctor's occasional lapses into fisticuffs seem trivial in comparison. Of course it wasn't necessary for the Doctor to suffocate Shockeye in "The Two Doctors", but is it any worse than the First Doctor smashing a slave overseer over the head with a shovel in "The Reign of Terror"? And at least none of the later Doctors, with the possible exception of an erratically behaving Fourth in "The Seeds of Doom", seem to ENJOY inflicting pain on others.

"I never take life, except when my own is threatened!" moralises the First Doctor in "The Dalek Invasion of Earth", a few moments after having happily kicked the living daylights out of a Roboman.

Personally I think the problems with mid-eighties Who were a combination of an over prissy, possibly scapegoat-seeking BBC and a general proliferation of dark adventures. I don't think I'd have minded as a child if the Doctor occasionally used force to beat his opponents, although I was probably set a better example by him mostly using invention over might. But I definitely didn't like stories like "Vengeance on Varos", "Caves of Androzani" or "Revelation of the Daleks", not because of any particularly violent act, but because they were depressing in look, feel and atmosphere. There are dark places in the Universe, but I didn't want MY Doctor going there - it was a bit too much like the real world intervening. When it arrived, the cartoon colours of Season 24 were more up my street. They *were* supposed to be doing it for the kids, after all.

For so long we have maintained a belief that there are certain practices the Doctor shouldn't indulge in: fighting, sex, and swearing. We're almost like protective parents, not wanting this God-like character to put a foot wrong. He's allowed to be "vulnerable" if it means making mistakes like allowing Claire Clifford to die or accidentally starting the Fire of London. Yet heaven forbid if he were to give in to a night of passion with a woman of the night or let the odd "shit" slip out. Realistically of course, he shouldn't because it sets a bad example for the kids. But at the same time, does a television hero have to be infallible? Do the lengths of setting an example not allow him to make a mistake, or even set out on a wrong path, if he is shown the error of his mistakes afterwards? We're very unforgiving hero-worshippers.

I'm sure there is room for the Doctor to be a little bit violent sometimes if it gives us a scene as funny and harmless as the Doctor getting his own back on that assassin in "The Romans". But there must also be room for him to be less than perfect if it demonstrates that people can regret their actions and change for the better. So if the new Doctor loses his rag and punches someone out, go easy on him. And remember it's probably just the Hartnell in him coming to the surface...