Manhunt TV series review

[Steve]

I don't have cable or streaming, so I'll probably never get to see this, but I thought others here might be interested in watching it. The reviewer was positive and if I could I would check it out. But some of the dialog from the series quoted in the review seems ...off:



https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-...47174/amp/

[Rob Wick]

Steve,

I have never been a fan of Swanson's book, and I can only imagine what liberties the producers took with the story. Even if I had the channel it is in I couldn't see wasting my time on it. Several years ago I wrote a review of "Manhunt" to explain to a friend why I didn't care for the book.

Best
Rob

[John E]

If you haven't seen it yet, consider yourselves fortunate. Everything about is ridiculous, laughable and inaccurate. Its easily one of the worst assassination related shows I’ve ever seen. The acting, cast and dialogue are all awful.

Edwin Stanton doesn’t even have a beard. Patton Oswalt seems to be some sort of comic relief as Baker. Nah, Im through watching it.

[jbarry]

I watched it last night with family. Manhunt is the book that got me started with my interest in the assassination, as well as my research into Joseph B. Stewart. I will admit the book takes some liberties, but mostly in areas that are reasonable to do so in filling in the blanks, eg. "He took one deep breath before ..." It is not the go-to historical reference, but it is a reasonably accurate page turner.

Regarding the show, if you go into it realizing it's a dramatized account, it is decent entertainment. My wife and I paused it a few times to discuss American history with our boy. I found the acting to be good, the scenery and costumes top notch; obviously high production value. Yes, many things bothered me in terms of accuracy, and I probably annoyed my family with all my interruptions : ) but overall, I am happy this show is on TV and no doubt it will spur more interest in the field.

---

One more thing: I am happy the TV show depicts Joseph B. Stewart chasing after Booth, even though it follows the false pretense that Stewart was close to Booth and swiping at his reigns. It also has Peanuts John chasing after Booth, although it was subtle. I am mostly disappointed in the show depicting Ned Spangler as opening the door for Booth, and forcing it shut. That does him dirty with the historical record.

[RJNorton]

(03-15-2024 07:37 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Several years ago I wrote a review of "Manhunt" to explain to a friend why I didn't care for the book.

Rob sent his review to me and asked me to post it:

CLICK HERE

[Joe Di Cola]

(03-15-2024 01:39 PM)John E Wrote:  If you haven't seen it yet, consider yourselves fortunate. Everything about is ridiculous, laughable and inaccurate. Its easily one of the worst assassination related shows I’ve ever seen. The acting, cast and dialogue are all awful.

Edwin Stanton doesn’t even have a beard. Patton Oswalt seems to be some sort of comic relief as Baker. Nah, Im through watching it.

I decided not to waste my time, especially after reading a review in THE NEW YORKER.

[Anita]

(03-17-2024 01:09 PM)Joe Di Cola Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 01:39 PM)John E Wrote:  If you haven't seen it yet, consider yourselves fortunate. Everything about is ridiculous, laughable and inaccurate. Its easily one of the worst assassination related shows I’ve ever seen. The acting, cast and dialogue are all awful.

Edwin Stanton doesn’t even have a beard. Patton Oswalt seems to be some sort of comic relief as Baker. Nah, Im through watching it.

I decided not to waste my time, especially after reading a review in THE NEW YORKER.

I second Joe. I read the same review.

[GustD45]

You all should read Dave Taylor's review which I'm linking here:

https://lincolnconspirators.com/2024/03/...episode-1/

[John E]

(03-17-2024 06:11 PM)GustD45 Wrote:  You all should read Dave Taylor's review which I'm linking here:

https://lincolnconspirators.com/2024/03/...episode-1/

Dave Taylor is way more forgiving than me when it comes to historical accuracy. The real account of the manhunt from those who participated in it, didnt need to be altered to make it compelling or interesting. Stanton didn't need to be portrayed as some crime busting, matinee idol detective. Its just silly, over-the-top & dumbed down.

[Gene C]

(03-18-2024 03:02 AM)John E Wrote:  The real account of the manhunt from those who participated in it, didnt need to be altered to make it compelling or interesting. Stanton didn't need to be portrayed as some crime busting, matinee idol detective. Its just silly, over-the-top & dumbed down.

Well said

[jbarry]

Every bit of criticism of the Manhunt series could be true, and yet there remains a simple question: why would we NOT watch it? Because it takes liberties with history? It's not a documentary. What else is there on TV right now that deals with the Lincoln assassination? I loved the movie First Man, even though it takes liberties with the history of Neil Armstrong. If the Manhunt series gets dozens of new people interested in the assassination, it is a net positive.

[John E]

(03-18-2024 07:44 PM)jbarry Wrote:  Every bit of criticism of the Manhunt series could be true, and yet there remains a simple question: why would we NOT watch it?

I don't speak for anyone but myself but I won’t continue watching it unless I want a good laugh. Wait, I take that back. I may want to watch it to marvel at its absurdity. Quick prediction - Stanton will be on site at the Garrett farm to come face to face with Booth. Perhaps JWB’s final words of “Tell mother I died for my country” will be answered by Stanton saying “Is she short like you?”. I’ll let her know you fell short of your goal.

In all seriousness, I am supremely disappointed the story of the assassination & manhunt was given 7 hours to tell & this is what AppleTV did with it. I’m no Swanson fan but he has to find this interpretation of his book insulting. I guess he can wipe away his tears with all the cash he made from selling the rights to his book.

[Rob Wick]

(03-18-2024 07:44 PM)jbarry Wrote:  Every bit of criticism of the Manhunt series could be true, and yet there remains a simple question: why would we NOT watch it? Because it takes liberties with history? It's not a documentary. What else is there on TV right now that deals with the Lincoln assassination? I loved the movie First Man, even though it takes liberties with the history of Neil Armstrong. If the Manhunt series gets dozens of new people interested in the assassination, it is a net positive.

While you are completely correct that it isn't a documentary, either history is presented as correctly as possible, or what's the point? It's one thing to combine items to move a story forward, but it's quite another to butcher the story in favor of the entertainment value.

Several years ago, I was asked to participate, along with several other historians, in a documentary that would appear on the National Geographic Channel. It was developed to be aired around the time the Harrison Ford movie of "Manhunt" was to be shown. Although the Ford project fell through, the documentary still aired, although its audience was much diminished since the channel didn't promote it as strongly as they would have had the Ford movie not fallen apart.

The one thing I came away with was that producers approach these projects not with historical accuracy first in their minds but with a specific story to tell. They asked us to read the script before being interviewed, and I discovered numerous errors of fact that I suggested be changed. The most egregious was that Everton Conger worked directly with Stanton to capture Booth (at least this Stanton had a beard!). I told the producers that Conger worked under Lafayette Baker, who worked directly under Stanton. That didn't change their minds. They proceeded along with their preferred narrative.

Most of what they aired was generally accurate, but their insistence on putting Conger with Stanton ruined my experience forever. What bothered me about it was that people who are generally historically illiterate on most subjects would see that and think it was the way it happened. Only if they went on to read would they know it wasn't. However, given what they saw, it could very well produce confusion given what they "knew" from the program.

So, no, the world won't fall apart, but as I stated before, without as much accuracy as is humanly possible, what is the point? I'm sure you wouldn't accept only half the story in a book.

By the way, welcome to the forum gentlemen.

Best
Rob

[John E]

(03-20-2024 07:10 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  By the way, welcome to the forum gentlemen.

Best
Rob

Thanks Rob, its been a while since I posted on here. This is John Elliott. I had to start a new profile because I lost or no longer have emails associated with my old account.

My research & speech giving days are behind me but seeing this series finally being aired rekindled my interest. I had to vent my disappointment & frustration. I hope all is well in your world.

---

(03-17-2024 05:28 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 07:37 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Several years ago I wrote a review of "Manhunt" to explain to a friend why I didn't care for the book.

Rob sent his review to me and asked me to post it:

CLICK HERE

What an excellent & spot-on review. Cheers!!

[Rob Wick]

Quote:Thanks Rob, its been a while since I posted on here. This is John Elliott. I had to start a new profile because I lost or no longer have emails associated with my old account.

Quote:What an excellent & spot-on review. Cheers!!

Hello John! Ain't technology wonderful?

I'm doing well, although I spend too much time with Ida Tarbell. I have two chapters finished in my book, but things are still going slower than I would like. I don't post here as much either, but when I get tired of Ida, I come back and see what's happening.

Thanks for the kind words on my review. In re-reading it, there is very little I would change.

Best
Rob