The Saddest part of the show in the gross inaccuracies - The Borgias (2011) Discussion

[–] huggybizzzle 10 years ago

That was the whole purpose of the show: Neil Jordan wanted to tell his own story and give his own portrayal of the Borgia family. The show was more original because of that.

I don't find that to be sad. It's actually very clever.

Mafia vs Irish Mob (BROTHERHOOD): youtube.com/watch?v=4C-ogMPoBRk

reply

[–] pol-edra 10 years ago

Exactly. No "need", no, but plenty of desire: desire to tell one's own story, with one's own characters. It's called fiction, and that is what some of us like about it. I'm one of those.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] natalie0407 10 years ago

Then why not do what many authors of historical novels do and make up their own characters? Or use some unknowns like they did in Rome and show everything through their eyes? I realize that fiction requires a certain amount of invention (and of course history itself is often controversial and full of gaps). But where do you draw the line? What's the point of using the (in)famous family and show practically nothing they're actually famous for (aside from incest and orgies which are most likely propaganda anyway). You do remember that Cesare is "The Prince" of Machiavelli? The ruthless conqueror of Romagna who nevertheless was praised as an effective administrator? Well, what does he do here to deserve Machiavelli's respect? He shows zero political ambition after the pilot. Yes, I realize that everyone interprets a historical persona differently but I'm pretty sure if there's one thing that everyone will agree with is Cesare's thirst for power and conquest. That's what makes his rise and fall so interesting. But, apparently, not to Jordan. Cesare here does anything only out of either petty jealousy or revenge. Can you seriously believe it's the same guy whose motto was "Aut Caesar, aut nihil"?

And the same can be said about everyone else. Instead of a skillful politician, who's managed to survive for many years in the shark-infested Vatican's waters, Rodrigo is a lusty old idiot who only comes ahead of his enemies because they're idiots, too. Della Rovere becomes an assassin (???) and then just disappears. And so on and so forth. Honestly, even a cursory glance over the Wikipedia articles should tell anyone that history was probably far more interesting than the ludicrous fantasies of this show's writers.

Another thing, of course, is the total lack of historicity or the feel of the era. There're practically no interesting supporting characters or cameos, buildings, costumes and other objects (and even music) are pulled from different eras, and most, importantly people just don't behave like the people from the era. They seem like soap opera characters in the Renaissance fair costumes. When I watched Rome, I was willing to forgive some significant liberties they took with many of the characters because I could see they cared about the period just by looking at the sets and the level of detail. And at least they followed the main historical events - something that The Borgias fail to address completely after Season 1.

The reason why so many people complain about the silliness of changes because history (any version of it) is much better. It's as simple as that.

reply

[–] pol-edra 10 years ago

But where do you draw the line?

Why draw a line at all? Fiction should be all about creative freedom. People are free to watch or not to watch, to like or to dislike; writers, movie-makers etc... are free and should be as free as they choose to be with whatever material they want.

Can you seriously believe it's the same guy whose motto was "Aut Caesar, aut nihil"?

No, I don't. Which is a good thing, because they're not the same guy. Precisely. One is a historical character, the other is THIS SHOW's Cesare Borgia. They bear some ressemblance, but the latter is not (and never aimed to be) a copy of the former. That's the whole point of historical fiction: to take bits and pieces of history and to refit them in a new creative fictional way. It's OK not to like it, but it's what the genre does, you can't reproach it with being what it is. Tigers have stripes, historical fiction has characters loosely based on history.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] natalie0407 10 years ago

Why draw a line at all? Fiction should be all about creative freedom.

That's why I ask, if Jordan wanted freedom, why use real historical figures at all? Why not make one up? This way, you'll have total creative freedom and no one would be complaining.

Precisely. One is a historical character, the other is THIS SHOW's Cesare Borgia. They bear some ressemblance, but the latter is not (and never aimed to be) a copy of the former. That's the whole point of historical fiction: to take bits and pieces of history and to refit them in a new creative fictional way.

The problem is, they don't use history at all (or very little, and mostly in S1). They ditch one of the most fascinating and controversial figures in European history in favor of a generic action hero who's only driven by revenge or lust for his sister. If that's what creative freedom is than maybe some constraints imposed by following history might have actually been beneficial.

I risk offending some folks here by saying that so far Rome and the other Borgia show have done the best jobs of actually basing the drama on the real historical data. Even when it's over the top and melodramatic it's at least plausible and overall the shows give a good idea of life in their respective historic periods.

Remember: people don't complain about any changes (no one is expecting to see everything). Usually, the complaints arise when the changes are far less interesting than the source or don't make much sense or, worst of all in my opinion, diminish the characters (that's true about pretty much on this show).

It's OK not to like it, but it's what the genre does, you can't reproach it with being what it is. Tigers have stripes, historical fiction has characters loosely based on history.

I'm going to invoke Godwin's law here... but would you be ok with a show portraying Hitler as a nice guy who only hurt people because wanted to make Germany great?

reply

[–] pol-edra 10 years ago

I'm going to invoke Godwin's law here... but would you be ok with a show portraying Hitler as a nice guy who only hurt people because wanted to make Germany great?

I don't know if I owuld be OK, it would depend on the execution, but I would definitely be interested, and I would certainly not think "it should never have been done because it's wrong" or some such. I think it would fall more under the category of Uchronia rather than historical fiction, but there's a good case for Uchronia being only one subgenre of historical fiction, so it's really just a question of labels, not content.

That's why I ask, if Jordan wanted freedom, why use real historical figures at all? Why not make one up? This way, you'll have total creative freedom and no one would be complaining.

Again: it's his choice. He doesn't HAVE TO make up characters entirely if what he wants is take real ones and spins them whatever way he wants. Whether people complain or not should be the least concern of a writer. The loose constraints of history can be great fun and inspiration for artists and audience alike. I suppose some people just don't see the fun in this, and that's OK too.

In such discussions, I often use the example of The Three Musketeers: very little to nothing at all related to actual history and the real historical characters; still one of the best adventure and historical novels ever.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] natalie0407 10 years ago

In such discussions, I often use the example of The Three Musketeers: very little to nothing at all related to actual history and the real historical characters; still one of the best adventure and historical novels ever.

Except that in The Three Musketeers out of the four main characters three are fictional and D'Artagnan has little enough resemblance with historical prototype that he can be considered fictional, too. If Jordan based his story around Michelotto and three of Cesare's soldiers, I wouldn't be complaining I think.

And while Dumas takes liberties with historical events and figures they're still recognizable (more so than Jordan's, I daresay). He's also paying more attention to the historical period than Jordan does (from the XIX century's point of reference).

I know what Dumas' intentions are. I'm not so sure about Jordan. He's not interesting in most of the political events or anything that Borgias actually did that we know wasn't a rumor. Nor in the Renaissance period. He seems to be mostly interested in incest and corruption - and the latter is very simplistic because the viewers must be too stupid to understand the political intrigue of the time.

Again: it's his choice. He doesn't HAVE TO make up characters entirely if what he wants is take real ones and spins them whatever way he wants

But in the end, the Borgias have so little resemblance to the actual people that they might as well have been totally fictional. In fact, the story might have actually been better if Jordan hadn't bothered with the actual family and come up with something of his own.

So, what's the point? There must be something in the Borgias and their times that attracted Neil Jordan in the first place? I just fail to see what it was other than incest and a few random murders. And even incest was based on an unsubstantiated rumor. It might be ok for a 2-hour movie (Jordan't original idea) but definitely not for a 4 season show. No wonder Season 4 was nixed. Jordan ditched all the history out of the window and didn't have anything for another 9 or 10 episodes.

The loose constraints of history can be great fun and inspiration for artists and audience alike. I suppose some people just don't see the fun in this, and that's OK too.

Well, I have a few guilty pleasures of my own. Spartacus, for example. Now that's actually a fun show that doesn't try to be another Rome and I'm not judging it as such. It's a stylized action adventure very loosely based on the life of Spartacus. However, even they show Spartacus being a gladiator and staging a rebellion against Rome - two things he is most famous for. Unlike Jordan. So even this borderline fantasy has more respect for history than Borgias. Sad, really.

reply

[–] eugenia_katze 10 years ago

If Jordan based his story around Michelotto and three of Cesare's soldiers, I wouldn't be complaining I think.

LOL! Oh I can totally imagine what kind of a story it could be.

It might be ok for a 2-hour movie (Jordan't original idea) but definitely not for a 4 season show. No wonder Season 4 was nixed. Jordan ditched all the history out of the window and didn't have anything for another 9 or 10 episodes.

That’s what I thought all the time, too. Honestly, imo Jordan should have stayed faithful to his original intention: to make a movie. Or, at the very most, a miniseries of 10 episodes.
The merits of “The Borgias” – impressive visuals and strong cast - would have been even more distinctive in not such a long format. And the flaws – many watered down, boring, inconsistent and silly plotlines – would have either disappeared or at least become not so obvious and lengthy.
And of course he should have avoided any statements pretending his show tries to tell the truth about the actual Borgias. They are only misguiding and annoying.

But in the end, the Borgias have so little resemblance to the actual people that they might as well have been totally fictional. In fact, the story might have actually been better if Jordan hadn't bothered with the actual family and come up with something of his own.

Indeed. Why not to rename the characters after all? Give them other names and enjoy as much creative freedom as you want.

reply

[–] natalie0407 10 years ago

If Jordan based his story around Michelotto and three of Cesare's soldiers, I wouldn't be complaining I think.

LOL! Oh I can totally imagine what kind of a story it could be.

All for one... and one for all

Indeed. Why not to rename the characters after all? Give them other names and enjoy as much creative freedom as you want.

I guess we both know the answer to that... it's easier to attract attention using famous stories (whether history, mythology or books). But in this case I do believe there's some responsibility on the part of the creators' to show at least something of why the stories had become famous in the first place. For example, if it's a show about Cesare's namesake Caesar's rise to power I'd expect it to include the conquest of Gaul, fight for power, standoff with Pompei and, of, course, the Ides of March, and not just his multiple lovers. I fully expect each new interpretation to be different but I do want to see it based on the famous historic events (realistic military tactics and cultural attitudes from the time is a big bonus). Otherwise, it's not Caesar but a generic lusty politician.

And honestly, with history there's always room for speculation - you don't always know why the characters did what they did and there're a lot of mysteries to solve. For example, Juan's murder has a dozen of potential explanations... and of course Jordan had to pick the most boring one.

reply

[–] alicecbr 10 years ago

So glad that I wasn't imagining that it was phony, and unrealistic. Really disgusting that it couldn't have been more true to what history we DO know; such as the various battles and wars. It's a matter of record that could have been portrayed more realisticaly and not avoided the phony look and smell of the gloriously photographed series.

"He who swaps his liberty for the promise of 'security' deserves neither." Ben Franklin

reply

[–] eugenia_katze 10 years ago

Why draw a line at all? Fiction should be all about creative freedom. People are free to watch or not to watch, to like or to dislike; writers, movie-makers etc... are free and should be as free as they choose to be with whatever material they want.

Well I’m with Victorita9 and natalie0407: personally I also think that the real story of the Borgia family is much more fascinating than Neil Jordan’s almost 100 % fictional fantasies and “interpretations” of the historical events. The same for the characters who all are distorted in his show.
But basically I understand: its fiction, its all about creative freedom, everyone should feel free to make with the characters whatever he wants and so on. And if I don’t like the result its entirely MY problem; after all, I haven’t to watch any series I don’t like, that’s true.
I remember reading many reviews after season 1 of “The Borgias” was out. The people totally praised the show for its visual beauty, great production qualities, brilliant acting, thrilling plot… and ta-dah - historical accuracy.
OKAY maybe they all were trolling. Or just ignorant. Again, it’s their problem.
But here are Neil Jordan’s own words:
“I tried to stay as accurate to the broad historical shape as I could. But you didn’t have to invent much to make these guys fascinating. I didn’t have to invent a thing…“
“I didn’t have to manipulate events to make it dramatically engaging or to make them salacious or interesting as people…”
“So we’re trying to do our best to tell the truth…”
The source for the full interview:
http://filmreviewonline.com/2011/04/11/the-borgias-showrunner-neil-jor dan-on-power/
Eh?... Excuse me? So actually he tried to be accurate and tell the truth? Seriously? Well now I don’t know anymore what to think…

reply

[–] natalie0407 10 years ago

But basically I understand: its fiction, its all about creative freedom, everyone should feel free to make with the characters whatever he wants and so on. And if I don’t like the result its entirely MY problem; after all, I haven’t to watch any series I don’t like, that’s true.

But I liked S1 as a sort of a guilty pleasure and was already invested... I didn't know the show would go completely down the drain.

Recently, I tried to watch Tudors... and I just couldn't get past the lead actor who's short and dark-haired playing a tall and imposing redhead (he also doesn't seem to age or grow big the way Henry VIII actually did) who also sounded like a petulant boy who'd lost his favorite toy. As well as other strange choices such as conflating two Tudor sisters into one and marrying her off to the Kind of Portugal (why???).

I remember reading many reviews after season 1 of “The Borgias” was out. The people totally praised the show for its visual beauty, great production qualities, brilliant acting, thrilling plot… and ta-dah - historical accuracy.
OKAY maybe they all were trolling. Or just ignorant. Again, it’s their problem.

Well compared to the later seasons, S1 is not that bad.

Eh?... Excuse me? So actually he tried to be accurate and tell the truth? Seriously? Well now I don’t know anymore what to think…

I stopped trusting the producers/writers' intentions after Peter Jackson promised me a faithful adaptation of J.R.R.Tolkien's books (still fail to see how making every character a stupid jerk is a necessary change. I guess it's another one of those creative freedom things).

I judge by the final product. So far, I've been most satisfied by HBO's historical miniseries and Fontana's Borgia. I'm also watching Spartacus S3 now and, once I got used to excessive violence and nudity, I'm surprised they actually follow the major milestones from Spartacus' life and even some interesting circumstances from the battles. The political and cultural situation of Rome, however simplified, is also much more recognizable than that of Renaissance Italy in The Borgias, and they even throw some actual historical details that are not always relevant to the plot but show they did read the sources. In other words, they have a fairly good grasp on when to invent titillating melodrama and when to leave history alone because it's fascinating on its own. I wish these guys did the Borgia story - I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have ignored most of Cesare's battles like Jordan.

reply

[–] heich1 10 years ago

But do we know what exactly happened? History is what the Borgias' contempories
thought about them. But do we know what is really true? Historians debate what stories about them is true.

reply

[–] natalie0407 10 years ago

This is beside the point. There're established facts, mysteries and rumor but Jordan seems to be mostly interested in the incest stories.

reply

[–] eugenia_katze 10 years ago

But do we know what exactly happened? History is what the Borgias' contempories thought about them. But do we know what is really true? Historians debate what stories about them is true.

See we’re not speaking about gossips, rumours and „holes“ in the chronicles. Of course there are also firm and unquestionable FACTS about Borgias. For example:
-Rodrigo never crowned Charles VIII as a king of Naples; on the contrary, he totally refused to give him an investiture, time after time, all the time.
-He also never butchered cardinal Orsini nor tried to kill della Rovere; moreover, the two even made up their quarrel after the French occupation, even if only seemingly.
-Cesare didn’t kill Giovanni Sforza nor Ludovico Sforza nor Prospero Colonna… it’s very well KNOWN when and how each of them died.
-None of the two kings of Naples, neither Alfonso nor Ferdinand, died in the way it was shown in the series. That's just not true.
-Juan Borgia didn’t siege Forli, never. He also never tortured Caterina’s son and there are no records he ever had syphilis.
-Lucrezia never travelled to Naples to live there with her 2nd husband, they lived in Rome. And Alfonso also died completely differently, not as it was shown in “The Borgias”.
-Maciavelli didn't serve as an adviser for the Medicis nor betrayed them or Florence.
-Bianca Gonzaga never even existed; the wife of Francesco Gonzaga was Isabella d’Este and you know, she was a VERY interesting and famous lady…
And so on and on and on. 90% of “The Borgias” is, quite simple and obvious, a FICTION, period.
Now go to the interview here and read what Neil Jordan said about his intentions and how he’s going to treat history: http://filmreviewonline.com/2011/04/11/the-borgias-showrunner-neil-jor dan-on-power/
And now the question: why to lie? Why not to say honestly: “ I’m not interested in the historical facts/ have no time to read the books/ fear that my audience can find the true events too boring because the people only care for scandal and sensation… so I’m going to change almost all the facts and tell my own fictional story”? Or at least to say nothing at all?

reply

[–] launlori 9 years ago

If you really want historical accuracy there are lots of books on the Borgias.

I do go back and read the historical novels after I've watched something that has increased my interest in that particular subject.

Television writers being that it is very visual on television have to make decisions and be creative with situations, clothing, etc.

If you followed a historical novel and copied everything you still wouldn't have an entire scene. So much isn't said about clothes, mood, smells, etc. you would still have to improvise in your depiction.

A TV or movie would be pretty boring if they followed it exactly. I can't imagine what that would be like

reply

[–] natalie0407 9 years ago

I do go back and read the historical novels after I've watched something that has increased my interest in that particular subject.

It's happened to me before. Usually it ended up with me thinking "WTF were the writers smoking". With some exceptions, primarily HBO productions. And even with Rome I wished instead of made-up melodrama they used the real shenanigans of the Roman citizens - they typically were more entertaining.

Canal+ is about the only historic show where I respected the show runner even MORE after reading some more books about the period.

There're many ways to skin the cat. You can have an alternative history fantasy show inspired by some countries that really existed or wars that really happened (Game of Thrones). In this case, you have as much creative freedom as you want and no one is going to accuse you of being unhistorical. Or, you can have an exaggerated, comic style version (300 or Spartacus being an example). No one would expect a lot of historic accuracy.

But when it's stylistically more realistic portrayal of real historic figures you can't blame folks for having higher expectations. And I'm not talking about 100% accuracy (which is impossible anyway). To tell the stories, some alteration or conjecture is necessary. It's always someone else's interpretation. But please, get at least the basic facts rights . You think all Borgia were evil? Fine. But at least make them the villains that belong to the period rather than soap opera characters in vaguely renaissance costumes. Show more of what Cesare became famous for. Even if your vision of the events is different from mine at least I'll know where you're coming from. I don't always agree with Fontana's choices but at least they're usually plausible and, what's most important, internally consistent.

reply

[–] launlori 9 years ago

Game of Thrones is a completely different ballgame. You have to be kind of true to the book but it's up to interpretation.

Rome was a huge destroyer or the history from that period .... It's was very much just a glamorized costume drama ... And really so was the Tudors.

I've noticed fans of Game of Thrones aren't too terribly upset when they aren't true to the books. I've never read the books and I'm addicted to the show. I never notice if they are taking created license.

I watch a lot of series usually HBO but I have gotten into others. One in particular is "Outlander".

But yes I do like it when they stay close to history.

reply

[–] gasivodo 9 years ago

..facts, truths, blah, blah,???

Really? ASS in we KNOW what happened? Respect;-D

reply

[–] gasivodo 9 years ago

..facts, truths, blah, blah,???

Really? ASS in we KNOW what happened? Respect;-D

reply

[–] natalie0407 9 years ago

Is that a question? Of course there're a lot of things we know about along with speculations and puzzles (like Juan's death). Jordan chose to ignore most of the recorded history of the Borgias and where he could actually use some imagination it was usually unbelievable or predictable.

reply

[–] WhiteTigerRedPhoenix 8 years ago

Does its description say it's documentary? No.

reply