#how many weird versions of the Decameron can there be

[lunellum]

I'm so glad you asked! And so spontaneous, not at all prompted or anything ;D

I'm currently traveling so this will be a bit messy but a few key points.

About the historical context:

First off, it can be hard to find sources for what daily life was like in the european medieval period, especially if you want to know more about "common" people (not nobles or clergy). That sort of information was just usually not written down let alone preserved. That said, we can find hints in surviving stories, manuscripts, illustrations etc.

Let's address the elephant in the room: the game of thrones-y gritty, dark fantasy/historical fiction that claims all the violence and rape is historically accurate. It's not. I'm not sure how else to say that except... very little about that is accurate to any historical period.

Relatedly, the image people have of the middle ages as drab and brown, see also the complaint that the show is too colourful. Also untrue, it's just that we don't have a lot of surviving examples and those we do have will have discoloured significantly. One of the most difficult colours to achieve was actually true black. If you wanted green, red, yellow, greenish blue, those are all perfectly doable using natural dyes. A Google search will show you many examples.

Regarding the silly and horny accusations: one interesting source is old joke books. I've personally worked with a joke book from the 1600s so that's not quite medieval but I think it's still a good indicator that people are people. In these joke books, you will find that historical people are cruel, funny, horny, silly, and weirdly obsessed with poop jokes. There is no point in history where people weren't making stupid sex jokes. Including in "high" culture.

Another good source is the literature we DO have. For some basic level examples: Chaucer, Reynard the fox and (yes) the Decameron. The problem with all of these is that a fair portion of the jokes and innuendos will be couched in unfamiliar language. To a modern reader, it simple doesn't register as weird when, in a story about a priest, his live-in housekeeper enters the room. Friends, that's his mistress. His mistress he's not supposed to have because he's supposed to be celibate. The joke is that the clergy are horny and corrupt.

Fortunately, there are annotated versions that point these jokes out. Unfortunately, it's hard to get a good one.

Now, the Decameron (the book) is actually much more explicit about its erotic context than most, which is why I'm so baffled by the critics claiming the show is too horny. The source material is horny as hell, what are they talking about?

Finally, I would like to point out medieval marginalia. Just have a Google, look at the images. Are you still gonna claim these people aren't silly? Sure, some of them have an allegorical meaning, but I'm pretty sure the monkey with the trumpet up its ass is just funny.

About the Netflix show directly:

Most importabtly, the show is NOT a one on one adaptation of the book. I think that's what's tripping a lot of people up, but it's not intending or pretending to be that.

The original Decameron is a frame story of ten nobles sitting around telling eachother stories. Each noble serves as a stereotype of a human trait or virtue (except for Dioneo, who is the wildcard). The stories themselves are often short morality tales or bawdy anecdotes. This is, quite frankly, not the most interesting thing to turn into a show! So they didn't!

The show changes around most of the characters, omits some and adds some others. It adds a lot more meat to the frame story and leaves out the storytelling competition except for 2 instances.

The first one: Pampinea's party game. This one serves to illustrate the dysfunctional situation at the villa and each of the characters' worst traits. It is a competition, and she wins regardless of who actually deserves it. No one dares counter.

The second one: at the end, with the survivors. This one illustrates the balance they've found despite all the tragedy and loss. They're sitting together without a clear leader. They're sleeping rough but they find their joy in each other's company. It's not a competition anymore.

Also, there are a lot of nods to the stories in the original text. I can't look up any examples right now but the barrel thing is fresh in my mind.

In my opinion, a lot of the themes they added are wonderful (family, found and otherwise, finding love after grief, breaking free from abusive relationships and abusive friendships) but would not read well to the audience contemporary to the original Decameron so no, that part is not accurate. That's okay! That's what adaptations are all about.

And to circle back to the accusation that it's too silly: yes, parts of the show are very silly. But there is an underlying tragedy and bittersweet core that becomes especially obvious in the last two episodes. I would just like to point out Panfilo's steady decline and Misia's realisation of her situation. These people are fucked up. They're trying, and sometimes all that does is make things worse. But they're not giving up until the bitter end.

Regarding the "accuracy": it's very obvious that the creators of this show did their research. The party games, the costuming, the noble/servant relationships. These people know what they're doing and I'm impressed.

And finally: should anyone bring up the diversity of the cast and characters, the european middle ages had brown and black and asian people. The middle ages had people who engaged in gay acts (even if they didn't have the concept of a gay identity). And even if it didn't, all kinds of people deserve to be in all kinds of stories. The end.

I've seen some folks criticise the Decameron (the Netflix show) for not being "authentic" and "accurate" enough for

being too colourful

being too horny

being too silly and not serious enough when it comes to the subject of death and pandemic...

To which I would like to say they've clearly never looked into actual medieval history, culture and literature.

[chrisflemingslegs]

The plot of this movie can be summed up by the following statements:

Hayden Christensen has a terrible British accent that he drops every other word.

Also he is damp/wet/sweaty like 93% of this movie.

Tim Roth is pissed off and he's on horseback.

Boobies. Lots and lots of boobies.