I have another article about Manhunt that might be of interest to some of you:

https://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw-bay-c...utType=amp

I don't really have any comments to make about it, except for a comment by a Samuel Mudd descendant which made my jaw drop. Saying about Mudd:

”I don’t think he was against the Union"

Steve (and others),

With all due respect to Mr. Mudd, I think Ed Steers has pretty much put to rest any questions about Dr. Mudd's culpability during Booth's escape and whether Mudd knew him before treating him. I also think his comment about Mudd not being against the Union was from a descendant who has likely heard throughout his lifetime several comments about Dr. Mudd being a traitor. I imagine that if I had an ancestor who was involved with the assassination of one of the greatest presidents the country ever produced, I would likely feel the way Mr. Mudd does, but fortunately, history is not written using emotion and feelings (or at least tamping them down) but rather evidence, which as I said before, Ed Steers has produced.

Best
Rob

I have been debating with myself about offering my thoughts on this series. I've decided to do so. I have read each of Dave Taylor's reviews of each episode. I am not aware of any early disclaimer about fact versus fiction. I consider myself somewhat of a historical purist, wishing to read facts and opinions but not fiction. It seems to me that each episode is straying farther and farther from the actual facts. I do understand some license to be loose with the facts due to time constraints and the emphasis of the producers but I do not necessarily agree.

While this series may may induce some of the curious to pursue reading and studying the actual history of these events (likely a minority of viewers); more likely there are those who will only get their history from this series and leave it at that. For them, these incredible liberties with the actual historical facts become their only source of information and become real to them. With such folks, these abnormalities are likely to be passed on to others as factual.

I compare this with a recent issue of a Civil War magazine using AI to produce pictures that never occurred, including one on the cover of Grant and Lee standing together. There is no banner disclaimer on the cover and the interior article asks readers to voice their opinions on such manipulations. After reviewing readers comments, a subsequent issue of the same magazine promised not to do that again. However, the damage was done. How long before that fake image is reproduced to look as if from the CW period and will be sold as authentic! Not long I predict, if not already done.

I sincerely appreciate Dave's reviews and will continue to read them with interest but even if I had a subscription to the site which I do not, have no compulsion to view such incredibly altered history.

(04-05-2024 01:50 PM)Dennis Urban’' Wrote:  ..these abnormalities are likely to be passed on to others as factual.

I agree with you & its another reason I'm disappointed in the series. People will believe what they’re seeing is factual. The assassination was real, this has to be real too, right?

The producers muddied up what should have been a fast-paced manhunt for Booth & his co-conspirators by injecting needless characters and straying off on unnecessary tangents (Stanton’s asthma issues, Stanton’s wife & the loss of their son, Dr. Mudd’s slave Mary, Stanton's philosophical differences with Andrew Johnson regarding reconstruction, John Surratt’s escape to Canada).

They could have followed the real story and showed the arrests & incarceration of the conspirators. Focused more on Mary Surratt’s involvement.

At this point, I won’t be surprised if we eventually see the following preposterous showdown: John Wilkes Booth will attempt to shoot Stanton from inside the barn. Just as Booth raises his rifle, Corbett will shoot the assassin first, thus fulfilling his destiny and reclamation.

I stopped watching it after the second episode. Disappointed in it very much. It may be helpful to those not familiar with the manhunt story- or will it be harmful? I don’t know. I just know it wasn’t what I thought it would be -I mean I took one look at the actor portraying Stanton and I was ready to bail. Oh well.

Of course, I haven't seen the series as well as most other TV or movie productions that have been discussed here over the years for the mere reason of lacking access. But I have followed all your reviews with great interest, and it seems, the "older" ones are the better or more accurate ones. I seem to recall better reviews on older "Lincoln/assassination portrayals" than on the latest ones. Would you agree? Which one(s) would you recommend the most?

Eva - one of my favorites, which you can watch on YouTube, is David L. Wolper's 1971 documentary "They've Killed President Lincoln". I remember watching it as a kid when it was initially aired and being mesmerized! Filmed in B&W and framed as a "you were there" type of thing, I still find it fascinating. It's the only production (that I'm aware of) that was actually filmed at Ford's Theater, which at that point had only been refurbished and opened for three years. Not everything clicks, but it's really good in my humble opinion. Give it a look, mein Schatz!!

(04-24-2024 10:56 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  Eva - one of my favorites, which you can watch on YouTube, is David L. Wolper's 1971 documentary "They've Killed President Lincoln". I remember watching it as a kid when it was initially aired and being mesmerized! Filmed in B&W and framed as a "you were there" type of thing, I still find it fascinating. It's the only production (that I'm aware of) that was actually filmed at Ford's Theater, which at that point had only been refurbished and opened for three years. Not everything clicks, but it's really good in my humble opinion. Give it a look, mein Schatz!!

Yes!! That was the first one I saw & was instantly hooked. I dont know how to describe the feeling any better than that. I saw it in the early 80’s and believe it was shown on PBS. I was a kid & still young enough to question if they had movie cameras back then. Was it accurate? I honestly can’t remember but Im going to go look for it on youtube right now.

The makers of modern documentaries trying to portray 'this is what it was like' -type films and programs just dont get it.
This is why those B&W ones were better.

The idiotic portrayal of 17th and 18th century people wearing clean, nicely crisp shirts and dresses is quite laughable.
When you add in the wonderful teeth and hair, are we supposed that " This is what it may have been like" ?