Borgia

May. 21st, 2012 09:18 am
So, the other day I was poking around Netflix, as you do, and I saw something that said "Borgia," and I remembered that I'd been sorta interested in The Borgias and was in the mood for something full of blood and betrayal, which is sorta a Borgia thing, so I clicked, and about, ten minutes in thought, hmm, Rodrigo Borgia (probably better known to most of you as Pope Alexander VI, but in the first episode he's not pope yet) REALLY sounds off, and about twenty minutes later, thought, wait, where's Jeremy Irons, and then realized, thirty minutes later, that I was watching the wrong show.

Yes, yes, it took that long to click in my head, but in my defense, I've only seen the promo material for the Borgias and had no idea who Jeremy Irons was playing (as it turns out, Rodrigo Borgia), nor was I was aware that two separate production companies had decided to film the lives of the Borgias at about the same time and air it at about the same time.

So. This Borgia piece is called Borgia, not Borgias, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Showtime series. It does, however, have several of the same elements advertised for the Showtime series: blood, violence, sex, nudity, betrayals, rape, that sort of stuff. The Borgia period is really not my field, so I can't tell you if it's historically accurate or not, but I can tell you it's Nicely Dramatic. People are having fun sexy times in bed, and then they are Bleeding Everywhere and Feuds Erupt and people March Naked Through Rome and Whip Themselves all over. So far, so good.

The problem, and it's a big problem, is Rodrigo Borgia/Pope Alexander I. Most of the cast in this production are European, speaking with light to thick accents, which really works for the show -- I realize it goes against the usual belief that all period actors speak in perfect Oxford accents, but I liked hearing the mix of accents here, giving a very cosmopolitan sense of Rome, which pretty much fits in with the multiple languages/dialects that probably would have been heard in Rome in the period (lots of people travelled in and out of the city.)

Rodrigo Borgia, however, is played by an American, speaking in a flat American accent -- not even that cultivated mid-Atlantic accent that some Americans put on when attempting to fake British accents, or when they somehow end up with a hybrid accent. Surrounded by European accents, it REALLY stands out here, and not in a good way. I get that the show is trying to convince us that Rodrigo Borgia is an outsider, blah blah, but the thing is, he's an outsider from SPAIN, so if he's going to have a different accent than the rest of the cast, it should be a Spanish accent. He's also the only character from Spain with an American accent; the others have Italian or Russian accents.

And, bluntly, he's not very good.

So I'm not sure if I'm going to be continuing. Bits of the show are very good indeed, but the narrative is choppy and the main guy is distracting me. I'd feel more encouraged if I could believe he's going to be a sidenote in later episodes, but if my dim memory of the period is at all correct, and the show is even mildly following that dim memory, Alexander VI played a rather large role in what followed. And Netflix does offer other temptations.
Desperate Romantics

I recently caught up with this six episode show, which engagingly starts off its retelling of the life of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood by informing us that the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood took a nicely "creative" approach to life and therefore this miniseries will be following the same spirit. In other words, those looking for an even remotely accurate portrayal of the lives of Dante Gabriel Rossetti, William Holman Hunt and John Everett Millais should certainly head elsewhere. Those looking for bouncing naked breasts, you have found the right show. Yay!

Which is not to say that the show isn't highly entertaining. It is. If you missed it, it's more or less about the three founding members of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood and a fourth character, Fred, made up for the show (the producers cheerfully explain that they felt viewers needed a sort of stand in, thus, Fred, which makes me think very sad things about how the producers view their viewers) as they have sex, paint, think about sex, paint, have more sex, paint, have dramatic moments mostly about having sex, not having sex, or thinking about having sex, and then paint or draw again, with a couple of rivalries here and there. You might be sensing a theme here. Naturally this means that once John Everett Millais gets married and sinks into rather less scandalous sex (although the show correctly notes that his marriage was a scandal at the time) his role rather dims, to be somewhat overtaken by a surprisingly socially inept William Morris (really?) and a few other people. Sometimes the camera looks at paintings. Sometimes it makes fun of goats.

The most vibrant character is Dante Gabriel Rossetti. I assume because he's probably the best known of the group and gets to have the most sex. It helps that he's very easy on the eyes. More interesting are William Holman Hunt, who in this version veers wildly between sexing up bouncing prostitutes against pianos and taking long trips to the Holy Land (oddly, given the show's obsession with romantic scandal and hookups, his fate of marrying his late wife's sister is left out), and John Ruskin. The show wants to play with the possibility that the influential art critic may have been a pedophile (evidence and documentation for this is questionable, and the show does not help by playing havoc with the historical timeline), but, as a little DVD extra confirms, actor Tom Hollander was understandably unhappy with the thought of playing a pedophile and strongly suggested that the show turn Ruskin into an asexual instead. Which makes sense enough, but given the focus of this show means that Ruskin is forced to spend a lot of time looking at sexy drawings and later face accusations that he may just be a pedophile while everyone else, even the sad sad Fred, gets to remove clothing and do a lot of bouncing on beds. And pianos. Poor Ruskin.

As I said, highly entertaining, and if you don't know much about the Pre-Raphaelites (like, say, the small bit that Rossetti did have three siblings who played important roles in his life) or are willing to forget what you do know it works quite well, and full credit to the show for doing a pretty decent job of making the actors look like their historical counterparts, a good trick especially given that Elizabeth Siddal and Jane Morris are two of the most famous faces of the Victorian period. I even liked the completely non period music (brace yourself, musical purists.) I mean, if you're going to be historically inaccurate, you might as well have fun with it – and slip in the occasional historical fact here and there. Which this show does.

October 2018

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14 151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags