Poder e Traição

As soon as I saw the text "Written by Jimmy McGovern" flash up on the promos, I knew that this would be something special. Having watched the first season of McGovern's "Cracker" I knew that this would be history with true grit, venomous dialogue, and buckets of conflict. I wasn't disappointed.

Judging by the other comments some people found McGovern's style too harsh, that he belittles the both Royal family and the Protestant and Catholic branches of church, and overuses sex and violence. It's a fair criticism, but so many over-starched interpretations of British history have been made that this gritty drama becomes a breath of fresh air.

The show is evenly divided into two parts, both riveting stories. The first is the reign of Queen Mary I of Scotland, a French Catholic girl now ruling over Protestant Scotland. Clemence Poesy turns in a brilliant performance as the young queen faced with her conniving half-brother Lord James, Queen Elizabeth I of England, her misogynistic husband Lord Darnley, and her brash suitor the Lord Bothwell. The whole story is turbulent, as a state of war with the English gradually precipitates.

The second part is much higher drama, though. It is concerned with Mary's son James I, a repugnant, bitter cripple, who promises the Catholics tolerance, and then reneges on his promise at the behest of the manipulative Lord Cecil, one of the most powerful men in England. This proves the catalyst for the famous attempted bombing of the houses of parliament on November 5, lead by the ruthless Spaniard Guy Fawkes.

It is true that McGovern revolves the entire show about the us-and-them viewpoint of the Catholic and Protestant, BUT this works to great effect. Emphasising the conflict in this war really ups the ante for the drama, making for some very high-octane television. Add to this brilliant performances by Robert Carlyle, Tim McInnerny, Kevin McKidd, Sam Troughton, and Michael Fassbender (Playing Guy Fawkes as a silent Clint Eastwood type delightfully)

This is, without a doubt, the greatest telemovie I've ever seen. However, if you're at all squeamish this definitely isn't for you: this is history with the filthy bits left in for a change...

You'd think that combining a good director, excellent actors and fascinating

historical events would make for an entertaining miniseries -- but you'd be

wrong. The writing stank, the history was worse than inaccurate, and I can

barely believe excellent actors such as McKidd and Carlyle were able to deliver some of their lines with a straight face. Historical inaccuracies aside, the story itself was delivered so disjointedly it was downright choppy -- almost as if an entirely different director and writer made each half. Skip this one.

I saw this on Tubi in the US, in an apparently much edited version, as one long movie. Other reviews talk about the prevalent sex & blood in it, that must have been cut out for this version. I suspect the original had a choppy look to it anyway, but the result not only reduced any shock value but made it even choppier or more "modern" per 2004. The director seemed to want to do things differently than a standard history. Variations that could make a Brit angry matters less to a broader audience.

Part one featured Mary Queen of Scots taking over in Scotland 1561. The sets were disappointing but it should be noted that IRL, MQS was less than thrilled with her Scottish royal accommodations after her raising in France. Characters were believable. Complaints about actor accents in period pieces are easy to set aside because IRL English royals mostly used French anyway.

This part had very little to do with the main half, except to take the story straight to the grown-up version of what MQS worked so hard to create, James 6+1, first king of combined Brits.

Part two has a new cast and shows religious strife around 1605. Minor characters make their cases straight to the camera, relieving us of time spent with their backstories... I'll take this exposition method. We learn the events creating the Guy Faukes UK holiday. As for the odd title: "English Folk Verse: Remember, remember!

The fifth of November, The Gunpowder treason and plot; I know of no reason Why the Gunpowder treason Should ever be forgot!"

From the script and from Robert Carlyle's performance, you'd have no inkling that James I was anything other than a degenerate, evil homosexual. Therefore you lose interest in watching the show because his character has no redeeming qualities. Contrast this portrayal with a quote from an historical website: "Along with Alfred the Great, James is considered to have been one of the most intellectual and learned individuals ever to sit on the English or Scottish Throne. Under him, much of the cultural flourishing of Elizabethan England continued; individuals such as Sir Francis Bacon (afterwards Viscount St Albans) and William Shakespeare flourished during the reign. James himself was a talented scholar, writing works such as Daemonologie (1597), The True Law of Free Monarchies (1598), Basilikon Doron (1599) and A Counterblast to Tobacco (1604)." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England) There was absolutely no evidence of anything but venality and repulsiveness in the depiction of James I in this TV show.

Another entry in the revisionist-history-as-told-with-human-body-fluids school of European melodrama. Whereas "Elizabeth" showed the execution of the queen's enemies as a recreation of "The Godfather"'s wedding-cum-massacre scene, this anachronistic masterpiece revels in outdoing Quentin Tarantino in execrable behaviour, gratuitous gore, meaninglessness and sexual perversion. Not even enjoyable as sadistic pornography, this portrayal of James VI of Scotland (James I of England) as an R-rated video game Richard III will give you nightmares and the heaves. O times, O mores! I wonder how these films and mini-series ("Vatel", "The Affair of the Necklace", "Le Roi danse", "Saint-Cyr", etc.) get written. Do producers lure satanic literary failures with delusions of artistic misogyny and misanthropy and lock them up in unholy writing workshops, with promises of money and drugs, until someone comes up with a suitably repulsive script? Whatever the method for this madness, it works, the plays get produced and they make money. Some people even like them.

You know there is something fundamentally flawed with this "historical" production when the list of stuntmen is longer than the list of speaking parts and the songs on the soundtrack are in Romanian...