![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
scripsiSo, Versailles. I absolutely loved the first season, and loved, with a few reservations season 2 too. But season 3. Well, I think I can safely say I have never been more disappointed in a show, ever.
There were still things I loved a lot, which is why I saw all of it anyway. Visually it was still gorgeous. The costumes and hair are breathtaking. Not 100% historically accurate, but the wardrobe both reflects a character’s personality, as well as how fashion changes. The acting was top notch too. So good in fact that the actors could sell a particular scene to me, even if the context didn’t work. We got to see Philippe and Fabien interact for the first time, and they had really good chemistry between them. I loved Liselotte and Chevalier budding friendship in season 2 develop into them being basically a family unit, sans the sex. Fabien and Sophie have a tremendous chemistry too. And I feel they did some interesting things with Madame de Maintenon character wise. If anything this show has left me with a long list of actors I really want to see in more things. Alexander Vlahos, Evan Williams, Tygh Runyan, Amira Casar, Elisa Lasowski, Maddison Jaizani, Jessica Clark and Pip Torrens to name a few.
One of the things I have appreciated in all three seasons is that they cast women who are in their 40 who are still allowed personal and sexual agency. Overall, there have been a lot of really good female characters, and though season 3 was weaker in that aspect, it was still there. And most of these women have also acted within the context of their period, with the exception of Claudine, whom I loved anyway, even if she was an anachronism.
But, also a lot of things I didn’t like. I will talk a little about historical shows in general first to explain where I come from. I will talk about the show, with spoilers, the cut. Apologies for being ranty.
First. Any show needs consistent characterization. This is true regardless of the genre. It may mean no character development at all; like a sitcom where a character development would chafe as it would not suit the format. But in other shows, people do develop and are expected to do so. Only, people have to do it in a way that is believable. You can’t just change a character because of the plot, it has to be the other way around. Versailles have been mostly good at this in season 1 and 2, with one notable exception, but so bad at it in season 3.
Second, if you make a historical show, you are kind of stuck with, you know, history. Of course, history isn’t always so clear-cut. For example; no one really knows who killed the princes in the Tower. Both Richard III and Henry VII gained from removing those boys, so it’s perfectly possible to make something in which either king is the big villain.
There also often rumours which may have been around even during a historical persons lifetimes. They are usually colourful, so a show may choose to make into something that really happened because it spices up the story. Barbara Villiers performing fellation on a mummified priest, for example. That made into a rather gross scene in Charles II: The Power and the Passion. Versailles season 1 and 2 makes use of both tricks, usually, I think, to good effect.
Then there are simplifications of fact for budget reasons, or to make it easier for the audience to follow the plot. For example, once again in Charles II: The Power and the Passion a number of political opponents to Charles II are made into one single character. Several actors would do very similar things, so it makes the plot much easier to follow if only one character has that function. This happens in Versailles too where the number of people closest to the king are much smaller and doesn’t change because it’s simply much easier for the audience to follow. Or, in season 2 where the Affair of the Poisons is in a much smaller scale than it truly was. In reality, over a thousand people were involved from all strata of society, and Versailles simply didn’t have the budget, or the focus, to include it all.
But then some shows make up things which simply didn’t happen. Like in The Tudors were Henry VIII’s two sisters are made into one single sister who marries the king of Portugal and then chokes him with a pillow. Wait, what? I can’t see any reason for that. It would be simple enough to write off Margaret as the sister up in Scotland, and Mary’s real story was a lot more exciting than the one they made up in The Tudors. To me, this is lazy and show a complete disdain of the audience. Yes, I know- a lot of people who watch a historical show doesn’t know what really happened and won’t be unhappy. But what is wrong with telling them the truth? Not to mention those who actually know it- clear we are not even worth consideration I can buy bending the truth or different interpretations, but if you are doing a historical show, you have chosen to depict something that once happened. If you just want to make something exciting in fancy clothes you can do a Game of Thrones type of show, which is loosely based on medieval history, but mainly is just, you know, fantasy.
And I feel, in season 3, the writes of Versailles stopped to even care about real history, treating the audience like idiots, and consistently having character behaving so stupidly I was completely flabbergasted. Shoddy and lazy writing without any pretense of trying to make the characters behave in a way consistent with how they functioned in season 1 and 2.
One of the things which really annoyed me was the inconsistent characterization. The worst in Versailles is Chevalier who basically is three different characters. In season 1 he is a man who wants to be the power behind the throne, a master manipulator and the dominant partner in his and Philippe’s relationship. So dominant, in fact, that he is turned off when Philippe dominates him. True, he gets more humble by the end of the season and his and Philippe's relationship seems to be more balanced, but it works. But in season 2 he is suddenly an extremely insecure lover, and also an extremely jealous one, gong rather bananas over Philippe’s new wife. Nevermind that everyone at the time knew marriage had to do with securing heirs- I can, kind of, buy that this show doesn’t acknowledge that. But this is Philippe's second marriage to a woman less attractive than his first. And Chevalier wasn’t the slightest bit jealous of wife number one who Philippe seems to have been more attracted to than wife number 2. And in season 3 he suddenly falls in love with a woman and turns into a very submissive lover. Ok, the real Chevalier seemed to have been interested in both men and women, but in the show, he has so far been depicted as totally uninterested in women. He does, however, comment that he once enjoyed chasing maidens until he found the light. In season 3 he has never been with a woman and seems completely at loss. I think Evan Williams does a brilliant job in making all three version of Chevalier believable, but it’s not believable at all to have a person go through complete character overhaul between seasons. I did rather like his love interest; yay woman in her forties who knows what she wants from a relationship, but it was rather odd tacking the love affair on Chevalier of all people.
Louis also suffers a bit from this. In season 1 and 2 he is a flawed hero who the audience is still supposed to feel sympathy for. In season 3 he is suddenly the baddie. I don’t think it’s fair to the audience at all. Also, in season 1 and 2 we are frequently told what a horrible king he is, but we don't see that much of it. In season 3 he suddenly acts on it and orders all things of nasty stuff. But he also still the fairly reasonable character from the previous season, which makes him behave totally schizophrenic, and also very unbelievable.
Philippe, who has a very nice arc and character development in season 1 and 2, is actually superfluous in season 3. His main motivations have been his strained relationship with his brother, but by the end of season 2, this is solved. So what do the writers decide to do with him this season? They have him starting to search for the identity of the Man with the Iron Mask (nevermind the mask wasn’t in iron, but velvet). This causes Philippe to run around alone, or possibly in the company of Fabien, repeatedly getting attacked. Excuse me? Philippe is the third most important man in France. There is simply no way he would be allowed to run around half of France without a proper bodyguard.
And the iron mask plot was beyond stupid. First, they make up a big brouhaha that he can be Louis and Philippines illegitimate older brother. So what? It wasn’t strange at all with bastard children to royalty in the 17th century. They were usually acknowledged, and royal bastards were given titles and incomes. But they were still illegitimate and they could not under any circumstances inherit the throne. Charles II who had no children with his wife was pressured to legitimise his oldest son, but choose not to, and the throne went to Charles brother instead. An illegitimate son, especially as there are two legitimate sons living, would simply never have been considered an heir. So it’s really silly to have Louis and Philippe get into a tizzy over it.
Then ‘insert drumroll’, we learn the man in the iron mask is actually Louis and Phillip's father! Argh! I spare you the ranting over why this is extremely unlikely, and simply make this observation: In the show, the reason this man is forced to wear a mask is because his sons look so much like him. In reality, the gene pool in royal and aristocratic circles was really small. A lot of people looked like each other, and no one would have thought much is a random nobleman had a physical trait in common with the prince. Because they would probably have been cousins some ways removed anyway. (I know rather a lot about my family, and on the side of the family where I have aristocrats I have found persons who are my ancestor not only through one line but three, four or five!)
And, while we are talking about Philippe; I really, really, really hate that he is so indifferent to his children he doesn’t even know what they look like. Because one of the things that were really, really known about him was that he doted on his children and spent far more time with them than your average upper-class father. And it isn’t even a plot point him not knowing his children; it’s completely pointless scenes that serve no use at all.
And then we have princess Eleanor and what-her-name in the shoe shop and her brother, who are imaginary people. The show has always blended real characters with made-up ones, and I think to good effect. Fabien, Beatrice, Sophie, and Claudine all have their own stories, characters, and motivations. They have active parts in the plot, they are not just plot points. The fictitious characters in season 3 are mainly cardboard characters. The best is the Huguenot noblewoman who Chevalier falls for, but the shoe shop siblings only function is to serve as proof that Louis is An Evil Tyrant. Eleanor is even less a person, and even less useful as a plot point.
And let’s look at my favorite characters; Fabien and Sophie. I did like that they finally got together- I really didn’t think the show would go there as it’s certainly a rather twisted relationship. But I think it would have benefitted from more screen time- I’m certain there were watchers who were very surprised. We would have to need at least two more scenes between them in season 2; one when he has to leave Versailles and Sophie to her marriage with Cassel, and one when he returns. And we would have needed a little more of them in season 3 as well.
Sophie is one of my favourite characters and I detest what was done to her character in season 3. She established as a kind person, whose naivety is slowly transformed as everyone who ought to take care of her instead use and abuse her. She grows more manipulative as the show progress, but her kindness is an established character trait, and everyone who deals with her responds warmly towards her. Fabien certainly softens toward her, and even Cassel seems to grow to care for her a little bit. She poisons her husband, but it’s clearly depicted that she does so out of desperation because he horribly abuses her, and she is also clearly struggling with it. In season 3, while still being depicted as a caring and kind person, she kills the Queen. WTF? On Emperor Leopold’s orders (more WTF) and reluctantly, but she does it. I can buy her becoming a spy because she has no reason to like Louis, but I simply do not buy her growing so callous as to kill an innocent woman who also has been very kind to her this season. I was so sure there would be a plot twist where it would be revealed Sophie had not, in fact, killed the Queen, but it never came.
And then we have Fabien, who goes from a politically astute person to a tool. In season one he even gets to explain his philosophy and it’s clear he knows what his job means and that he sees it as something needed to keep a system he believes in, in place. He is brutal, but he is convinced he is doing it for a good cause. He also gets a moral awakening. In the beginning, he is prepared to do anything for his king, even kill a newborn baby. But when a young girl dies in his arms he gets more and more disturbed by killing people he perceives as innocent. He is reluctant to arrest Beatrice until he has proof, for example, even if he disregards his feelings and have her executed when he knows she is guilty. In season 2 he lets Sophie go, even declaring her innocent even if she is not; because he knows what kind of man Cassel was. Fabien’s moral compass may be flawed, but he acts consistent with it for the two first seasons.
And in season 3, this means nothing. He suddenly has no clue what Louis orders mean for the people around. And he lets Sophie go despite believing she has killed the Queen. It jars something terrible when it could have worked so well. Both Sophie’s and Fabien’s character arcs have always moved towards a moment where Fabien will have to choose between duty and morality; it would have been beautiful with him letting her go if she had only been innocent. Now she isn’t, and Fabien’s choice is between duty and, I suppose, love, and it makes him into the tool he calls himself. And Sophie’s lovely little speech isn’t worth anything either, because she has, but the end of the day killed an innocent woman. And there is not even a good reason for Sophie to kill the queen. And it would have been so easy to tweak the story so it didn’t go there.
It was also mind-numbing stupidity of Fabien letting Sophie and Eleanor go while he returns to Louis and says they are dead. You know, as soon as Eleanor is in safety everyone will know she is not dead, and Louis will know Fabien lied.
And I also hate that the show wraps up with Fabien and Sophie in limbo. If, as the showrunners claim, three season was always the intention, then I think they could have done a much better job with these characters, especially Fabien who is the third lead. But Sophie disappears in episode 7, without money or a place to go. We could at least have gotten a scene where she safely gets somewhere, but no. And Fabien, still suddenly clueless about politics decides, despite having been unnaturally faithful for 2 ½ seasons, to go against Louis, and ends up in jail. And then? Who knows. Being a favorite character I would have hated if he had died, but it had been much more in line with his character arc if he had.
Phew, that got long. I wonder if anyone had the patience to read through all my ranting...
There were still things I loved a lot, which is why I saw all of it anyway. Visually it was still gorgeous. The costumes and hair are breathtaking. Not 100% historically accurate, but the wardrobe both reflects a character’s personality, as well as how fashion changes. The acting was top notch too. So good in fact that the actors could sell a particular scene to me, even if the context didn’t work. We got to see Philippe and Fabien interact for the first time, and they had really good chemistry between them. I loved Liselotte and Chevalier budding friendship in season 2 develop into them being basically a family unit, sans the sex. Fabien and Sophie have a tremendous chemistry too. And I feel they did some interesting things with Madame de Maintenon character wise. If anything this show has left me with a long list of actors I really want to see in more things. Alexander Vlahos, Evan Williams, Tygh Runyan, Amira Casar, Elisa Lasowski, Maddison Jaizani, Jessica Clark and Pip Torrens to name a few.
One of the things I have appreciated in all three seasons is that they cast women who are in their 40 who are still allowed personal and sexual agency. Overall, there have been a lot of really good female characters, and though season 3 was weaker in that aspect, it was still there. And most of these women have also acted within the context of their period, with the exception of Claudine, whom I loved anyway, even if she was an anachronism.
But, also a lot of things I didn’t like. I will talk a little about historical shows in general first to explain where I come from. I will talk about the show, with spoilers, the cut. Apologies for being ranty.
First. Any show needs consistent characterization. This is true regardless of the genre. It may mean no character development at all; like a sitcom where a character development would chafe as it would not suit the format. But in other shows, people do develop and are expected to do so. Only, people have to do it in a way that is believable. You can’t just change a character because of the plot, it has to be the other way around. Versailles have been mostly good at this in season 1 and 2, with one notable exception, but so bad at it in season 3.
Second, if you make a historical show, you are kind of stuck with, you know, history. Of course, history isn’t always so clear-cut. For example; no one really knows who killed the princes in the Tower. Both Richard III and Henry VII gained from removing those boys, so it’s perfectly possible to make something in which either king is the big villain.
There also often rumours which may have been around even during a historical persons lifetimes. They are usually colourful, so a show may choose to make into something that really happened because it spices up the story. Barbara Villiers performing fellation on a mummified priest, for example. That made into a rather gross scene in Charles II: The Power and the Passion. Versailles season 1 and 2 makes use of both tricks, usually, I think, to good effect.
Then there are simplifications of fact for budget reasons, or to make it easier for the audience to follow the plot. For example, once again in Charles II: The Power and the Passion a number of political opponents to Charles II are made into one single character. Several actors would do very similar things, so it makes the plot much easier to follow if only one character has that function. This happens in Versailles too where the number of people closest to the king are much smaller and doesn’t change because it’s simply much easier for the audience to follow. Or, in season 2 where the Affair of the Poisons is in a much smaller scale than it truly was. In reality, over a thousand people were involved from all strata of society, and Versailles simply didn’t have the budget, or the focus, to include it all.
But then some shows make up things which simply didn’t happen. Like in The Tudors were Henry VIII’s two sisters are made into one single sister who marries the king of Portugal and then chokes him with a pillow. Wait, what? I can’t see any reason for that. It would be simple enough to write off Margaret as the sister up in Scotland, and Mary’s real story was a lot more exciting than the one they made up in The Tudors. To me, this is lazy and show a complete disdain of the audience. Yes, I know- a lot of people who watch a historical show doesn’t know what really happened and won’t be unhappy. But what is wrong with telling them the truth? Not to mention those who actually know it- clear we are not even worth consideration I can buy bending the truth or different interpretations, but if you are doing a historical show, you have chosen to depict something that once happened. If you just want to make something exciting in fancy clothes you can do a Game of Thrones type of show, which is loosely based on medieval history, but mainly is just, you know, fantasy.
And I feel, in season 3, the writes of Versailles stopped to even care about real history, treating the audience like idiots, and consistently having character behaving so stupidly I was completely flabbergasted. Shoddy and lazy writing without any pretense of trying to make the characters behave in a way consistent with how they functioned in season 1 and 2.
One of the things which really annoyed me was the inconsistent characterization. The worst in Versailles is Chevalier who basically is three different characters. In season 1 he is a man who wants to be the power behind the throne, a master manipulator and the dominant partner in his and Philippe’s relationship. So dominant, in fact, that he is turned off when Philippe dominates him. True, he gets more humble by the end of the season and his and Philippe's relationship seems to be more balanced, but it works. But in season 2 he is suddenly an extremely insecure lover, and also an extremely jealous one, gong rather bananas over Philippe’s new wife. Nevermind that everyone at the time knew marriage had to do with securing heirs- I can, kind of, buy that this show doesn’t acknowledge that. But this is Philippe's second marriage to a woman less attractive than his first. And Chevalier wasn’t the slightest bit jealous of wife number one who Philippe seems to have been more attracted to than wife number 2. And in season 3 he suddenly falls in love with a woman and turns into a very submissive lover. Ok, the real Chevalier seemed to have been interested in both men and women, but in the show, he has so far been depicted as totally uninterested in women. He does, however, comment that he once enjoyed chasing maidens until he found the light. In season 3 he has never been with a woman and seems completely at loss. I think Evan Williams does a brilliant job in making all three version of Chevalier believable, but it’s not believable at all to have a person go through complete character overhaul between seasons. I did rather like his love interest; yay woman in her forties who knows what she wants from a relationship, but it was rather odd tacking the love affair on Chevalier of all people.
Louis also suffers a bit from this. In season 1 and 2 he is a flawed hero who the audience is still supposed to feel sympathy for. In season 3 he is suddenly the baddie. I don’t think it’s fair to the audience at all. Also, in season 1 and 2 we are frequently told what a horrible king he is, but we don't see that much of it. In season 3 he suddenly acts on it and orders all things of nasty stuff. But he also still the fairly reasonable character from the previous season, which makes him behave totally schizophrenic, and also very unbelievable.
Philippe, who has a very nice arc and character development in season 1 and 2, is actually superfluous in season 3. His main motivations have been his strained relationship with his brother, but by the end of season 2, this is solved. So what do the writers decide to do with him this season? They have him starting to search for the identity of the Man with the Iron Mask (nevermind the mask wasn’t in iron, but velvet). This causes Philippe to run around alone, or possibly in the company of Fabien, repeatedly getting attacked. Excuse me? Philippe is the third most important man in France. There is simply no way he would be allowed to run around half of France without a proper bodyguard.
And the iron mask plot was beyond stupid. First, they make up a big brouhaha that he can be Louis and Philippines illegitimate older brother. So what? It wasn’t strange at all with bastard children to royalty in the 17th century. They were usually acknowledged, and royal bastards were given titles and incomes. But they were still illegitimate and they could not under any circumstances inherit the throne. Charles II who had no children with his wife was pressured to legitimise his oldest son, but choose not to, and the throne went to Charles brother instead. An illegitimate son, especially as there are two legitimate sons living, would simply never have been considered an heir. So it’s really silly to have Louis and Philippe get into a tizzy over it.
Then ‘insert drumroll’, we learn the man in the iron mask is actually Louis and Phillip's father! Argh! I spare you the ranting over why this is extremely unlikely, and simply make this observation: In the show, the reason this man is forced to wear a mask is because his sons look so much like him. In reality, the gene pool in royal and aristocratic circles was really small. A lot of people looked like each other, and no one would have thought much is a random nobleman had a physical trait in common with the prince. Because they would probably have been cousins some ways removed anyway. (I know rather a lot about my family, and on the side of the family where I have aristocrats I have found persons who are my ancestor not only through one line but three, four or five!)
And, while we are talking about Philippe; I really, really, really hate that he is so indifferent to his children he doesn’t even know what they look like. Because one of the things that were really, really known about him was that he doted on his children and spent far more time with them than your average upper-class father. And it isn’t even a plot point him not knowing his children; it’s completely pointless scenes that serve no use at all.
And then we have princess Eleanor and what-her-name in the shoe shop and her brother, who are imaginary people. The show has always blended real characters with made-up ones, and I think to good effect. Fabien, Beatrice, Sophie, and Claudine all have their own stories, characters, and motivations. They have active parts in the plot, they are not just plot points. The fictitious characters in season 3 are mainly cardboard characters. The best is the Huguenot noblewoman who Chevalier falls for, but the shoe shop siblings only function is to serve as proof that Louis is An Evil Tyrant. Eleanor is even less a person, and even less useful as a plot point.
And let’s look at my favorite characters; Fabien and Sophie. I did like that they finally got together- I really didn’t think the show would go there as it’s certainly a rather twisted relationship. But I think it would have benefitted from more screen time- I’m certain there were watchers who were very surprised. We would have to need at least two more scenes between them in season 2; one when he has to leave Versailles and Sophie to her marriage with Cassel, and one when he returns. And we would have needed a little more of them in season 3 as well.
Sophie is one of my favourite characters and I detest what was done to her character in season 3. She established as a kind person, whose naivety is slowly transformed as everyone who ought to take care of her instead use and abuse her. She grows more manipulative as the show progress, but her kindness is an established character trait, and everyone who deals with her responds warmly towards her. Fabien certainly softens toward her, and even Cassel seems to grow to care for her a little bit. She poisons her husband, but it’s clearly depicted that she does so out of desperation because he horribly abuses her, and she is also clearly struggling with it. In season 3, while still being depicted as a caring and kind person, she kills the Queen. WTF? On Emperor Leopold’s orders (more WTF) and reluctantly, but she does it. I can buy her becoming a spy because she has no reason to like Louis, but I simply do not buy her growing so callous as to kill an innocent woman who also has been very kind to her this season. I was so sure there would be a plot twist where it would be revealed Sophie had not, in fact, killed the Queen, but it never came.
And then we have Fabien, who goes from a politically astute person to a tool. In season one he even gets to explain his philosophy and it’s clear he knows what his job means and that he sees it as something needed to keep a system he believes in, in place. He is brutal, but he is convinced he is doing it for a good cause. He also gets a moral awakening. In the beginning, he is prepared to do anything for his king, even kill a newborn baby. But when a young girl dies in his arms he gets more and more disturbed by killing people he perceives as innocent. He is reluctant to arrest Beatrice until he has proof, for example, even if he disregards his feelings and have her executed when he knows she is guilty. In season 2 he lets Sophie go, even declaring her innocent even if she is not; because he knows what kind of man Cassel was. Fabien’s moral compass may be flawed, but he acts consistent with it for the two first seasons.
And in season 3, this means nothing. He suddenly has no clue what Louis orders mean for the people around. And he lets Sophie go despite believing she has killed the Queen. It jars something terrible when it could have worked so well. Both Sophie’s and Fabien’s character arcs have always moved towards a moment where Fabien will have to choose between duty and morality; it would have been beautiful with him letting her go if she had only been innocent. Now she isn’t, and Fabien’s choice is between duty and, I suppose, love, and it makes him into the tool he calls himself. And Sophie’s lovely little speech isn’t worth anything either, because she has, but the end of the day killed an innocent woman. And there is not even a good reason for Sophie to kill the queen. And it would have been so easy to tweak the story so it didn’t go there.
It was also mind-numbing stupidity of Fabien letting Sophie and Eleanor go while he returns to Louis and says they are dead. You know, as soon as Eleanor is in safety everyone will know she is not dead, and Louis will know Fabien lied.
And I also hate that the show wraps up with Fabien and Sophie in limbo. If, as the showrunners claim, three season was always the intention, then I think they could have done a much better job with these characters, especially Fabien who is the third lead. But Sophie disappears in episode 7, without money or a place to go. We could at least have gotten a scene where she safely gets somewhere, but no. And Fabien, still suddenly clueless about politics decides, despite having been unnaturally faithful for 2 ½ seasons, to go against Louis, and ends up in jail. And then? Who knows. Being a favorite character I would have hated if he had died, but it had been much more in line with his character arc if he had.
Phew, that got long. I wonder if anyone had the patience to read through all my ranting...
no subject
Date: 2018-10-10 07:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-10-10 07:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-10-10 07:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-10-10 07:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-10-10 08:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-10-11 01:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-10-16 04:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-10-16 11:16 am (UTC)I also think they dug themselves in a hole when they made the queen a beautiful, intelligent woman, instead of the dumpy and rather stupid one she really was. It’s hard to see why Louis isn’t interested in his wife when she is played by Elisa Lasowski, making the queen a beautiful, religious woman who loves him. And then he puts himself under the thumb of another beautiful, religious woman who loves him. It doesn’t make much sense.
But so much didn’t make sense this season. I felt that at every point they had to make a plot decision, then always and without fail, chose the worst. I mean, look at the way the wrote out Madame de Montespan. They could have made a lot out of the rumour she had posioned La Fontagne, but instead, that mistress doesn’t even appear. And they put in that ridiculous bit about a nude portrait of Maintenon! I mean, it wouldn’t be hard to paint anyone’s face on a nude body. In fact, it was quite common even in ordinary portraits that someone just sat for the face, and then a model sat for the body. A nude portrait of someone doesn’t prove anything, and they made it up like it couldn’t possibly be anything than a real-life painting. Argh!
I will try to disregard season 3 and save my love for season 1 and 2 instead.