Cathedrals

Disclaimer: This is not a review (like I’m an expert critic because I’m not), but a subjective expression of my thoughts about two TV series based on my own standards.

After watching Rome, Spartacus and Game of Thrones, my fascination for either historical or fantasy dramas further increased. But so did my standards as caused by these series.

In just two months, I finished watching three: Ben Hur, The Borgias and The Pillars of the Earth. Allow me to share my thoughts on the last two which are similar:  cathedrals - one inhabited by Popes, the other envisioned by far less powerful clerics and ordinary people.

For a change, The Borgias’ principal characters are not English kings or Roman emperors but princes of the church. The series, which just completed its Season 1, is loosely based on the notoriety of the Borgia family from the Renaissance, which interestingly inspired Machiavelli’s The Prince and Mario Puzo’s The Godfather. In a grand way, Season 1 highlights the rise to power of the Borgias, from Rodrigo’s bribery to becoming Pope Alexander VI to the family’s schemes to save their political powers from coup threats. In some ways, The Borgias is like The Tudor, Spartacus and Rome, as it is generous in showing off skins, sex and violence. Well, it's just faithful to its tagline: “Sex. Power. Murder. Amen.”

And like the series mentioned, The Borgias can boast of lavish production values – elaborately designed sets and colorful costumes. Aside from these visual elements, the show’s strength comes from actor Jeremy Irons who I think plays Pope very convincingly and some other minor supporting cast who do act really well (again, at least in my own standards).

Other than the production design, costumes and Irons, I think that the series is a bit cluttered. Storylines/subplots do not seem to make a whole. The progression of the story is somewhat vague indecisive as to which character is lead (whether the Pope or his Cardinal-son) and which subplot should be given more attention. Had I not read about what happened before, during and after the Borgia papacy, I would not have understood the historical context of the series.

The first installment of the historical drama also failed to make me feel and understand the motivations and long-term ambitions of lead characters, Pope and Cesare. When I watched Spartacus’ Spartacus and Lentulius Batiatus and even minor characters, and Rome Season 2’s Mark Antony, Octavian and Atia, I sensed their internal movements and motivations for their actions though effective character development.

I also got a bit confused if the series is trying to depict the family as evil or redeem the family. I find the depiction blurred. Consider, however, the following corruption and perversion that describe the Borgia family: The Pope has a wife, and children, and a mistress. He appoints his son Cesare a Cardinal. Cesare has a mistress, kills her husband, and liquidates his father’s enemies by poisoning them. His daughter Lucrezia flirts with his brother Cesare, marries a Duke for politics and keeps a secret love affair. The Pope’s second son, Juan, has fascination for prostitutes and has an affair with his teenage brother’s wife. So I don’t think it’s acceptable for the series to attempt at glorifying the family's successful corruption.

Overall, Season 1 of The Borgias, minus the sex and production design, is boring. I remember sleeping in some parts of the series. Maybe, just maybe, I'll give Season 2 another chance.

Focus and character development: these are where the miniseries Pillars of the Earth succeeded. This series does not exactly have the 'Lord of the Rings feel' or the 'Games of Throne wow factor', but it has the necessary elements effectively combined for me to watch the eight-hour miniseries in one day.

An adaptation of Ken Folett’s bestselling book, The Pillars of the Earth follows the drama behind the construction of a cathedral in a town in England during the historical Anarchy period of the 12th century. With this plot that spans forty years, the story highlights the political, religious and personal conflicts between and among the characters and the classic conflict between good and evil through the factions of kings, church people and ordinary people motivated by sex, love, ambition and power.

I think that the series succeeded in terms of character development and acting. Matthew Macfadyen’s portrayal of Prior Philip effectively pictures him as a principled and wise monk, and Rufus Sewell is believable as Tom Builder providing the vision of a cathedral. The performance of Eddie Redmayne (Jack the stone artist) is noteworthy, which reminded me of the silent yet persuasive kind of acting Ben Whishaw did in Perfume: Story of a Murderer. But though I’m sympathetic to the good casts, I think that the antagonists’ ensemble made their presence pretty strong in the series, especially with Ian McShane’s portrayal of the evil and controlling cleric Waleran Bigod, and Alison Pill creepy depiction of Maud (like Helena Bonham Charter as Bellatrix Lestrange in Harry Potter movie).

I read that many fans of Folett’s books actually liked the TV adaptation so they are hoping that there'll be a TV series for World Without End with a plot set two centuries after the cathedral had been completed.

Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to watching more costume dramas this Christmas vacation.