The Borgias 1.06
May. 2nd, 2011 10:40 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakRemix is live, but will get its extra post. On to my favourite historical show right now.
Well, my previous observation about the relative restraint in sex scenes has now been counterproved, hasn't it? More in this episode than in the entire previous show put together. Otoh, I am not annoyed due to the characterisation tie-ins, and the points being made.
May I say: the way Neil Jordan continues to tie in classical allusions is one of my favourite things about the show, not only because it's so very true of the Renaissance (that's why it's called the Renaissance), the love of Latin and of Latin & Greek myths, but also because of the way he uses them. When Lucrezia bends over the water pool with Paolo, calls him Narcissus but kisses not his but her own reflection (and pointedly both avoids telling him how Narcissus ends and learning his true name), it's only the most overt way the metaphor is used, but it holds true for everyone in this episode, and ties in with Lucrezia's conversation with Cesare during their little brother's wedding to Sancia near the end. Everyone is projecting and loving their own desires, wishes and hopes, but not the other person. Not only the Borgias, but also some of their partners.
When last week Ursula described Cesare as a man of peace (as opposed to her husband) and talked about how it pleased her that he was a Cardinal, it was already apparant what a complete misjudgment (and not seeing of the actual person) it was, and this episode hammered the point home (and also justified Ursula as the one OC in the story so far as part of Cesare's development. Of course Cesare doesn't see Ursula, either, he sees a permissiable version of his sister, but that's actually not why I think the invention of Ursula (as opposed to using Fiammatta the courtesan or some of Cesare's other mistresses) was justified. Cesare until this point has been shown mostly in a sympathetic light, and while he did conspire to murder, and now killed someone himself, it was always done in a way that made his victims unsympathetic. What he does here is far less palpable. He's not only unable to comprehend why Ursula (no matter her feelings about her late husband) would object to being used as the justification for murder and would not want to continue to have sex with him once she found out, but also threatening her: "You'll never be free of me" isn't romantic, it's possessive and stalker-y, and not too different from the attitude that dead husband showed. Which is important because Cesare Borgia, while fascinating, was a sociopath. Lucrezia and a very few other people were real to him, but not the rest.
I loved Lucrezia's opening scene with her husband, which was very well done on a couple of levels. Firstly, Lucrezia's satisfaction at having him at her mercy now (and due to the broken leg reduced to a prisoner who had to count while in pain, i.e. the exact reversal of their previous position); secondly, that moment of doubt - is he redeemable? - when he thanks her and says he has not been kind to her - only leading to Giovanni being odious once more by saying he forgives her now being a Borgia. It's great way of making the hideous show!Giovanni both three dimensional and no less appalling than before, and again, very in period character, because he would see that as a compliment and kindness instead of an insult and further proof he doesn't realise at all the enormity of what he did.
Similarly, I approve of how Lucrezia's relationship with Paolo plays out. It is about what Lucrezia wants - some "sweetness" instead of what she's been given by her father (the Sforza marriage), but it is also narcissistic, quite literally; the way she renames Paolo and doesn't want to find out his real name, makes that quite clear. As mentioned before, I took notice that when she finds out he can neither read or write, she does not tell him the end of the tale of Narcissus. Poor Paolo (who actually has the role of Echo in the myth here). It's very much the traditional way a man takes a mistress, only with reversed gender roles, and contributes to avoiding the cliché of Lucrezia as the sole innocent of the family without making her into a villainess, either. That her conversation with Cesare during the wedding ends the talk of self love with the Catullus quote (hooray for more Latin!), odi et amo, was so very fitting. If Paolo is the historical Perotto, then Lucrezia loving herself in him will destroy him. Cesare's relationship with Ursula, instead of liberating her, ended up destroying her old life and imprisoning her worse than her husband has done.
This week's guided tour through Renaissance courts by our trusty tour guide, Guilano della Rovere, introduced us to King Charles of France, the first prince shown so far who is competent, clever, not insane and actually judging by this episode with a firm moral compass and without any illusions about what war means. No wonder the good Cardinal is far more shaken than by his encounters in Naples, Florence and Milan. :) Seriously, though, I approve of this Charles.
Not that I mind being back in Naples, where show!Alfonso is still both disturbing and highly entertaining (and no fool) - I'M REALLY curios how they'll play out his marriage to Lucrezia later - and Sancia is more or less how I expected from the biographies, plus a taste for sex in the presence of corpses, but hey - she IS Ferrante's daughter. The whole Narcissus theme holds with her and Juan as well. Juan before meeting her scorns in her precisely what he has issues about in himself, the bastardy (more about that in a moment), and of course he's attracted to it as well. Sancia, as opposed to Ursula or Paolo, does not have any illusions at all and also no problem with being used since she uses right back (and is one of history's certified survivors). Given that - historical spoiler alert - she's the most likely cause for Juan's death - I find the fact their first coupling takes place among corpses eminently fitting.
Amidst all this, we get another illustration of messed up family dynamics when Juan while having sex with Sancia on her wedding night (very likely; I don't recall whether on that night itself but very soon thereafter, it's testified) asks her to be nice to his little brother. Which Sancia proceeds to be. Poor Joffre (and yet not).
Of course, the two standout Juan scenes this week were his confrontation with Theo and his mother and the smackdown Rodrigo gave him afterwards. We have a great compare and contrast with the first since we've seen Cesare in a similar situation, and that Cesare isn't above playing mind games with poor Theo but doesn't dream of doing more while Juan behaves like a brute, voicing what bothers him about Theo out loud while he does so (the possibility that he could be not Rodrigo's son but Theo's) tells you all about the brothers in a way. Vannozza ending the scene by kicking Juan out of her house was great; so was Rodrigo's smackdown. What I love best is that this wasn't just Juan behaving brutish for the sake of showing Juan behaving brutish, but making a point about Juan's behavior stemming from that insecurity about his biological parent (without using that as an excuse for Juan) as well as the way his privilege as the Pope's son is affecting him, as Vannozza points out with "what has this papacy done to you?". Mind you, Juan was that way before the papacy, but street brawls are far less damage than someone with the power of being the Pope's son can do.
Historical footnote: as far as I recall, it was actually Joffre who was rumoured to be Vannozza's child by her husband as opposed to by Rodrigo, but never mind, it works better for the Juan characterisation.
Cesare and Lucrezia reunited for the wedding: it's fascinating that while the emotional closeness is there as ever, the show also makes the point of showing Lucrezia growing up, making a point of NOT telling Cesare how bad her marriage was, not because she's intimidated by Giovanni but because as of now, she has dealt with Giovanni herself. Which I find far more satisfying than if Cesare had gone avenger for her. (Especially since we got a subplot illustrating how this backfires and makes everything worse for the woman, not Cesare.)
Lucrezia's first reaction to Sancia is interesting, though, considering the different way she responded to Giulia. I take it to be mostly about the way Lucrezia's own self image has changed through her marriage, but it might also be foreshadowing given that if the show follows history in this point, Sancia is going to have sex with Cesare later as well, in addition to Juan. And of course there is the matter of Sancia's brother being Lucrezia's future second husband.
Lastly: damn it, now I'll have to look up the name of Sancia's "dukedom" (or is it duchery in English).
Well, my previous observation about the relative restraint in sex scenes has now been counterproved, hasn't it? More in this episode than in the entire previous show put together. Otoh, I am not annoyed due to the characterisation tie-ins, and the points being made.
May I say: the way Neil Jordan continues to tie in classical allusions is one of my favourite things about the show, not only because it's so very true of the Renaissance (that's why it's called the Renaissance), the love of Latin and of Latin & Greek myths, but also because of the way he uses them. When Lucrezia bends over the water pool with Paolo, calls him Narcissus but kisses not his but her own reflection (and pointedly both avoids telling him how Narcissus ends and learning his true name), it's only the most overt way the metaphor is used, but it holds true for everyone in this episode, and ties in with Lucrezia's conversation with Cesare during their little brother's wedding to Sancia near the end. Everyone is projecting and loving their own desires, wishes and hopes, but not the other person. Not only the Borgias, but also some of their partners.
When last week Ursula described Cesare as a man of peace (as opposed to her husband) and talked about how it pleased her that he was a Cardinal, it was already apparant what a complete misjudgment (and not seeing of the actual person) it was, and this episode hammered the point home (and also justified Ursula as the one OC in the story so far as part of Cesare's development. Of course Cesare doesn't see Ursula, either, he sees a permissiable version of his sister, but that's actually not why I think the invention of Ursula (as opposed to using Fiammatta the courtesan or some of Cesare's other mistresses) was justified. Cesare until this point has been shown mostly in a sympathetic light, and while he did conspire to murder, and now killed someone himself, it was always done in a way that made his victims unsympathetic. What he does here is far less palpable. He's not only unable to comprehend why Ursula (no matter her feelings about her late husband) would object to being used as the justification for murder and would not want to continue to have sex with him once she found out, but also threatening her: "You'll never be free of me" isn't romantic, it's possessive and stalker-y, and not too different from the attitude that dead husband showed. Which is important because Cesare Borgia, while fascinating, was a sociopath. Lucrezia and a very few other people were real to him, but not the rest.
I loved Lucrezia's opening scene with her husband, which was very well done on a couple of levels. Firstly, Lucrezia's satisfaction at having him at her mercy now (and due to the broken leg reduced to a prisoner who had to count while in pain, i.e. the exact reversal of their previous position); secondly, that moment of doubt - is he redeemable? - when he thanks her and says he has not been kind to her - only leading to Giovanni being odious once more by saying he forgives her now being a Borgia. It's great way of making the hideous show!Giovanni both three dimensional and no less appalling than before, and again, very in period character, because he would see that as a compliment and kindness instead of an insult and further proof he doesn't realise at all the enormity of what he did.
Similarly, I approve of how Lucrezia's relationship with Paolo plays out. It is about what Lucrezia wants - some "sweetness" instead of what she's been given by her father (the Sforza marriage), but it is also narcissistic, quite literally; the way she renames Paolo and doesn't want to find out his real name, makes that quite clear. As mentioned before, I took notice that when she finds out he can neither read or write, she does not tell him the end of the tale of Narcissus. Poor Paolo (who actually has the role of Echo in the myth here). It's very much the traditional way a man takes a mistress, only with reversed gender roles, and contributes to avoiding the cliché of Lucrezia as the sole innocent of the family without making her into a villainess, either. That her conversation with Cesare during the wedding ends the talk of self love with the Catullus quote (hooray for more Latin!), odi et amo, was so very fitting. If Paolo is the historical Perotto, then Lucrezia loving herself in him will destroy him. Cesare's relationship with Ursula, instead of liberating her, ended up destroying her old life and imprisoning her worse than her husband has done.
This week's guided tour through Renaissance courts by our trusty tour guide, Guilano della Rovere, introduced us to King Charles of France, the first prince shown so far who is competent, clever, not insane and actually judging by this episode with a firm moral compass and without any illusions about what war means. No wonder the good Cardinal is far more shaken than by his encounters in Naples, Florence and Milan. :) Seriously, though, I approve of this Charles.
Not that I mind being back in Naples, where show!Alfonso is still both disturbing and highly entertaining (and no fool) - I'M REALLY curios how they'll play out his marriage to Lucrezia later - and Sancia is more or less how I expected from the biographies, plus a taste for sex in the presence of corpses, but hey - she IS Ferrante's daughter. The whole Narcissus theme holds with her and Juan as well. Juan before meeting her scorns in her precisely what he has issues about in himself, the bastardy (more about that in a moment), and of course he's attracted to it as well. Sancia, as opposed to Ursula or Paolo, does not have any illusions at all and also no problem with being used since she uses right back (and is one of history's certified survivors). Given that - historical spoiler alert - she's the most likely cause for Juan's death - I find the fact their first coupling takes place among corpses eminently fitting.
Amidst all this, we get another illustration of messed up family dynamics when Juan while having sex with Sancia on her wedding night (very likely; I don't recall whether on that night itself but very soon thereafter, it's testified) asks her to be nice to his little brother. Which Sancia proceeds to be. Poor Joffre (and yet not).
Of course, the two standout Juan scenes this week were his confrontation with Theo and his mother and the smackdown Rodrigo gave him afterwards. We have a great compare and contrast with the first since we've seen Cesare in a similar situation, and that Cesare isn't above playing mind games with poor Theo but doesn't dream of doing more while Juan behaves like a brute, voicing what bothers him about Theo out loud while he does so (the possibility that he could be not Rodrigo's son but Theo's) tells you all about the brothers in a way. Vannozza ending the scene by kicking Juan out of her house was great; so was Rodrigo's smackdown. What I love best is that this wasn't just Juan behaving brutish for the sake of showing Juan behaving brutish, but making a point about Juan's behavior stemming from that insecurity about his biological parent (without using that as an excuse for Juan) as well as the way his privilege as the Pope's son is affecting him, as Vannozza points out with "what has this papacy done to you?". Mind you, Juan was that way before the papacy, but street brawls are far less damage than someone with the power of being the Pope's son can do.
Historical footnote: as far as I recall, it was actually Joffre who was rumoured to be Vannozza's child by her husband as opposed to by Rodrigo, but never mind, it works better for the Juan characterisation.
Cesare and Lucrezia reunited for the wedding: it's fascinating that while the emotional closeness is there as ever, the show also makes the point of showing Lucrezia growing up, making a point of NOT telling Cesare how bad her marriage was, not because she's intimidated by Giovanni but because as of now, she has dealt with Giovanni herself. Which I find far more satisfying than if Cesare had gone avenger for her. (Especially since we got a subplot illustrating how this backfires and makes everything worse for the woman, not Cesare.)
Lucrezia's first reaction to Sancia is interesting, though, considering the different way she responded to Giulia. I take it to be mostly about the way Lucrezia's own self image has changed through her marriage, but it might also be foreshadowing given that if the show follows history in this point, Sancia is going to have sex with Cesare later as well, in addition to Juan. And of course there is the matter of Sancia's brother being Lucrezia's future second husband.
Lastly: damn it, now I'll have to look up the name of Sancia's "dukedom" (or is it duchery in English).
