'Catherine the Great' barely scratches the surface of Catherine the Great

As someone who watches a lot of television in a professional capacity, miniseries are a godsend. A whole-ass HBO drama series that takes less than a traditional 9-6 workday to watch? Sign me up. The downside to miniseries, especially those as short as HBO’s four-episode Catherine the Great, is that in the interest of saving time (and presumably budget) the shows’ actual plot flies by too quickly to fully grasp. In a fully fictional series this plotting problem is easily solved by simply writing a shorter narrative, but when a topic as broad and complex as the 34-year reign of Russia’s last female ruler is condensed into four hours, the brevity is harder to justify.

To avoid sounding like a total nerd, it’s important to point out that it’s OK for historical period dramas to skip stuff. Complete adaptations of royal life in any era would be boring and gross, but Catherine the Great missteps by alluding to important events that pique audience interest and rarely following up on them. For example, in the first episode Helen Mirren’s Catherine II expresses an interest in smallpox inoculation, a belief that is based in historical fact. The real Catherine took that belief to the masses, vaccinating millions of Russians in a radical act that helped cement her rule as a golden age — a reality the show does not address at all.

The lack of context for Catherine’s life also undercuts some of what Catherine the Great tries to say about Catherine II as a female ruler in a world controlled by men. Catherine the character pays plenty of lip service to the struggles she faces as a woman and the show frames her bold pursuit of sex and love as positive feminist praxis, but no one mentions the actual empress’ founding of the Russia’s first educational instutite for women, or her status as the third woman to overthrow given male heirs to the Russian throne in less than a century. These are things that would aid and clarify Catherine the Great’s arc, but the narrative is too packed with blander events to support itself with what's already available.

Instead of creating a coherent picture of Catherine the Great’s reign, the series hyperfocuses on the empress’ romantic life, specifically her decades-long affair with military commander Grigory Potemkin. Here, at least, Catherine the Great shines. Dame Helen Mirren is simultaneously commanding and vulnerable in her role as Catherine, and Jason Clarke’s swaggering, intentionally boorish Potemkin is everything a steamy romantic foil ought to be. It’s genuinely refreshing to see a TV show acknowledge that Helen Mirren’s still got it and will likely never lose it, so as far as the show hews close to the central romance it’s an enjoyable standalone story.

Catherine and Grigory's romance takes place against the gorgeously designed backdrop of Catherine the Great's imperial Russia setting, so anyone who wants to sit back and let fantastic costumes, big ole' diamonds and gigantic palaces transport them to another time will be more than happy with the show's absurdly high quality (the Emmys are pre-engraving the design team's 2020 statuettes while you read this). A few episodes also have standout scenes that flex the directorial capabilities of Phillip Martin, who clearly had fun with wide, flat plains in the Lithuanian countryside.

Catherine the Great doesn't take a long time to watch and serves as a passable, sexy romance populated with famous names. It's not the most accurate or holistic view of Catherine II, but it drops enough hints at the bigger, more interesting truth to make a post-show Google more than worth it. Isn't that the fun part of all historical dramas though? No? Just Me? OK, maybe I am a total nerd.