Marco Polo – a Review

Even the most fanatic revisionist white knights couldn’t ruin a story set in the Mongol Empire during the conquest of south China, right?

Ahem.

I wish I could say I’m surprised by what they’ve done with the subject matter.

First off is the main character, Marco Polo. His motivations are sketchy at best, beyond some vague desire for a father figure. In the first season he’s habitually stupid…but not as stupid as the series writers assume their audience is.

The sad fact is, that assumption may prove correct.

There’s all the formulaic theater, white-knight feminist tropes, and contrived plot devices you can find in any other TV show, and the Trojan beach head of perversity we can expect from a Weinstein Company-backed tale of palace intrigue.

(But to be honest, it’s doubtful Harvey Weinstein is any worse than the other producers in Hollywood. In fact, he’s probably mild compared to some of them.)

But the sterling character of the morally pure saints headquartered in Homowood, Commiefornia never rests until it has delivered a hypocritical moral message. And so their favorite perversion (pedophilia) is represented not accurately (like, say, in the character of an entertainer or leftist politician), but in the form of a Christian Mongol.

Nothing special here.

 

2 thoughts on “Marco Polo – a Review”

  1. Loving history, I’ve watched this series repeatedly. I’ll admit, it loses it’s way se season 2, but it was still brilliantly made. What you call “tropes” history lovers call facts. Even the part about female warriors among Mongols. Your fine sensitivities seem so troubled by all the “tropes”, but cliches are based in reality. Real history.

    I only read reviews of this show when I heard how badly it was rated. Reading reviews, I found Reviewers (are you experts on something?) understand nothing about the audience because. Probably because the audience is more knowledgeable. The show you slammed gets 4.6 star average from viewers.

    When people are hired to review securities, cars, and power tools, they’re usually chosen for their expertise on the subject and writing skills.

    The priority of reviewers seems to be to impress their audience with own special distinguished tastes. And in the process, you broadcast your ignorance.

    I come away from your review (and many others) wondering why people get paid to do this.

    1. Ahh, the comedy relief has arrived.

      Perhaps I gave the audience too much credit. It seems your knowledge of “facts,” “reality” and “real history” derives from watching shows like this. But thanks for demonstrating the effects of prolific TV viewing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge