By Jacob Edwards

Obverse Books, out now

 

Obverse Books’ ongoing series of monographs, focusing on a Doctor Who serial or story, travels back to second season four-parter The Romans, with author Jacob Edwards making some strong arguments as to why it’s more significant than we imagine.

With apologies to Monty Python, what has The Romans ever done for us? For many, it’s an over-baked historical, lacking any monsters or nuance, but good fun in a Crackerjack way. But as Edwards reminds us, the TV landscape was very different when it aired in early 1965. Farce was all the rage, and Roman-based entertainment still in the zeitgeist included Sondheim’s A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum and Carry on Cleo.

This was Doctor Who’s first out and out comedy, and the author explains how it led the way to other comic serials The Time Meddler (with Carry On’s Peter Butterworth), The Myth Makers, The Gunfighters and Christmas Day episode The Feast of Steven. But feast was followed by famine as Patrick Troughton’s serials were serious again, even though his portrayal had comic elements. Comedy only returned properly in 1978 with Douglas Adams, and then again with the gallows humour of Colin Baker’s tenure.

Edwards looks at Donald Cotton’s 1987 Target novelisation, which dispensed with the original script and instead wrote a series of letters and journals from the different perspectives of the characters – still funny, but in a different way, dispensing with farce and wordplay and focusing on the characters’ obliviousness to their situation. The VHS is considered, as is the linked narration audio version and the 2009 DVD, following hot on the heels of The Fires of Pompeii.

Edwards continues that The Romans ushered in the serial that commissioned at four parts for reasons of narrative than production value, as well as introducing the guest star in a key featuring role – in this case Derek Francis as Nero – leading to stories with the afore-mentioned Butterworth and Michael Gough as the Celestial Toymaker. It’s hard to argue with his logic. Perhaps less essential, though still enjoyable is the section challenging how historically accurate is it. Yes, of course there’s a lack of racial diversity, the famously sexually voracious Nero is just a bit lusty, his homosexuality being ignored, there’s a poor treatment of women and a muffled view on religion. But that sounds like a pretty concise summation of a lot of 60s (or 70s) TV.

Verdict: Rounded off with a detailed critique of the many elements of each individual episode, Mr Edwards has done a fine job in teasing out why The Romans is more than just a tired farce. His appreciation is backed up by some solid argument, suggesting that his manuscript was not built in a day. 8/10

Nick Joy