[The Borgias Season 2 Complete 720p Subtitles Netflix
Amancio Mccrae
There was a Borgia boom in 2011 when, aiming to capitalize on the commercial success of The Tudors, the television world realized there was one obvious way to up the ante. Not one but two completely unrelated Borgia TV series were made in 2011. Many have run across the American Showtime series The Borgias, but fewer people know about Borgia, also called Borgia: Faith and Fear, a French-German-Czech production released (in English) in the Anglophone world via Netflix. I am watching both and enjoying both. This unique phenomenon, two TV series made in the same year, modeled on the same earlier series and treating the same historical characters and events, is an amazing chance to look at different ways history can be used in fiction.
I said before that I am not evaluating these shows for their historical accuracy. Shows ignoring history or changing it around does bother me sometimes, especially if a show is very good and ought to know better. The superb HBO series Rome, which does an absolutely unparalleled job presenting Roman social class, slavery, and religion, nonetheless left me baffled as to why a studio making a series about the Julio-Claudians would feel driven to ignore the famous historical allegations of orgies and bizarre sex preserved in classical sources and substitute different orgies and bizarre sex. The original orgies and bizarre sex were perfectly sufficient! But in general I tend to be extremely patient with historically inacurate elements within my history shows, moreso than many non-historians I know, who are bothered by our acute modern anachronism-radar (on the history of the senes of anachronism and its absence in pre-modern psychology, see Michael Wood: Forgery, Replica, Fiction). For me, though, I have learned to relax and let it go.
I am not meaning to pick a fight here with people who care deeply about accuracy in historical fiction. I respect that it bothers some people, and also that there is great merit in getting things right. Research and thoroughness are admirable, and, just as it requires impressive virtuosity to cook a great meal within strict diet constraints, like gluten free or vegan, so it takes great virtuosity to tell a great story without cheating on the history. I am simply saying that, while accuracy is a merit, it is not more important to me than other merits, especially entertainment value in something which is intended as entertainment.
(I do get one nitpick. When Michelangelo had a cameo in The Borgias, why did he speak Italian when everyone else was speaking English? What was that supposed to communicate? Is everyone else supposed to be speaking Latin all the time? Is the audience supposed to know he is Italian but not think about it with everyone else? I am confused!)
Very glad to help redirect you to the series. The mix of accents bothered me at first as well. I kept trying to figure out if they were trying to communicate something by having each member of the Borgia family have a radically different accent. It finally made sense when I realized it was an international cast.
I would prefer the international version, there is much more life and action in the international. The Borgia is expensive, but grim and sequential; as if it is done by historian with fear that the audience has very low IQ.
Haha! Personally, I would have interpreted Lucrezia wearing her black mourning dress from her previous marriage (was it from her 1st or 2nd marriage?) as an indication that she was mourning the prospect of being married again!!
Thanks! I sometimes enjoy imagining that Merlin is set in a universe where some spell or time-travel distorted everything and made causality turn all strange, and that Mordred and the dragon are the only ones who know, and are conspiring to push events toward something which will make the timeline correct again. A fun way to enjoy the show.
Actually your earlier question got me thinking about writing an entry on exactly this quesiton, so your follow-up has helped me make up my mind. Next entry (or at least one of the next couple) I will talk about philosophical discussions of judicial torture in the 18th century, and how Western society transitioned from thinking of torture as useful and commonplace to thinking of it as cruel and unnecessary. Should be an interesting topic!
I had season 1 of Borgias Faith& Fear and picked up Borgias -Season 2 in the store not realizing there were two series on the Borgias.
Loved Borgias Faith & Fear, and was extremely disappointed in the latter probably because I was expecting something quite different. Call me a nerd, but I would love a running commentary on the historical aspects and minutia.
Borgia SUCKS! The acting is abismal and it is astounding and disturbing that viewers are incapable of identifying such terrible acting! There were very few scenes that I considered well acted with reactions being comical most of the time! The dialogue is deplorable, not even attempting to simulate the 14th century. Although both shows were historically inaccurate, BORGIA went so far as to be annoying!
What a wonderful article. Spot on and so incisive, I have had a long passion for the Borgia; and can only commend you in championing the Borgia series on Netflix, far superior to its inferior cousin. I believe it to be realistic and as near to the mark as we are going to get.
I agree with the commentators that this is an excellent article comparing the respective virtues of both series. I also agree with the writer that Borgia: Faith & Fear is the superior series with some (very) minor caveats.
If I have gripe with Borgia: Faith & Fear I do find the violence at times too graphic, although the writer here makes an excellent point that it really was that bad. Still, there is a difference between informing the audience of how bad it was, perhaps by implying the violence as opposed to showing it in graphic detail. But this complaint goes for nearly every historical drama on television at the moment. Likewise the sex scenes are almost entirely gratuitous. I realize that makes me sound awfully prudish, but they almost never drive the narrative forward and are a blatant ratings grab. Again the series is hardly alone in this.
The only additional thing I wish this article would have addressed is the vast differences between the two Giulia Farneses; one having a sweet and calm demeanor while the other was loud and demanding with a bad tamper.
I find I have exactly the same perspective as ExUrbe; too much accuracy would make the story unwatchable. For me, the biggest inaccuracies I notice are the teeth. In NEARLY all these types of shows, teeth are 21st century white at a time when having any teeth left past the age 30 was remarkable. Do I want to watch my heroes and heroines with nasty teeth? No, accuracy be damned. Our perception of attractiveness has changed, and I am not insulted when actors conform to modern definitions in order to relate how comely their characters were perceived by their contemporaries.
This article, and all the posts following have cleared up quite of a bit of my questions. I noticed immediately the question of which brother was older. I also questioned the pine cone in the square. Thanks for those tidbits. They do help bring flavor.
Having watched The Borgias religiously as new episodes were released on Sky Atlantic I can safely say that it gave me just the tasting I needed to spark an interest into the threats, debauchery, and everything else that goes with the delights of the Renaissance period.
I really enjoyed the BBC series of The Borgias on the TV in 1981, so when I saw Showtime were making a version I was very much looking forward to watching the DVDs. However, the story and characters are completely different. I think the Showtime one is a bit wishy washy to be honest. The BBC one is more in keeping to what I had read about the family, whereas this later version I did not recognise much at all and was a tad disappointed. I was delighted when the BBC decided to release their DVD and bought it as soon as I could. Oliver Cotton makes a superb Cesare in my opinion and well worth watching. I have yet to see Borgia: Faith & Fear.
idont like the borgia (canal plus) it was low budget and wholly fictional ,but some says its not fictional at all the point is they are are fictional to atract certain audience i watched the borgia and the whole time i thought why they chose popes actor a american and he had american accent and other charactor like julia farnese who was mistress of pope had italian accent and it was amateurish the make julia farnesse one of main character which was unnecessary they should focus more on political environment of that time and cesare character was like shit he sound like a petulant brat with high ego going out and make war with unnecessary people and pope was all the time drunk and had addiction(seasin 2) these were really wholly fictional and like soap opera and julia farnesse was shagging everyone around and didnt had any serious role i mean she was just there for decor?what about its special effect? it was horrible it sounded like certain people with ugly cloth talking with each other in ancient locations ??that is why i thought by watching canal plus borgia was waste of time anyone had different idea but i think the borgias (show time) is way more better
I do remember being frustrated by that subplot myself. It just felt very ahistorical, not the actions or reactions either a Renaissance man or a Renaissance woman would take or have in such a situation. I had hoped they would make her more active and in control of her life.
I was reading the Wikipedia article on Carlo Gesualdo, and was reminded of the example you used here about Orsini killing his wife when he finds her in the arms of another man, and how this was considered a perfectly acceptable reaction by the mores of the time.
The contrast in the 2 shows is massive.
Not relevant to my compare, but a comment all the same, the cast of the Showtime version are much more attractive. Actors playing Cesare and Lucrezia are absolutely stunning.