The Doctor, Peri and Erimem travel to Transylvania and meet the real Dracula – Vlad the Impaler.
1 Comment
Styre
on May 8, 2016 at 12:58 AM
SON OF THE DRAGON
Steve Lyons wrote only the second-ever Big Finish historical story, and to say “The Fires of Vulcan” was impressive would be a gross understatement. The slightly melancholic tone, coupled with the sense of impending doom, created a wonderful atmosphere — one that is duplicated and even enhanced in “Son of the Dragon,” an excellent release that underscores the strength of the historical as a Doctor Who genre.
Historicals rarely feature “objectives” for the regular cast: they exit the TARDIS, look around for a while, inevitably become wrapped up in local intrigue, and spend the remainder of the story trying to escape to the TARDIS and flee. Oftentimes they encounter a significant historical figure, who is frequently shown to differ from his or her common historical presentation. It sounds like routine formula, but story after story stands out, perhaps because historical settings are inherently easier to capture and portray than their alien counterparts. “Son of the Dragon” takes place in the Wallachia of Vlad III, the Impaler (an excellent performance by James Purefoy), and fits the historical mold perfectly, with the Doctor, Peri, and Erimem caught inescapably in historical events.
Stories like this illustrate why Erimem is such a great character. Her morals, based on ancient Egyptian society, differ notably from ours, but unlike a stereotypical “savage” like Leela, Erimem is able to articulate her beliefs and provide logical justifications. It’s much more uncomfortable — and therefore thought-provoking — if the Doctor’s perspective, or that of his companions, isn’t always automatically right, or in line with 21st century Western morality. It’s not really a surprise that Erimem is thus able to see past Dracula’s methods and examine the personality behind them — though it was surprising that even she would so readily take to a role in his court.
And indeed my major problem with “Son of the Dragon” is that it feels almost dishonest in its treatment of Dracula. As with any historical figure responsible for horrifying atrocities, there was of course a person behind the face of Vlad the Impaler. Furthermore, it is true that individual actions should always be considered in the context of their time and of their culture, and that Vlad III is considered a national hero among many Romanians. But during the CD extras, Nicholas Briggs repeats this point to his actors, stating that the script is arguing for a purely contextual analysis of Dracula — and none of them agree. The reasons for this are simple: even for his time, Dracula went way beyond the usual boundaries of punishment. There’s a reason why he’s the only historical figure known as “the Impaler” — because nobody else brutally impaled thousands of people! “Son of the Dragon” simply does not adequately present this brutality: the Doctor encounters one impaled person at the start of the play, and other atrocities are given oblique references throughout, but any fair treatment of Dracula arguing for context had better have a scene in a field of 20,000 bodies. The Sultan turned back for a reason, and talking about it isn’t enough. Too brutal for Doctor Who? Probably, but then that’s why I don’t think history’s cruelest figures should be given fictional representation in the first place.
This trickles down to the characterization. Peter Davison is excellent as ever, but does the Doctor really say we should regard Dracula as a man of his time? I’ll grant this is the same man who counts Mao as a personal friend, but we never heard Pertwee implicitly endorse the Great Leap Forward. Erimem’s reactions I can accept, as she was sheltered from the worst of it, and Peri, at least, is suitably horrified by it all. Of course, Lyons undercuts Peri by making her into a complete moron. The chirpy youthfulness really sounds forced from Nicola Bryant as her character, while crawling through secret tunnels in Castle Dracula, expresses dismay at having to look at her companion’s “big fat butt.” She’s worse than the TV show — I would have cheered for Colin Baker to twist this Peri’s head off.
The supporting cast, meanwhile, is excellent: as mentioned above, Purefoy delivers a dangerously conflicted Dracula. Douglas Hodge gives an equally strong turn as his brother Radu the Handsome, and Lyons’ script reminds us that this man, despite being on the “right” side, is not a paragon of virtue himself. Lastly, Barry McCarthy is solid as the “heroic guard” character John Dobrin, reminiscent of a hundred other similarly successful Doctor Who characters. The production design by Gareth Jenkins and Andy Hardwick is excellent, creating an oppressive, believable atmosphere, and director Barnaby Edwards continues his run of great casts and better performances.
Despite the aforementioned complaints, I thought “Son of the Dragon” was an excellent release. It’s similar to “The Settling” in a number of ways, all of them good: the presentation of history, the tone, the use of recognizable historical figure, and the conflicted companions. I don’t agree with it in places, and thus cannot award it the highest grade, but nonetheless I feel this is the sort of thing Big Finish should be attempting every month. It’s thought-provoking, it’s gripping, and it’s excellent Doctor Who.
SON OF THE DRAGON
Steve Lyons wrote only the second-ever Big Finish historical story, and to say “The Fires of Vulcan” was impressive would be a gross understatement. The slightly melancholic tone, coupled with the sense of impending doom, created a wonderful atmosphere — one that is duplicated and even enhanced in “Son of the Dragon,” an excellent release that underscores the strength of the historical as a Doctor Who genre.
Historicals rarely feature “objectives” for the regular cast: they exit the TARDIS, look around for a while, inevitably become wrapped up in local intrigue, and spend the remainder of the story trying to escape to the TARDIS and flee. Oftentimes they encounter a significant historical figure, who is frequently shown to differ from his or her common historical presentation. It sounds like routine formula, but story after story stands out, perhaps because historical settings are inherently easier to capture and portray than their alien counterparts. “Son of the Dragon” takes place in the Wallachia of Vlad III, the Impaler (an excellent performance by James Purefoy), and fits the historical mold perfectly, with the Doctor, Peri, and Erimem caught inescapably in historical events.
Stories like this illustrate why Erimem is such a great character. Her morals, based on ancient Egyptian society, differ notably from ours, but unlike a stereotypical “savage” like Leela, Erimem is able to articulate her beliefs and provide logical justifications. It’s much more uncomfortable — and therefore thought-provoking — if the Doctor’s perspective, or that of his companions, isn’t always automatically right, or in line with 21st century Western morality. It’s not really a surprise that Erimem is thus able to see past Dracula’s methods and examine the personality behind them — though it was surprising that even she would so readily take to a role in his court.
And indeed my major problem with “Son of the Dragon” is that it feels almost dishonest in its treatment of Dracula. As with any historical figure responsible for horrifying atrocities, there was of course a person behind the face of Vlad the Impaler. Furthermore, it is true that individual actions should always be considered in the context of their time and of their culture, and that Vlad III is considered a national hero among many Romanians. But during the CD extras, Nicholas Briggs repeats this point to his actors, stating that the script is arguing for a purely contextual analysis of Dracula — and none of them agree. The reasons for this are simple: even for his time, Dracula went way beyond the usual boundaries of punishment. There’s a reason why he’s the only historical figure known as “the Impaler” — because nobody else brutally impaled thousands of people! “Son of the Dragon” simply does not adequately present this brutality: the Doctor encounters one impaled person at the start of the play, and other atrocities are given oblique references throughout, but any fair treatment of Dracula arguing for context had better have a scene in a field of 20,000 bodies. The Sultan turned back for a reason, and talking about it isn’t enough. Too brutal for Doctor Who? Probably, but then that’s why I don’t think history’s cruelest figures should be given fictional representation in the first place.
This trickles down to the characterization. Peter Davison is excellent as ever, but does the Doctor really say we should regard Dracula as a man of his time? I’ll grant this is the same man who counts Mao as a personal friend, but we never heard Pertwee implicitly endorse the Great Leap Forward. Erimem’s reactions I can accept, as she was sheltered from the worst of it, and Peri, at least, is suitably horrified by it all. Of course, Lyons undercuts Peri by making her into a complete moron. The chirpy youthfulness really sounds forced from Nicola Bryant as her character, while crawling through secret tunnels in Castle Dracula, expresses dismay at having to look at her companion’s “big fat butt.” She’s worse than the TV show — I would have cheered for Colin Baker to twist this Peri’s head off.
The supporting cast, meanwhile, is excellent: as mentioned above, Purefoy delivers a dangerously conflicted Dracula. Douglas Hodge gives an equally strong turn as his brother Radu the Handsome, and Lyons’ script reminds us that this man, despite being on the “right” side, is not a paragon of virtue himself. Lastly, Barry McCarthy is solid as the “heroic guard” character John Dobrin, reminiscent of a hundred other similarly successful Doctor Who characters. The production design by Gareth Jenkins and Andy Hardwick is excellent, creating an oppressive, believable atmosphere, and director Barnaby Edwards continues his run of great casts and better performances.
Despite the aforementioned complaints, I thought “Son of the Dragon” was an excellent release. It’s similar to “The Settling” in a number of ways, all of them good: the presentation of history, the tone, the use of recognizable historical figure, and the conflicted companions. I don’t agree with it in places, and thus cannot award it the highest grade, but nonetheless I feel this is the sort of thing Big Finish should be attempting every month. It’s thought-provoking, it’s gripping, and it’s excellent Doctor Who.
Highly recommended.
9/10