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. In content and context.
And I felt pain at finishing it. But , it pulls you into these lives, times and Cesare has you rooting for his accomplishments, from his on spot cunning. The last episode brought tears for both their ending. I hope anyone here can refer any others on this excellent level?
I find I have exactly the same perspective as ExUrbe; too much accuracy would make the story unwatchable. For me, the biggest inaccuracies I notice are the teeth. In NEARLY all these types of shows, teeth are 21st century white at a time when having any teeth left past the age 30 was remarkable. Do I want to watch my heroes and heroines with nasty teeth? No, accuracy be damned.
Our perception of attractiveness has changed, and I am not insulted when actors conform to modern definitions in order to relate how comely their characters were perceived by their contemporaries. The positives of both far outweigh negatives…which for me are all due to the medium itself. I think his work is competent and dynamic. Somewhat reminiscent of another pair of Johns: Huston and Hurt.
This article, and all the posts following have cleared up quite of a bit of my questions. I noticed immediately the question of which brother was older. I also questioned the pine cone in the square. Thanks for those tidbits. They do help bring flavor.
I have enjoyed many other series and mini-series from this period, and surrounding periods. But also other historical periods…but for the same reasons Rome Spartacus Camelot Vikings. I think neither Borgia or The Borgias are over-the-top in regards to sex and violence. Contrarily, I would say that I prefer those elements being included somewhat graphically…as an historical lesson.
I had not even considered the inverted logging saw as a method of torture until I saw it here. If the camera were to pan away and just include some sounds of anguish, it would be left to the imagination of the viewer, which has an entirely 21st century view of torture. These types of scenes are not taken to the lengths of graphic horror movies or pornography…though viewer discretion is advised. So, if you are offended by the explicitness of these scenes, you are free to exercise your discretion and choose another show that fits within your values.
Xena must have lived to be years old to interact with the characters she meets. I still watch because I became a fan of Lucy Lawless after watching Spartacus series. Forget the fact that they paint Leonardo as a swash-buckling action hero. I am an Italian from Rome and I must really say that The Borgias series have made the Roman and Napoletan atmosphere way more spectacular, credential, stronger than Borgia series where you cant feel that real Roman air and urbanism.
And one other major element that I felt was very poor in Borgia series where chosen faces for the historical figures. I study art all my life and I am well educated about the looks of people from that period. Plus here and there you can also hear accents in The Borgias, not only in Borgia. But I dont agree that you should compare historicity of these both series, ofcourse The Borgias have many fictional moments, but that is a necessity, even in the great HBO series Rome they had to put some fictional stories to have a certain linear structure of the story, because in history you cant never follow ones persons story but seeing many other elements at once and that makes the view very confusing in a video.
Maybe Iam criticizing Borgia series too harshly but I just feel that they miss the overall energy of people and Rome and possibly its mostly about the chosen actors that dont convince me and they have a lack of energy in their roles. Which is a shame and paradox when most of the actors in Borgia are Europeans. I played as extras soldier in Borgia in the Pragues studio and I saw that most soldiers were Czech people and using czechs as Romans is like using a scandinavian man as an African man, they are soo different in their mentallity that not even acting would be that convincing.
American would do much better as an Italian than a czech person. Its about the energy thats all wrong. Thank you very much for such an informative post! It was eloquent, witty and extremely interesting. I thought it was very good. I thought it was pretty good, not outstanding but not poor either. I think it was very understated and controlled. That made me feel a little rocky in the first episodes, which may be what is making some people feel uncomfortable with the acting?
Once I got used to it I thought the acting was above par for TV. Thank you for your informative article. I must say that I was a huge fan of the Showtime series. And I understand that was such a large budget comes better actors, costumes, sets, writers etc. But the acting on BFF is some of the worst I have ever seen. I have looked at the series often for the last three years trying to get past the first 20 minutes of episode one season one.
I always find myself turning it off due to frustration with the poor acting. So today I stopped watching episode one and moved onto the second one. I have to tell you even though they may have elaborated more on history etc. The acting just sucks. But I will try based on your review.
Keep blogging. I first watched the Showtime Borgia when it came out. I just discovered the European version and find it far superior than the SHO version. I too enjoy history and found that the European version was more accurate, and believable. I was surprised however that the European version suggests that Juan was dispatched by his sister…. Finally I have been binge watching the European version often viewing 8 hours at time….
Thanks Netflix. Having watched The Borgias religiously as new episodes were released on Sky Atlantic I can safely say that it gave me just the tasting I needed to spark an interest into the threats, debauchery, and everything else that goes with the delights of the Renaissance period.
It was only recently, after finally cracking down on picking up the history books again, I realised that my craving for more was still not satiated, and after a search on Netflix — it seems I have indeed been sated! One thing I will say though, is thank you for confirmation of my suspicions regarding the differences between the two shows, as well as clearing up some questions of my own! I like the Euro one better. The shooting is very dark, which may put some people off, especially in season 1.
I think they were trying to get the feel of the time, with no electric light, but not sure it makes for the best TV. But despite that, the story and development were far better. The script was also far superior, although a bit wordy at times. The sets were less fancy, but felt more realistic, so you felt like you were in the time period, which is more unto me than a fancy, perfect set.
The acting was good, too, better than the American version, I found. Parts of the show are funny. In season 1 of the Euro version, Cesare is like a tortured teenager, not sexy, etc. But his character development is much better, and he gets more attractive starting in season 2. Thanks for the blog. Just finished all 38 episodes and loved every minute….. Thanks to all with such interesting input! However, the story and characters are completely different. I think the Showtime one is a bit wishy washy to be honest.
The BBC one is more in keeping to what I had read about the family, whereas this later version I did not recognise much at all and was a tad disappointed. Oliver Cotton makes a superb Cesare in my opinion and well worth watching.
Oh my. What an incoherent stream of consciousness here. D Have you even read the article you comment on? At least you could have googled how to write the name of Giulia Farnese properly…. Tastes may differ, surely. Because you know, any single episode of this series contains more true historical facts, characters and details than all 3 seasons of The Borgias put together.
Why do you waste hours of your life watching anything you cannot neither understand nor enjoy, and then make yourselves ridiculous by writing absurd and ignorant comments?
Oh, please deliver me from this terrible oppressive marriage, help me Cesare. The two men duel, DUEL! Oh, you killed mu husband, you murdered him! Go be a nun you stupid woman, I am sick of your moaning! I do remember being frustrated by that subplot myself. It just felt very ahistorical, not the actions or reactions either a Renaissance man or a Renaissance woman would take or have in such a situation. I had hoped they would make her more active and in control of her life.
Loved the analysis. I am just finishing up the first season of Borgias: Faith and Fear. His performance is like an American Pope. Thats quite an assumption youve got there mate. I, for one, am certainly not american. I was reading the Wikipedia article on Carlo Gesualdo, and was reminded of the example you used here about Orsini killing his wife when he finds her in the arms of another man, and how this was considered a perfectly acceptable reaction by the mores of the time.
The court found him innocent of any crime. Within 4 years he had married again, this time the niece of the Duke of Ferrara. The accent was totally jarring, as was the delivery. I wanted to like it. I enjoyed knowing that there would be more of the historical characters featured.
Sumana Harihareswara said:. But the key stories, and how history influences the characters and situations, ring true to me. I loved the in-depth descriptions you give here along with your personal reasoning, all well stated. The idea that for all of our past, humans have been cordial and honorable and even sexually inactive but tender when it happens all seemed ludicrous to me so I for one prefer a more realistic telling of past events and lifestyles even if some depictions are too difficult for me to watch.
Thank you again for not just stating which is a bit more historically realistic of the two mentioned shows but also for fully explaining the reasoning behind your statements so that people cam clearly see which wpuld be better suited for their personal tastes, your writing is superb and I hope to read many more enlightening posts from you.
As far as the negative comments some have made, a Queen using the floor as a toilet for example, it clearly shows those who respond with personal attacks or obvious outrage are just taking life too personally, who cares is a Queen or a President or whomever in the past relieved themselves in a hallway or their reasoning for doing so, it has no bearing on how good a leader someone was or what their country fought through to get where they are in the world, as we all know, most kingdoms and countries and leaders of all past generations have likely done if not historically proven horrific things to others including ,any of their own citizenship.
Sky Simone said:. The contrast in the 2 shows is massive. Not relevant to my compare, but a comment all the same, the cast of the Showtime version are much more attractive. Actors playing Cesare and Lucrezia are absolutely stunning. The guy playing Cesare in the Netflix version is hideous.. How are we to know which is more historically accurate?
It seems a LOT of the teachings or writings on Lucrezia are based on rumors.. Was she sleeping with her father? Was she sleeping with her brother? Showtime presents Lucrezia as an absolute whore, making out with her father, climbing into his bed, and having professed incestuous love for her brother Cesare.
The foreign version has more detail and information about the election of this pope, whereas the Showtime version glossed over this and I thought it began with him already being pope?
So far in the foreign version there has been nothing of the noblelady that became a nun. Lucrezia has also expressed that she wants to be a nun. Showtime he is a violent rapist, and she claims he never consumated the marriage to get an annulment. The netflix version he is a kind man who loves her, and his first wife died but he cannot get it up.
I am trying to figure out if Cesare really had a son he sacrificed to get his dad elected, or if at least there were rumors that he did, or if it is totally made up by the show… anyone know? Yet somehow, I find myself binging it. Leni said:. I really love this blog entry. The way you describe both series is entertaining as well as informative.
I read this article a few years ago, and some of the comments about how to adapt history into something watchers can relate true was truly influencial for me. I would love to make this article available in my language. Would it be ok for me to translate and publish your article for non profit of course with proper credits to you and a link to your website? Best regards, Kal. Click here to cancel reply. Search for: Search. Here are two sample scenes that demonstrate what I mean: Borgia: Faith and Fear, episode 1.
Be shocked! Even Borgias. There are other age-heirarchy-related differences as well. Not a safe seat. Brotherly resentment brewing in the Showtime version.
But what about historical accuracy? See this real Renaissance portrait of a wealthy lady? And this is in the south, centuries later.
The Showtime version of Lucrezia Borgia, her childlike innocence successfully communicated by this lovely pink gown, which she never would have worn because weak dyes are for the poor.
Communication can be more important than accuracy. Although you may recognize a few of the actors in the European production on sight - e.
Many are yeoman actors known far more for their indelible performances than for themselves, and Borgia: Faith and Fear certainly adds to the stature of several. I've never personally been a fan of Neil Jordan, and watching The Borgias, I'm reminded of the fact that I actively dislike every film he's ever made, finding them rhythmless and hollow - a pattern I see being repeated.
I know relatively little about Tom Fontana, and yet I'm in awe of this series he's created - in awe of its intensity and the passion on display by the actors bringing it to life. What's also shocking is the raw carnality of the European production compared to the Showtime series, given the complete absence of legal or corporate obstacles to showing sex and violence on a premium cable channel.
In fact, violence in premium-cable historical dramas is often taken to cartoonish lengths in service to childish aesthetics, but in most cases even when it's graphic it's not actually violent - it's combat choreography and CGI blood-spatter ballet, with the heart-rending chaos and upsetting callousness of real violence surgically removed.
I don't know whether to credit the Showtime series with having less violence than its competitor, or discredit them for trivializing what violence they do show in the same way they trivialize the entire Renaissance world. But though violence is frequent in the European series, it's never a joke, a cheap plot device, or a matter of course - it's an unfolding and intensely personal cataclysm based on the choices the characters make: Characters with imperfect knowledge, incomplete self-control, long history behind them, and uncertain future ahead of them.
Genuine monstrousness is uncovered beneath apparent mediocrity, and humanity revealed beneath corruption - but not because a writer finds its useful to play tricks with his characters, but because these qualities are already there in the characters as envisioned and perhaps as historically occurred. We are made to realize, disquietingly, that no great malice, greed, or especially evil disposition is needed for one person to destroy the life of another - just mere disregard.
There's an equally stark contrast in terms of showing sexuality: Borgia frankly depicts the human body in various states of nudity and pleasure, and does so in a way that actually conveys a human experience taking place.
If actual arousal isn't taking place - and it very likely is - then the actors, makeup artists, and cameraman are true geniuses in the level of detail to which they go. The version of the series intro currently on Netflix makes this abundantly clear, showing for a few seconds a woman's heaving, perky breasts with erect nipples and writhing mid-section.
You have to actually see it to understand that it's far more realistic and sexualized than most of the empty nudity and mechanical humping shown on American premium cable and R-rated movies. Which brings me back to the Showtime series. It's not that there's anything unusual about de-sexualized sexual content - quite the contrary, it's standard for programming targeted at American audiences.
As with many Showtime programs, we are shown sculpted, immobile breasts on bodies posed as if for a photo-shoot or moving according to an instruction manual rather than behaving according to the demands of passion - mere visual information with no emotional or even animal context.
Unfortunately, it's not the raw mechanics or images of sex that awaken puritanical instincts, but passion - the raw, powerful, overwhelming cascade of experiences that sexuality produces - so it is naturally those which are filtered out of content in order to make it more widely palatable.
The sexual experience, and not the empty mechanics, is what threatens to upset the applecart of a passive consumer audience who is far more useful with dulled senses than awakened ones.
It isn't possible to become desensitized to that kind of image - to see passion is to feel passion, or at least to feel its heat. And for some reason, even on premium cable networks, either Americans don't want to see that or the people who rule over our media don't want us to see it. Maybe both. Maybe we have a culture of anesthesia, reflected in our increasingly sense-dulling "music," mindless alpha-wave TV programming, and dopamine-amped food.
Maybe we desire to turn pleasure into a button to push rather than an experience to undergo. Or maybe that's just what the people who sell us this crap want for us, because robots make a more reliable consumer base, and people whose emotions have been degraded to a handful of basic behavioral triggers without all that messy thought and feeling surrounding them are easier to predict and control. But I can't, and don't, buy that it's a coincidence that every time similar content is approached in two different ways for Americans and for international audiences, the people designing it for US consumption choose to dumb everything down, rob sex of its sexuality, and turn violence into a cheap visual gag reel because some formula says that you need a fight scene in act so-and-so.
You might see menstruation, you could see someone getting their bowels slit open. Sometimes you watch hot young men flagellating themselves or getting in bloody bar fights. Might have made for a less dull show. Torture, that makes it more historically accurate, right? American production? In Faith and Fear , the sex and violence make the show uglier and duller. I just wish that they were worked into the plot better and not merely sprinkled around like so much garnish on an undercooked entree.
The Showtime version may take historical liberties, but at least the costumes appear consistently fantastic. This one? The clothes seem like bland, Italian-Renaissance rental stock with A LOT of big metal grommets and we all know what that means , right? The Showtime version definitely has more accurate clothing shapes and is more consistent. Plus, Faith and Fear has a lot of little problems with costume accessories.
Sometimes women do wear veils, as most women did in the Italian states, but then those are worn with silly metal circlets that look very celtic-fantasy-faire. Many of the male characters are wearing standard-issue Catholic church robes, so nothing strikingly bad or good.
Cesare leaves his shirt open frequently or strips entirely — servicing the lay-dees in the audience, of course. Help jog my memory here! Much like the script, Irons is given better quality robes to wear. Faith and Fear has some nice locations, at least filmed in the Czech Republic.
Jeremy Irons, making one sexy pope in The Borgias. Yeah, not the most heart-rending stuff. The historical character had three marriages, all arranged, none particularly happy, and the TV series gives her plenty of scenery to chew.
Dychauk mostly cries, whines, has sex, or looks like a deer caught in the headlights, sometimes all at once, all while wearing fairly unimpressive Italian Ren outfits. This is kind of referencing a few different historical styles, but I might wear it to an SCA event. Without the grommets. And with a more period hairstyle. And some accessories. I admire how Grainger gave Lucrezia strength and showed more growth of the character.
But at least these last ones are pretty. Subtle clothing style changes show time progressing. As historian Ada Palmer points out, each series takes a different point of view with Cesare — history is unclear about whether he was born before or after his brother Juan. Faith and Fear makes Cesare the younger brother, while Showtime makes him the older brother, and this changes the family dynamic. Serious conversation with the object of your affection? Shirt optional. Cesare in Faith and Fear , getting full leather action.
Wrap him up in leather or strip off his shirt, whatever it takes to draw in a coveted female demographic. Giulia Farnese in Borgia: Faith and Fear. Vannozza Catanei in Borgia: Faith and Fear.
0コメント