Doctor Who: Wild Blue Yonder

If you're anything like me, you have been watching Doctor Who since at least the Christopher Eccleston era, and Russell T. Davies' (RTD) return with David Tennant as the 14th reincarnation of the Doctor (formerly the 10th) and Catherine Tate as Donna Noble was met with great enthusiasm. Now, I am no expect in science fiction, and episodes that take place in the future are probably better suited for people who love that area of story-telling, but my favourite episodes are always ones that took place in the past. Notably recent examples include 'Rosa' where they visit 1960's USA, and 'Demons of the Punjab' during the partition of India. I won't go into the writing side of things because I'm no expert in producing scripts, and - additionally, while I am by no means an expert in those eras, I did enjoy the fact they went to those times and touched upon those issues - barring the alien invasions and all that!

But in the latest tenure of Doctor Who, headed by RTD where 3 specials have been written for the 60th anniversary, an episode entitled: 'Wild Blue Yonder', there was something (a few things!) that stood out to me as an avid Isaac Newton nerd. 

Before I get into the details I want to stress that I have no problem with any of the cast who took part in this episode, and that my opinions are purely due to my devotion to historical facts.

So the episode starts with a scene set in 1666 at Woolsthorpe Manor, the place Sir Isaac Newton was born and grew up. It was here that he made most of his famous discoveries while avoiding a plague that that swept across England and into Cambridge (where he was enrolled at the time). It was also during this period he recalls (in contemporary accounts) that he witnessed an apple fall from the (famous) tree, sparking a legend that projected him being underneath and hit on the head by one (a memorable myth!).

In the episode the T.A.R.D.I.S. lands on the famous apple tree where Isaac Newton (played by Nathaniel Curtis) is sat underneath holding an apple. The landing causes a multitude of apples to fall - with some landing on his head. He gets up and looks at the T.A.R.D.I.S., saying: 'Odds bodkins, what the devil?'. The Doctor and Donna poke their heads out and apologise for the landing, and ends with a comment about 'mavity' (which I'll get to in a bit).

So let's address the first (and obvious) point.

There are many comments and posts on social media talking about this, and a lot of them take the general angle of: 'It's just a sci-fi show, why are you mad?'. Some have even compared it to other previous episodes, such as 'The Unicorn and the Wasp' with the character of Agatha Christie, or 'The Shakespeare Code' with (obviously) Shakespeare (an episode that ironically has the Doctor say: 'political correctness gone mad'), saying that these characters didn't do the things they were written to do. And they are correct, Christie didn't confront giant wasps, and Shakespeare didn't deal with alien witches. 

The episode with Winston Churchill entitled: 'Victory of the Daleks' is fiction since the real Churchill never met an actual Dalek (probably because they don't exist or something). 

Agatha Christie (left) portrayed by Fenella Woolgar (right).

However, what they miss is that all of the actors who were cast to play these real life historical people were chosen because they closely resembled the person they were playing. It leads the viewer to become more focused on the story at hand - however fictional because they recognise the figure from famous paintings or photographs, whether or not the events in the episode took place or not.

In 'Wild Blue Yonder', Isaac Newton's actor notably does not resemble the real Isaac Newton from the contemporary paintings he had commissioned. 

This is by no means any disrespect to Curtis, as his acting skills (albeit for only a short scene) displayed his capabilities. But, because he does not physically resemble the real Isaac Newton, I felt a little taken out of the scene.

Now, from my understanding, there is a quota the BBC have, which basically means they need to have a percentage of 'non-white' actors in each episode. But personally, I do not think this was the way to fulfil that quota since this was only the beginning and there was more than ample opportunity throughout the rest of the run time.

As far as I am aware, most people who hear 'Isaac Newton' will have a general idea of what he looked like: white hair, brown eyes, a long nose, and...white skin. 

The history geek in me was very surprised by this, and I was confused as to why they would cast an actor like Curtis to play Newton. I will get into the other inaccuracies later, but for a show that originally started as a way to educated children on history, it seemed to have neglected this point when it came to Newton. In all the previous episodes, the real life historical characters were portrayed by actors who could not just physically resemble them, but bring them to life with realistic mannerisms - even the character of Shakespeare, who has more hair and speaks with much less eloquence than the real Shakespeare and his plays could be recognised as the famous playwright without suspending disbelief.

With much backlash from fans and history lovers like myself, there has been an attempt to turn the narrative against them, calling people who are simply in line with historical accuracy 'racists' and 'bigots'. Even the casting director accuses these same people of 'villainising' minorities, when the truth is simply that people are not so closed minded to just accept that real historical figures can be played by anyone of any race, particularly when it comes to a time-travel show that is meant to educated the audience as well as have fun with the story. Had the Doctor travelled to a location in the Middle East or North Africa and met a famous scientist or innovator from there, then nobody would have batted an eyelid - especially not about their race. In all likeliness, they would have enjoyed it and been intrigued by this person from history who they may not have known much about but who contributed in their own way to human history. 

Regarding the BBC's or RTD's choices to cast Curtis. I hear a lot about actors who are cast because they were 'the right person for the role'. Perhaps this is the case in terms of enacting the behaviour of the character, but it only comes to life if the same person physically resembles them. Vinette Robinson, looks like Rosa Parks and could play her character, Ian McNeice - while larger than the real Churchill, looks like him and could recreate his mannerisms. Again going back to the quota, perhaps this was the only way they could fulfil it, although something tells me this isn't the case...

And, much like with Shakespeare, while we don't exactly know how Isaac Newton behaved or how he displayed his personality, we get an idea based on what others said about him at the time, and how he interacted with certain situations or events that have been recorded. And, while others may not like it, we certainly knew what he looked like.

I have never agreed with race-swapping - whether that be white actors playing non-white people or vice-versa. Even actors who put on an accent, such as an English actor having a Russian accent, somehow causes them to stand out a little too much from the story. And people who are race-swapping white historical figures to non-white is just doing more of the same but in a different context, and it is certainly not going to 'right wrongs' of the past.

Now, moving on to other inaccuracies relating to the scene (and me being nit-picky about it!) 

Newton in 'Wild Blue Yonder' is wearing quite fancy clothing. In 17th century rural Lincolnshire, Newton would likely not be wearing clothes that were better suited for someone in the French aristocracy, rather plain brown, cream or black wool breeches with a white cotton shirt and black or brown jacket. To me it looks like the costume designers re-used an outfit worn by one of the main actors from 'Versailles', (Louis or Phillipe!) rather than Newton, who by all accounts was a University student, but who would have been living on a sheep farm at the time. Clothes like that would have been very impractical and far too extravagant for the setting (and probably a nightmare for his family to wash!). If I was to dress him in any colour, it would be crimson!

'Mavity'. This word (which the Doctor uses) is meant as a joke, since the myth/legend has Newton being struck by an apple and crying something like: 'Eureka! 'Gravity!'. The disbelief (at least for me) comes in when people at the time already knew gravity existed - and called it 'gravity'. Literally everyone - even Newton's poor, illiterate family knew the word 'gravity', and knew it existed, they just didn't understand how it worked or what it really was. As I mentioned, Doctor Who was originally a series of history lessons, so doing the research, even for such a short scene would have made the world of difference. Although I can forgive this since they did a similar thing with Shakespeare when 'Ten' (Tennant) gives him the line: 'All the world's a stage'.

So, with all that said, I do not claim to be an expert in all things Doctor Who, nor do I begrudge the actor taking on the role of such a famous genius. But as far as portraying real historical people, the actors cast should at least largely resemble them, otherwise it just takes you out of the story. And I leave you to have your own opinions on the episode and its subject matter. 

"His Cat Grew Fat..."

One of the arguments I got into with a member of the Woolsthorpe Manor volunteer staff was about Newton's affiliation with animals. Many people, including vegetarians like to think that Newton was an animal lover and would never harm or eat animals - despite the fact that Newton wasn't a vegetarian when he ordered meat in his food delivery, especially during his early and middle years.

But when I debated that Isaac Newton never owned a cat, the volunteer in question told me I was wrong. I knew of the quote she was referring to, which was:

"His cat grew very fat on the food he left standing on his tray" - 'Never at Rest', Richard S Westfall.

The source in the book states that (apparently) Newton told this to his niece, Catherine Conduitt (nee Barton) in the early 1700's, whose husband John Conduitt credited to "C.C." [Catherine Conduitt] and that it was specifically his cat at university. (Keynes MS 130.6, Book 2).

However, Humphrey Newton, a fellow at Cambridge (and surprisingly no relation) recalled that he 'kept neither dog nor cat in his chamber'. Humphrey was Newton's assistant for five years after John Wickens, who had been a chamber fellow and assistant for twenty years prior. This makes me wonder whether the quote from Westfall related to a cat that came into Newton's life much later on, perhaps a stray that gave regular visits to Newton and which fed upon Newton's leftovers. It could also have been tale told by Newton to explain why he rarely ate!

As I explained in an earlier post, it is extremely unlikely Newton owned a cat at Cambridge anyway, given the myth surrounding him about the invention of the cat-flap.

So, either Catherine Conduitt had been told a lie by Newton, or Newton really did have a cat, or it was a cat that belonged to someone else or a stray that wandered in and grew accustomed to eating Newton's food, and perhaps even 'adopted' by Newton to some degree, although that the cat isn't mentioned by name from any source suggests that it was just one from the street.

Despite all this, it is true that Newton became more compassionate towards others in his later life, and his attitude towards meat changed as well, choosing not to eat rabbit 'because it had been strangled', and eating more vegetables than meat than he did in his youth (likely due to health reasons relating to kidney stones), so any feelings he might have had about having an animal live with him possibly weren't rejected anyway. And I also doubt that Newton would have ever harmed an animal regardless (he was more likely to harm himself in the name of science!). Yet this still doesn't solidify the notion that Newton purposely wanted a pet, nor purposely chose to have one, but simply the idea that a situation came about that he then had the cat at his place, and didn't object to its being there. 

In conclusion, Newton wasn't a vegetarian because he didn't like meat, but rather because of health reasons and possibly due to specific ways certain animals had been killed, and his unnamed 'pet' cat, owned in later life, was likely a stray or neighbouring cat.

Links:
https://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A72024031