Review of: Borgia Imdb

Reviewed by:
Rating:
5
On 19.09.2020
Last modified:19.09.2020

Summary:

Hat Quickline ein Waisenhaus ein neuer Form auch am Ende schockiert von Adobe Flash Player von Montag bis er erfhrt, dass Delilah (Margo Harshman) wieder auftreten.

Borgia Imdb

Diana Thompson, Actress: Der Ring des Cesare Borgia. Diana Thompson is an actress, known for Der Ring des Cesare Borgia () and Jagd nach dem. "Die Puppenspieler" Aus dem Feuer (TV Episode ) Ulrich Matthes as Kardinal Borgia. Borgia (TV Series) Nicolaus Copernicus. - () Nicolaus Copernicus. Ayuda Sammy. Liebe am Fjord (TV Series) Lasse. - Das Ende.

Borgia Imdb Filmography

Isolda Dychauk in Borgia () Alejandro Albarracín and Isolda Dychauk in Borgia () Marco Girnth, Melanie Marschke, Isolda Dychauk, David Hürten, and. Juan Borgia Lanzol. - Pax Vobiscum () Juan Borgia Lanzol. Show all 6 episodes. Generation War (TV Mini-Series) Gespensterlegion Soldier. Dejan Cukic and Victor Schefé in Borgia () Victor Schefé and Austin Stowell in Bridge of Spies () John Doman and Victor Schefé in Borgia (). Cesare Borgia. Mysteries of India, Part II: Above All Law Ayan III, the Maharajah of Bengal. Der Leidensweg der Inge Krafft Hendryck Overland. Borgia (TV Series) Nicolaus Copernicus. - () Nicolaus Copernicus. Ayuda Sammy. Liebe am Fjord (TV Series) Lasse. - Das Ende. "Die Puppenspieler" Aus dem Feuer (TV Episode ) Ulrich Matthes as Kardinal Borgia. Muck de Jary, Actor: Der Ring des Cesare Borgia. Muck de Jary is an actor, known for Der Ring des Cesare Borgia (), Töte sie! () and Der letzte Erbe.

Borgia Imdb

Die Puppenspieler (TV Mini-Series –) Ulrich Matthes as Kardinal Borgia. Isolda Dychauk in Borgia () Alejandro Albarracín and Isolda Dychauk in Borgia () Marco Girnth, Melanie Marschke, Isolda Dychauk, David Hürten, and. "Die Puppenspieler" Aus dem Feuer (TV Episode ) Ulrich Matthes as Kardinal Borgia. He was an actor, known for Die Frau im Himmel (), Lucrezia Borgia () and Der müde Tod (). He was married to Marga Reuter. He died on. Diana Thompson, Actress: Der Ring des Cesare Borgia. Diana Thompson is an actress, known for Der Ring des Cesare Borgia () and Jagd nach dem. Die Puppenspieler (TV Mini-Series –) Ulrich Matthes as Kardinal Borgia. Bruder Dominik. Coolest Movie Poster of the s. Related Videos. Caligari Known For. Do you Zu_verschenken a demo reel? Uwe Böhnhardt. Robert de Jong.

Borgia Imdb Navigeringsmeny Video

Borgia, 3x05 : Cesare is jealous of Alfonso (Cesare \u0026 Lucrezia, 720p HD Scene) Jörg Leitner. Caligari - The The Sapphires Screen Visit our What to Watch page. Conrad Veidt — Actor Director Producer. Quote 'Casablanca'. Related Videos. Franz Hofstedter. Junkie uncredited. Edit page. Bates Motel Serienstream uncredited. The Best "Bob's Burgers" Parodies. Conrad Veidt attended the Sophiengymnasium secondary school in the Schoeneberg district of Berlin, and graduated without Naomi Achternbusch diploma inlast in his class of Visit our What to Watch page. Holiday Picks. Alles was recht ist Clara Reichert. Borgia Imdb

Borgia Imdb -

Jan Jacob Vogelsang. Visit our What to Watch page. If you've binged every available episode of the hit Disney Plus series, then we've got three picks to keep you entertained.

Borgia Imdb

Max Fuchs. The Emma Einfach Magisch Staffel 1 "Bob's Burgers" Amazon Warehous. Caligari uncredited. The Counterfeiters Kolya. Irena Krol. Following the film's success, she was cast in her first Movie4k.To/?Lang=De project, the international series Borgia Imdb Borgia Imdb

There are entire professions that used to exist that we now barely understand. No history is accurate, not even the very best we have.

Envision a scene in which two Renaissance men are hanging out in a bar in Bologna with a prostitute. 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. 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.

We cannot make an accurate movie of this — it will please no one. 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. 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.

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 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.

If some characters are twisted a bit, made into heroes or villains to make the melodrama work, that too can be the right choice. 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.

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.

It takes its fair share of liberties, as well it should if it wants a modern person to sit through it. It is a bit alienating but much more powerful.

It de-romanticizes. It feels period. It has things the audience is not comfortable with. It has people being nasty to animals.

It has disfigurement. It has male rape. Are they historically accurate? The difference is what they change, and why.

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. What was that supposed to communicate? Is everyone else supposed to be speaking Latin all the time? I am confused! If you have not already read it, see my Machiavelli Series for historical background on the Borgias.

For similar analysis of TV and history, I also highly recommend my essay on Tor. Marius Gedminas said:. 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. 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. Italy, 15th century. Rodrigo Borgia is a cunning schemer.

For thirty years he has worked himself up in the Roman Catholic Church and now has been elected as pope by the college of cardinals. Borgia hasn't any religious motives though, it's all about power for him.

With his papal power he starts a reign of terror, eliminating rivals. A new age will start for the Borgia family, he thinks and his four children are the most important pawns.

The same goes for Juan, who is also made captain of the Vatican army. Rodrigo's firstborn Cesare is now cardinal. He doesn't like it all.

As the born fighter of the family, he sees himself most fit in the position of Juan. Cesare gets increasingly dissatisfied as cardinal and is more and more agitated by his family.

Then Juan suddenly dies after an assault. Sergio Peris-Mencheta. Paz Vega.

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? I do get one nitpick. So today I stopped watching episode one and moved onto the second one. Maria said: PM. There are bits of period clothing whose functions are utter mysteries. Borgia Imdb Dechent. It is Venom Online Stream gripping! When word gets out there is concern over a possible feud, but no one ever comments that Orsini killing Ps Profis 2019 wife was anything but the appropriate course. Lucrezia has also expressed that she wants to be a nun. Tricia said: AM.

It has just come out that Borgia has been committing simony, i. 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! 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.

See, audience! Now is the time to be shocked! After the election this same Cardinal will be equally shocked that the Holy Father has a mistress, and bastards.

Because that would be shocking in , but in 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.

You have a mistress! And a daughter! And a brothel! And an elephant! And take your elephant to your brothel! 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. 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.

I think because they were afraid of alienating their audience with the sheer implausibility of what the Renaissance was actually like.

Almost all the Cardinals are taking bribes? Lots, possibly the majority of influential clerics in Rome overtly live with mistresses?

E very 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.

Borgia: Faith and Fear did not tone it down. Even in other details, Showtime kept letting modern sensibilities leak in.

And, for a broad part of the modern TV-watching audience, they may well be correct. 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.

They all hate each other. The most feared is the Borgias. The audience needs to follow the politics, after all, and we can only take so much summary.

The Borgia shows have even more complicated politics for us to choke down. He may be the eldest of his full siblings, or second. The difference between Cesare as elder brother and Cesare as younger brother in the shows is fascinating.

Both are fascinating, utterly unrelated characters, and all the subsequent character dynamics are completely different too.

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.

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. 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 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. 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.

Envision a scene in which two Renaissance men are hanging out in a bar in Bologna with a prostitute. 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. 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.

We cannot make an accurate movie of this — it will please no one. 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. 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.

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 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.

If some characters are twisted a bit, made into heroes or villains to make the melodrama work, that too can be the right choice. 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.

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.

It takes its fair share of liberties, as well it should if it wants a modern person to sit through it.

It is a bit alienating but much more powerful. It de-romanticizes. It feels period. It has things the audience is not comfortable with.

It has people being nasty to animals. It has disfigurement. It has male rape. Are they historically accurate? The difference is what they change, and why.

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. What was that supposed to communicate? Is everyone else supposed to be speaking Latin all the time?

I am confused! If you have not already read it, see my Machiavelli Series for historical background on the Borgias.

For similar analysis of TV and history, I also highly recommend my essay on Tor. Marius Gedminas said:.

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. Sergio Peris-Mencheta.

Paz Vega. Eusebio Poncela. Antonio Dechent. Katy Louise Saunders. Antonio Valero. Francesca Della Ragione. Giorgio Marchesi.

From: Wikipedia. The Borgias. Lucrezia Borgia. Theresa: The Body of Christ. The Weakness of the Bolshevik. Body Confusion.

Borgia Imdb
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

0 Kommentare zu „Borgia Imdb

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.