![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
[LJ ate my original post, dang it, so posting here.]
Just finished watching the premiere of the new CW series Reign, which was much better than expected and far more compelling than some other series that received far better ratings.
There was a lot of hoopla over the historical inaccuracies. But seriously people, what television series is accurate historically or otherwise? I can't think of one. Back in the day, fans used to crack wise at Joss Whedon's historical blunders in Buffy and Angel. Don't get me started on The Tudors, The Borgias, The White Queen, Merlin, and oh so many others. To date the only two I can think of that were somewhat accurate were Mad Men and The Hour. And even those tinker in places.
Robert Bianco's comment in USA Today is sort of unintentionally funny:
It may be too much to hope that CW would help educate our children, but we could at least ask the network to avoid making them stupid.
Oh dear, you are discussing the CW right? The network that is famous for Gossip Girl, Supernatural, Smallville, and Vampire Diaries? It's not exactly PBS or HBO or Showtime for that matter. I mean, I can understand expecting historical accuracy from The Tudors (there wasn't any), or The Borgias (not much there either) or even ahem Dowton Abbey (nope, okay maybe a little), but from a tv series that is set up as a historical gothic romantic thriller ? Pleeease. And no kid is going to take anything in this series as historical fact. I forgot halfway in that it was about the Mary Queen of Scots - and sort of watched it as a fantasy series similar to Sleepy Hollow. For the same reasons historical inaccuracies did not bother me in Angel, Buffy, Merlin or Sleepy Hollow - they don't here. These historical liberties did however bother me in "The Tudors" - to such a degree that I had to give up on it entirely, because the Tudors is set up as "historically accurate", it's not fantastical in any way. Is it just me, or is it becoming increasingly difficult to take professional television and film reviewers seriously? I think it is a side-effect of everyone, including myself, being able to review films and television online ourselves.
In case you haven't figured out from the above? Reign is gothic teen drama loosely, and I do mean loosely, based on the period of European History wherein Mary Queen of Scots traveled to wed the future King of France. There are a few things that are accurate in the story, Catherine Medeci was real, the prince of France and Mary were around the same age, they were betrothed, everyone in the French court was a bit, shall we say on the "frisky side?" (the English, who are admittedly somewhat prudish, also thought the French were a wee bit friskier than necessary), and she came with four friends to his court. Weirdly all the accents are either American or English, not a Scottish Twang or a French accent in sight. (Which I suppose is a good thing, because there is nothing worse than a fake Scottish accent (see Agents of Shield) or a fake French accent. I think that's about it. Not that it matters. History really isn't important here. It's just used as the backdrop or setting. Sort of like The Good Wife is supposed to be set in Chicago, but wait isn't that the Freedom Tower and The Manhattan skyline behind Will as he's jogging down the beach? Or for that matter Once Upon a Time is meant to be set in Maine, but wait that's Vancouver. In TV - it's all smoke and mirrors, you learn to suspend disbelief. If you want to learn history and want it to be accurate? Go read a really good book, preferably of the non-fictional variety, with lots of footnotes and primary sources and recommended by leading scholars in the field.
Without going into spoilers, well just yet, the story is about a young girl who journeys to France to wed a prince, much chaos ensues and obstacles. There are gothic touches - such as people want to kill the girl, some people have visions, and there may be a few ghosts lurking about the castle. The prince's half-brother, a bit of a cheeky rogue, catches Mary's eye, while the Prince clearly takes after his father and has slept with half the castle. The historical period permits the writers to tackle gender inequalities in a way that is far harder to do in a more modern setting. For instance, Francis can sleep around, but Mary must be a virgin upon her wedding day. They are clearly playing loose with history here, but hey who isn't these days?
The cast is more compelling than expected - particularly the actress who plays Mary, who is not too pretty (like most CW heroines) nor too stupid. She comes across as vulnerable and rather intelligent, also headstrong and protective of those she loves. Plus, lonely and an outsider. It's also beautifully filmed, sumptuous in both costume, set design, and cinematography - almost cinematic. Was rather impressed with the production.
Without Spoilers? Think a shiner, not to mention bloodier, yet better cast Gossip Girl, set in the 16th Century, with gothic touches and a taste of mysterious intrigue.
( plot summary - spoilery review )
Just finished watching the premiere of the new CW series Reign, which was much better than expected and far more compelling than some other series that received far better ratings.
There was a lot of hoopla over the historical inaccuracies. But seriously people, what television series is accurate historically or otherwise? I can't think of one. Back in the day, fans used to crack wise at Joss Whedon's historical blunders in Buffy and Angel. Don't get me started on The Tudors, The Borgias, The White Queen, Merlin, and oh so many others. To date the only two I can think of that were somewhat accurate were Mad Men and The Hour. And even those tinker in places.
Robert Bianco's comment in USA Today is sort of unintentionally funny:
It may be too much to hope that CW would help educate our children, but we could at least ask the network to avoid making them stupid.
Oh dear, you are discussing the CW right? The network that is famous for Gossip Girl, Supernatural, Smallville, and Vampire Diaries? It's not exactly PBS or HBO or Showtime for that matter. I mean, I can understand expecting historical accuracy from The Tudors (there wasn't any), or The Borgias (not much there either) or even ahem Dowton Abbey (nope, okay maybe a little), but from a tv series that is set up as a historical gothic romantic thriller ? Pleeease. And no kid is going to take anything in this series as historical fact. I forgot halfway in that it was about the Mary Queen of Scots - and sort of watched it as a fantasy series similar to Sleepy Hollow. For the same reasons historical inaccuracies did not bother me in Angel, Buffy, Merlin or Sleepy Hollow - they don't here. These historical liberties did however bother me in "The Tudors" - to such a degree that I had to give up on it entirely, because the Tudors is set up as "historically accurate", it's not fantastical in any way. Is it just me, or is it becoming increasingly difficult to take professional television and film reviewers seriously? I think it is a side-effect of everyone, including myself, being able to review films and television online ourselves.
In case you haven't figured out from the above? Reign is gothic teen drama loosely, and I do mean loosely, based on the period of European History wherein Mary Queen of Scots traveled to wed the future King of France. There are a few things that are accurate in the story, Catherine Medeci was real, the prince of France and Mary were around the same age, they were betrothed, everyone in the French court was a bit, shall we say on the "frisky side?" (the English, who are admittedly somewhat prudish, also thought the French were a wee bit friskier than necessary), and she came with four friends to his court. Weirdly all the accents are either American or English, not a Scottish Twang or a French accent in sight. (Which I suppose is a good thing, because there is nothing worse than a fake Scottish accent (see Agents of Shield) or a fake French accent. I think that's about it. Not that it matters. History really isn't important here. It's just used as the backdrop or setting. Sort of like The Good Wife is supposed to be set in Chicago, but wait isn't that the Freedom Tower and The Manhattan skyline behind Will as he's jogging down the beach? Or for that matter Once Upon a Time is meant to be set in Maine, but wait that's Vancouver. In TV - it's all smoke and mirrors, you learn to suspend disbelief. If you want to learn history and want it to be accurate? Go read a really good book, preferably of the non-fictional variety, with lots of footnotes and primary sources and recommended by leading scholars in the field.
Without going into spoilers, well just yet, the story is about a young girl who journeys to France to wed a prince, much chaos ensues and obstacles. There are gothic touches - such as people want to kill the girl, some people have visions, and there may be a few ghosts lurking about the castle. The prince's half-brother, a bit of a cheeky rogue, catches Mary's eye, while the Prince clearly takes after his father and has slept with half the castle. The historical period permits the writers to tackle gender inequalities in a way that is far harder to do in a more modern setting. For instance, Francis can sleep around, but Mary must be a virgin upon her wedding day. They are clearly playing loose with history here, but hey who isn't these days?
The cast is more compelling than expected - particularly the actress who plays Mary, who is not too pretty (like most CW heroines) nor too stupid. She comes across as vulnerable and rather intelligent, also headstrong and protective of those she loves. Plus, lonely and an outsider. It's also beautifully filmed, sumptuous in both costume, set design, and cinematography - almost cinematic. Was rather impressed with the production.
Without Spoilers? Think a shiner, not to mention bloodier, yet better cast Gossip Girl, set in the 16th Century, with gothic touches and a taste of mysterious intrigue.
( plot summary - spoilery review )