![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakStarted to watch the first few episodes of The Great, aka the show starring Elle Fanning and Nicholas Hoult, written by Tony McNamara. Now it's frank about being a satire and not historical with its "occasionally inspired by a true story" disclaimer, but I'm impressed on how much it tries to be the exact opposite of anything that happened in history from the major stuff down to the smallest insignificant detail. That takes dedication! (And presumably research.) To the degree that I'm startled when anything remotely resembling an actual historical detail shows up, making me believe they're getting sloppy and this happened by accident.
(Some) Examples, some trivial , some not:
1) Catherine's introduction: Show!Catherine (blonde) is from Austria. RL Catherine (brunette) (born Sophie von Anhalt-Zerbst) is from a Prussian client state. Her father is one of Frederick the Great's generals. Austria and Prussia are lethal foes in this period. (Now going by the first three eps, it would have made zero difference to the show's plot if they had given Catherine her actual state of origin, so I can only assume making her Austrian does hail from the show's goal of making their characters the complete opposite of the historical characters.) Show!Catherine is naive about sex and love when arriving; RL Catherine had already been groped by Uncle Bad Touch Georg Wilhelm of Holstein and suspected her mother knew about this. Show Catherine comes alone. RL Catherine with her ultra ambitious mother, Johanna von Holstein. This is quite a plot point in RL Catherine's life (especially the sending away of Johanna later on).
2.) Peter's introduction: Show!Peter is Russian, the show present him as the (surviving) son of Peter the Great. He's never met Catherine before. He's an all powerful Emperor. He has an excentric soap bubbles blowing aunt Elizabeth with zilch political power, and he has mother and father issues. His being an all powerful potentate whose environment has to be sycophantic since they're otherwise dead is key to his show character. RL Peter was German (his Romanow connection was through his mother), born Peter von Holstein-Gottorp, in fact had met Catherine/Sophie (whose mother was a Holstein and his aunt) when they were both children, never quite adjusted to Russia after coming there as an early teen, and had zero political power when teenage Catherine came to Russia a few years later because his aunt, the Tsarina Elizabeth, daughter of Peter the Great, was reigning. E. had adopted him as her successor since she didn't have children of her own (at least not legal ones, there was some gossip about bastards, but nothing ever proven). Peter reigned as Czar/Emperor for six only months before being killed. Before that, he had of course the social power that comes with being a Grand Duke, but in terms of politics, he was also utterly dependent and at the mercy of his aunt, who, having come to power via a coup herself, certainly did not want to share with the next generation.
3.) Show! Catherine's marriage to Peter gets immediately consumated (a lot, if entirely sans affection). RL Catherine and Peter needed 7 years to get there, with their wedding night featuring toy soldiers rather than sex (at least according to Catherine). (All in all, their marriage lasted 18 years.) Show!Catherine makes foes with the local Archbishop (there's just one on the show) almost immediately. RL Catherine, despite being born a Protestant (and her father was pretty hard core about this), managed to endear herself to the Russian Orthodox church almost immediately when in her sickness shortly after arrival she asked for an Orthodox priest instead of the Lutheran pastor her mother offered. (If you side-eye this, you're probably right. Teenage Catherine already knew what was good for her, plus said illness with the request for an Orthodox priest happened before the wedding, at a point when RL Catherine was aware the Czarina Elizabeth could still have sent her back like unwanted goods.
4.) Is the geeky book lover played by Sasha Dhawan supposed to be Catherine's later hard drinking third lover Grigorii Orlov, soldier and no one's intellectual? I don't recognize anyone else's name among the Russian courtiers from RL in the pilot, though later a "Leo" shows up, whose first name could be taken from a rl friend of both Catherine's and her rl second lover, Stanislas Poniatowski. (Poniatowski, btw, definitely was geeky and a bookworm. Among other things.)
5.) Show!Russia is at war with Sweden. Now the show doesn't say when the hell it's supposed to take place (no wonder, given that there were eighteen ears between RL Catherine's wedding and Peter succeeding his aunt as Czar), but at neither point was there war with Sweden. Let alone one started by Peter. The war actually going on when Peter came to power was the Seven Years War, in which Russia, allied with Austria, France and Sweden, fought Prussia (oh, and thus also England, technically, but in rl the English mostly fought the French, while the Russians fought the Prussians.) Since RL Peter was just about the biggest Frederick the Great fanboy ever, he immediately changed alliances and returned conquered Prussian territory. (His generals weren't thrilled.) He also wanted to start a different war (against Denmark, for Holstein territory.) (His generals were even less thrilled.) Since all of this in rl is absolutely key to how Catherine managed to get the Russian military (not into either Prussia or fighting for Holstein goals) on her side, replacing the 7 Years War with a fictional one against Sweden also means the military in this show must have completely different motives. Again, since evidently the show needs to have a war going on for its plot, why replace the one which did happen with one that's invented? Must be that dedication to avoid history at all costs again.
6.)Given that when Sophie/Catherine came to Russia, there was an Empress (Elizabeth) reigning, who had ursurped the throne from a female Regent (Anna Leopoldovna), who had followed another Empress (Anna Ivanova), who had had after a brief Peter II interlude followed the Empress Catherine I. (widow of Peter I. "the Great"), all of which was well known to young Catherine, she really did not need anyone else to tell her female rule was possible in Russia, and you didn't even have to be a Romanov to exert it. (Catherine I. had not been one, either.) I was to compliment the show on its utter avoidance of anything remotely resembling Russian history again when it it backstabbed me in episode 3 by letting possible alternate throne claimant "Ivan" show up as a prisoner whose hiding place only Excentric Aunt Elizabeth knows about. This actually is sort of, kinda, based on something. RL Ivan was the son of the regent Elizabeth had toppled, Anna Leopoldovna (who had been regent for him), a grandnephew of Peter the Great, and he was kept prisoner first by Elizabeth and then Catherine for the rest of his life. (As were his parents; his siblings were finally released and lived out their lives in Denmark.) Show Ivan is Peter the Great's illegtimate son, but still - one can actually see some vague historical origin in this character, I'm shocked.
Now don't get me wrong: given the show is entertaining and funny and all the actors are clearly having a blast, I'll definitely watch the rest of the season, and like I said, as opposed to many an earnest drama which insists on being based on a "true story" while using only a little of it, it is completely honest about its lack of historicity. Fair! But I do wonder: why bother using the names of a few historical people in it at all? Why not going all Ruritania with it and let it be set in an invented place? Because it does feel as if the writer(s) looked at history, said, no, we're not interested in any of this, let's just keep three or four names and make the rest up from scratch. Would the show not have gotten financed if it hadn't been pitched as being about Catherine, is that it?
(Mind you: the one thing no one, neither her enemies (of which she had countless) or her admirers (same) would have said about Catherine II, quondam Sophie von Anhalt-Zerbst, is that her actual life lacked drama or irony. Or colorful contemporaries who'd make a good cast, hence there being countless fictionalisations of her life already.)
One point I can't decide: Is the fact that show!Catherine claims to have met Descartes, in person - when RL Descartes died 70 years before she was born - another part of the show's dedication to be as ahistorical as possible or does it just prove MacNamara is that bad at googling, never mind history?
(Some) Examples, some trivial , some not:
1) Catherine's introduction: Show!Catherine (blonde) is from Austria. RL Catherine (brunette) (born Sophie von Anhalt-Zerbst) is from a Prussian client state. Her father is one of Frederick the Great's generals. Austria and Prussia are lethal foes in this period. (Now going by the first three eps, it would have made zero difference to the show's plot if they had given Catherine her actual state of origin, so I can only assume making her Austrian does hail from the show's goal of making their characters the complete opposite of the historical characters.) Show!Catherine is naive about sex and love when arriving; RL Catherine had already been groped by Uncle Bad Touch Georg Wilhelm of Holstein and suspected her mother knew about this. Show Catherine comes alone. RL Catherine with her ultra ambitious mother, Johanna von Holstein. This is quite a plot point in RL Catherine's life (especially the sending away of Johanna later on).
2.) Peter's introduction: Show!Peter is Russian, the show present him as the (surviving) son of Peter the Great. He's never met Catherine before. He's an all powerful Emperor. He has an excentric soap bubbles blowing aunt Elizabeth with zilch political power, and he has mother and father issues. His being an all powerful potentate whose environment has to be sycophantic since they're otherwise dead is key to his show character. RL Peter was German (his Romanow connection was through his mother), born Peter von Holstein-Gottorp, in fact had met Catherine/Sophie (whose mother was a Holstein and his aunt) when they were both children, never quite adjusted to Russia after coming there as an early teen, and had zero political power when teenage Catherine came to Russia a few years later because his aunt, the Tsarina Elizabeth, daughter of Peter the Great, was reigning. E. had adopted him as her successor since she didn't have children of her own (at least not legal ones, there was some gossip about bastards, but nothing ever proven). Peter reigned as Czar/Emperor for six only months before being killed. Before that, he had of course the social power that comes with being a Grand Duke, but in terms of politics, he was also utterly dependent and at the mercy of his aunt, who, having come to power via a coup herself, certainly did not want to share with the next generation.
3.) Show! Catherine's marriage to Peter gets immediately consumated (a lot, if entirely sans affection). RL Catherine and Peter needed 7 years to get there, with their wedding night featuring toy soldiers rather than sex (at least according to Catherine). (All in all, their marriage lasted 18 years.) Show!Catherine makes foes with the local Archbishop (there's just one on the show) almost immediately. RL Catherine, despite being born a Protestant (and her father was pretty hard core about this), managed to endear herself to the Russian Orthodox church almost immediately when in her sickness shortly after arrival she asked for an Orthodox priest instead of the Lutheran pastor her mother offered. (If you side-eye this, you're probably right. Teenage Catherine already knew what was good for her, plus said illness with the request for an Orthodox priest happened before the wedding, at a point when RL Catherine was aware the Czarina Elizabeth could still have sent her back like unwanted goods.
4.) Is the geeky book lover played by Sasha Dhawan supposed to be Catherine's later hard drinking third lover Grigorii Orlov, soldier and no one's intellectual? I don't recognize anyone else's name among the Russian courtiers from RL in the pilot, though later a "Leo" shows up, whose first name could be taken from a rl friend of both Catherine's and her rl second lover, Stanislas Poniatowski. (Poniatowski, btw, definitely was geeky and a bookworm. Among other things.)
5.) Show!Russia is at war with Sweden. Now the show doesn't say when the hell it's supposed to take place (no wonder, given that there were eighteen ears between RL Catherine's wedding and Peter succeeding his aunt as Czar), but at neither point was there war with Sweden. Let alone one started by Peter. The war actually going on when Peter came to power was the Seven Years War, in which Russia, allied with Austria, France and Sweden, fought Prussia (oh, and thus also England, technically, but in rl the English mostly fought the French, while the Russians fought the Prussians.) Since RL Peter was just about the biggest Frederick the Great fanboy ever, he immediately changed alliances and returned conquered Prussian territory. (His generals weren't thrilled.) He also wanted to start a different war (against Denmark, for Holstein territory.) (His generals were even less thrilled.) Since all of this in rl is absolutely key to how Catherine managed to get the Russian military (not into either Prussia or fighting for Holstein goals) on her side, replacing the 7 Years War with a fictional one against Sweden also means the military in this show must have completely different motives. Again, since evidently the show needs to have a war going on for its plot, why replace the one which did happen with one that's invented? Must be that dedication to avoid history at all costs again.
6.)Given that when Sophie/Catherine came to Russia, there was an Empress (Elizabeth) reigning, who had ursurped the throne from a female Regent (Anna Leopoldovna), who had followed another Empress (Anna Ivanova), who had had after a brief Peter II interlude followed the Empress Catherine I. (widow of Peter I. "the Great"), all of which was well known to young Catherine, she really did not need anyone else to tell her female rule was possible in Russia, and you didn't even have to be a Romanov to exert it. (Catherine I. had not been one, either.) I was to compliment the show on its utter avoidance of anything remotely resembling Russian history again when it it backstabbed me in episode 3 by letting possible alternate throne claimant "Ivan" show up as a prisoner whose hiding place only Excentric Aunt Elizabeth knows about. This actually is sort of, kinda, based on something. RL Ivan was the son of the regent Elizabeth had toppled, Anna Leopoldovna (who had been regent for him), a grandnephew of Peter the Great, and he was kept prisoner first by Elizabeth and then Catherine for the rest of his life. (As were his parents; his siblings were finally released and lived out their lives in Denmark.) Show Ivan is Peter the Great's illegtimate son, but still - one can actually see some vague historical origin in this character, I'm shocked.
Now don't get me wrong: given the show is entertaining and funny and all the actors are clearly having a blast, I'll definitely watch the rest of the season, and like I said, as opposed to many an earnest drama which insists on being based on a "true story" while using only a little of it, it is completely honest about its lack of historicity. Fair! But I do wonder: why bother using the names of a few historical people in it at all? Why not going all Ruritania with it and let it be set in an invented place? Because it does feel as if the writer(s) looked at history, said, no, we're not interested in any of this, let's just keep three or four names and make the rest up from scratch. Would the show not have gotten financed if it hadn't been pitched as being about Catherine, is that it?
(Mind you: the one thing no one, neither her enemies (of which she had countless) or her admirers (same) would have said about Catherine II, quondam Sophie von Anhalt-Zerbst, is that her actual life lacked drama or irony. Or colorful contemporaries who'd make a good cast, hence there being countless fictionalisations of her life already.)
One point I can't decide: Is the fact that show!Catherine claims to have met Descartes, in person - when RL Descartes died 70 years before she was born - another part of the show's dedication to be as ahistorical as possible or does it just prove MacNamara is that bad at googling, never mind history?
no subject
Date: 2022-01-05 03:51 pm (UTC)Peter "III" perhaps makes more sense if he's supposed to be merged with Peter II, who is much more like his character but, of course, was not married to Catherine. Or indeed alive by the time she was a year old.
no subject
Date: 2022-01-06 02:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-01-05 09:39 pm (UTC)I feel this about both The Great and Dickinson. Do they really think people are more likely to watch a show about some historical figure that they've vaguely heard of but aren't familiar with than they are a completely made-up historical show? Because I am not sure they're correct about that, but otherwise: why are they doing this?
I mean, the show is fun and bonkers! Just...let it be fun and bonkers without dragging in unsuspecting historical figures for no reason!
no subject
Date: 2022-01-06 02:06 pm (UTC)Probably. And I do suspect it must be a matter of getting the budget for a show to begin with, i.e. a producer is more likely to finance a series that you claim is about sort of known historical figure x than if you openly say "it's completely made up and none of these people ever lived, but trust me, it's fun and captivating and so people will tune in". But I could be wrong - I mean, shows with a sort of historical setting, zilch accuracy and without claiming to be about rl based people have gotten financed and proven hits, too, i.e. Bridgerton, so maybe there really was no need.
no subject
Date: 2022-01-05 10:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-01-06 02:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-01-06 10:20 pm (UTC)But then I wound up reading some biographies, and was impressed at how well the show captures the feel, if not the reality, of her life -- her complex relationships with her father and brother, her brother's affairs (the show does not get into how his long-term mistress positioned herself as Emily's literary agent, but you can see it setting the groundwork).
no subject
Date: 2022-01-06 09:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-01-08 09:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-01-07 09:41 pm (UTC)(cf The Favourite, where various important facts are changed, eg Prince George is killed off before the story starts, and yet it's not so alien that I can't accept it.)
no subject
Date: 2022-01-08 09:17 am (UTC)OMG yes, that would have been glorious. Also something like a 1990s fantasy movie - think "Ladyhawke", which does use actual names like "Navarre" and "Anjoy", but still doesn't claim anyone in it is based on any actual historical character, or claim a specific temporal setting.
The Favourite, where various important facts are changed, eg Prince George is killed off before the story starts, and yet it's not so alien that I can't accept it
Same here. Now maybe I'd feel differently if I had been emotionally invested beforehand in this generation of Stuarts in general and Anne in particular, or in Abigail Masham. But I think The Favourite despite the changes does bother a bit more and doesn't give the sense of wanting to be as unlike as history as possible.