this is going to be a bit long, but i read your criticism tags under my gifsets, and i realized how much our views align. i also find it odd how neil jordan didn’t lean into exploring cesare’s self serving machiavellian nature, especially how he manipulated his father and gaslit his brother after double-crossing him during the battle of forlì to push his own agenda. the whole thing was both a betrayal of the family (despite his proclamations of devotion) and an act of deceit, yet it was largely overlooked. even his murder of juan was fundamentally part of his descent into darkness (as jordan and françois discussed in the dvd features).
anyway, while this doesn't take away his misdeeds which anyone with critical thinking would notice, the narrative of the show also doesn't help by glossing over cesare’s darker actions, sometimes at the expense of other characters but especially juan. juan wasn’t truly a villain within the family. at his core, he genuinely believed he was acting in their best interests. while it’s true that some of his methods were cruel and extreme stemming from his desire to prove himself and validate his role through misguided beliefs—they were sometimes influenced by his own twisted emotions (like the killing of paolo being not just about protecting lucrezia’s honor but also about psychosexual jealousy and wounded pride).
that being said, juan shaped up and strived for self betterment upon his return from spain, even trying to make amends with lucrezia (though to no avail). yet the narrative unfairly painted him in his final episode as a loose cannon who needed to be put down (something the actor himself highlighted when expressing confusion about the sudden massacre of his character with no build up). his heartfelt speech about being in pain all his life and wanting harmony was like a saving grace. it just raises the point that jordan didn’t have faith in the audience when it came to cesare. he let cesare walk unscathed through the narrative by portraying him in an overly sanitized manner compared to others. which i find mindboggling because the audience was already devoted to cesare’s character and françois’s portrayal and they would have absolutely remained invested even without whitewashing cesare’s actions. to me, cesare feels inauthentic as an individual when his characterization relies on nerfing other pivotal characters to make him stand out (oakes saying cesare always having the writing on his side). this is also why i prefer cesare as a more dynamic character, especially in the context of his relationship with lucrezia, who is the most compelling part of cesare’s character.
my criticism of the show comes from a deep love for it. i’m so attached to the characters and how passionate the actors were about their roles and the story. but for a show about the pope and his children wrapped in murder, poison, incest and sexual scandal, jordan sure did hesitate to fully commit to its sacrilegiousness, especially since most of us clearly weren’t watching for conventional morality. ironically, while jordan tried to make cesare sympathetic, he unintentionally made him the opposite with his coldness, self-absorption, and his almost complete lack of compassion (except in his moments with lucrezia, where his warmth stands out). his desires, being solely tied to power and ambition, didn’t help either and limited his emotional depth. meanwhile, despite the show’s attempts to make juan despicable and dump cesare’s historical misdeeds onto him, juan ended up being the more relatable brother because of the complexities given to his character. his genuine desire for a sense of belonging, his great fear of not being loved by his family rather than of dying and his greater self awareness made him a more raw and human character. credits to david oakes for his own approach to the character (who was initially intended to be a one dimensional plot device for the lead brother), and also fair credit to neil for allowing david the freedom to improvise.
it just raises the point that jordan didn’t have faith in the audience when it came to cesare. he let cesare walk unscathed through the narrative by portraying him in an overly sanitized manner compared to others. which i find mindboggling because the audience was already devoted to cesare’s character and françois’s portrayal and they would have absolutely remained invested even without whitewashing cesare’s actions.
my criticism of the show comes from a deep love for it. i’m so attached to the characters and how passionate the actors were about their roles and the story. but for a show about the pope and his children wrapped in murder, poison, incest and sexual scandal, jordan sure did hesitate to fully commit to its sacrilegiousness, especially since most of us clearly weren’t watching for conventional morality.
despite the show’s attempts to make juan despicable and dump cesare’s historical misdeeds onto him, juan ended up being the more relatable brother because of the complexities given to his character
you said it all perfectly. at the time, i was also hugely critical of the show on my personal blog which got me some hate mail and blocks lol. but, like yours, my criticism has always stemmed from love for the show itself. my passion for the borgias, historical and fictional, defined a whole chunk of my life. i wanted it to be better.
part of it came from the fact that i expected the borgias to be like the tudors, which almost never had a cookie-cutter approach with its many characters despite the fact that virtually all of them were at odds with each other. they all got to be sympathetic to an extent and also incredible pieces of shit at the same time, and seeing them fall got to be both satisfying for some reasons and tragic for others. i believe that's the best way to make good storytelling, and it's no wonder the better seasons of game of thrones were handled like that.
the sake of storytelling aside, what i truly hate is when someone's writing takes sides to the point of becoming manipulative or at the very least too transparent, especially in a historical drama that's based on true events. i don't want to be spoon fed or played with. and the issue with the borgias is, not only was cesare justified or exempted from actions that are historically pinned on him, but some of his more egregious actions or less pretty moments, such as sleeping with his little brother's wife, killing lucrezia's lover, threatening caterina sforza's son, syphilis, were transferred to juan, who as a result was unnecessarily villainised for no reason other than the presumed necessity to make cesare not only more sympathetic, but also..... healthier? what the hell was that? what purpose did that serve?
add to all this that his character completely changes between seasons with no reasonable explanation, and the writing gets even lazier. to be honest, i don't believe neil jordan actually had a long term plan for this show at all. he certainly couldn't make the transition from season 1 to season 2 seamless at all.
i also hated that juan didn't get a proper background. the little insight we have is certainly sold by david oakes's talent, but we never learn anything about juan's wife, his life in spain, how he even got sick. rodrigo, who let's face it isn't the sharpest pencil on the show nor a particularly consistent character, is the only person to mourn him on screen. which is funny if you consider giovanni was most likely named after him.
of course, juan does get some compassion. neil jordan wasn't completely heartless about him. but because his death had to feel like a liberaton, that compassion is never allowed to outweigh the sense of relief of knowing baby giovanni is safe, lucrezia is happy and cesare is now just vaguely morally gray anti(?)-hero who saved the whole family from tragedy and disaster.
there was no sensible reason for the writing to be this unbalanced, bending historical record to narrative biases and sacrificing literally everyone on the altar of cesare and lucrezia's relationship. anyone with an ounce of critical thinking had to see it. in fact, david oakes himself shared post of mine where i was ironically complaining about his characterisation, saying it made him giggle.
i think maybe if the show were to come out today it wouldn't be written like that. it was one of the last early 2000s-style instances of biopic writing which probably would have served as an excellent oscar bait in like 2001.
