Poor cousin of the Showtime series
Since watching the first episode of this show, I have been searching the web to see what people thought of this and was really surprised to find out that a lot of people thought this show to be better than "The Borgias" on Showtime. The main points in favor of Fontana's version seemed to be historical accuracy and the "European vibe". As far as the second argument, being European myself, I am not impressed with the "vibe" that consists mainly of full frontal nudity. I don't see why a sex scene can't be tastefully made and leave something to the imagination. I really don't need to see the genitals to know that people are having sex in a particular scene. As for the historical accuracy, having read a lot about the Borgia family, I see inconsistencies in both show, but one must remember that it is television and not a documentary. The Showtime series might take more liberties with history for the entertainment value, but it makes for more interesting story lines. What I can't forgive Fontana's version is the fact that the show would not invest money in props and costumes. These were supposed to be the richest people of their times, and yet Lucrezia seems to own two dresses and one set of jewelery, and the same goes with Giulia Farnese. Both women should be covered with jewels from head to toe, should wear elaborate gowns and have complicated hairdos (especially Lucrezia, who was very vain about her hair). Also, very often the set consists of white walls, a table and some chairs. Where the hell are frescoes, tapestries and golden and silver plates? For me these count as huge historical inconsistencies. The show has a small budget and is is obvious in almost every scene, whereas Showtime version had some of the most beautiful, lush sets, props and costumes in the history of television. Also, the matter of accents is a huge problem, but it was mentioned in all other reviews so I will not elaborate on this topic, and will only say that I agree that having members of the same family speak with six different accents is a ridiculous idea. As for the acting...The pope sounds like an American gangster, and John Doman is terrible in this role. There is nothing similar to the perfectly executed Rodrigo- Cesare power-play from Showtime's show. Juan Borgia looks as if they picked him up at the local gym and sticks out in the Reinessance Italy almost as much as his American dad. And Lucrezia is simply terrible. She is a far cry from Holliday Granger's spectacular performance, has no chemistry with her father and brother (truly, if they really had had that little chemistry the rumors about incest would have never been coined). And her terrible German accent ruins every line of dialogue she has. The only redeeming quality this show has is Mark Ryder as Cesare Borgia. Although I am a fan of Francois Arnaud's Cesare, I must admit that Mark Ryder does a great job. His Cesare is much more frightening and crazy, and sometimes even bipolar, which is probably historically more accurate. Especially in the second season, he really shines in this show. All in all, "Borgia" lacks all the features that made "The Borgias" so good: lavish costumes and sets, powerful Rodrigo-Cesare and Cesare- Lucrezia chemistry, and consistency in acting (and accents!). It is not a bad show, but it definitely looks like the Showtime's series' poor cousin. And if this is supposed to be the "European vibe", then I vote to go all Hollywood instead.score 3/10
mczerska1 16 August 2014
Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw3069748/14578
Pages:
[1]