Forget the reason behind chasing The Borgias, because of the majestic and full-textured titles? Is it because of my undivided love for British and American historical dramas? Is it because of the Renaissance theme? Or was it pure instinct that Showtime chose the right role and actor this time?
I have always felt that American drama is a wonderful work in the cultural world. It is not only popular culture, but also often intolerable. Many times it cannot withstand scrutiny. Many times it is simple and violent. However, it easily captures the hearts of high-end intellectuals with discerning tastes ( There is also our pseudo-text). It is said that Wittgenstein does not like philosophical works in his life, but loves American Western films. Some people are surprised. What are you surprised? Criticizing popular culture as being too popular is also an expression of not knowing how to appreciate. Wittgenstein is a wise man and he knows how to appreciate.
The Borgias is a historical drama, but first of all it is popular culture. No one will pursue the distance between it and the real history, and no one will treat it as a history textbook. However, the play is well-made. From the set to the costumes and props, it can withstand the scrutiny of close-up shots. Recalling some domestic costume dramas, every detail can make people play into the field through which there is nothing to say. The so-called appreciation of elegance and commonness is roughly the same. People who don't understand the background see it interestingly, those who understand the background see it as interesting, and those who are familiar with the history of the classics see it with deep meaning.
The comparison between domestic costume dramas and Showtime historical dramas just now is really a last resort. Is there a category of historical dramas in domestic dramas? I'm afraid not. All I know of are biopics of historical figures. China is known as an ancient civilization. In recent years, the film and television industry cannot be said to be alive and well, but there is no good historical drama or historical film. Why? Or related to cultural phenomena. In modern times, the Chinese have praised the right and wrong of history, but have never dared to face the true history, face up to themselves (not to mention the knowledge and courage to face up to the history of other cultures), and still live in the world of storytellers.
To be honest, it is not easy for historical dramas to attract people to watch. The Borgias did not attract me from the beginning. This can't be counted as the writer's fault, at least he has tried. But in the European courts of the 15th and 16th centuries, assassinations and poisoning were commonplace, ready-made, and did not reflect the skill of screenwriters. The first half of the first half of the story was pretty smooth, with no success or adventure (I mean the adventure of breaking through the limits of history and telling your own story). I agree with the choice made by the screenwriter, sacrificing suspense and retaining the sense of substitution of the historical background, the original flavor. But sometimes I express my intentions (or the direction of history) too bluntly in the character dialogue. It is not good to deduct 0.5 stars.
Seeing the second half of the first season, it began to smell. The actor who loves Charles VIII is so cute. At the end of the first season, it is known that this drama will surpass The Tudors. Michael Hirst's control of such subjects is obviously on a higher level. Some scripts can be written brilliantly at the beginning, with suspense repeatedly, but they spread too early and cannot be collected later, revealing traces of fabrication in embarrassment; other scripts are settled in single-line narrative, seemingly stable, but in fact they are stepping up and slowly seducing. People go deep and arrange a climax at the end, with the style of classical novels. Which is better? I like the latter, the former is more commercialized, let's talk about it first. The Borgias has the style of classical novels. Is there any literary work as a model? Haven't read it, don't know.
The Renaissance is my other great love. The first season of The Borgias set the time to 1492. This year is the beginning of modern European history (this is a strange definition, with the discovery of a wild new world mistaken for India as the beginning of modern history. Modern history was originally a vague and artificial concept, perhaps between 1300 and 1600. Any year in between is eligible to be the beginning of modern history, but the discovery of the New World as the most important historical event in these hundreds of years undoubtedly gave the year 1492 a special meaning and made it more well-known. It defines the period between the Middle Ages and modern times).
The Renaissance began earlier than modern history. Dante’s "Divine Comedy" was composed at the beginning of the fourteenth century. The end of the fifteenth century was the heyday of the Italian Renaissance, and it has also affected the courts of Western Europe and even Northern Europe. In Renaissance Italy, three generations of the Medici family (Cosimo, Piero, and the famous Lorenzo), and Isabella Deste, daughter of the Duke of Ferrara, are all famous art patrons. People, but the biggest patron of artists (within Italy), is still the Holy See (not far from the "rising bourgeoisie"). The power of the church is still strong. In the Middle Ages, the church controlled all the subjects that art can deal with through religious regulations, but in the Renaissance, the church intervened in art as a patron of art. With the Renaissance as the background, The Borgias portrays Alexander VI as the protector of ancient art and the bourgeoisie. It is full of color and lively. In fact, the pope's favorite is money, but his greatness is his true color. In fact, when it comes to patronage of art, his enemy, Bishop de la Roffrey (later Julius II), is not inferior at all. The fresco on the top of the Sistine Chapel was the idea of Julius II. In addition to Michelangelo, he has also been a patron of Raphael and the architect Bramante. Rodrigue is still too shabby.
Let's run another question. There is also a Renaissance in China, which is not recognized by the historians, but the Tang and Song Dynasties seem to be in line with the characteristics of the Renaissance. The Tang poetry inherits Yuefu, and the eight great masters of Tang and Song mentioned by Mao Kun are also ancient writers. More importantly, the so-called revival does not refer to the ancient times, or the pedantic return to the ancient times, but to stand on the (but higher) shoulders of the ancients and look into the new realm. The people of the Tang Dynasty rediscovered the new continent of Central Asia. Free trade gave them a more open mind. The self-confidence of the Tang Dynasty is comparable to the current American culture. The rulers of the Song Dynasty were probably fairly enlightened (relatively speaking, those who said they were all useless obviously did not read history books), and this period was accompanied by technological innovation and (potentially) the seeds of the industrial revolution. Unfortunately, the internal and external conditions are not mature enough to promote spontaneous social change. The Renaissance cannot last for a thousand or two thousand years. The cultural revival was too early, and was subsequently replaced by cultural imprisonment (Ming and Qing literary prisons or comparable European religious reforms), and then it has been going downhill. Can "May 4th" be regarded as a new Renaissance? The fault is not a revival.
I love the Renaissance because it proves that things like literature, art, genius, and scientific discovery cannot be promoted or cultivated. But you only need to give it a little bit of freedom, a little bit of cracks, and it will grow stubbornly toward the sun, until the cracks are opened and the freedom is spilled on the world. Freedom means seeing new possibilities. Art and discovery can do exactly this. So 1492 can indeed be used as a tipping point. New possibilities have emerged, proclaiming that mankind has entered a new era. , Only a very small number of absolute elites can foresee the realm that mankind can reach in the next epoch. Human beings are sinful, but sinful human beings can create such good things. How could God not be jealous.
Back to The Borgias. Roles and actors determine more than half of the success or failure of historical dramas. The play in this area has been well received, so I won't repeat it, just talk about the shortcomings of the role. Writing bad guys as good guys with shortcomings is a typical technique in American TV dramas, and masked heroes, beautiful women, traitors and villains are also typical in American TV dramas. Why are these two tricks so unsuccessful? Looking at the worse world from the perspective of a bad person is better than putting gold on the face of a good person to cover up the evil side of human nature; a personality with a facial mask is always better than a person with no personality that is unrememberable. The Borgias used both, but the latter trick was a bit too much for Juan.
Finally, I still have a question. It is inevitable that Cesare in The Borgias will overshadow the Pope. It is not too regretful that the show was cut in the fourth season. According to the historical trend, Pope Alexander VI will eventually die for many injustices, and Duke of Valentinois, who lost his backer, will not become the Sun Zhongmou of Italy. Stealing power will always cost people a high price in the end, but this is not the same as karma. GRR Martin understands this, so "A Song of Ice and Fire" writes about the defeat of Cersei Lannister, after the defeat of the wolf family. But can the audience of The Borgias bear such a tragic ending? Judging from the third season, I really can't see where it shows that it laid the groundwork for the doomed tragedy, perhaps for a reasonable ending (for this, I deduct 0.5 stars, how vicious I am). The Borgias is a good work, but it can't rise to the level of tragedy (this is also the limitation of American dramas).
After watching this drama, I was embarrassed for a long time. First, I felt that I hadn't watched such a magnificent American drama for a long time. The second is that the domestic directors and screenwriters are still complacent about the (accidental) success of crossing the theme of the drama, and there is almost no cure. Therefore, the nagging of this article is really sent to my heart, only please see the official forgive me.
View more about The Borgias reviews
