Borgia (The Agony) & The Borgias (Worse Agony)

The miracle of television. The other day I’m channel surfing and come across the aforesaid The Agony and the Ecstasy (1965) on TCM. My nephew, Julius II, a thug with a bit of polish, strong arms Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of my – I mean, the Sistine Chapel.

I liked Julius (Rex Harrison) being portrayed as a warrior. He played a marvelous political game against the French and the Spanish kingdoms to preserve the integrity of the Italian states, especially the Papal States. Oh yes, Michelangelo (Charlton Heston) painted the ceiling but the conflict between him and Julius is the gist of the movie. I commend my nephew, on another matter, the role he played while a Cardinal to hinder the perfidious ambitions of the Borgias, especially Roderigo (Pope Alexander VI) and his son, Cesare.

Whence we arrive at another television miracle.

There are two series about the Borgias, both starting in 2011.

“We watched both,” says Honey.

Showtime’s version made a bigger splash by making Jeremy Irons Pope Alexander VI. Netflix took over the other series with the character actor John Doman in the lead. He plays a thug – in the Gotham and Rizzoli & Isles television series, e.g. – and seems a good fit here.

“I watch Rizzoli & Isles, and once had a crush on Sexy Rexy.”

Both mini-series did well matching the historical figures to their respective portraits. Mark Ryder as Cesare, in Borgia, has a close resemblance. Isolda Dyschauk in Borgia and Holliday Grainger in The Borgias are near perfect matches. Only one quibble. They are European productions. Why not have Spanish actors playing the Spanish Borgias?

“Wouldn’t have watched it if it was subtitled,” says McNulty.

Now for what all of you are waiting for. I prefer Borgia over The Borgias, for a simple reason. After a season or two of The Borgias, my Showtime subscription lapsed. No fault of my own. Guess I’ll have to join the legions who despise Comcast. Once I started Borgia on Netflix disks, I couldn’t watch much of the other version when I returned to Showtime. A strange thing, getting used to and preferring a set of actors over another equally competent set. Quite inexplicable.

“We preferred the Jeremy Irons’ one,” says Honey.

“I much preferred the John Doman one,” says McNulty.

I saw enough of The Borgias to know that it reveled in sex and violence, if not soap opera, as much as Borgia. Even I had to turn away when men were tortured and murdered. If one hundredth of what I saw happening in the Vatican during these shows actually did happen, I’m amazed the Catholic Church survived. Which got me to thinking how accurate were the depictions of Alexander VI, Cesare, and Lucrezia.

“I assumed nothing was accurate,” says McNulty.

It’s television. One should expect exaggeration. And there’s no way that any of the intimate conversations actually took place as shown. Nor can I believe that many of the motives, from the Borgias, the della Roveres (my crew), or the Forneses, were depicted with much truth. Cardinal della Rovere (my nephew) was the main rival to the Borgias, and I could believe he was the complete liar and prick that I saw in many episodes. Borgia showed, for example, when Giuliano became Pope he had made many promises to Cesare Borgia and didn’t keep one of them. Indeed, he got the damn Catalan (Spaniard to you folk) exiled to Spain where, eventually, Cesare met a most ignoble end. Curiously, so expectant of historical distortions in Borgia, I became discombobulated over the accuracy of many of its depictions. 

“I assumed it was all true,” says Honey.

Foremost, the portrayal of Lucrezia as a pawn for the expansion of Borgia power is nearly tragic. The first husband commits suicide and the second is murdered (perhaps with a nudge from a jealous Cesare) – somehow she got the reputation of being the murderer of her husbands. Little do we know how she prospered after marrying Alphonse d’Este, future ruler of Ferrara, despite having two infants die at birth, still produced a son and start several centuries of Borgia-based rule there.

The real problem with the recording of actual events in the drama was the chronology, which was askew enough to have this Pope scratch his head. For instance, we see both Leonardo da Vinci and Machiavelli spend time with Cesare, that seems stretched well beyond the reality of the situation. One nearly gets the impression that Cesare and Machiavelli are bff’s. Cesare details every last Machiavellian move, political and military, to the future author of The Prince; you nearly believe the book was written in 1503 and not 1516. Then after Alexander dies, Julius puts Cesare on trial (?) and makes Machiavelli the prosecutor (!?!?!). And I nearly flipped in my grave when my nephew ripped off the clothes off Alexander’s mistress (Cesare’s mom), Vannozza Catanei, and sent her into the streets naked.

Another element seemed inevitable but also unbelievable; namely, Borgia showed every perversity of the Pope and his brood. There was brother-sister incest. The Pope himself had the grossest sexual desire (unrequited) for Lucrezia. Cesare is made responsible for horrible slaughters. 

“I like the perverted stuff,” says Frank Weathers.

I’d love to believe it from my partisan perspective. However, one has to suspect any tales told about the Borgias, especially emanating from Giuliano, made them appear worse than they were. The reality was bad in itself, so why pile on?

“I’d give them four or five stars,” says McNulty.

I don’t give stars or thumbs up and down. People are going to watch Jeremy Irons over John Doman any day of the week. In some respects, I would dread the making of a series on the Roveres. How the modern mind looks down on the supposedly bad popes. That’s why I’m here. To correct the distortions before the distorting begins. And worry over the Hollywood suits casting a nobody as Pope Sixtus IV!