Sigue a Declan Harp quien hace campaña para violar el monopolio de la Compañía de la Bahía de Hudson sobre el comercio de pieles en Canadá.Sigue a Declan Harp quien hace campaña para violar el monopolio de la Compañía de la Bahía de Hudson sobre el comercio de pieles en Canadá.Sigue a Declan Harp quien hace campaña para violar el monopolio de la Compañía de la Bahía de Hudson sobre el comercio de pieles en Canadá.
- Premios
- 19 nominaciones en total
Explorar episodios
Argumento
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaA central element in the story is the Hudson's Bay Company. This was one of three such enterprises of the British Empire; the other two being the British East India Company, which operated in and around the Indian subcontinent, and the Moscovy company, which focused on Russia and the region to the south, which includes modern day Iraq and Iran. The role of the colonies was to strengthen and enrich the British Empire, and these enterprises were created by the crown specifically for this dual purpose. The military element was there not only for protection of British interests, but for the enforcement of the will of the company and, by extension, the crown.
Opinión destacada
There are some good points to this show, so let's get them out of the way first. It's half-decent acting, scenic locations, an intriguing plot twist that sends the protagonist - by accident - into the New World and straight into a nasty conflict on the colonial frontier. It's also the fact there aren't that many shows about the Canadian fur trade and the rough-and tumble era of early colonization....and this show tries to elevate the profile of our country, so to speak.
OK, onto the flaws and problems. The history, as is depicted on film here, was never this interesting or this violent, this 'sexy". It is hard to find actual accounts of armed confrontations between different fur traders or these episodes of almost guerrila warfare in the boreal bush. So, 'Frontier' is using some seriously creative licence here. Also, lot of the characters are cast as inept, drunk, corrupt or morally deficient...or combination of all. They steal and kill, almost at will. I understand that the show's creators were keen on portraying conflict; let's at least try to portray conflict realistically. One had to be competent to stay alive and prosper on the frontier. Things like trying to kidnap a chief's son (in order to force a tribe to negotiate) would have been exceedingly stupid. And the folks who ruled the colony still ruled it...by a rule of law. The setting looks like it's supposed to be somewhere in the northern Laurentians in Quebec but could also be northern Ontario...but is actually Newfoundland. We are not told at the onset as to what year it is. Big mistake in my opinion. Doing a period piece requires an attention to detail. For instance, an English officer in a redcoat, even in the wilds, would have worn longish hair in a pony-tail or perhaps a wig, and no beards would have been seen on any of these men, in the late 1700s and very early 1800s. The French Canadian and Metis trappers and fur dealers would have had a very specific look to them, as well. A woman running the bar at the company fort would not have worn trousers - maybe for riding a horse but never for work in a public place. Also, no matter how much a governor of a fort would have screwed up, he would not have been murdered/summarily executed by another big official. It's too outlandish. At worst, they would have been sent back to England and 'retired' with some kind of a pension and told to shut up. Anyways, a lot of creative license is at work here, with trying to make the Hudson's Bay Company and its times seem more interesting and more dramatic than it really was.
OK, onto the flaws and problems. The history, as is depicted on film here, was never this interesting or this violent, this 'sexy". It is hard to find actual accounts of armed confrontations between different fur traders or these episodes of almost guerrila warfare in the boreal bush. So, 'Frontier' is using some seriously creative licence here. Also, lot of the characters are cast as inept, drunk, corrupt or morally deficient...or combination of all. They steal and kill, almost at will. I understand that the show's creators were keen on portraying conflict; let's at least try to portray conflict realistically. One had to be competent to stay alive and prosper on the frontier. Things like trying to kidnap a chief's son (in order to force a tribe to negotiate) would have been exceedingly stupid. And the folks who ruled the colony still ruled it...by a rule of law. The setting looks like it's supposed to be somewhere in the northern Laurentians in Quebec but could also be northern Ontario...but is actually Newfoundland. We are not told at the onset as to what year it is. Big mistake in my opinion. Doing a period piece requires an attention to detail. For instance, an English officer in a redcoat, even in the wilds, would have worn longish hair in a pony-tail or perhaps a wig, and no beards would have been seen on any of these men, in the late 1700s and very early 1800s. The French Canadian and Metis trappers and fur dealers would have had a very specific look to them, as well. A woman running the bar at the company fort would not have worn trousers - maybe for riding a horse but never for work in a public place. Also, no matter how much a governor of a fort would have screwed up, he would not have been murdered/summarily executed by another big official. It's too outlandish. At worst, they would have been sent back to England and 'retired' with some kind of a pension and told to shut up. Anyways, a lot of creative license is at work here, with trying to make the Hudson's Bay Company and its times seem more interesting and more dramatic than it really was.
- jantriska-63546
- 31 oct 2017
- Enlace permanente
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta