![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Borgias
Mar. 22nd, 2011 05:40 amSo, I, um, might have seen the first episode. Which made me very happy indeed. It's everything The Tudors wasn't - has a real sense of period and of caracters, and of political manoeuvring and oh, Neil Jordan, I should have known I could trust you on the shades of grey and convoluted family dynamics as well as the gorgeous cinematography.
One of the many virtues: the female characters - Lucrezia, Vannozza, Giulia Farnese so far - are all given, gasp, personality, and interaction with each other, not just with the men, and I loved, loved, loved the two scenes between Giulia Farnese and Lucrezia, the second one especially, with its meta level conversation on how women are played against each other by men and how to survive and use what you're given anyway.
But really, this is the first visual take on the Borgias I'm happy with as someone who read various biographies. Where The Tudors managed to make Henry VIII. and his court (except for Cardinal Wolsey) dull, and Jonathan Rhys Meyer was incredibly one note as Henry (he pouts, he has tantrums, that's it), not to mention miscast physically, here I don't mind a bit that Jeremy Irons doesn't look like Rodrigo Borgia. He's got the savvy and the weaknesses, and leads a superb cast. (Oh, and in a bit part suddenly I thought - that voice sounds familiar - and lo, it was Shaz from Ashes to Ashes.) Really enjoyed Cesare as basically a Renaissance take on Michael Corleone (there are a couple of Godfather allusions there), and the young actress who has the job of taking Lucrezia from teenager to adult starts out doing a great job of it (especially in the scene with Guilia mentioned above). The slashers are going to feed on the Cesare-Michelotto scenes, but more to the point, Michelotto gets a personality as well. I can't tell you how refreshing it feels in a show in a historical setting. (Yes, Rome did it, but again, The Tudors really failed at that, too, and even with Rome, it wasn't until the second season that someone like Timon got some profile beyond "Atia's strongman and occasional fucktoy".)
In conclusion: WIN. I'm so going to watch this show!
One of the many virtues: the female characters - Lucrezia, Vannozza, Giulia Farnese so far - are all given, gasp, personality, and interaction with each other, not just with the men, and I loved, loved, loved the two scenes between Giulia Farnese and Lucrezia, the second one especially, with its meta level conversation on how women are played against each other by men and how to survive and use what you're given anyway.
But really, this is the first visual take on the Borgias I'm happy with as someone who read various biographies. Where The Tudors managed to make Henry VIII. and his court (except for Cardinal Wolsey) dull, and Jonathan Rhys Meyer was incredibly one note as Henry (he pouts, he has tantrums, that's it), not to mention miscast physically, here I don't mind a bit that Jeremy Irons doesn't look like Rodrigo Borgia. He's got the savvy and the weaknesses, and leads a superb cast. (Oh, and in a bit part suddenly I thought - that voice sounds familiar - and lo, it was Shaz from Ashes to Ashes.) Really enjoyed Cesare as basically a Renaissance take on Michael Corleone (there are a couple of Godfather allusions there), and the young actress who has the job of taking Lucrezia from teenager to adult starts out doing a great job of it (especially in the scene with Guilia mentioned above). The slashers are going to feed on the Cesare-Michelotto scenes, but more to the point, Michelotto gets a personality as well. I can't tell you how refreshing it feels in a show in a historical setting. (Yes, Rome did it, but again, The Tudors really failed at that, too, and even with Rome, it wasn't until the second season that someone like Timon got some profile beyond "Atia's strongman and occasional fucktoy".)
In conclusion: WIN. I'm so going to watch this show!
