I love The Departed a lot more than the Hong Kong film it was based on. But more often than not the results are an unsurprising abomination - shit flowing out of a "creative" process designed to remove rather than add quality content in search of depraved Marketing Department fantasies of universal appeal. But when that ideology fails - when people prove to be more complex than the cynical calculations used to control them - the entertainment industry does what every corrupt ideologue does: It tries to blot out awareness of the messy realities it has proven itself incapable of adequately handling.
Audiences with mass exposure to high-quality content just get more demanding, which makes the industry have to work harder to meet expectations - so it's far easier to just smash expectations with a wrecking ball of persistently bad and mediocre output, and count on their monopolization of media to reduce the flow of quality programming to a trickle.
And all of that would make perfect sense in this case if Showtime depended on advertising revenue, but it's a premium cable network. So why did it make that series instead of just buying and promoting Borgia? I don't know what the respective histories of the two series are - whether their creation had any kind of relationship at all, or is simply coincidental. But for some bizarre reason this brilliant idea failed to pick up steam, and he ended up selling it to Showtime as a TV series replacement for their even more embarrassing pseudo-historical drama Tudors.
Or maybe it was the other way around, like so many times in the past, and the outcome was indicative of the process by which it came about. Whichever the case, the pattern continues: Europeans are exposed to an intense, profound, engrossing, and well-crafted television series that is enlightening, inspiring, and disturbing, and Americans are given another ensemble-cast premium soap opera. Now if we could just get around to having studios not run by limbically brain-dead sociopaths, we might be able to build an actual culture for this country.
Community This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication. Please log in or sign up to continue. Recommend Unrecommend Add to Blog. Edit Tags. Done Editing Tags. Share this article. This content was created by a Daily Kos Community member. Make YOUR voice heard! Log in or create an account. Comments are closed on this story. L Recommend r Reply. More hints Back to Story Show Parent Thread.
I now know I should persist, since that sounds like the more interesting — to me — series. Thank you for that and, belatedly, for your fascinating posts about Machiavelli. I am learning a lot from your blog. Rawls from The Wire is playing Rodrigo Georgia? Good actor but first thought was he was a terrible miscasting and being one of the central figures I considered quitting after that episode.
He truly brings out how evil and corrupt popes were during that time period. Definitely worth a watch if you are skeptical but like the time period. Very glad to help redirect you to the series. The mix of accents bothered me at first as well. I kept trying to figure out if they were trying to communicate something by having each member of the Borgia family have a radically different accent.
It finally made sense when I realized it was an international cast. Or are the painted colours of pink ladies that faded? Every scene lit as if it was an oil painting, and that feels deliberate. And yet, surely the art is a part of the historicity too, so recalling it does add something to the flavour…? As I stressed in my discussion, it had a much bigger budget, so had, in addition to better CG backgrounds and more elaborate costumes, better cameras and better post-processing so the light is, as you stay, stunning.
As for the question of portraits in pale colors, you absolutely get portraits in white becuase white was a very expensive color, and the goal in a portrait is to show off the expense of the fabric, not to aim for a specific color. Hence portraits of Queen Elizabeth, for example, wearing a white gown covered with pearls. As for wearing pink covered in jewels, it would be like setting diamonds in pewter—you could do it, but if you did it everyone would wonder why you scrimped on the base.
I felt the international version flowed so much better than the showtime one. I would prefer the international version, there is much more life and action in the international. The Borgia is expensive, but grim and sequential; as if it is done by historian with fear that the audience has very low IQ.
This puts in a different light issues like — officers of the medieval church wearing black ie not at all a statement of humility and poverty or portraits of Dutch middle class or various Puritans wearing black once again a boast, not a statement of sober piety.
Which makes me wonder when this changed, when black becomes cheap. I know in this period it was Lucrezia who actually popularized black as a fashionable color as opposed to being worn only for mourning and by monks by wearing her black mourning gown from her previous marriage as her wedding dress for her last wedding, and suddenly wearing black as a fashion choice became popular.
Personally, I would have interpreted Lucrezia wearing her black mourning dress from her previous marriage was it from her 1st or 2nd marriage? Let me clarify on my other post on the subject. I meant that as a joke, not literally. Wearing black was indeed a mark of a certain type of affluence. It was not uncommon for a wealthy person when dying to specify in a will to leave black clothing items to a nunnery so the nuns could reuse the fabric for their habits.
This is amazing. Also, now you have convinced me not only that I should watch these shows but also that I really, really have to find out more about Giuliano della Rovere. Grace Tiffany said:. Brilliant and hilarious editorial. But you are right.
I study heresy, freethought, the recovery of the classics after the Middle Ages, and their impact on science, religion and atheism. My research on the Renaissance often takes me to Rome, Florence and around Europe. I work at rare books libraries, especially the Vatican. At home, I am a professor of European History — You are a very interesting person. Positioning yourself as a historian and professor, you demonstrate tremendous ignorance, describing the french Queen shitting on the floor in the palace.
Or you beleave the british Queen behaves this way??? In Russia a lot of people believe that the Americans are stupid. You are a wild pale faced native. With my greatest contempt to you, ciao! Allow me to summarize what you said:. I know about stuff like this. Check out my capital letters and excessive punctuation. Because you suck. Peace out! And yet, as you so poiniently pointed out, he could barely compose a sentence.
Great job. Kim said:. On the lighter side…I love what you said about Merlin! I sometimes enjoy imagining that Merlin is set in a universe where some spell or time-travel distorted everything and made causality turn all strange, and that Mordred and the dragon are the only ones who know, and are conspiring to push events toward something which will make the timeline correct again. A fun way to enjoy the show.
Micki Suzanne said:. I have been watching the Borgias on Showtime and have enjoyed it but started to lose interest in the liberties the writers took with History in lieu of entertainment. I am enjoying the Borgias: faith and fear and its much more relevant to the time.
I agree with other commenters. This blog article is wonderful. Now I know it is worth checking out. I fear I may fall into the category of the squemish 21st Century viewer with modern sensabilities, as scenes such as the one you describe of the man being cut in half make me feel very disturbed and upset. Am I TOO sensitive? I actually cried when they put Frances Dereham to death by hanging, drawing and quartering.
I much preferred the sexy brooding but generally decent Henry in the earlier period — and yes, I agree I could watch Johnathan Rhys Meyers shirtless all day long!
I fully agree that something does not need to be fully accurate when presented as entertainment because in watching an historical film or tv show, many viewers then become interested enough to explore further, by buying books or reading online articles about the actual story. Anyway, thanks again for a wonderful article! They are depicting acts of cruelty which our culture and society hold to be repugnant, inhuman and unforgivable, and being uncomfortable seeing them depicted is a sign that that moral shift has taken firm root.
Jon Burge Chicago Police torturer. World leaders are bad people. As long as bad people rule the world, there were will no hope for humanity in developing into a reasonable, judicious being. If there is anything about history that is important, it is understanding that world leaders are ambitious, cut throat, agressive and vile. What a small minded comment.
People are unquestionably repulsed by torture. The fact that we so revile ISIS is a prime example. Abu Ghraib was actually a scandal rather than literally expected.
The fact that people take efforts to hide this sort of thing normally proves the point. Being cynical is not the same as being mature. Your comment is a great illustration of that fact. Hundreds of CIA black sites around the world. People know of this. Do nothing. You think dismembering someone with a saw is worse than dismembering them via high explosive carpet bombing? There is no international community. See your morality. Thanks for your reply! Ironically, as I read this I am watching the final episode of The Borgias, Season 2, in which Savonarolla is tortured and burnt at the stake, and again I find myself wondering — what was the supposed justification and thinking behind these acts?
What did the church think burning people acheived? I just do not understand why people were capable of such hideous acts of evil and why they did not realise that it was evil? How on earth could they reconcile this acts with their supposed devout religious beliefs???
Why was torture used without a second thought? So many questions about humanity and religion. Why did it take so long for us humans to develop a moral compass, and to value compassion? Still, as I write this I am aware that many countries do still perpetrate such acts in the name of religion….
Actually your earlier question got me thinking about writing an entry on exactly this quesiton, so your follow-up has helped me make up my mind. Next entry or at least one of the next couple I will talk about philosophical discussions of judicial torture in the 18th century, and how Western society transitioned from thinking of torture as useful and commonplace to thinking of it as cruel and unnecessary.
Should be an interesting topic! That will be fascinating! Is there some way I can register with this blog and have an update sent to me when you have posted the new entry? Thanks for an excellent suggestion. One history trivia question: What is that huge pine cone thingie in the courtyard at the vatican?
Your postings on Machiavelli and the Borgias shows are quite enjoyable. And after reading your mementoes I had to watch it again. But, alas, Shellbarger did mess up — would Cesare have allowed even a supposed cadet branch of the Orsisi to get so close to him?
No bother, Joe! I only looked it up because of your post. Oh dear. I have just noticed my typo in the comment I posted with the link about the Pinecone. Sorry about that! I must be more careful in future! Call me a nerd, but I would love a running commentary on the historical aspects and minutia. Borgia: Season 1 Review said:.
Borgia: an exercise in historical fantasy - The Earthian Hivemind said:. For a detailed comparison between the two, see this. Having the 3-season-Borgia package on […]. I really enjoyed this, thank you. I have only recently discovered the Netflix series, Borgia. Thank you for your well written article. I, too, have struggled with overly criticizing historically based productions, and have come to appreciate the limits and power of this genre. I have not seen The Borgias by Showtime, but am convinced it may be a worthwhile investment of time.
Love the heck out of it. At first I was underwhelmed by the lower-budget look, and found the hodge-podge of accents distracting. But once I got used to it I found it much much deeper and more engaging. I have watched both versions and although they are both historically inaccurate, there is NO comparison between the two! The acting is abismal and it is astounding and disturbing that viewers are incapable of identifying such terrible acting! There were very few scenes that I considered well acted with reactions being comical most of the time!
The dialogue is deplorable, not even attempting to simulate the 14th century. One thing I find unesesary, are all of the sex scenes! I fast forward past all of them becasue I find them tedious and a waste of valuable program time! I find it a bit unfair of you to use a promotionnal poster to point out that Lucrezia yellow dress is inaccurate : that dress never appears in the show itself, which is by the way superior in historicity for the costume.
I am nearly finished the first season of Borgia and after having seen The Borgias I was troubled at first with this one but now I am hooked and cannot stop watching, but of course have to as I need to sleep. My husband who normally hates historical shows is also enjoying this immensely although the violence is dreadful.
Rome, for all its insertions of extra sexual relationships, is wonderfully accurate on the social fabric of the society, so highly recommended for that. Thank you for your blog. But is really BFF very accurate with dates? What a wonderful article. Spot on and so incisive, I have had a long passion for the Borgia; and can only commend you in championing the Borgia series on Netflix, far superior to its inferior cousin. I believe it to be realistic and as near to the mark as we are going to get.
The great problem I see with any interpretation of TV History is that we view it from 21st Century eyes, not from how it really should be seen. Life was far more bloody, brutal and brief than it has ever been.
Very astute examination of the two shows. From now on I will just link to this page. I agree with the commentators that this is an excellent article comparing the respective virtues of both series. As the writer mentions, The Borgias is much more visually sumptuous of the two. Also, The Borgias has Jeremy Irons. He has the power almost to carry the series on his own and vastly more watchable than John Dorman.
Dorman, whom viewers may recall as a repugnant police chief from the Wire, is likeable enough as an actor, but fails at times to convince as a man of the Renaissance, let alone the Supreme Pontiff.
This to me is key in any good historical drama: whether I can feel the writers are devoted to exposing what is fascinating about the period — this in addition to making good narrative. The Borgias in contrast is devoted to costume and the exposition of moral decadence — in short all that is titillating about the past but not the past itself.
It seems to me the writers do not particularly care the stories are set in Renaissance Rome; they could just as easily be set in the Restoration English court or France during the Terror. The Borgias had no one, which meant I had no emotional involvement in any of the characters and is why I dropped it after about 6 -7 episodes please correct me if such a character was introduced in later seasons!
They also provide moral compass by which we can judge the rest not merely through modern sensibilities but contemporary mores as well. Yes, it was common knowledge the Pope had a mistress, yes simony was rampant, but yes too many people found this distressing and proof of an urgent need for reform. This is the same age that spawned Martin Luther and Erasmus after all. Still, there is a difference between informing the audience of how bad it was, perhaps by implying the violence as opposed to showing it in graphic detail.
But this complaint goes for nearly every historical drama on television at the moment. Likewise the sex scenes are almost entirely gratuitous. I realize that makes me sound awfully prudish, but they almost never drive the narrative forward and are a blatant ratings grab.
Again the series is hardly alone in this. Watching The Borgias love Jeremy Irons tried Faith and Fear — too graphic for my refined sensibilities, lol , and just finished a book on Lucrezia Borgia. Purists must suffer so. Really appreciate your encompassing and flexible attitude to historical accuracy. Pop the popcorn and enjoy the show!
What book on Lucrezia did you read? Excellent write up! I have to agree with the above poster; on my first attempt, I turned it off and decided not to watch it graphic torture scenes. I later went back to it and watched it through. SO glad I did! I totally agree with the analysis in this article.
I ended up watching both series more than once and have a very hard time deciding which I like better because they both have their own merits. The only additional thing I wish this article would have addressed is the vast differences between the two Giulia Farneses; one having a sweet and calm demeanor while the other was loud and demanding with a bad tamper. I think Borgia was better in terms of accuracy and reflecting the time, but The Borgias was better in settings and good costumes.
So why did Juan get everything if he was the 2nd son of a commoner? His mistress was also active in the political affairs of the Vatican, which did not sit well with the traditionalists. Sure they were corrupt, but they had their traditions. I agree Della Rovere was a generic oversimplified character, and they should have played more on his French allegiances.
Della Rovere wanted the papacy and France supported him because they wanted to reclaim Naples, they just got outplayed and outbid by those that aligned themselves with Borgia, like Ascenio Szorza and the deep pockets of the Medici. I would like to have seen how it all played out, especially with their version of Della Rovere.
How he would have manipulated it for Piccolomini to be the next Pope, and then himself. I too wish there had been more of the series. But there will be more tales of Borgias in time… there always are. I agree with your assessment completely. My only issue with BFF is the horrible acting. John Doman delivers his lines so horribly at times. I have only seen BFF. On Netflix. I was suffering withdrawal from Marco Polo, which me and wife watched bit seasons in two weeks.
It is so gripping! And behold. Watched every episode in 3 weeks. And will watch again. For me, no expert in anything but my trade. Top review.
Historical Accuracy isn't everything. Like many people who watch this series and others like it, I often pick out moments which are fictional or an historical event that is slightly altered. It doesn't really matter though especially if what the writers come up with instead is still interesting and entertaining. The first series focuses on the Borgia family's rise to prominence and the Popes children's gradual loss of innocence who grow into corrupt, murderous figures.
The second series then follows Lucrezia's several love interest stories and the bitter sibling rivalry between Cesare and Juan. Finally, the third series follows the Pope and his son Cesare fighting their main enemies Caterina Sforza which leads to an epic conclusion with the battle of Forli. The good points of this series for me is the general tone and atmosphere of the show. This is created by the actors and the setting of the show. The era itself holds strong interest as during this revolutionary time which saw the rise of Da Vinci, Michaelangelo and grand architecture there are dark, viscous conspiracies going on.
The whole cast are top notch, in particular David Oakes who plays Juan. His ability to jump from emotion to emotion just like that shows his talent in full flow.
Sean Harris who stars as Micheletto is the underrated star of this show. Jeremy Irons is marvellous, need I say more its Jeremy Irons c'mon.
I am also a huge fan of orchestral music in shows and it features prominently here and adds to the mood perfectly. For some, this show may feature too much gore or sexual content, as there is at least one sexual scene every episode. However if you're comfortable with this sort of thing then I can give you no negatives.
If you're an anal historical fan who purely wants fact and non-fiction drama then this probably isn't for you but give a try anyway. In my view its fabulous and I am one of those who was gutted to hear that it was cancelled after 3 seasons due to budget concerns despite consistently getting successful ratings.
I highly recommend this show and advise you not to be put off by the fact that it was cancelled because honestly The Borgia's Requiem Mass has come too soon. FAQ 1. What other shows feature the pope? Details Edit. Release date April 3, United States. United States Hungary Ireland Canada.
0コメント