Hernán

I was impressed by the historical accuracy of 'Hernán' in spite of what I thought were too many flash-backs and flash-forwards. The series presents what I think is a balanced approach to the Conquest (or Invasion) of México. The Spaniards are neither heroes nor villains, but men in search of wealth, and the Mexica (not 'Aztecs', thank God) are neither savages nor victims, but men defending their homes against superior fire power. I particularly liked the appropriate use of the Nahuatl and Mayas languages in addition to Spanish, even though all three must have changed significantly in the last 500 years (about the same period of time that English has evolved from Shakespeare) NOTE: the word 'Aztec' was not used by anyone at the time of the Conquest, but came into use almost 300 years later, ina history of México published in Italy by a Franciscan who had be expelled from México.

The series try to tell us one of the most dramatic and interesting stories that happened ever in the course of the human history of this planet. The story of the conquest of the New World; of Cortez and Moktesuma! It's useless to say I like the idea behind the movie, not so much the performance, alas. Even older, Apocalypto is stil better, such kind of movie cries for the best possible financing in order for the final result to be satisfying. The task is not easy - recreating a world so totally different from ours, with 99 % of its architecture destroyed, with massive battles involving thousands of participants. And I would like to see them in movie with this plot, not Gandhi! Anyway, the movie is far from bad, worth seeing. And we can thank its creators for the effort!

Apparently according to some who have commented on this series, every single indigenous American back in the 1500s practiced blood rituals and therefore that immediately renders every single one of the millions of indigenous Americans that lived back then as savages.

Following that logic every European was to blame for those responsible for burning witches and heretics at the stake, killing innocent people via Inquisitions, Roman gladiator blood sports, etc.. Every European can be tarred as a savage for the actions of a few people. It would be akin to blaming the average person in Spain for the gassing of Jews by the Nazis.

It is still highly contentious whether blood rituals existed based on so-called evidence that relies heavily on conjecture by academics and interpretations from various artefacts.

Assuming they did occur the majority of estimates bandied about by some academics are based purely on conjecture of some archeological findings that are open to a myriad of interpretations, and not on hard tangible evidence to support the views that indigenous Americans (especially those south of the US border) were basically blood thirsty savages committing mass murder either every day of the year or on a particular chosen week.

Any person with a modicum of common sense would realize that these numbers are simply not believable because the logistics involved to carry out an 'event' of this size and nature would be insane and astronomical.

The logistics even for a current modern society with the available tools to pull it off (electricity/power, machines, cars, guns etc..), would still pose a considerable challenge much less a civilization that existed 500 years ago.

Starting with bad points:

• They decided to use permanent flashback, there is no beginning, no middle and no end to the story, it is all messed up, unbearable. It is a very poor choice, specially because the history of the conquest was to slowly discover that there was a quasi mythical city in a middle of a continent.
• It is an amazon production, so they bend history a bit in order to fit their liberal stereotypes (Europeans bad, Christians bad, Muslims good etc ...) but not too much (and these strong women lovers forgot about Maria de Estrada).
• The production want us to believe that Spaniards massacred thousands of cholulan just for fun ...because "Europeans bad" I guess. The fact is that Cholula was a trap, the Spaniards were about to get massacred so they (over)reacted the way they did. Later on, Alvarado massacre was much more disputable however motivated by his hatred for local tradition (kid sacrifices etc ...).
• Obviously Cortes never had a muslin girlfriend, and if muslins weren't very popular in Spain, it was because Spaniards just liberated themselves from muslins after 8 centuries of domination (I wish liberal production mentioned that more often but .... "Muslims good" I guess).

Good points:

• Except few exceptions mentioned above, they really try to stick to the history even with tiny details. We got more of the point of view of the Conquistadors but there are a lot of fantastic descriptions of the very diverse pre-Columbian societies.

So it is fantastic to have a fairly accurate visual depiction of what were the fascinating pre-Columbian civilizations and this incredible moment of history. But in order to understand I recommend to study the history of the conquest before watching the show because of the permanent flash back/forward. I would have gave a 10 stars if the history was in order.

One star for the Mexicans and three others for the fact they speak Spanish, Maya and Nahuatl. Sadly, that's as generous I can be. Who in heaven's sake starts a conquest this epic in the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan?! If there's one thing you can build up to! As entering the capital should be more like the season's final. It soon became clear why they thought they could begin the story in the capital: Flashbacks. Someone seemed to think it would be a very clever idea to use lots of flashbacks. However, these flashbacks bring nothing to the table but are just a way to masquerade the fact that they have no clue how to tell a story. If they can't use flashbacks properly they should just shoot the story in chronological order. About 9 minutes in they commit the capital error nr 1 in filmmaking: "Don't say it, show it". When one of the conquistadors starts whining about some vision he had blablabla. Again it didn't bring anything to the table, it was rather annoying and as I can't stress enough it broke a capital rule in filmmaking. But I guess same with the flashbacks someone thought it would be a great idea to have a character in the story who has a vision of some sort. Nope. It's the main problem with this series: the script. More specifically the poor quality of it. There's just nothing - not one line of dialogue or storyline - that is salvageable if you would start afresh, say if for example you had more budget and you had a second chance to redeem yourself. Actually, they showed so much in just the first episode that they practically told all the different aspects of the real story, the conquest that is. They showed so much I wonder (as I only saw the first episode) what the hell are they going to talk about in the rest of the season? Oooh yeah, I forgot: flashbacks!! I really wanted this to be good but if they knew beforehand that they only have the talent to shoot a telenovela than they should've left the story alone.