A few days ago cel4145 sent me a head's up that the BBC is considering Eddie Izzard for the title role in the eagerly-awaited new Dr. Who series. I've heard the name Eddie Izzard mentioned in some of the most bizarre places, but haven't actually seen his work. In fact, all I know is apparently what everyone knows; that he's a cross-dressing comedian.
I decided to do some research and found Eddie's autobiography. Unfortunately, the biography ends after the cryptic line, "And then I decided to become a tranvestite."
I guess the big question is, if Izzard takes the role, can we expect to see the character portrayed as gay or transexual? This is an interesting question for a Dr. Who fan because of the doctor's famous "regenerations," which supposedly account for the variety of actors who have played the role. Is it possible that the doctor could be re-generated with not only a new body, but a new sexual orientation?
Throughout the show's history, the doctor has often been teamed up with sexy female side-kicks, but it wasn't until an awful (Okay, it was BAD folks) American Dr. Who travesty that he actually kissed a woman. While Tom Baker's status as a "lady's man" is infamous among Dr. Who fans, the Doctor he played expressed no desire for sex--either straight or gay. Like so many mysteries concerning the "truth" about the doctor, his sexual orientation has always been purely a matter of conjecture. I didn't keep up with the last doctor, but I doubt his role changed much in that regard.
This is just pure speculation, but I don't doubt the Dr. Who community is doing PLENTY of that right now. Thoughts?
Locating Doctor Who
Regarding the Doctor's sexual orientation, a snag with this is the concept that the Doctor's gender can be malleable as well. While the Doctor-as-woman has only really been utilized twice (the out-of-continuity adventures of The Curse of Fatal Death and Doctor Who Unbound: Exile), the possibility still exists. In fact, the Doctor can regenerate into any form, humanoid or otherwise, opening discussions of race and gender to an incredible level.
As for the kiss, there has been some debate whether it was a truly sexual act or an child-like act of happiness and realization. But, discussions/defenses of the TV movie might overwhelm the boards, so I'll digress on that... ;)
The Doctor's sexual orientation has always appeared to be relegated to the background. In one unofficial adventure, he comments that's he's "been too busy" for such things (and I'll admit, in dodging monsters and madmen, it might be difficult to ask someone out for coffee). The Doctor's experiences with gender, sex, and the whole messy business are too numerous to catalog here, but the character's reactions have basically remained the same.
Doctor Who Monthly published a fairly cursory article entitled "No Sex, Please... He's British," an article mostly centered on the TV movie and his interactions with Grace. However, many of the conclusions from the article stand for the entire series (regardless of the medium): that matters of sex are not matters of high concern. This seems to resonate with the fans, considering the debate over the TV Movie and the outrage over a previous movie proposal (very early 1990s) concerning the Doctor actually sleeping with his companion.
Of course, the television series walked the line between entertainment for children and adults, while the novels and audio dramas have taken a more "Mature Readers" attitude toward content. It is of some irony that while it is of lesser importance with the Doctor, it is becoming of significant importance in regard to the companions...
Toms
Toms...Toms...I know you, right?
Anyway, your points are well taken. In general, I think, British TV doesn't seem as saturated with sensuality as much as we are (i.e., it's culturally acceptable to be an egg-head in Britain!)
I always wondered about the Tom Baker episodes with Leela (spelling?) She was obviously present for sex appeal, yet the doctor didn't seem to notice.
As far as the novels are concerned, my question is how related are they to the TV series? Do the stories occur in "different universes," so to speak, or do they mutually inform each other? Do things that happen in the novels have a bearing on the show?
Firing the DW Canon
As Doctor Who grows larger and larger, the question of canon and continuity is discussed more and more. The Virgin Publishing line, the BBC Books line, the Big Finish audios, the DWM comic strips - how do they all fit in?
Because the authors want to use certain characters and concepts from previous outings (many of the current authors also published under Virgin's New Adventures line), many believed that the "universes" were all one solid mythos. That is, until Lawrence Miles tossed the New Adventures into a bottle universe in Interference. The comic strip is not considered part of the continuity, so why is the shapeshifting Frobisher in Mission: Impractical? Continuity and canon are hotly debated topics, and with a host of writers, artists, filmmakers, and the like collaborating and experimenting with the mythology that Doctor Who has created, one continuity is never definitive.
The big question now is how the novel line will be affected once the new series comes out in 2005. Will it be discontinued or modified into a Past Doctors line? Will the new series take events from the novel into account (some BIG things have gone on since Survival was aired)? Only the producers of the new series know for sure, and they're not talking...
And by the way, Eddie has spoken!
As for knowing me, it's entirely possible. It's a small universe...
Canon and Continuity
I never really thought about how many rationalilizations are available to Dr. Who scriptors...Of course, they can always claim that the doctor slipped into an alternate dimension, or what have you, and modify the story/history/future without looking back (or forward).
I guess the Dr. Who franchise is an example of a PRotestant, as opposed to Catholic, literary "universe."
Eddie is a Lady's Man
Glad to see you did your research; however, there is no way Eddie would have insisted upon regenerating the character as a tranvestite. Perhaps the BBC sought him out for that quirky reason, but it seems to me that he treats his film career differently as seen by his portrayal of Charlie Chaplin in "The Cat's Meow."
I believe his most celebrated stand up "Dress to Kill" is shown on HBO over and over, so check it out if you can. It's his smart wit that stands out more than his joker-like makeup, and his entire closing bit is about puberty and losing his virginity, so, yes, he's straight.