m********y
发帖数: 21909 | | T*****y
发帖数: 18592 | 2 有个女人也喜欢
强行要借给我看
我没看
【在 m********y 的大作中提到】
: 我太喜欢了， 能不能大家一起看， 讨论一下。
| m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 3 那你就可以看看吧， 看来以后， 可以在两个女儿面前吹啊。。
我现在在看Borgia（法国版）的。
【在 T*****y 的大作中提到】
: 有个女人也喜欢
: 强行要借给我看
: 我没看
| T*****y
发帖数: 18592 | 4 我只有一个女儿啊，另外一个是儿子
莫非我哪次没小心，现在已经有了另外一个女儿？@@
【在 m********y 的大作中提到】
: 那你就可以看看吧， 看来以后， 可以在两个女儿面前吹啊。。
: 我现在在看Borgia（法国版）的。
| s***i
发帖数: 10182 | | m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 6 你盖不会把它当情色电影看了吧。。
【在 s***i 的大作中提到】
: 拍的不错
: 教皇的女人尤其不错
| m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 7 你女儿多大了？ 都喜欢看The Borgias了。。
【在 T*****y 的大作中提到】
: 我只有一个女儿啊，另外一个是儿子
: 莫非我哪次没小心，现在已经有了另外一个女儿？@@
| T*****y
发帖数: 18592 | 8 十一
【在 m********y 的大作中提到】
: 你女儿多大了？ 都喜欢看The Borgias了。。
| s***i
发帖数: 10182 | 9 你该不会把它当历史片看了吧
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 8.2.2
【在 m********y 的大作中提到】
: 你盖不会把它当情色电影看了吧。。
| m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 10 这个电影很黄很暴力， 她小小年龄， 怎么喜欢看这样的电影呢？ 里面还有乱伦的。
【在 T*****y 的大作中提到】
: 十一
| | | m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 11 我就是把它当历史片看的。
【在 s***i 的大作中提到】
: 你该不会把它当历史片看了吧
:
: ★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 8.2.2
| T*****y
发帖数: 18592 | 12 靠。我不看，她怎么可能看
她看见古代的东西就躲着走
觉得跟见到外星人似的
【在 m********y 的大作中提到】
: 这个电影很黄很暴力， 她小小年龄， 怎么喜欢看这样的电影呢？ 里面还有乱伦的。
| T****7
发帖数: 307 | 13 The true history of this family is even more violent and dirty compare to
the show :-) | m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 14 真的吗？ 有小说吗？
看这部剧， 老把天主教庭跟tg比较。。
【在 T****7 的大作中提到】
: The true history of this family is even more violent and dirty compare to
: the show :-)
| T****7
发帖数: 307 | 15 Go directly to raw history journals, as these guys do not need fiction
writers to spice it up.
Ceasar Borgias even hired Leonardo da Vinci briefly. | T****7
发帖数: 307 | 16 The cardinals electing pope scene is quite jolly.
Yes, that reminds us quite directly of the elders picking the next Gen.
【在 m********y 的大作中提到】
: 真的吗？ 有小说吗？
: 看这部剧， 老把天主教庭跟tg比较。。
| m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 17 好像雇过米开朗琪罗， 真帅死了， 可惜有gay的倾向。
没有提到雇佣达芬奇， 但是他的办公室里有最后的晚餐的草稿壁画。。
里面提到了拉斐尔， 给他妹妹画像。
【在 T****7 的大作中提到】
: Go directly to raw history journals, as these guys do not need fiction
: writers to spice it up.
: Ceasar Borgias even hired Leonardo da Vinci briefly.
| c******g
发帖数: 4889 | 18 看了第一季的前几集，看不下去。角色不讨人喜欢，错误也不少，放弃了。 | m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 19 感觉那个时候的欧洲真的很黑暗。。
【在 T****7 的大作中提到】
: The cardinals electing pope scene is quite jolly.
: Yes, that reminds us quite directly of the elders picking the next Gen.
| T****7
发帖数: 307 | 20 米开朗琪罗, his sponsor is Medici family, the ruling family of Florence. The
fat classmate of Ceasar, one of the young Cardinals, is one of the family's
sons and point man in Rome.
【在 m********y 的大作中提到】
: 好像雇过米开朗琪罗， 真帅死了， 可惜有gay的倾向。
: 没有提到雇佣达芬奇， 但是他的办公室里有最后的晚餐的草稿壁画。。
: 里面提到了拉斐尔， 给他妹妹画像。
| | | T****7
发帖数: 307 | 21 Hard to say anywhere in today's world is any cleaner. Just suger coated and
polished enough to not to show you the shady parts. Besides, folks like us
are so far away from these power centers, that we may never see the ugliness.
And practically that WAS the golden age of Italy, when it is the hub of
world commerce. Enormous wealth flows through it. Even today we can visit
the splendid masterpieces and grand architectures of the era, which is the
positive proof of the power and wealth of the day.
I've been to Florence a few years ago and seeing the Medici family
commmisioned master pieces. Every single piece is astonishingly beautiful
and powerful, and there are not just one or two of them, but in aboudance.
And it is not the same as you see them in photos or even videos, you need to
be there to see them come alive.
【在 m********y 的大作中提到】
: 感觉那个时候的欧洲真的很黑暗。。
| m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 22 我说的是电影里面的米开朗琪罗。
都说米开朗琪罗和达芬奇是艺术巨匠，想在想想， 确实对， 用现在的眼光看， 他们
的作品确实匠气十足。
The
's
【在 T****7 的大作中提到】
: 米开朗琪罗, his sponsor is Medici family, the ruling family of Florence. The
: fat classmate of Ceasar, one of the young Cardinals, is one of the family's
: sons and point man in Rome.
| m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 23 你看法国版的， 我个人喜欢法国版。 那部美剧我觉得很奢华， 服装装饰的奢华来吸
引眼球， 但法剧不同， 没有那么多奢华的服装和家具， 感觉挺真实的。
你能看出错误来， 说明水平很高啊， 我是看不出来， 经常不懂， 还得查查。
【在 c******g 的大作中提到】
: 看了第一季的前几集，看不下去。角色不讨人喜欢，错误也不少，放弃了。
| L********o
发帖数: 2855 | 24 对牛弹琴
and
ugliness.
【在 T****7 的大作中提到】
: Hard to say anywhere in today's world is any cleaner. Just suger coated and
: polished enough to not to show you the shady parts. Besides, folks like us
: are so far away from these power centers, that we may never see the ugliness.
: And practically that WAS the golden age of Italy, when it is the hub of
: world commerce. Enormous wealth flows through it. Even today we can visit
: the splendid masterpieces and grand architectures of the era, which is the
: positive proof of the power and wealth of the day.
: I've been to Florence a few years ago and seeing the Medici family
: commmisioned master pieces. Every single piece is astonishingly beautiful
: and powerful, and there are not just one or two of them, but in aboudance.
| L********o
发帖数: 2855 | 25 你不懂艺术非要这么明白的显示出来么？
【在 m********y 的大作中提到】
: 我说的是电影里面的米开朗琪罗。
: 都说米开朗琪罗和达芬奇是艺术巨匠，想在想想， 确实对， 用现在的眼光看， 他们
: 的作品确实匠气十足。
:
: The
: 's
| m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 26 是的。这次这个borgia的剧，不知道天主教庭有没有反应啊， 把罗马教廷华丽的袍子
揭了去， 不仅有大把的虱子跳蚤， 还有老鼠和蟑螂。。。
我的感觉就是天主教可以贵为邪教。
and
ugliness.
【在 T****7 的大作中提到】
: Hard to say anywhere in today's world is any cleaner. Just suger coated and
: polished enough to not to show you the shady parts. Besides, folks like us
: are so far away from these power centers, that we may never see the ugliness.
: And practically that WAS the golden age of Italy, when it is the hub of
: world commerce. Enormous wealth flows through it. Even today we can visit
: the splendid masterpieces and grand architectures of the era, which is the
: positive proof of the power and wealth of the day.
: I've been to Florence a few years ago and seeing the Medici family
: commmisioned master pieces. Every single piece is astonishingly beautiful
: and powerful, and there are not just one or two of them, but in aboudance.
| T****7
发帖数: 307 | 27 the French rendition is much dirtier and more violent. you have heavy taste
:-)
【在 m********y 的大作中提到】
: 你看法国版的， 我个人喜欢法国版。 那部美剧我觉得很奢华， 服装装饰的奢华来吸
: 引眼球， 但法剧不同， 没有那么多奢华的服装和家具， 感觉挺真实的。
: 你能看出错误来， 说明水平很高啊， 我是看不出来， 经常不懂， 还得查查。
| m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 28 我不懂， 所以不直接说， 我个人喜欢他们的作品，但陈丹青说是巨匠， 就是匠气十
足。
【在 L********o 的大作中提到】
: 你不懂艺术非要这么明白的显示出来么？
| m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 29 那些酷刑的部分， 我都跳过去不看， 也不觉得啥了。。
taste
【在 T****7 的大作中提到】
: the French rendition is much dirtier and more violent. you have heavy taste
: :-)
| m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 30 有机会一定去欧洲。
反映法国历史的电影不多， 宫廷剧也不多， 不知道是不是目前法国没有了国王， 没
有人关心的原因。 相比之下， 英国的历史片就多些， 就从真实历史的角度，貌似英
国人也重视自己的历史， 比如BBC就搞了一个系列剧， history of Britian， 法国就
没有这个，也可能是语言的原因吧。
and
ugliness.
【在 T****7 的大作中提到】
: Hard to say anywhere in today's world is any cleaner. Just suger coated and
: polished enough to not to show you the shady parts. Besides, folks like us
: are so far away from these power centers, that we may never see the ugliness.
: And practically that WAS the golden age of Italy, when it is the hub of
: world commerce. Enormous wealth flows through it. Even today we can visit
: the splendid masterpieces and grand architectures of the era, which is the
: positive proof of the power and wealth of the day.
: I've been to Florence a few years ago and seeing the Medici family
: commmisioned master pieces. Every single piece is astonishingly beautiful
: and powerful, and there are not just one or two of them, but in aboudance.
| | | L********o
发帖数: 2855 | 31 人假装作有灵感，你跟着愤青
【在 m********y 的大作中提到】
: 我不懂， 所以不直接说， 我个人喜欢他们的作品，但陈丹青说是巨匠， 就是匠气十
: 足。
| T****7
发帖数: 307 | 32 The vice of the establishment is very well documented and very well known
too.
And the Reformation Movement does not come from nowhere. In Germany these
Protestant Lords quickly gang up to seize the flow of wealth toward Rome.
However, during the resulting thirty years' war, ordinary people suffered
even more horribly.
【在 m********y 的大作中提到】
: 是的。这次这个borgia的剧，不知道天主教庭有没有反应啊， 把罗马教廷华丽的袍子
: 揭了去， 不仅有大把的虱子跳蚤， 还有老鼠和蟑螂。。。
: 我的感觉就是天主教可以贵为邪教。
:
: and
: ugliness.
| L********o
发帖数: 2855 | 33 份特
你以为民主法制衣服下面，没有这些老鼠跳糟？
告诉你比文革要黑暗
文革所有的东西都是赤裸裸的。
比如今天，贪官们下面的黑暗就不用说了
要让工人农民批判贪官
虽然会把贪官的二奶脱光了批斗，看起来很残酷，但是比民主法制干净多了
【在 m********y 的大作中提到】
: 是的。这次这个borgia的剧，不知道天主教庭有没有反应啊， 把罗马教廷华丽的袍子
: 揭了去， 不仅有大把的虱子跳蚤， 还有老鼠和蟑螂。。。
: 我的感觉就是天主教可以贵为邪教。
:
: and
: ugliness.
| T****7
发帖数: 307 | 34 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110963/
Plenty on French side too. Try this one: the young princess/queen had a
thing or two with even her brothers. And later on she cultivated a taste to
collect the preserved organs such as heart from her lovers and carried them
around in her belt.
Possibly a good flick for your heavy taste ...
【在 m********y 的大作中提到】
: 有机会一定去欧洲。
: 反映法国历史的电影不多， 宫廷剧也不多， 不知道是不是目前法国没有了国王， 没
: 有人关心的原因。 相比之下， 英国的历史片就多些， 就从真实历史的角度，貌似英
: 国人也重视自己的历史， 比如BBC就搞了一个系列剧， history of Britian， 法国就
: 没有这个，也可能是语言的原因吧。
:
: and
: ugliness.
| L********o
发帖数: 2855 | 35 欧喜欢那个在巴黎屠杀加尔文派的油画
to
them
【在 T****7 的大作中提到】
: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110963/
: Plenty on French side too. Try this one: the young princess/queen had a
: thing or two with even her brothers. And later on she cultivated a taste to
: collect the preserved organs such as heart from her lovers and carried them
: around in her belt.
: Possibly a good flick for your heavy taste ...
| m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 36 我真的没有想到反罗马的新教思想出现得那么早， 而且都是公开的，起码电影里表现
的部分是这样的。
普通人什么时候都得suffer， 有左派历史学家批评那些搞欧洲史的人说： 在他们的研
究中，只有三个演员， 国王， 贵族和教会。。。但你说那个时候， 一般人怎么显示
力量啊， 就算有力量，也只能在起义里面现实一下，平时哪里有机会。
【在 T****7 的大作中提到】
: The vice of the establishment is very well documented and very well known
: too.
: And the Reformation Movement does not come from nowhere. In Germany these
: Protestant Lords quickly gang up to seize the flow of wealth toward Rome.
: However, during the resulting thirty years' war, ordinary people suffered
: even more horribly.
| m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 37 好吧， 毛主席万岁， 万万岁。。。
你可以退朝了吧？
【在 L********o 的大作中提到】
: 份特
: 你以为民主法制衣服下面，没有这些老鼠跳糟？
: 告诉你比文革要黑暗
: 文革所有的东西都是赤裸裸的。
: 比如今天，贪官们下面的黑暗就不用说了
: 要让工人农民批判贪官
: 虽然会把贪官的二奶脱光了批斗，看起来很残酷，但是比民主法制干净多了
| L********o
发帖数: 2855 | 38 你悲愤是没有用的
你知道民主法制根中世纪政治一样肮脏就行了
【在 m********y 的大作中提到】
: 好吧， 毛主席万岁， 万万岁。。。
: 你可以退朝了吧？
| T****7
发帖数: 307 | 39 Second this.
If you want to bash any of the masters of the time, come to Rome, Florence,
to see the masterpieces with your own eyes.
For example the Statue of David, just walk around it, see how the strength
and spirit you can feel about it.
The Chinese painter is simply a little hill, nowhere near the height of
mountain of the masters.
【在 L********o 的大作中提到】
: 人假装作有灵感，你跟着愤青
| L********o
发帖数: 2855 | 40 马远沈周不比达芬米凯拉斐尔差把
,
【在 T****7 的大作中提到】
: Second this.
: If you want to bash any of the masters of the time, come to Rome, Florence,
: to see the masterpieces with your own eyes.
: For example the Statue of David, just walk around it, see how the strength
: and spirit you can feel about it.
: The Chinese painter is simply a little hill, nowhere near the height of
: mountain of the masters.
| | | m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 41 我看过一点，看不下去。 你老说我的taste heavy， 我真不觉得啊， hahah
总之，我喜欢政治斗争的， 你说的这种变态的， 看不下去。有斗争， 有真实的历史
背景和事实， 可以篡改一些， 但大背景必须真实。
另外， 欧洲人真的也是蒙昧， 乱伦的很多很多， 想想，还是孔夫子伟大， 给我们制
定了长幼有序的这套伦理， 虽说历史上有蒸母的记载， 那些算啥“母”，不过都是些
他们老爸的年轻妃子而已， 完全可以理解。
to
them
【在 T****7 的大作中提到】
: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110963/
: Plenty on French side too. Try this one: the young princess/queen had a
: thing or two with even her brothers. And later on she cultivated a taste to
: collect the preserved organs such as heart from her lovers and carried them
: around in her belt.
: Possibly a good flick for your heavy taste ...
| m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 42 天主教庭的黑暗和艺术的勃发估计还是有区别的。不能说艺术达到了一个高峰，就把其
他都掩盖了。
,
【在 T****7 的大作中提到】
: Second this.
: If you want to bash any of the masters of the time, come to Rome, Florence,
: to see the masterpieces with your own eyes.
: For example the Statue of David, just walk around it, see how the strength
: and spirit you can feel about it.
: The Chinese painter is simply a little hill, nowhere near the height of
: mountain of the masters.
| L********o
发帖数: 2855 | 43 西斯廷是非常震撼
紫砂乌龙赵孟卷轴，其实也不错
【在 L********o 的大作中提到】
: 马远沈周不比达芬米凯拉斐尔差把
:
: ,
| m********y
发帖数: 21909 | 44 你把鸡和鸭比， 有意思吗？
【在 L********o 的大作中提到】
: 西斯廷是非常震撼
: 紫砂乌龙赵孟卷轴，其实也不错
| L********o
发帖数: 2855 | 45 欧没有说谁更高
欧说的是，主张鸡比鸭好，这个不行
【在 m********y 的大作中提到】
: 你把鸡和鸭比， 有意思吗？
| c******o
发帖数: 1184 | 46 评价的不错
http://www.exurbe.com/?p=2176
“The Borgias” vs. “Borgia: Faith and Fear” (accuracy in historical
fiction)
Posted by exurbe on July 26, 2013 Fandom
BorgiaFrenchTVPoster
A French “Spot the Saint” themed poster for “Borgia: Faith and Fear”
assigning Cesare the attributes: archbishop’s robes, scythe, dagger, bloody
hands, blood. The French caption reads “Don’t have faith in them.” I
can’t argue.
There was a Borgia boom in 2011 when, aiming to capitalize on the commercial
success of The Tudors, the television world realized there was one obvious
way to up the ante. Not one but two completely unrelated Borgia TV series
were made in 2011. Many have run across the American Showtime series The
Borgias, but fewer people know about Borgia, also called Borgia: Faith and
Fear, a French-German-Czech production released (in English) in the
Anglophone world via Netflix. I am watching both and enjoying both. This
unique phenomenon, two TV series made in the same year, modeled on the same
earlier series and treating the same historical characters and events, is an
amazing chance to look at different ways history can be used in fiction.
I am not evaluating these shows for their historical accuracy. I have been
fortunate in that becoming an historian hasn’t stopped me from enjoying
historical television. It’s a professional risk, and I know plenty of
people whose ability to enjoy a scene is completely shattered if Emperor
Augustus is eating a New World species of melon, or Anne Boleyn walks on
screen wearing the wrong shade of green. I sympathize with the inability to
ignore niggling errors, and I know any expert suffers from it, whether a
physicist watching attempting-to-be-hard SF, or a doctor watching a medical
show, or any sane person watching the Timeline movie. But over the years as
my historical knowledge has increased so has my recognition of just how
hard it is to make a historically accurate show, and how often historical
accuracy comes into conflict with entertainment. More on that later...
As for the Borgias and the other Borgias:
The Borgias (Showtime) Borgia: Faith and
Fear (International & Netflix)
Bigger budget (gorgeous!) Smaller
budget
Shorter series/seasons Longer
seasons, enabling slower pacing, more detail
Bigger name actors
Extremely international cast (accents sometimes strong)
More glossing over details More
historical details (can be more confusing as a result)
Makes Cesare older than Giovanni/Juan Makes Giovanni/
Juan older than Cesare (<= historians debate)
Focus on Cesare as mature and grim Focus on Cesare
as young and seeking his path
Lots of typical TV sex and violence More period-
feeling sex and violence
Generally less historicity
Generally more historicity
What do I mean by “more historicity”? While I enjoy both shows–both will
pass the basic TV test of making you enjoy yourself for the 50 minutes you
spend in a chair watching them–the international series consistently
succeeded in making the people and their behavior feel more period. Here
are two sample scenes that demonstrate what I mean:
71jtW-4usiL._SL1120_Borgia: Faith and Fear, episode 1. One of the heads of
the Orsini family bursts into his bedroom and catches Juan (Giovanni) Borgia
in flagrante with his wife. Juan grabs his pants and flees out the window
as quickly as he can. Now here is Orsini alone with his wife. [The
audience knows what to expect. He will shout, she will try to explain, he
will hit her, there will be tears and begging, and, depending on how bad a
character the writers are setting up, he might beat her really badly and we'
ll see her in the rest of this episode all puffy and bruised, or if they
want him to be really bad he'll slam her against something hard enough to
break her neck, and he'll stare at her corpse with that brutish ambiguity
where we're not sure if he regrets it.] Orsini grabs the iron fire poker
and hits his wife over the head, full force, wham, wham, dead. He drops the
fire poker on her corpse and walks briskly out of the room, leaving it for
the servants to clean up. Yes. That is the right thing, because this is
the Renaissance, and these people are terrible. When word gets out there is
concern over a possible feud, but no one ever comments that Orsini killing
his wife was anything but the appropriate course. That is historicity, and
the modern audience is left in genuine shock.
The-Borgias-Season-1-POSTER-Promo3The Borgias, episode 1. We are facing the
papal election of 1492. Another Cardinal confronts Rodrigo Borgia in a
hallway. It has just come out that Borgia has been committing simony, i.e.
taking bribes. Our modern audience is shocked! Shocked, I say! That a
candidate for the papacy would be corrupt and take bribes! Our daring
Cardinal confronts Borgia, saying he too is shocked! Shocked! This is no
longer a matter of politics but principle! He will oppose Borgia with all
his power, because Borgia is a bad person and should not sit on the Throne
of St. Peter! See, audience! Now is the time to be shocked! No. This is
not the Renaissance, this is modern sensibilities about what we think should
’ve been shocking in the Renaissance. After the election this same
Cardinal will be equally shocked that the Holy Father has a mistress, and
bastards. Ooooh. Because that would be shocking in 2001, but in 1492 this
had been true of every pope for the past century. In fact, Cardinal Shocked
-all-the-time, according to the writers you are supposed to be none other
than Giuliano della Rovere. Giuliano “Battle-Pope” della Rovere! You
have a mistress! And a daughter! And a brothel! And an elephant! And
take your elephant to your brothel! And you’re stalking Michelangelo! And
foreign powers lent you 300,000 ducats to spend bribing other people to
vote for you in this election! And we’re supposed to believe you are
shocked by simony? That is not historicity. It is applying some historical
names to some made-up dudes and having them lecture us on why be should be
shocked.
Be shocked! Shocked I say! See! It's so shocking there's fire!
Be shocked! It’s so shocking there’s fire!
These are just two examples, but typify the two series. The Borgias toned
it down: consistently throughout the series, everyone is simply less violent
and corrupt than they actually historically, documentably were. Why would
sex-&-violence Showtime tone things down? I think because they were afraid
of alienating their audience with the sheer implausibility of what the
Renaissance was actually like. Rome in 1492 was so corrupt, and so violent,
that I think they don’t believe the audience will believe them if they go
full-on. Almost all the Cardinals are taking bribes? Lots, possibly the
majority of influential clerics in Rome overtly live with mistresses? Every
single one of these people has committed homicide, or had goons do it?
Wait, they all have goons? Even the monks have goons? It feels exaggerated
. Showtime toned it down to a level that matches what the typical modern
imagination might expect.
My hopes for "Faith and Fear" were raised when I noticed that the brilliant
and fascinating Julia Farnese featured more prominently in their PR photos
than the much-more-famous (and blonde) Lucrezia.
My hopes for “Faith and Fear” were raised when I noticed that the
brilliant and fascinating Julia Farnese featured more prominently in their
PR photos than the much-more-famous (and blonde) Lucrezia. Making her an
intelligent, valued partner to Rodrigo’s labors instead of a scheming sex
kitten makes the whole thing richer. In their version she exerts real power
, in a “separate spheres” way.
Borgia: Faith and Fear did not tone it down. A bar brawl doesn’t go from
insult to heated words to slamming chairs to eventually drawing steel, it
goes straight from insult to hacking off a body part. Rodrigo and Cesare
don’t feel guilty about killing people, they feel guilty the first time
they kill someone dishonorably. Rodrigo is not being seduced by Julia
Farnese and trying to hide his shocking affair; Rodrigo and Julia live in
the papal palace like a married couple, and she’s the head of his household
and the partner of his political labors, and if the audience is squigged
out that she’s 18 and he’s 61 then that’s a fact, not something to try to
SHOCK the audience with because it’s so SHOCKING shock shock. Even in
other details, Showtime kept letting modern sensibilities leak in. Showtime
’s 14-year-old Lucrezia is shocked (as a modern girl would be) that her
father wants her to have an arranged marriage, while B:F&F‘s 14-year-old
Lucrezia is constantly demanding marriage and convinced she’s going to be
an old maid if she doesn’t marry soon, but is simultaneously obviously
totally not ready for adult decisions and utterly ignorant of what marriage
will really mean for her. It communicates what was terrible about the
Renaissance but doesn’t have anyone on-camera objecting to it, whereas
Showtime seemed to feel that the modern audience needed someone to relate to
who agreed with us. And, for a broad part of the modern TV-watching
audience, they may well be correct. I wouldn’t be surprised if many
viewers find The Borgias a lot more approachable and comfortable than its
more period-feeling rival.
Young Giovanni di Lorenzo de Medici, exiled from Florence after Piero's
cowardace, now effectively head of the family, with infinite money and
desperate need of poitical allies. Even Borgias.
Young Giovanni di Lorenzo de Medici, exiled from Florence after Piero’s
cowardice, now effectively head of the family, with infinite money and
desperate need of political allies. Even Borgias.
Borgia: Faith and Fear also didn’t tone down the complexity, or rather
toned it down much less than The Borgias. This means that it is much harder
to follow. There are many more characters, more members of every family,
the complex family structures are there, the side-switching. I had to pause
two or three times an episode to explain to those watching with me who
Giodobaldo da Montefeltro was, or whatever. There’s so much going on that
the Previously On recap gives up and just says: “The College of Cardinals
is controlled by the sons of Rome’s powerful Italian families. They all
hate each other. The most feared is the Borgias.” They wisely realized
you couldn’t possibly follow everything that’s going on in Florence as
well as Rome, so they just periodically have someone receive a letter
summarizing wacky Florentine hijinx, as we watch adorable little Giovanni “
Leo” de Medici (played by the actor who is Samwell Tarly in Game of Thrones
) get more and more overwhelmed and tired. Showtime’s series
oversimplifies more, but that is both good and bad, in its way. The
audience needs to follow the politics, after all, and we can only take so
much summary. The Tudors got away with a lot by having lectures on what it
means to be Holy Roman Emperor delivered by shirtless John Rhys Meyers as he
stalked back and forth screaming in front of beautiful upholstery, and he’
s a good enough actor that he could scream recipes for shepherd’s pie and
we’d still sit through about a minute of it. The Borgia shows have even
more complicated politics for us to choke down.
Now, historians aren’t certain of Cesare’s birth date. He may be the
eldest of his full siblings, or second.
tumblr_linfk0hHYg1qzg8hbo1_r1_500
Showtime’s “elder brother” Cesare taking care of Lucrezia.
The difference between Cesare as elder brother and Cesare as younger brother
in the shows is fascinating. Showtime’s Big Brother Cesare is grim,
disillusioned, making hard decisions to further the family’s interests even
if the rest of the family isn’t yet ready to embrace such means. B:F&F‘s
Little Brother Cesare is starved for affection, uncertain about his path,
torn about his religion, and slowly growing up in a baby-snake-that-hasn’t-
yet-found-its-venom kind of way.
Faith and Fear's "little brother" Cesare receives encouragement from Mom.
BF&F’s “younger” Cesare receives encouragement from Mom.
Both are fascinating, utterly unrelated characters, and all the subsequent
character dynamics are completely different too. Giovanni/Juan is utterly
different in each, since Big Brother Cesare requires a playful and endearing
younger brother, whose death is already being foreshadowed in episode 1
with lines like “It’s the elder brother’s duty to protect the younger,”
while Little Brother Cesare requires a conceited, bullying Giovanni/Juan
undeserving of the affection which Rodrigo ought to be giving to smarter,
better Cesare. Elder Brother Cesare also requires different close friends,
giving him natural close relationships with figures like the Borgias’
famous family assassin Michelotto Corella, who can empathize with him about
using dark means in a world that isn’t quite OK with it.
From BF&F: Right to left, Alessandro Farnese sitting with Cesare, Lucrezia
and Giovanni/Juan. Not a safe seat.
From BF&F: Right to left, Alessandro Farnese with Cesare, Lucrezia and
Giovanni/Juan. Not a safe seat.
Younger Brother Cesare gets chummy classmate buddies Alessandro Farnese and
Giovanni “Leo” de Medici, who must balance their own precarious political
careers with the terrifying privilege of being the best friends of young
Cesare as he grows into his powers and toward the season 1 finale “The
Serpent Rises.” All this makes the two series taken together a fascinating
example of how squeezing historical events into the requirements of
narrative tropes makes one simple change–older brother trope vs. younger
brother trope–lead logically to two completely different stories. I think
both versions are very powerful, and the person they made out of the
historical Cesare is different and original in each, and worth exploring.
Brotherly resentment brewing in the Showtime version.
Brotherly resentment brewing in the Showtime version.
The great writing test is how to do Giovanni/Juan’s murder. Since some
people do and some don’t know their gory Borgia history, part of the
audience knows it’s coming, and part doesn’t. Historians still aren’t
sure who did it, whether it was Cesare or someone else, and what the motive
was. Thus the writers get to decide how heavily to foreshadow the death,
how to do the reveal, what character(s) to make the perpetrator(s), and what
motives to stress. I will not spoil what either series chose, but I will
say that it is very challenging writing a murder when you know some audience
members have radically different knowledge from others, and that I think
Borgia: Faith and Fear used that fact brilliantly, and tapped the tropes of
murder mystery very cleverly, when scripting the critical episode. The
Borgias was less creative in its presentation.
But what about historical accuracy?
I said before that I am not evaluating these shows for their historical
accuracy. Shows ignoring history or changing it around does bother me
sometimes, especially if a show is very good and ought to know better. The
superb HBO series Rome, which does an absolutely unparalleled job presenting
Roman social class, slavery, and religion, nonetheless left me baffled as
to why a studio making a series about the Julio-Claudians would feel driven
to ignore the famous historical allegations of orgies and bizarre sex
preserved in classical sources and substitute different orgies and bizarre
sex. The original orgies and bizarre sex were perfectly sufficient! But in
general I tend to be extremely patient with historically inacurate elements
within my history shows, moreso than many non-historians I know, who are
bothered by our acute modern anachronism-radar (on the history of the senes
of anachronism and its absence in pre-modern psychology, see Michael Wood:
Forgery, Replica, Fiction). For me, though, I have learned to relax and let
it go.
I remember the turning point moment. I was watching an episode of Buffy the
Vampire Slayer with my roommates, and it went into a backstory flashback
set in high medieval Germany. ”Why are you sighing?” one asked, noticing
that I’d laid back and deflated rather gloomily. I answered: ”She’s not
of sufficiently high social status to have domesticated rabbits in Northern
Europe in that century. But I guess it’s not fair to press a point since
the research on that hasn’t been published yet.” It made me laugh, also
made me think about how much I don’t know, since I hadn’t known that a
week before. For all the visible mistakes in these shows, there are even
more invisible mistakes that I make myself because of infinite details
historians haven’t figured out yet, and possibly never will. There are
thousands of artifacts in museums whose purposes we don’t know. There are
bits of period clothing whose functions are utter mysteries. There are
entire professions that used to exist that we now barely understand. No
history is accurate, not even the very best we have.
testtest
See this real Renaissance portrait of a wealthy lady? She has a bunny, and
it’s a class marker, showing she’s wealthy enough to have domesticated
rabits. And this is in the south, centuries later.
Envision a scene in which two Renaissance men are hanging out in a bar in
Bologna with a prostitute. Watching this scene, I, with my professional
knowledge of the place and period, notice that there are implausibly too
many candles burning, way more than this pub could afford, plus what they
paid for that meal is about what the landlord probably earns in a month, and
the prostitute isn’t wearing the mandatory blue veil required for
prostitutes by Bologna’s sumptuary laws. But if I showed it to twenty
other historians they would notice other things: that style of candlestick
wasn’t possible with Italian metalwork of the day, that fabric pattern was
Flemish, that window wouldn’t have had curtains, that dish they’re eating
is a period dish but from Genoa, not Bologna, and no Genoese cook would be
in Bologna because feud bla bla bla. So much we know. But a person from
the period would notice a thousand other things: that nobody made candles in
that exact diameter, or they butchered animals differently so that cut of
steak is the wrong shape, or no bar of the era would have been without the
indispensable who-knows-what: a hat-cleaning lady, a box of kittens, a
special shape of bread. All historical scenes are wrong, as wrong as a
scene set now would be which had a classy couple go to a formal steakhouse
with paper menus and an all-you-can-eat steak buffet. All the details are
right, but the mix is wrong.
In a real historical piece, if they tried to make everything slavishly right
any show would be unwatchable, because there would be too much that the
audience couldn’t understand. The audience would be constantly distracted
by details like un-filmably dark building interiors, ugly missing teeth,
infants being given broken-winged songbirds as disposable toys to play with,
crush, and throw away, and Marie Antoinette relieving herself on the floor
at Versailles. Despite its hundreds of bathrooms, one of Versailles’ marks
of luxury was that the staff removed human feces from the hallways
regularly, sometimes as often as twice a day, and always more than once a
week. We cannot make an accurate movie of this – it will please no one.
The makers of the TV series Mad Men recognized how much an accurate
depiction of the past freaks viewers out – the sexual politics, the lack of
seat belts and eco-consciousness, the way grown-ups treat kids. They
focused just enough on this discomfort to make it the heart of a powerful
and successful show, but there even an accurate depiction of attitudes from
a few decades ago makes all the characters feel like scary aliens. Go back
further and you will have complete incomprehensibility.
he 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
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.
Even costuming accuracy can be a communications problem, since modern
viewers have certain associations that are hard to unlearn. Want to costume
a princess to feel sweet and feminine? The modern eye demands pink or
light blue, though the historian knows pale colors coded poverty. Want to
costume a woman to communicate the fact that she’s a sexy seductress? The
audience needs the bodice and sleeves to expose the bits of her modern
audiences associate with sexy, regardless of which bits would plausibly have
been exposed at the time. I recently had to costume some Vikings, and was
lent a pair of extremely nice period Viking pants which had bold white and
orange stripes about two inches wide. I know enough to realize how perfect
they were, and that both the expense of the dye and the purity of the white
would mark them as the pants of an important man, but that if someone walked
on stage in them the whole audience would think: “Why is that Viking
wearing clown pants?” Which do you want, to communicate with the audience,
or to be accurate? I choose A.
Thus, rather than by accuracy, I judge this type of show by how successfully
the creators of an historical piece have chosen wisely from what history
offered them in order to make a good story. The product needs to
communicate to the audience, use the material in a lively way, change what
has to be changed, and keep what’s awesome. If some events are changed or
simplified to help the audience follow it, that’s the right choice. If
some characters are twisted a bit, made into heroes or villains to make the
melodrama work, that too can be the right choice. If you want to make King
Arthur a woman, or have Mary Shelley sleep with time-traveling John Hurt,
even that can work if it serves a good story. Or it can fail spectacularly,
but in order to see what people are trying to do I will give the show the
benefit of the doubt, and be patient even if poor Merlin is in the stocks
being pelted with tomatoes. (By the way, if you’re trying to watchthe BBC
’s Merlin and decide it’s not set in the past but on a terraformed
asteroid populated by vat-cultured artificial people who have been given a
20th century moral education and then a book on medieval society and told to
follow its advice, everything suddenly makes perfect sense!)
Showtime's Borgias being Dramatic! This Lucrezia dress is beyond what even I
can really tolerate in terms of inacuracy, but it certainly gets across the
sexy, and the incest vibe they're going for.
Showtime’s Borgias being Dramatic! This Lucrezia dress is beyond what even
I can really tolerate in terms of inacuracy, but it certainly gets across
the sexy, and the incest vibe they’re going for. I also notice that her
hair is a darker shade of blonde when they have her being ‘bad’. Before
you complain, the historical Lucrezia did bleach it: lemon juice & lye.
I am not meaning to pick a fight here with people who care deeply about
accuracy in historical fiction. I respect that it bothers some people, and
also that there is great merit in getting things right. Research and
thoroughness are admirable, and, just as it requires impressive virtuosity
to cook a great meal within strict diet constraints, like gluten free or
vegan, so it takes great virtuosity to tell a great story without cheating
on the history. I am simply saying that, while accuracy is a merit, it is
not more important to me than other merits, especially entertainment value
in something which is intended as entertainment.
This is also why I praise Borgia: Faith and Fear for what I call its “
historicity” rather than its “accuracy”. It takes its fair share of
liberties, as well it should if it wants a modern person to sit through it.
But it also succeeds in making the characters feel un-modern in a way many
period pieces don’t try to do. It is a bit alienating but much more
powerful. It is more accurate, yes, but it isn’t the accuracy alone that
makes it good, it’s the way that accuracy serves the narrative and makes it
exceptional, as truffle raises a common cream sauce to perfection. Richer
characters, more powerful situations, newer, stranger ideas that challenge
the viewers, these are the produce of B:F&F‘s historicity, and bring a lot
more power to it than details like accurately-colored dresses or perfectly
period utensils, which are admirable, but not enriching.
Final evaluation:
borgia-s1-brd-fr-2d
I like how the French packaging and “Do not have faith in them” subtitle
highlight the Borgias’ wishful/self-deluding aspirations toward holiness, a
major theme in in the series, which its American release motto “Before the
Mafia, there was the Borgia” abandons.
In the end, both these shows are successfully entertaining, and were popular
enough to get second and third seasons in which we can enjoy such treats as
Machiavelli and Savonarola (Showtime’s planned 4th season has been
cancelled, though there are motions to fight that). Showtime’s series is
more approachable and easier to understand, but Borgia: Faith and Fear much
more interesting, in my opinion, and also more valuable. The Borgias
thrills and entertains, but Borgia: Faith and Fear also succeeds in showing
the audience how terrible things were in the Renaissance, and how much
progress we’ve made. It de-romanticizes. It feels period. It has guts.
It has things the audience is not comfortable with. It has people being
nasty to animals. It has disfigurement. It has male rape. When it’s time
for a public execution, the mandatory cheap thrill of this genre, it goes
straight for just about the nastiest Renaissance method I know of, sawing a
man in half lengthwise starting at the crotch and moving along the spine.
The scene leaves the audience less titillated than appalled, and glad that
we don’t do that anymore.
Both series show off their renditions of Old St. Peter's and the pre-
Michelangelo Sistine Chapel, but Showtime has a much shinier budget. But
ansewr me
Both series show off their renditions of Old St. Peter’s and the pre-
Michelangelo Sistine Chapel, but Showtime has a much shinier budget.
Are they historically accurate? Somewhat. They’re both quite thorough in
their research, but both change things. The difference is what they change,
and why. If Borgia: Faith and Fear wants do goofy things with having the
Laocoon sculpture be rediscovered early, I sympathize with the authors’
inability to resist the too-perfect metaphor of Rodrigo Borgia looking at
this sculpture of a father and his two sons being dragged down by snakes.
It adds to the show, even if it’s a bit distracting. But if The Borgias
wants to make Giuliano della Rovere into a righteous defender of virtue,
they throw away a great and original historical character in exchange for a
generic one. It makes the whole set of events more generic, and that is the
kind of change I object to, not as an historian, but as someone who loves
good fiction, and wants to see it be the best it can be.
(I do get one nitpick. When Michelangelo had a cameo in The Borgias, why
did he speak Italian when everyone else was speaking English? What was that
supposed to communicate? Is everyone else supposed to be speaking Latin
all the time? Is the audience supposed to know he is Italian but not think
about it with everyone else? I am confused!)
【在 m********y 的大作中提到】
: 你看法国版的， 我个人喜欢法国版。 那部美剧我觉得很奢华， 服装装饰的奢华来吸
: 引眼球， 但法剧不同， 没有那么多奢华的服装和家具， 感觉挺真实的。
: 你能看出错误来， 说明水平很高啊， 我是看不出来， 经常不懂， 还得查查。
| c******o
发帖数: 1184 | 47 “A Tale of Two Borgia TV Shows: As Usual, Americans Get the Inferior”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/31/1079424/-A-Tale-of-Two
【在 m********y 的大作中提到】
: 你看法国版的， 我个人喜欢法国版。 那部美剧我觉得很奢华， 服装装饰的奢华来吸
: 引眼球， 但法剧不同， 没有那么多奢华的服装和家具， 感觉挺真实的。
: 你能看出错误来， 说明水平很高啊， 我是看不出来， 经常不懂， 还得查查。
|
|
