FDA 1.3 The Wrath of the Iceni

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

Britain. The height of the Roman occupation. The Doctor has brought Leela to ancient Norfolk to learn about her ancestors… but has no idea how much of an education she is going to get.

Because this is the time of Boudica’s rebellion. When the tribe of the Iceni rises up and attempts to overthrow the Roman masters.

As Leela begins to be swayed by the warrior queen’s words, the Doctor has to make a decision: save his friend… or save history itself?

So what did we all think? Rate and discuss.

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

Disappointing. It's scraped 3/5 from me because there's a good story trying to get out and I accept most listeners won't spot the historical innacuracies as glaringly as I did so will probably enjoy it more. However just two particular points to make: most of what we know of Boudica was written by those who defeated her and she never claimed to be Queen of Britain!

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

The frustrating thing is that whilst a pure historical isn't necessarily suited to Tom's Doctor, Louise is absolutely superb throughout. I guess ultimately I just dislike John Dorney's interpretation of Boudica having recently read a much more revisionist take on her.

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

I obviously put this thread together in a rush on Friday. The title should be FDA 1.3 if someone can possibly correct it for me? - 1.4 will be next month's release Energy of the Daleks!

Look forward to seeing what other people think of this one.

[Stuart Wallis]

The frustrating thing is that whilst a pure historical isn't necessarily suited to Tom's Doctor, Louise is absolutely superb throughout. I guess ultimately I just dislike John Dorney's interpretation of Boudica having recently read a much more revisionist take on her.

Woud you have thought that the story was written with Leela's character in mind - comparing her to one of history's equivalent names, or one at least vaguely similar?

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

Woud you have thought that the story was written with Leela's character in mind - comparing her to one of history's equivalent names, or one at least vaguely similar?

Yes and that's the story's main strength however there are some glaring historical errors and sweeping statements and glib assumptions about what sort of person Boudica was. A slightly more balanced portrayal would have made an even better comparison with Leela.

[SiHart]

I obviously put this thread together in a rush on Friday. The title should be FDA 1.3 if someone can possibly correct it for me? - 1.4 will be next month's release Energy of the Daleks!

All done

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

Meant to say "Thanks" in my last post, but better late than never so Thanks Si

[Si Hunt]

Wow. Really didn't expect this to be good as it was. A historical, no monsters, no villain, and I haven't been wowed by John Dorney's recent output...

But this was unexpectedly rather brilliant. It's a simple story, and benefits from a smaller cast. Boudica is excellently well played, and Louise Jameson is superb. It's just nice to have a tale that's easy to follow for once, and full of realism and interesting dilemma's, as the Doctor is drawn into an impossible situation. All the motivations ring absolutely true.

One complaint, and that's that Tom seems to be phoning in his performance. I always try and imagine the voice I'm hearing coming from the Fourth Doctor of old, and in these audios previously that's been possible 80% of the time. Here, it's less easy. The Doctor seems too whimsical and too like Tom, and not nearly as commanding as he should.

But it held my attention completely throughout, and I haven't been able to say that about a Big Finish play for quite a long time.

Si.

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

I agree that the play did hold the attention. I just wish I hadn't kept having thoughts like "why is she speaking as if she's a Roman rather than a native Briton". Also disagree that there wasn't a villain although there shouldn't have been one. For me the resolution to this one over-simplifies a rather complicated historical event.

[Nyder]

I agree with Si - the story held its attention for me too. Louise was superb. And yes Tom's performance was too whimsical for me as well. When he was locked up and making all those quips it was more like Pat Troughton's Doctor. But that's a minor quibble really. Good to hear some Welsh accents too. Why didn't they ask me? Probably because my Welsh accent is a tad diluted these days :-)

[Alex Me]

An Ok Story, thought the plot has been done many times before. Part 2 was a improvement, as it concentrated on Lella discovering more about who Bodicia was. Still think 2 parts is not long enough for the story though, might work better if we had longer to explore some of the ideas. 3/5

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

For once I agree with you Alex. I think the historical accuracy of the story suffers because of the need to wrap the story up so quickly which is a shame as there really is a potentially great story struggling to get out if only it had the space to breathe.

[Anthony Williams]

There's a great story in here. Somewhere. Certainly, I agree with those who said that this play certainly held my attention, and that's a good starting point.

As a scholar of history, the inaccuracies didn't bother me that much. While I was doing my MA, I took a class on American History & Hollywood Film. One of the things that we talked about very early on was dramatic licence. While I would prefer for things to be presented as they actually were, it's not always possible - either because it'd be difficult to fit that in within the time constraints, or because it'd just make a very dull piece of drama. Here, I suspect that it's the latter, and so we get a simplification. I can see why it was done, and it doesn't bother me too much.

No, my biggest bug-bear here was the characterisation of the Forth Doctor. They were oh-so-on the right tracks, up until this point. Yet here, it just doesn't quite sit right. Tom sounds uncomfortable reading some of these lines, and his performance is just as discordant as it was in Destination: Nerva.

On the flip-side, the real joy of this particular audio is Louise Jameson and Leela. She just sounds SO comfortable playing Leela here. It probably helps that the situation that the Doctor and Leela are placed in just seems so utterly well suited to Leela - we hear a wonderful juxtaposition between Leela and Boudicca, the latter being very similar to Leela when we first met her in The Face of Evil. I found the fight between the two characters to be utterly fascinating, because Leela was essentially fighting the woman that she once was. Here, we really see how far she's come even at this (relatively) early stage of her travels with the Doctor. Absolutely wonderful!

This one, like the previous two, really has its ups and downs. It's far, far from perfect. But it's not without its merits, and I feel that it deserves a reasonable 3/5 from me.

[SiHart]

It was fine- nothing wrong with it, but it wasn't great. It was too short. This was a story that needed time to breathe, and it just felt rushed having to fit it all in to 2 episodes. Quite enjoyable but nothing very special.

Louise Jameson was especially good though.

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

I think I may have been initially rather harsh on this play I do fundamentally agree that it really needed some more breathing space. The similarity and contrast between Leela and Boudica was well written but given more time it would've been more interesting to show Boudica as having more dimensions than simply being driven to destruction by her quest for revenge.

[Rob McCow]

I felt this was another story where the Doctor and companion argue at length about whether they should change history or not. It didn't really grab me, sadly. There was some good effort in there and my total ignorance of Boudica and her history where a bit of a bonus.

(I am SO SURE it's pronounced 'Bo-de-cee-ah' and not 'Boo-dick-ah' but then we'll never know for sure)

And yes, Louise Jameson is utterly fantastic. I quite like Tom in this one too, but he was lacking a little gusto for whatever reason.

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

(I am SO SURE it's pronounced 'Bo-de-cee-ah' and not 'Boo-dick-ah' but then we'll never know for sure)

.

Boadicea is the latinized version invented by the Roman historians from whom we get most of the propaganda version of history about her. It's perfectly valid to use that name but it wouldn't have been used either by or about her within her own lifetime. In any case the name Boudica itself literally means Bringer of Victory so it's likely even that wasn't her real name.

[Rob McCow]

So we can safely say there was a woman with red hair who led some kind of rebellion, but we don't really know her name?

[Stuart Wallis]

Donna Noble...?

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

Well within her own lifetime she would have been known as Boudica or possibly The Boudica. However like Vortigern and Arthur, the British leaders at the tail end of Roman Britain, we will probably never know the whole story about who she was.

[Stuart Wallis]

Well, Boudicca is unfortunately one of those cases which proves that the histories are written by the winner.

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

Well, Boudicca is unfortunately one of those cases which proves that the histories are written by the winner.

Indeed, which is where the later Romanized version "Boadicea" derives from. Without wanting to send this conversation round in another circle of basically making the same points can I recommend anyone else interested in learning more about this period reads the "Boudica Dreaming" series of novels by M.C. Scott which begins with Boudica: Dreaming The Eagle (2003).
I really enjoyed all four novels and found them a be a very believable representation of first century Britain.

However... I was disappointed to discover on reading a blog post by the author recently that she believes Jesus Christ to be entirely fictionalised so although I will be shortly be reading some of her subsequent books set elsewhere in the first century Roman empire, I will be taking her portrayal of certain first century characters and events with a large pinch of salt.

[brandynigma]

Indeed, which is where the later Romanized version "Boadicea" derives from. Without wanting to send this conversation round in another circle of basically making the same points can I recommend anyone else interested in learning more about this period reads the "Boudica Dreaming" series of novels by M.C. Scott which begins with Boudica: Dreaming The Eagle (2003).
I really enjoyed all four novels and found them a be a very believable representation of first century Britain.

However... I was disappointed to discover on reading a blog post by the author recently that she believes Jesus Christ to be entirely fictionalised so although I will be shortly be reading some of her subsequent books set elsewhere in the first century Roman empire, I will be taking her portrayal of certain first century characters and events with a large pinch of salt.

I thought you were talking about the writer of The Wrath of the Iceni there, and I was about to point out that John Dorney is not a woman.

Personally, I rather liked this one. Doctor Who has always played fast and loose with its historical characters: Nero was not fat or middle-aged; Marco Polo travelled with his brother and uncle; the Trojan horse probably didn't exist. Therefore, I don't have a problem with the play very much representing its characters as a those in a Shakespearean tragedy, with Boudica and Leela duel reminiscent of Macbeth and Macduff's final confrontation.

4/5

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

You'll have to forgive me going off on one with this one but having spent most of the last year reading about her I do feel as I've lived in the Boudica's world.
Leaving all that aside I do agree that considering the issues of time constraints and having to work on other plays Dorney has done a pretty good job with the writing, especially considering the small cast size. I accept that like Shakespeare and indeed some of the Hartnell historicals a certain amount of painting with broad strokes was necessary.
I'm going to be controversial now and state that despite some of its problems I prefer this particular play to the Hornet's Nest series.