Finally got around to watching this on Netflix. The elder queen is wonderful; so is King Henri. If it weren’t for her–and him—the whole thing would collapse. The younger gen shouldn’t have been given sharp dinner utensils.
As for historical accuracy—the ONE excuse for Nostradamus, the prophecy that made his fortune—is edited out. The Duc de Guise ain’t bad. But the fashion show is a hoot. The women are in fantasy drag and the men’s pants have belt-loops. This would seem a small thing, until you recall Sir Francis Drake (of the same era) and the striped poofy bloomers that were male fashion of the day. I’m sure we have not only belt-loops, but zippers. It’s as if they blew the budget on the brocades and embroidery for the women and got the men’s costumes off the rack at Walmart.
If you just give up totally on any sort of accuracy—Bash? Are you kidding? Maybe he spells it Baische…and a pagan kid named Pascal (Easter?) Twice, are you kidding? —–it’s a nice fantasy number. If they’d just called it a fantasy they’d have been less silly. Then we could have just declared we have belt-loops.
It’s a CW show. So on the one hand it’s nice they feature a show of a different genre than the usual supernatural/teen vampire angle. On the other hand…well, everything you mentioned. In the battle between being accurate and looking cool on a tv budget they will probably go with the second. 🙂 I didn’t get very far into Reign, but I do enjoy CW’s show “The 100”. It has my favorite theme of different human communities reunited after being on a space station or isolation on Earth for a century to find themselves alien to each other and needing to reconnect to survive. Not sure if that one is on Netflix yet, but it is into its second season now.
I thought from the commercials that they were going to do an actual historical on the Wars of the Roses. Which would have been interesting. Anything involving Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, or Mary Queen of Scots is, well, a case of ‘we know the plot.’
Not on this one, however! You cannot imagine what they will contrive to do—except it will be a romance cliche of some sort. We are endlessly amazed. The real Francis was about 12, as I recall. The Nostradamus prophecy was about Henri II, not Francis. We’re having a bit of fun looking up the real stuff behind the story. I think they’re possibly trying to do a Charles the Mad version of Henri II (Charles is earlier, and probably the reason I exist—since apparently one of my great-great-whatevers politely asked his permission to go on vacation to Normandy and then ran for it. Charles had taken to attacking his supporters. Besides being absolutely convinced he was made of glass.) I’m having fun trying to figure which tidbit of history they’ve tossed into the bag and shaken. And we get some laughs from the costuming. But I really am enjoying Queen Catherine de Medici. She’s worth the price of admission.
I haven’t tried to watch Reign. I saw a description and somehow went, “Mehhh,” despite that it probably ought to appeal to me.
(BTW, I like The 100. The first season is shaky in some ways, yet improves as they go, IMHO, and then they add in a kicker of a plot twist or two, very unusual for TV, or for the usual portrayal of such a character. I haven’t caught up on the second season, but I’m expecting to enjoy it. I have not read the book on which the show is based. It’s from a first-time writer and had mixed reviews about the ending of the book. But the show is good, IMHO, worth a try for a few episodes to see. — I note, though, that I had “what the…?” questions about the early story-universe world-building, the backstory. A certain author would have done it quite differently. So, YMMV, but I like it for its attempts to do something different. It’s pretty good, I think.)
Reign — and historical accuracy in fashion, in culture, in character’s ages and actions:
Simple: Too many people today have the notion that it’s somehow unmanly for a boy or man to dress or act in ways that were common and accepted, the norm, back in historical times. Courtly manners? Frilly, poofy clothes? Oh my, we can’t have any red-blooded (American, Englishman, European) doing that! That ain’t natural! It’s not manly! (And it’s immoral! You can’t show men running around like that, doing that! You’ll give people ideas! It’ll harm the kids, family values, and baseball and apple pie!) … Ahem … And never mind the truth of the matter, or that they might be quite happily straight or quite happily not so straight. Today’s prevailing attitudes are that guys aren’t supposed to dress like that or act like that. — And the people who pay for TV shows and movies, or who market and advertise for them are persuaded by that. Or the viewing audience or venues complain. Or busybody organizations complain so they can “protect our families, our kids!” (Etc.)
It’s the same thing going on with why they would bump up the ages of any kids and teens in a show (TV or movies). Because of course, we can’t have anyone seeing or believing in things that make certain people nervous, the nanny-verse or the self-appointed “protect our kids and family values” people. So Romeo and Juliet couldn’t possibly be having a romantic (or sexual) relationship as young teens or pre-teens. And goodness, two boys or two girls couldn’t, let’s not dare think the unthinkable. Someone might get ideas!
I’m afraid that’s the kind of thinking going on that results in such historical inaccuracies, editing history to suit the current audience’s preconceived notions of how people can be. The logic is, they can’t film it and show it, because (1) the people with the money won’t pay for it; (2) the people who rate and censor will ban it; (3) the people who self-proclaim as guardians of the public morality will complain about it (loudly and widely) as being too (you name it, they’ll claim it, but especially if it seems sexual or gay) ; (4) the people who show it (theaters, etc.) won’t show it and stores won’t stock the discs; and (5) the people who watch will not watch and worse, will not pay for it, they’ll complain.
Never mind if a lot of people might not be bothered if they see that people back in history behaved strangely. Never mind if it might widen someone’s perspective of humanity, or promote tolerance or acceptance of differences, or of intelligence or responsibility, or of folks who are gay, including self-acceptance by anyone who is, or who is first discovering he/she is.
I think it’s honestly, unfortunately, that too many people ~think~ it’s not presentable, unthinkable, or downright immoral, to present anything other than the prevailing current view of how things ought to be, and therefore how everyone must have been, throughout history.
Note that the idea that young people might have been intelligent and responsible, even leaders, back then, gets completely drowned out in all the hubbub. That several were, or that they could be great heroes or terrible villains, or that they might love or hate passionately (or carnally) … well, we couldn’t dare think that, because they must be immature and innocent, right? (And straight, because not-so-straight is quite taboo even now, for the loud crowd who want to protect all the rest of us from seeing or thinking what might be unusual.)
Note carefully, please, that just because I think that’s what’s going on, does not mean I think it’s right.
As a kid or teen or even in college, I would’ve been very surprised if I’d seen much of anything to suggest that, say, Johnny and Jimmy might want to ride off into the sunset together, rather than Johnny and Mary. Or that the handsome prince and his loyal squire (or other nice lad) might want to live happily ever after, and so on.
It was very rarely put forth, and only occasionally by college level, that people might really not have been quite so much like we are now. (In high school, we had to skip over certain things in Chaucer and in the movie Excalibur, because, well, our young senses might be somehow offended, corrupted, or tempted….) Sigh.
Despite some improvements in recent years, I’m afraid that much of the public still has attitudes like that.
So… Never you mind that many actual historical people, famous or infamous or quite unnoticed, said and did remarkable things, and had strange ideas and stranger clothes and makeup and hairstyles. Never mind if some young man or young woman could lead his or her people quite ably, despite being only a teenager. Or that a few much-admired men and women in history might’ve preferred someone of their own gender. Or… oh, a thousand things that ought not to be so shocking, but somehow are to a great many people.
(I see I’ve gone on a rant more than some more constructive defense of some better way of doing things, or instead of a clever satirical jab at why such thought-censorship ignores the truth of the past and the present, and therefore risks harm to people today and in the future.)
I get exasperated at this, because I grew up mostly unaware and had to outgrow it, and didn’t realize how much, until much later.)
I would give a lot of credit to science fiction and to history and language for having people brave enough, audacious enough, to inssit that indeed, the world has had and will have people who are not quite so limited, and who can be strange but still good, interesting, friendly or lovable, and well worth thinking about.
(OT: “The 100” book was being written at the same time the show was being filmed. The show was made off the bones of the plot prior to it being finished. More like the writer pitched the idea to the network. So when the book came out it didn’t look very much like the show outside of the basics. I’d say the show is better. Now that the show is actually further along than the book series I’d almost say the books series might become a novelization of the show. Very unorthodox if you ask me. The show is great tho so I can’t complain. I’m wondering if a similar situation could happen to GRRM. He needs get typing or else the HBO adaptation will overtake him. Cart before the horse.)
I may test the waters on that one. I need to sit and knit — finish a baby blanket and a shrug (So my arms don’t get cold while reading in bed!) both of which can be worked on with minimum attention. I wish, just for once, they’d do a medieval drama and be historically accurate, warts and all, — you’d think the BBC might — they certainly wouldn’t have to build the sets (I fear modern viewers would be appalled at the filth people lived in, in those days). But then, I guess if you can suspend your believe (in a hangman’s noose!) and stomach Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Henry VIII (who was over 6 feet tall and a strawberry blond, for crying out loud!), you can stomach anything . . . Even Robert Wagoner as Prince Valiant . . .
This is so over the top inaccurate there are really amusing moments.
I think I tripped the spam filter. Sorry about that!
The editor or writer in me woke up and now says I should be able to write a better reply, something that manages a clever satirical jab, or else more friendly and humorous, not so frustrated a reply.
If what I wrote seems too off the mark, too non-constructive, then please ignore it with my apologies. If it seems on the mark enough, then, well, I was aiming for relevancy, cogency…and not to be too grouchy.
Ugh. Try “suspend your disbelief” *ducks head in shame for double flubble*
I could use some really amusing moments, though. OBMs (Oh, brother! moments) will fly too. Although Robert Wagner in a pageboy was cuter than Janet Leigh, and had better looking legs, too. . .
BTW, speaking of Wars of the Roses, Philippa Gregory?
I’ve never seen see the show, but one glance at a Google image search shows me that the costumes are Wrong (with a capital W).
Here’s a good blog post about the costumes on Reign and a couple of other points. With illustrations of actual dress styles.
http://victoriabarbour.com/blog/2014/11/11/reign-gossip-girls-in-funky-costumes-by-victoria-danann
Here’s what 16th century music actually sounded like. A good instrumental version, in 16th century style with accurate musical instruments, of Henry VIII’s composition Pastime with Good Company. Henry wasn’t a bad composer, and played several musical instruments himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q4sclrHTtg
…and a vocal version. The words are also by Henry VIII.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUryQtEQyjU
Reasonably good, except that ‘die’ should obviously be pronounced ‘dee’ to rhyme correctly.
Pastime with good company
I love and shall until I die
Grudge who lust but none deny
So God be pleased thus live will I
For my pastance
Hunt sing and dance
My heart is set
All goodly sport
For my comfort
Who shall me let?
All the force is in the last line – in modern English, ‘Who’s going to stop me?’
In Henry’s defence, he had a very unhappy childhood. He certainly wasn’t spoiled.
His father, Henry VII, was a cold, dour, suspicious man, who kept him under very close control. He was not allowed outside the palace unless accompanied by tutors appointed by his father, and he slept in a room leading off from his father’s bedchamber, so that the king could keep track of his movements.
His father had no apparent affection for him, and instead had a constant fear of his son gaining any power. He created a situation where most courtiers felt cautious and uncomfortable even to be seen speaking to him. Henry VII often quarreled violently with his son, striking him and pushing him around. The young Henry VIII seemed to be so much under his father’s thumb that he was afraid to speak in his father’s presence unless spoken to.
It must have come as a huge relief to him when his father died and he became king at the age of 18.
Holbein and contemporary descriptions show us Henry VIII did not look anything remotely like Jonathan Rhys Meyers, ever. We are so wrapped up in Henry’s history, that we do not get the herstory of Catherine of Aragon who had a great deal on the ball, especially early on helping Henry VIII to know how to discharge the duties of a king, seeing as how his father allowed him zero experience. Henry VII was not popular with the people, and he distrusted the nobility — hard lessons learned during the Wars of the Roses. He didn’t want any of the nobility to gain any influence over his “spare” son who might become a rallying point in a power grab. He also had Margaret Beaufort for a mother, which would have left its mark. We forget that Henry VII won the crown by force of arms, and that Henry VIII was only the second king of that dynasty, whence his strong dynastic imperative. Henry’s lack of an heir might well have plunged the country back into a destructive civil war. Then, of course, After Elizabeth, the country ended up with James Stuart, who was a right piece of work.
I habe no idea what you guys are talking about (all OTA), and it seems just as glad. 😉
Mostly, I watch OPB, except for the nightly news, and they’ve been on pledge break for the past week and this week. Never have figured out why they broadcast shows so “out of character” during pledge. So, as I’m working on the next version of my Linux system, I’ve found, will find, little of interest on TV, put on the local classical music radio station (allclassical.org), and get concentrated time to work on building Linux from scratch. (Got the basic GNU/Linux bit done now, starting on all the “optional” usability bits and bobs.) I prefer this slow method because (1) the “puzzle” I hope keeps my brain sharp, and (2) I know what goes into it so there are no surprizes of a security opening nature.