Change Your Image
phaeded216-182-339954
Reviews
Black Sails: XXXVIII. (2017)
Rewriting history with today's agenda
There is no parallel universe where Flint lives out his days picking cotton or cutting cane (how could he not end up despising Thomas for not at least becoming a maroon in his own fashion?), while his cronies live happily ever after running Nassau (historically the pirates are wiped out).
And if Silver in fact shot Flint and the whole plantation story was just that, a made-up story (and the finale underscores the problem of "stories")...who among the pirates and their maroon allies would give that story even a kernel of truth, least of all Madi? Its just completely cuts across the grain of character of Flint - any kind of servitude is anathema to Flint.
The introduction of Thomas and his incarceration for the "unspeakable", was all rather brilliant when introduced to explain why Flint went rogue from the Royal Navy. But in the hindsight of the finale, it makes this series seemed tainted in terms of rewriting history from our contemporary perspective of LGBT and black right movements - worthy struggles to be sure, but not at the expense of history. For what was the main narrative of Black Sails if not a wronged gay man, Captain Flint, allied to escaped Caribbean black slaves (maroons), waging "Flint's War" (of liberation)? In terms of gender/orientation as political motivation it is limited to Flint, but how could that galvanize a larger 18th century movement? And yes, the various historical Caribbean maroon groups are interesting politically (especially later, on Saint-Domingue in 1791) but this gay/black cause alliance just smacks of the 21st century hopes for a fully liberated future...retro-dated to imaginary 18th century beginnings. At best Flint was using the maroons - selling them the unbelievable story of a pan-Caribbean uprising - for revenge against England; and the maroons followed Flint...why? Especially if Madi knows his story, she must have regarded Flint as, at best, emotionally unbalanced. Historically, white sympathy for the maroons would have come from the slavery-hating Quakers in Philadelphia, yet that was a missed (historical) opportunity.
For those of you who just want a good story, fine (and the finale is not that, except for those who cherish Hollywood's "lived happily ever after"), but some of us are disturbed by the constant rewriting of history by the film industry.
Liked the series, but the finale was literally unbelievable.
Medici (2016)
Too many missing historical persons
I get it, that most people with a passing interest are probably already confused by the time period, but I'm sick of seeing bad history. And if your core viewership is people who care about history, then the show fails.
Its not the contractions of some historical persons' roles into others (e.g., Pazzi assumes the role of Strozzi in 1434 in not supporting Albizzi, presumably because the Pazzi play a bigger role in later Florentine politics in the 1478 Pazzi Conspiracy; in a later season?), but it's the omissions that bother me.
What really marked Florence was her humanism. Perhaps not that dramatic, but the humanist's war of words lead to actual sword play. Florence's very chancellor, Leonardo Bruni, perhaps the most famous man in Italy (certainly the most read humanist of his time), is completely absent, with Guadagni apparently performing his functions. Moreover, the humanist Filelfo was the one in the not-finished duomo who railed against Cosimo on behalf of the Albizzi faction (the show has Rinaldo do this himself), before being exiled himself and ultimately fleeing to Visconti Milan. Filefo, now Visconti's primary humanist (in a role that was regime PR mixed with foreign relations), rallies the exiled Albizzi faction to attack Florence in 1440, backed by a Visconti army. Strozzi, Bruni and Filelfo were just as important as Rinaldo Albizzi (Cosimo and his brother had Filelfo attacked by an assassin!), but all are AWOL. Instead, way too much time was wasted on the made-up dreams of Cosimo the artist. He was simply a patron (who did not solely underwrite the dome - that was a civic project from the get-go). Opportunity missed here to do history right....