The death of the Borgias

Three years and it’s over. Done before its time. But as in the time of the Borgia Pope, money still makes the world go around and the network executives rather keep the coins in their pockets rather than bless their parishioners with two more hours of Vatican splendour from five hundred years ago.

Spoilers! Spoilers for all three seasons of The Borgias.


The Borgias isn’t an easy show to watch, but it’s an easy show to love. Or hate. It marches out a slew of historical figures and twists their lives and events into a fictitious plot barely resembling historical accounts. It’s the gossip rags of the sixteen hundreds brought to alive. There’s sex and corruption, murder and mayhem, and it’s all centred around one family. The original crime family as I’ve seen some say.

The real portrait of Rodrigo Borgia

You have Jeremy Irons playing Rodrigo Borgia, a cardinal who buys his way into the highest office on earth in 1492 and becomes Pope Alexander VI. He’s a pragmatist with ambition for himself and his family… and supposedly the show revolves around him. After three years (well two years and three season) of watching the show my recollection of Irons’ part in the show is very vague. There was the lechery, the greed, and a hint of religious fervor but all in all his portrayal is bland. Is role as Pope Alexander VI is insipid enough to utterly escape my memory. There’s even a brilliant scene in the show explaining the actor’s likeness—or lack thereof—to the original but other than that I couldn’t really tell you what makes Rodrigo Borgia tick. Delusions of grandeur perhaps.

The Pope and all his ladies...

And I think the show runners realised this because as much as the show—and the history—relies on the father Borgia, the show focuses on his children Cesare (François Arnaud), Juan (David Oakes), and Lucrezia (Holliday Grainger), who are pawns to their father’s ambition. Their mother, Vanozza Cattaneo played by Joanne Whalley barely flickers on the screen other than to offer a few sage advice to her children and to throw a fit when Rodrigo claims he must embrace celibacy for his new office and then promptly proceeds to take on a new mistress.

Cesare in particular is the nexus of people and alliances. He yearns for a career in the military but his father has other plans for him and this fuels Cesare’s troubled relationship with his brother. Their mutual jealousy that dominates the familiar interactions just as Cesare’s incestuous love for his sister provides the long plot for the show. Neil Jordan and co. take the time to build that delicate relationship showing care guiding the characters to where the story must take them. There are no justifications, just reasons that make it understandable.

The real Lucrezia Borgia

Holliday Grainger transforms from the young and naive fourteen year old into a shining, independent woman (as much as that was possible around that time) who even brings a French King to his knees. Figuratively. In all her pain and happiness, it’s Lucrezia who seduces her beloved brother because only he can fulfil her every need. It’s her who crosses the line, if there ever was a line between them.


Even with all these delicious connections and the underlying political machinations Cesare operates for his father, the most interesting character in the series is Micheletto played by Sean Harris. He is Cesare’s henchman, his loyal assassin, and a man who kills even himself for his Lord.

From the beginning where Cesare turns his would be killer into a loyal servant, the chemistry between François Arnaud and Sean Harris is what kept me riveted to the show. Seemingly for no other reason than that he feels like it, Micheletto decides to make Cesare the focus of his life. Thus everything that is important to Cesare becomes important to Micheletto and he’s willing to suffer tremendous pain to keep his master’s secrets.

It’s love at first sight. Quite literally. The show never says it explicitly, but considering Micheletto’s background  revealed in the second season (which differs greatly from the historical accounts) and his short love affair with one of Leonardo da Vinci’s models, Pascal (Charlie Carrick), it’s quite obvious that Cesare is the love of Micheletto’s life. And certain scenes after Micheletto’s departure make me think that love isn’t quite as one sided as Micheletto believes.

Although, I’m fixating on Cesare as the catalyst for the relationships and the political intrigue of the show, I have very little to say about his character. Almost as little as I had to say about his father. Maybe that is because after Juan’s death, Cesare becomes somewhat an aloof figure. He starts his long journey down to the pits of hell and step by step he’s determined to reach his destination.

Only we never get to see him get there. The ending of The Prince leaves many questions unanswered, but I have to wonder if it’s not for the best. If not only implying to the imminent doom is a more powerful closure to this story that began from the middle than witnessing a rushed montage of characters succumbing to their deaths in faraway lands and absent from Rome. It might even be a better ending than Pope Alexander IV being denied absolution on his deathbed.


I’m going to miss this show.

TV Series Discussion: House of Cards season one (chapters 1-13)

A short synopsis and the cast list (from Wikipedia) so everybody knows what exactly we are talking about:

House of Cards is an American political drama series developed and produced by Beau Willimon. It is an adaptation of a previous BBC miniseries of the same name which is based on the novel by Michael Dobbs. The entire first season premiered on February 1, 2013, on the streaming service Netflix.

Main cast:

Kevin Spacey as U.S. Representative Francis "Frank" J. Underwood, a graduate of the fictional school "The Sentinel" (which is made to strongly resemble the real life school The Citadel, a military college) and Harvard Law School, a Democrat from South Carolina's 5th congressional district and the House Majority Whip. He often breaks the fourth wall to speak directly to the viewer. His name is derived from The Right Honourable Francis Urquhart MP, the protagonist of the BBC version and the novel version of House of Cards.

Robin Wright as Claire Underwood, Francis' wife. She runs the Clean Water Initiative, a non-profit that often gets mixed up in Frank's political scheming.

Kate Mara as Zoe Barnes, a reporter for The Washington Herald (later Slugline). Desperate for a break, she makes a deal with Frank for insider information.

Corey Stoll as U.S. Representative Peter Russo, a Democrat from Pennsylvania's 1st congressional district. Russo becomes loyal to Underwood after Underwood threatens to expose his alcohol and drug addiction.

Michael Kelly as Doug Stamper, Underwood's Chief of Staff, abettor and confidant.

Ana: Rameau, you introduced me to this series - where and when did you hear about it? What made you watch it?

Rameau: Rachel Maddow show. It was some time last year when I was watching the show for the 2012 election shenanigans and the commentary, when she mentioned Kevin Spacey’s remake of the 1990 British miniseries House of Cards coming out in early 2013. A curious being that I am, I researched the subject, found the books, and the original miniseries. Then I waited until the remake had come out and I waited a bit longer.

Ana: I see, so it wasn’t completely a spur-of-the-moment decision, like: ‘hey, there’s a new series about high -profile Washington politicians, let’s watch it!’ Because I have to admit I would never started the series if not for two things: Kevin Spacey and your recommendation. Now I think I definitely owe Rachel Maddow as well.

Who was your favourite character (and why Frank Underwood ;p) ?

Rameau: No, it wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment decision but the decision to watch the original, four part miniseries was. And you know me so well. I think I loved Frank Underwood because of how Kevin Spacey portrayed him. I loved his relationship with his wife—although I have my gripes too—and I loved the history they created for him. The character and the show reminded me of American Beauty in many ways and I can’t say that didn’t help to endear me to the character.

He is a kind of anti-hero though - a man who manipulates as he breathes and also somebody who perhaps never knew the meaning of the word ‘altruism’.

I’d go further than that. I’d say he’s closer to a villain than an anti-hero. He’s unapologetic and he gets what he wants and he wants power.

Still he can be your best bosom buddy - if it fits his goals at the moment.

Which would be villainous behaviour straight out of a Machiavellian handbook for politicians ;)

I was surprised how close and distant at the same time Frank was to Claire. On the one hand - sheesh, they say each other such things as the names of their extramarital interests, that was impressive. Nobody makes a row, nobody throws a fit of jealousy. On the other hand...when Claire needs Frank the most he just balks at helping her because it is not supporting his main objective. What do you think?

That’s the part I didn’t like of this incarnation of the show. In the BBC version it felt like Francis Urquhart’s wife was the brains behind the operation and he her hands, the puppet whose strings she pulled. Of course the length of that show didn’t allow them to develop her character fully and this could just be wishful thinking on my part, but I really wanted to see Claire being the kind of wife who truly is the master of the operation.

A Lady Macbeth, right?

Right. Instead they chose to develop her character in a different direction that takes her away from Frank and sets their desires and goals in a clashing course. In my version the non-profit would have been nothing more than a hobby for Claire and a convenient way to make connections outside the Congress.

How about you? What would you have changed about the show?

I would change Zoe Barnes. It really pissed me off that the one and only thinking female character (and I am speaking about the main cast here) was made into a journalistic prostitute. I did hope that her relationship with Frank would stay as it began. As it was, it seems a woman can make a career only if she has a man to support her (speaking in the most general terms).

I agree. It did stay the way it began in the BBC series but in that, Mattie Storin’s fate was quite different.

Then that boyfriend of hers was added and it made me even more confused - the series sometimes tended too much towards emotionally challenged YA drama.

It made me think they wanted to keep Kate Mara on the show but didn’t know what to do with her character. Probably because of what happened to Mattie.

What do you think of the little romance of Doug and that second prostitute, the one who doomed Russo? I did hope for something more here and got...nothing.

I hope they take it slow. I want to see it evolve, especially since she’s going to figure out what happened to Russo, but at the same time I’m afraid where they’ll take it next.

Do you think Frank will really become that vice-president or will his prize slip through his fingers again?

I hope he does. In the BBC series Urguhart did become the Prime Minister and I can’t really see what good it would do for Spacey and friends to repeat season one with having Frank start from scratch again. No. Underwood needs to rise and he needs to rise to the top before he falls.

If he falls.

I quite agree - failing again would bring a sense of anticlimax and it might be boring. Oh...we haven’t even touched the dialogue Frank leads with the viewer - a very personal dialogue. How did you feel about it?

I’m not a fan, but I understand why it’s done. He’s a villain and he needs to explain himself to the viewer because he never ever gets to explain all his motivations to anyone else. Which, wouldn’t be a problem had the writers handled his relationship with Claire differently.

If it showed anything clearly, it was the fact that Frank didn’t trust completely even his beloved prize wife. If you play Machiavelli, you are playing a game of solitaire.

True enough. I would have still preferred a power duo. Do you know what I find disappointing? The inescapable downfall after Claire finds out what really happened to Peter Russo.

You mean you are sure she will leave Frank if/when she finds out the truth? I don’t know. Perhaps. Still she seems to be such a cold-blooded, selfish woman. He might hold her on a very short leash.

No. Not leave him, but become utterly disillusioned, again, and start actively working against him. The more I think of this the more I think it goes against her characterisation. They’re going to try to turn her into a goody two-shoes.

Claire is definitely too weak to confront Frank and win. Another series without a single strong woman.

So are you in for the second season?

Right now I would say yes, I am. But give me a year and ask again. How about you?

It is a cautious yes as well. I like Kevin Spacey enough to give him a chance to say something more about those ugly politicians I love to hate. Perhaps it will pay off.