thedispatch.com Open in urlscan Pro
2a04:fa87:fffd::c000:4223  Public Scan

Form analysis
4 forms found in the DOM

GET https://thedispatch.com/post

<form method="get" id="searchform" role="search" action="https://thedispatch.com/post" data-sparkloop-form-id="1">
  <div class="flex relative items-center transition-all duration-200 overflow-hidden input-group cursor-pointer my-2 overflow-visible">
    <span class="p-2 text-center search-icon cursor-pointer z-40">
      <img width="18" height="18" loading="lazy" src="https://thedispatch.com/wp-content/themes/dispatch//source/images/icon-search.svg" alt="Dispatch logo">
    </span>
    <label for="search">
      <span class="hidden"> Search </span>
    </label>
    <input class="text-sm font-semibold text-gray-800 placeholder-gray-600 transition-all duration-200 outline-none sm:ml-2 z-20 search-field" id="search" name="s" type="text" placeholder="Search" value="">
  </div>
</form>

GET https://thedispatch.com/post

<form method="get" id="searchform" role="search" action="https://thedispatch.com/post" data-sparkloop-form-id="2">
  <div class="flex relative items-center transition-all duration-200 overflow-hidden input-group cursor-pointer my-2 overflow-visible">
    <span class="p-2 text-center search-icon cursor-pointer z-40">
      <img width="18" height="18" loading="lazy" src="https://thedispatch.com/wp-content/themes/dispatch//source/images/icon-search.svg" alt="Dispatch logo">
    </span>
    <label for="search">
      <span class="hidden"> Search </span>
    </label>
    <input class="text-sm font-semibold text-gray-800 placeholder-gray-600 transition-all duration-200 outline-none sm:ml-2 z-20 search-field" id="search" name="s" type="text" placeholder="Search" value="">
  </div>
</form>

<form data-sparkloop-form-id="3">
  <input name="action" type="hidden" class="form-control" id="report-action" value="comment_action">
  <input name="nonce" type="hidden" class="form-control" id="nonce">
  <input name="comment_id" type="hidden" class="form-control" id="report-comment-id">
  <input name="activity_type" type="hidden" class="form-control" id="activity-type" value="user_report">
  <div class="form-group">
    <label for="message-text" class="col-form-label pt-0 mb-4">Why are you reporting this comment?</label>
    <div class="report-btn-group-toggle grid grid-col-4 gap-4" data-toggle="buttons">
      <span>
        <input type="radio" name="report_type" id="report-type-spam" autocomplete="off" value="spam">
        <label for="report-type-spam"
          class="border border-brand-iron-grey flex items-center justify-center py-4 px-3 hover:bg-black hover:text-white active:bg-black active:text-white checked-sibling:bg-black checked-sibling:text-white font-minion-pro font-bold text-xs uppercase cursor-pointer">
          Spam </label>
      </span>
      <span>
        <input type="radio" name="report_type" id="report-type-racism" autocomplete="off" value="racism">
        <label for="report-type-racism"
          class="border border-brand-iron-grey flex items-center justify-center py-4 px-3 hover:bg-black hover:text-white active:bg-black active:text-white checked-sibling:bg-black checked-sibling:text-white font-minion-pro font-bold text-xs uppercase cursor-pointer">
          Racism </label>
      </span>
      <span>
        <input type="radio" name="report_type" id="report-type-harassment" autocomplete="off" value="harass">
        <label for="report-type-harassment"
          class="border border-brand-iron-grey flex items-center justify-center py-4 px-3 hover:bg-black hover:text-white active:bg-black active:text-white checked-sibling:bg-black checked-sibling:text-white font-minion-pro font-bold text-xs uppercase cursor-pointer">
          Harassment or violence </label>
      </span>
      <span>
        <input type="radio" name="report_type" id="report-type-inappropriate" autocomplete="off" value="inappropriate">
        <label for="report-type-inappropriate"
          class="border border-brand-iron-grey flex items-center justify-center py-4 px-3 hover:bg-black hover:text-white active:bg-black active:text-white checked-sibling:bg-black checked-sibling:text-white font-minion-pro font-bold text-xs uppercase cursor-pointer">
          Inappropriate </label>
      </span>
    </div>
  </div>
</form>

<form autocomplete="off" role="search" class="jetpack-instant-search__search-results-search-form" data-sparkloop-form-id="4">
  <div class="jetpack-instant-search__search-form">
    <div class="jetpack-instant-search__box"><label class="jetpack-instant-search__box-label" for="jetpack-instant-search__box-input-1">
        <div class="jetpack-instant-search__box-gridicon"><svg class="gridicon gridicons-search " focusable="true" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24" width="24" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" aria-hidden="false" style="height: 24px; width: 24px;">
            <title>Magnifying Glass</title>
            <g>
              <path d="M21 19l-5.154-5.154C16.574 12.742 17 11.42 17 10c0-3.866-3.134-7-7-7s-7 3.134-7 7 3.134 7 7 7c1.42 0 2.742-.426 3.846-1.154L19 21l2-2zM5 10c0-2.757 2.243-5 5-5s5 2.243 5 5-2.243 5-5 5-5-2.243-5-5z"></path>
            </g>
          </svg></div><input autocomplete="off" id="jetpack-instant-search__box-input-1" class="search-field jetpack-instant-search__box-input" inputmode="search" placeholder="Search…" type="search"><button class="screen-reader-text assistive-text"
          tabindex="-1">Search</button>
      </label></div>
  </div>
</form>

Text Content

MENU
Search
JOIN SIGN IN

 * SIGN IN
 * Featured
   LatestNewslettersDISPATCH LIVEThe Morning DispatchFact Check
 * Topics
   PoliticsPolicyWorld EventsReligionCulture
 * PODCASTS
   Advisory OpinionsThe Dispatch PodcastThe RemnantThe Skiff
 * More
   dispatch book clubMailbagregional meetupsGift MembershipsSTORE

Search
JOIN SIGN IN
 * Featured
   * Latest
   * Newsletters
   * DISPATCH LIVE
   * The Morning Dispatch
   * Fact Check
 * Topics
   * Politics
   * Policy
   * World Events
   * Religion
   * Culture
 * PODCASTS
   * Advisory Opinions
   * The Dispatch Podcast
   * The Remnant
   * The Skiff
 * More
   * dispatch book club
   * Mailbag
   * regional meetups
   * Gift Memberships
   * STORE

Search Close


‘FRANKLIN’ AND THE IDEALS OF THE REVOLUTION

The new miniseries explores American identity through the Founding Father’s
eight-year diplomatic mission in France.

By Michael Lucchese
May 4, 2024May 3, 2024
55

Noah Jupe and Michael Douglas in 'Franklin.' (Photo: Courtesy of Apple TV+)

With the 250th anniversary of the United States’ independence just over the
horizon, Americans across the country are beginning to celebrate the events that
made us who we are. In that spirit, Apple TV+ is currently streaming a
miniseries based on the Revolutionary War starring Michael Douglas as the
titular Franklin. 

Five episodes in, it’s clear the series is not perfect television, let alone
perfect history. Nonetheless, Franklin’s high production value and compelling
acting from both American and European cast members make up for a sometimes slow
pace. And thematically, it captures the essence of the American Revolution—the
struggle for freedom, and faith in a better life independent from tyranny.  

Rather than depict Benjamin Franklin’s life in its fullness, the series focuses
on his eight-year diplomatic mission to France. Through skillful diplomacy,
intrigue, and even propaganda, Franklin forged the alliance that was crucial to
victory in the War for Independence. As the series ably highlights, it was a
task fraught with uncertainty. 

When Franklin left America, the Revolution was in dire straits. British troops
had forced the Continental Army out of New York City and defeated an attempt to
liberate Canada. The United States desperately needed financial and military
support from Europe. Franklin’s role was to secure a treaty with France and
build a European coalition for the American cause. Without his spycraft and
political art—and the guns, money, and men they secured—America would not have
survived the war. 

While in France, Benjamin Franklin cultivated an 18th-century air of celebrity
by becoming an iconic symbol of Americanness, with his frontier-inspired fur hat
and plainspoken manners. He was hailed as the “creator” of electricity and spent
time with famous Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire. People referred to
him as “Doctor,” even though his formal schooling lasted only two years. In A
Great Improvisation, the book the series is based on, the Pulitzer Prize-winning
biographer Stacy Schiff describes the way Franklin used celebrity status as an
“inventive act.” He mixed a cosmopolitan sensibility and a provincial attitude
to charm the French and secure a future of freedom for his country. He convinced
the French to help America win because he came to represent America herself.

Perhaps the central theme of Franklin is American identity. What did it mean to
be a citizen of this newly founded republic? What was this “Novus Ordo Seclorum”
our Founders were building? In the series, the emergence of this American
identity is dramatized principally through the experience of Franklin’s
grandson, William Temple Franklin (Noah Jupe). His father, William Franklin, was
the last royal governor of the New Jersey colony, and a convinced loyalist. At
one point during the Revolution, patriot forces imprisoned him and Franklin the
Elder refused to intervene. Temple struggles with these divisions in his own
family, all while confronting the culture shock of the decadent French monarchy.
The political story running through Franklin may center on the man himself, but
it is the education of this young person that provides the show’s heart.

Despite the seemingly impossible odds they face, Franklin and his grandson are
sustained by their earnest faith in the ideals of the Revolution. The Americans
are surrounded by cynics, British and French alike, but cling to the sense that
they are contending for a better world. “’Tis a Common Observation here that our
Cause is the Cause of all Mankind,” the historical Franklin wrote in one letter
from Paris, “and that we are fighting for their Liberty in defending our own.”
The only reason these men subjected themselves to the dangers of 18th-century
travel and court intrigue is because they believed that America could show the
world a better way of life. The last line of the Declaration—“we mutually pledge
to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”—is never far from
the characters’ lips. 

Even though the Founders shared these ideals, they differed about how to make
them real—and Franklin does not shy away from this conflict. At the series’s
midpoint, Massachusetts statesman John Adams (Eddie Marsan) arrives in France
and seems determined to ruin the careful diplomatic edifice Franklin has built.
Although the portrayal of these men’s rivalry is a touch too mean-spirited, the
series does capture the tension within the American mission. The historical
Franklin had a decidedly mixed view of the New Englander. “I am persuaded,” he
wrote in a 1783 letter, “that he means well for his Country, is always an honest
Man, often a wise one, but sometimes, and in some things, absolutely out of his
senses.” Through the Adams-Franklin relationship, the series hints at the
broader complexities and contradictions of the Founding itself. 

American identity has never been an entirely settled thing. Before independence
could even be won, disputes among New Englanders, southerners, and the middle
colonies threatened to tear apart the new nation. Radicals and conservatives,
liberals and republicans, slaveholders and abolitionists, deists and Christians
all had different visions for an independent future. Franklin had the benefit of
dying in 1790, however, before partisan debates between Adams, Alexander
Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson enflamed the republic. He therefore stands
somewhat above their squabbles, a voice of common sense and consensus
exemplifying a kind of Enlightenment innocence and worldly wisdom. There is
something in his life—his humility, his desire for knowledge, his love of
liberty—that represents the meaning of America.

Given the current 1619 Project-inflected media environment, it should be no
surprise that some commentators have rushed to condemn Franklin for being
out-of-step with progressive values. Slate senior editor Rebecca Onion dismissed
the show as “AP U.S. History TV,” for example. Her criticisms are reminiscent of
the way historian (and Franklin biographer) H.W. Brands coined the label
“Founders Chic” for the kind of storytelling that foregrounds the great men of
our past. These writers and others argue that a reverential attitude toward the
early republic distorts a record full of injustice and imperfection. 

But when popular culture opens a window into this historical complexity, as
Franklin surely does, historians should welcome it with open arms. For years,
academics have complained about the decline of history and humanities majors.
But to some extent, the dwindling interest in their subject matter is a
self-inflicted wound. Most readers, let alone students, simply do not care about
the dour academic narratives of oppression and power politics. They would much
rather learn about the real accomplishments and real failures of real people. 

The “Founders Chic” genre certainly has its problems, and Franklin is no
exception. But honoring the people who made America, and getting the American
people excited about our history—and our future—is valuable in itself. 

55

By Michael Lucchese

COMMENTS (55)

Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
Sort by:  Newest to Oldest Most Popular Oldest to Newest

Kbg Edited 1 week ago
more replies

As lover of history, spot on about academic history/historians...a lot of it is
just heinously boring and/or trivial in nature. Thank heavens for popular
historical writers and podcasting...elsewise the field would probably be dead.

Collapse




SamCOS 1 week ago
more replies

I read Isaacson's book on Franklin and saw the PBS series. I recall thinking
both were good. I wonder about the historical accuracy of shows like these
though. I don't know enough about Franklin's time in Paris (or the source
material although I am adding it to my reading list) to know how much is not
real or realistic. Some of the exploits of his grandson seem a little far
fetched, but maybe I am in error on that.

Manhunt on the other hand (since it was mentioned) is horrible. Mary Todd
referring to Stanton as Lincoln's "work husband" is just a leap too far (not to
mention the actor playing Stanton does not come close to resembling him).

Collapse


Dougrhon 1 week ago
more replies

Manhunt was a bitter disappointment. Not only does it make up history but it
slanders quite a few people including Stanton, Andrew Johnson, Jefferson Davis
and Lincoln himself.

Collapse







Tmcke Edited 1 week ago
more replies

I am curious about the reference to the 1619 project as if it was not eye
opening. I am a history buff (about industrial history in the US) and found
myself revisiting slavery in NJ where I live. And it turns out there was so much
more of it than I had known about. 1619 was a journalist's enterprise and made
too many claims for the influence of slavery.. but it was pointing out something
many of us never learned and presumably, black folks are tired of that.

By the way if you want to see how little we really know, or how much we make
breezy assumptions, how about how we refer to Britain as tyrannical. Hardly. The
Great Britain that we broke from was far from tyrannical. Yes the colonies
chafed and it was time to move on. But there was no tyranny. Yes no one
complains of the breezy assumption that we faced tyranny. This matter is a much
larger error than anything to do with the 1619 project which left us with much
to ponder. Again too much was claimed re slavery but this was a corrective to
presentations that made it seem meaningless.

Collapse


Packmd4 1 week ago
more replies

This is where I really depart from a lot of traditional American hagiography. In
1776 there's a very good chance I would have been a loyalist (especially
considering how high a bar I set for armed rebellion). The big thing that
Britain did get wrong was not understanding the complexity of ruling a vast and
growing colonial nation from across the ocean. Though to be fair they didn't
generally get Ireland right either so it's par for the course for the UK
historically. Otherwise all the "abuses" the colonists cited was really a
consequence of Britain having to pay for the defense of the colonies during the
Seven Years War and after. Especially considering how much of the Seven Years
War was partially due to the American colonists antagonizing the French and
Spanish. Now, none of that is to say that the government that the Americans set
up subsequently wasn't a brilliant success in many ways. But the original cause
of the colonists had a lot of problems in my view, not to mention independence
from Britain prolonged slavery.

Collapse


Dougrhon 1 week ago
more replies

A lot of Brits DID understand it. There was plenty of opposition to the decision
to begin to actually tax and rule the colonies which began in 1774 and led to
the break. And there was opposition in Parliament to the decision to go to war
to keep the colonies.

Collapse


Packmd4 1 week ago
more replies

True, Burke and Fox did see the issues but unfortunately less capable statesmen
like George III held the power of government and kept using brute force and
antagonizing even moderate colonists. A more deft touch could have resolved the
dividing issues but unfortunately Britain didn't have competent governance until
Pitt became PM in 1783.

Collapse


Kbg 1 week ago
more replies

I'm not sure the issue could have been squared. The Colonists and the Crown had
fundamental and irreconcilable differences on how and who could levy taxes. The
American's position was only local state legislatures could pass law to tax
Colonials.

Collapse


Packmd4 1 week ago
more replies

Considering the political climate of 1770's Britain you're likely right. I would
say that the example of Canada and Australia shows that it would have been
possible but to be fair it was likely the lesson of American independence that
made those much more peaceful separations possible.

Collapse













Tmcke 1 week ago
more replies

I am sure I would have been a loyalist. In fact a number of folks who started
out wanting self govt ended up as passive loyalist just because that had a
business or farm to keep going and a family to raise.

Collapse







Ted Gale 1 week ago
more replies

I did not find the 1619 Project terribly eye opening . . . it was not news to me
(at least) that the first slaves appear to have arrived in what is now the U.S.
in 1619, and that the practice was well established in all of the colonies
(although more predominant in the plantation economies in the southern tier).
After all, it was Vermont that was the first state to formally ban chattel
slavery--not one of the original thirteen. That does not mean that the U.S. was
founded on slavery--but it was a reality on the ground that had to be dealt
with--often poorly, always uncomfortably, and, in the end, with a great deal of
bloodshed.

Collapse


Dougrhon 1 week ago
more replies

History as propaganda is never acceptable and the 1619 project is just that.
There are reliable historians who can be trusted to tell a complex story without
the need to make shit up for a political point.

Collapse




Tmcke 1 week ago
more replies

Well for me, I was surprised the when NJ formally set an end to slavery, it was
full of what we might now call loopholes. So looking at accounts from Paterson,
one sees advertisements for runaways that sounded just ads to obtain a slave. So
Negro wench etc. Also to capture a runaway. For me, it was new - this was in the
second decade of the 19th century. And a small number of slaves remained so even
till 1865. Again, a surprise for me. Also factories in the North were heavily
dependent upon the cotton produced in the South. That was not really news but
the systems of credit that allowed mill owners to pay for bales of cotton was
entwined with the system of credit that allowed for slaves to be bought and
sold. So for me... a change in emphasis

Collapse










Mudskipper 1 week ago
more replies

Oh, for heaven's sake! I followed the link to Rebecca Onion's review and
Lucchese almost entirely misrepresents it here to score culture war points.

First of all, Onion mentions this series ONLY as part of list of other Apple TV+
historical dramas. That's it. That's the sole mention of it. She certainly
doesn't criticize it because it is out-of-step with progressive values. Even in
the main focus of her review--the series Manhunt--she doesn't do so; in fact,
one of her criticisms of that show is its heavy-handed introduction of current
political preoccupations into the story.
She appears to be saying that these dramas would make for better TV if they paid
a little more attention to human drama and a little less to absolute historical
accuracy. There is nothing about inserting "narratives of oppression and power
politics" into the stories.

This is a thoroughly dishonest take on Onion's piece. Lucchese should be
ashamed.

Collapse




Pohl 1 week ago
more replies

But is it as good as HBO’s “John Adams”? I hope so. Thanks for the heads-up
about this new series. I’m not a Franklin aficionado, so I will definitely learn
something.

Collapse


Dougrhon 1 week ago
more replies

How could it be? John Adams was absolutely fantastic.

Collapse




Wilhelm 1 week ago
more replies

May I recommend "The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin" by Gordon S. Wood.
He's a smooth writer and the length doesn't make it chewy.
I feel confident that Stacy Schiff wrote a gem in "Benjamin Franklin and the
Birth of America," but I haven't read it yet.

Collapse


Pohl 1 week ago
more replies

Thanks for recommendation.

Collapse




Ted Gale 1 week ago
more replies

There was a bit of a run on Franklin in the early years of this century. Wood's
book is excellent, as are "The First American" by H.W Brands (if I recall
correctly); "Benjamin Franklin," by Walter Isaacson; and (my personal favorite
(albeit for sentimental reasons)) "Benjamin Franklin," by the great Edmund
Morgan.

Collapse










Ben Connelly 1 week ago
more replies

“Slate senior editor Rebecca Onion dismissed the show as “AP U.S. History TV,”
for example. Her criticisms are reminiscent of the way historian (and Franklin
biographer) H.W. Brands coined the label “Founders Chic” for the kind of
storytelling that foregrounds the great men of our past. These writers and
others argue that a reverential attitude toward the early republic distorts a
record full of injustice and imperfection.”

Spoken like people ignorant of scholarship about the American Founding and who
would prefer to remain so.

Collapse


Scarlette Tarte 1 week ago
more replies

Except she didn't really criticize the show, at all. The article is about
Manhunt, mostly, and about the plethora of these history series and which ones
are better and why.

This author makes a statement that the "left is unhappy" and backs it up with
this pablum?

He owes everyone, especially the left, an apology. No one of any note is
"unhappy" with this series, and what's more, he just engaged in a bit of culture
war inflammation for literally no reason at all except he figures you cons are
so triggered by the "the left" that all it takes to get you to engage with
something, is just to mention "oh, btw, the other side just HATES it!"

Wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels.

Collapse


Mudskipper 1 week ago
more replies

I should have read this before I posted my own comment and spared myself the
effort. Apparently we were working along the same lines at the same time.

I really found Lucchese's misrepresentation of Onion's review to be shocking.

Collapse


Scarlette Tarte 1 week ago
more replies

It's fine, I think the more people who bring stuff like this to everyone's
attention, the better.

I have also started noticing links that, when you click on them, take you to a
tweet. Now, I don't know about you, but a tweet is not a proper reference or
really indicative of any sort of evidence (unless it's a tweet to a link to a
study or poll, but then, why not just link the poll itself?), it's just an
opinion by someone else.

This morning Rachel Larrimore placed a link to a tweet of a Jewish guy filming
that he couldn't get to class. But it was just a video of him claiming he needed
to go to class "over there" and "this is what "they" do. He was being blocked,
but we don't hear why from the other students, who are silent. It probably was
the case, but we actually don't know that for sure.

I find this very, very misleading. Linking to tweets is like linking to a
Facebook post. It is really evidence of nothing.

And I see this all the time in these admissions, often from the main Dispatch
contributors themselves.

Everyone should start following every link. And pointing out when it's
misleading, false, not evidence or mischaracterizes something.

So the more voices the better.

Collapse







Centrist 1 week ago
more replies

Agreed. Hard to believe the author of this article actually read the linked
Slate article with any care.

Collapse




Ben Connelly 1 week ago
more replies

Yeah I saw that. The linked article doesn’t talk about Franklin.

Collapse










Earl King 1 week ago
more replies

It is beyond maddening that the “America haters”, those who look at America and
its founding as some sort of human stain, are quick to blame slavery on America
when in reality America became saddled with slavery imposed by a British King.
Not America nor its Declaration nor the Constitution. Our great failure was not
living up to all the ideals expressed. That was a process. Did it take too long,
of course. What is always missing from America’s critics is context. It is
thought approximately 26 million African slaves were taken out of Africa from
600AD to 1800. Roughly half went east with the rest going west. Out of 12
million or so, approx 480,000 went to America. In 1619 the same time the first
slaves hit our shores the first Abolitionist movement began. It was simultaneous
and largely due to Puritans. We must also never forget that is wasn’t the
Portuguese or English that went to the bush and took slaves. It was the Africans
themselves. All this to say humans are tough and certainly can be evil. They
still are.

The glory of Franklin is a noble experiment they were fighting for. That freedom
for individual pursuit of happiness for men alone and not to solely be granted
by a King.

Collapse


Ted Gale 1 week ago
more replies

I don't think if would be accurate to say that "America became saddled with
slavery imposed by a British King". Slavery took root where it did in what is
now the U.S. because it made a certain economic sense in a plantation economy
devoted to a cash crop (primarily tobacco, but also such things as indigo). But
I doubt that there were any British agents telling planters in Virginia and the
Carolinas saying, "you must have slaves," and the planters resisting and
resenting that. It grew as a practice during a period of general neglect by the
government in England, on its own, essentially thoughtlessly.

(It is, of course, also ridiculous to say that America was founded on slavery.
Slavery was a well-established practice long before anyone had a thought of
separating from Britain.)

Collapse


Earl King 1 week ago
more replies

Many colonists did not want slavery. That is evident in Puritan writings. So
indeed it was imposed on the county. The percentage of colonists that owned
slaves is very very small. While we didn't have polling I believe it is safe to
say we don't know what the vote would have been on a plebiscite over whether the
states would have voted for slavery. This is why I come down to the King's
imposition of slavery. it was big business, trade in molasses, rum, cotton, etc
was paramount.

I have no doubt there were discussions about trade and the amount of it. Taxes
were also important for the Treasury. I think I'd be safe in saying it was
likley that trade from the Caribbean probably drove the decision to bring in
slaves. They needed the labor.

Collapse


SamCOS 1 week ago
more replies

I take issue with "imposed". Did the King mandate slavery in the colonies? It
seems more like it was adopted rather than imposed.

Collapse


Earl King 1 week ago
more replies

I wasn't around when Charles or the British Governors of the Islands made the
decision. Between the British and Portuguese the slave traders filled a need. I
could be wrong but since the King and Parliament made and imposed Law I'm
guessing there must be some piece of paper or a bill allowing it. I could be
wrong, but there was no America in 1619, the colonists, some of them were
British subjects. I don't have any knowledge of what the French were doing in
their territories. It is simply not factually correct to say America adopted
slavery. It was inherited and of course the politics surrounding the war of
independence would not have occurred if slavery had been the issue.

Collapse
















The Bell Tower 2 weeks ago
more replies

I’m sure if some of these modern progressive “historians” had their way,
Franklin would be portrayed by a gay black Indian and Abigail would replace John
in France.

That the left is unhappy now has convinced me to see it. Gonna be hard not to
see Franklin looking for Joan Wilder in Cartagena but I’ll give it a go.

Collapse


Slaffey 2 weeks ago
more replies

"The left is unhappy". I can't find anything in this story that backs this
statement up. The Slate article is not behind a paywall, and if you read it you
will find that it is not about "Franklin" at all. In fact, it was written before
the series came out. I'm not convinced the author read the article. I checked
out several on line reviews, including one from NPR. While some were positive
and some were negative, I couldn't find any that reflected any unhappiness by
the left.
If the author really thinks there is some unhappiness on the left about this
series he should have done a better job of backing that opinion up.

Collapse


Williams0019 1 week ago
more replies

Did you actually read THIS article? If you disagree with this review of a TV
miniseries, maybe you should do a better job of backing your opinion up.

Collapse


Mudskipper Edited 1 week ago
more replies

Did you actually read Slaffey's post? Because if you had, you'd realize he isn't
disagreeing with the author's review of the miniseries itself.

He is disagreeing with the author's take on the left's response to it. He's is
absolutely right: the Slate article is not about this series at all. Moreover,
the article doesn't criticize any of the Apple TV+ historical series for not
being progressive enough. Lucchese simply deliberately misrepresented the Slate
article.

Collapse







The Bell Tower 2 weeks ago
more replies

That’s a bummer. Maybe I won’t like it as much.

Collapse










BillAZ 2 weeks ago
more replies

Sorry, can't get past Michael Douglas as Ben Franklin.

Collapse


RC 2 weeks ago
more replies

I’ve been watching “Franklin” and Douglas does a fine job. Michael Douglas
portrays Franklin with an impish spirit that I think fits.

Collapse




Aylene Wright 2 weeks ago
more replies

Yeah, same here. When I look at that photo, I see Michael Douglas in period
garb. I just can't see him as Franklin. And it's not just because Douglas is so
famous. Daniel Day-Lewis was pretty famous already when he played Lincoln, but
it was easy to see him as Lincoln.

Collapse


SamCOS 1 week ago
more replies

I am struggling with Douglas as Franklin as well. I feel like it is one of those
boxes to check like doing Shakespeare where an actor feels the need to play a
major historical figure to round out his IMDB resume.

Collapse




DougAz 2 weeks ago
more replies

I may be the only person here that enjoyed both Lincoln, and

Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter!

Collapse


BillAZ 2 weeks ago
more replies

Finally a film critic with refined and discriminating taste.

Collapse


DougAz 2 weeks ago
more replies

Have you seen it? It's a riot !!

Collapse


BillAZ 2 weeks ago
more replies

No… I’m saving it for a special day along with the film “Ishtar” for a
double-feature.

Collapse













BillAZ 2 weeks ago
more replies

Day-Lewis was so excellent in that. That high reedy voice he emulated that was
attributed to Lincoln. Perfect.(Not that I'm so old I remember the original)

Collapse


Natty Bumpo 2 weeks ago
more replies

Agree about Day-Lewis vocal performance in Lincoln. As I recall Harold Holzer's
Lincoln at Cooper Union was pretty descriptive about Lincoln's speaking voice
based on contemporary descriptions. Day-Lewis was dead on what I would expect
from those characterizations.

Collapse




The Bell Tower 2 weeks ago
more replies

I knew Abe Lincoln. Abe Lincoln was a friend of mine….

Collapse













Aylene Wright Edited 2 weeks ago
more replies

This article addresses important cultural issues, but unfortunately comes across
as a tad incomplete as an actual review of the miniseries. It mentions that it's
"far from perfect" and concedes that "The 'Founders Chic' genre certainly has
its problems and Franklin is no exception", but other than a brief comment about
being too mean to John Adams, doesn't actually mention any specific negatives
about the production.

Obviously, the writer found some other problems, not just the depiction of the
Adams-Franklin rivalry. But he doesn't mention them. Indeed, much of the article
is about the *historical* Franklin, who I do find to be a fascinating character,
but that doesn't mean I am automatically going to watch any historical drama
that depicts him.

I come away with the message that I should watch this show, mostly to prove that
I am a patriot who *doesn't* think the entire Founding was too problematic to
celebrate. Sorry, that doesn't make the sale, anymore than marketing campaigns
for more progressive productions that imply people should watch a show to
express support for, say, LGBT rights, not because the show is actually of high
quality.

Indeed, this continues a pattern of TD Culture articles that are just way too
skewed towards a positive spin on the topic. The recent Lord Byron and Marlon
Brando hagiographies also flattened out the subject by just going on and on
about how great they were.

Collapse


EricRemcon@gmail 2 weeks ago
more replies

The two points in your first paragraph are exactly what popped into my head
after reading this. This would have been a meatier article if the author would
have explained himself.

But I think you are a little too harsh with the rest. I didn’t get the “you
should watch this if you are a patriot” vibe. To me, it was more like ‘it has
its flaws, but at least it is a well produced show about a subject that you
should know/care about’.

I do not have Apple TV so I cannot watch it. If I did, I would watch it because
of my interest in Franklin as a character and my like/respect for Michael
Douglas as an actor.

This reminds me, the only Franklin biography that I have read cover-to-cover is
Walter Isaacson’s. I should probably pick up one or two more for balance.

Collapse


Aylene Wright Edited 2 weeks ago
more replies

Points taken. I think that perhaps I made a mistake in expecting the article to
be primarily a review of the miniseries, as opposed to one that merely used the
miniseries as a starting-off point to discuss the current cultural Zeitgeist on
the Founding.

The Dispatch movie review of the "Killers of the Flower Moon", also discussed
what the critical reception of the film meant about greater society, especially
how many on the Right rejected it out of hand as "Woke" merely based in the
topic, while many on the Left rejected it because they didn't think Scorcese, as
a White Man, should have made the movie, that it was a Native story and should
have been told by a Native director.

But, that article was still primarily a review of the movie itself.

PS: Perhaps this article would have actually worked better if it wasn't framed
as a review at all. The cultural issues it raises are interesting. Lately I keep
wondering if the Hamilton musical could even be made today. Or would the Right
reject it out of hand as just more Woke anti-white propaganda, because the
heroes are all played by non-whites while the mad King is played by a white
actor? Would the Left reject it as just more Founders Chic that sanitizes their
moral depravity?

I mean, Slavery really isn't addressed with any depth as I recall. It was used
to label Jefferson as a Bad Guy because he owned slaves, but Washington, who
also owned slaves, was still portrayed as a Good Guy.

(I also found the way both Hamilton himself as well as Burr and others, identify
him as an "immigrant", to be quite anachronistic.)

In hindsight, the musical really did reflect the era in which it was made, when
the Obama Presidency had so many people in a hopeful mood.

PPS: I mean, we certainly don't live in such an era now. We've come to a point
in which even the writer of Techne, who I assume has center-right politics, and
is certainly not a Woke scold, casually referred to the Founders as "wise
barbarians".

Collapse


Scarlette Tarte 1 week ago
more replies

I really enjoy the Techne contributor. I learn something new every time I read
that column.

Collapse




EricRemcon@gmail 2 weeks ago
more replies

I don’t think I commented on that TD review but my critique of Killers of the
Flower Moon (ignoring all of the woke/White man stuff) is that it did not follow
the book very well. I understand that you need to develop the characters and all
but the book was told more from the law enforcement side. With 3 hours there was
plenty of time to do both angles.

When it comes to reviews, while I don’t appreciate preachy ones either, I kind
of like it when they give you a flavor without giving too much away. I am one of
those freaks that rarely watches movie previews because I don’t want to know
anything. It is difficult watching a preview with my wife because she watches it
close enough to say “see, that was the end” and I am like WHY did you tell me!

I agree about Hamilton. I don’t think that it would be as big a hit if it came
out today. But don’t listen to me because I am not a musical/rap lyric kind of
guy (I am an idiot when it comes to musicals except The Sound of Music which I
saw on TV as a kid). But my wife and both kids loved both it and the music. I
was, ehh, I’m glad it is popular, but it is still a musical.

BTW: Congrats on the Yankee walk off win over the Tigers last night. That is the
second time in three games that they have blown a 1-0 lead in the ninth. They
are getting great pitching, for the most part, but are blowing it at the plate
this year. At least they are still in contention.

Collapse


Aylene Wright 2 weeks ago
more replies

What I liked about Hamilton is that it's very self-aware that it's a
representation of history, but not history itself. It doesn't claim to show What
Really Happened.

Thanks for the baseball themed PS, too. Yes, the Yankees are off to a good
start, but that was the case last year too, and that didn't last. Hopefully this
year has a better outcome.

Collapse
















Load More

REPORT A COMMENT

Why are you reporting this comment?
Spam Racism Harassment or violence Inappropriate
Thanks for letting us know!

Your feedback is important in helping us keep our community safe.

Submitting...
Close Submit Report
Worth Your Time

May 12, 2024May 14, 2024

The Dispatch Monthly Mailbag With Grayson Logue

The Dispatch Staff

May 13, 2024May 12, 2024

There Are Two Sides to Every Debt

Kevin D. Williamson

May 10, 2024May 10, 2024

The Tea Party Movement Died With a Whimper

Jonah Goldberg

May 9, 2024May 8, 2024

A Plan for Victory in Ukraine

Rob Portman

About Michael Lucchese

Michael Lucchese is the founder of Pipe Creek Consulting, a Krauthammer Fellow
at the Tikvah Fund, and a contributing editor to Providence.
More from Michael Lucchese
Conversations (55)

COMMENTS (55)

Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
Sort by:  Newest to Oldest Most Popular Oldest to Newest

Kbg Edited 1 week ago
more replies

As lover of history, spot on about academic history/historians...a lot of it is
just heinously boring and/or trivial in nature. Thank heavens for popular
historical writers and podcasting...elsewise the field would probably be dead.

Collapse




SamCOS 1 week ago
more replies

I read Isaacson's book on Franklin and saw the PBS series. I recall thinking
both were good. I wonder about the historical accuracy of shows like these
though. I don't know enough about Franklin's time in Paris (or the source
material although I am adding it to my reading list) to know how much is not
real or realistic. Some of the exploits of his grandson seem a little far
fetched, but maybe I am in error on that.

Manhunt on the other hand (since it was mentioned) is horrible. Mary Todd
referring to Stanton as Lincoln's "work husband" is just a leap too far (not to
mention the actor playing Stanton does not come close to resembling him).

Collapse


Dougrhon 1 week ago
more replies

Manhunt was a bitter disappointment. Not only does it make up history but it
slanders quite a few people including Stanton, Andrew Johnson, Jefferson Davis
and Lincoln himself.

Collapse







Tmcke Edited 1 week ago
more replies

I am curious about the reference to the 1619 project as if it was not eye
opening. I am a history buff (about industrial history in the US) and found
myself revisiting slavery in NJ where I live. And it turns out there was so much
more of it than I had known about. 1619 was a journalist's enterprise and made
too many claims for the influence of slavery.. but it was pointing out something
many of us never learned and presumably, black folks are tired of that.

By the way if you want to see how little we really know, or how much we make
breezy assumptions, how about how we refer to Britain as tyrannical. Hardly. The
Great Britain that we broke from was far from tyrannical. Yes the colonies
chafed and it was time to move on. But there was no tyranny. Yes no one
complains of the breezy assumption that we faced tyranny. This matter is a much
larger error than anything to do with the 1619 project which left us with much
to ponder. Again too much was claimed re slavery but this was a corrective to
presentations that made it seem meaningless.

Collapse


Packmd4 1 week ago
more replies

This is where I really depart from a lot of traditional American hagiography. In
1776 there's a very good chance I would have been a loyalist (especially
considering how high a bar I set for armed rebellion). The big thing that
Britain did get wrong was not understanding the complexity of ruling a vast and
growing colonial nation from across the ocean. Though to be fair they didn't
generally get Ireland right either so it's par for the course for the UK
historically. Otherwise all the "abuses" the colonists cited was really a
consequence of Britain having to pay for the defense of the colonies during the
Seven Years War and after. Especially considering how much of the Seven Years
War was partially due to the American colonists antagonizing the French and
Spanish. Now, none of that is to say that the government that the Americans set
up subsequently wasn't a brilliant success in many ways. But the original cause
of the colonists had a lot of problems in my view, not to mention independence
from Britain prolonged slavery.

Collapse


Dougrhon 1 week ago
more replies

A lot of Brits DID understand it. There was plenty of opposition to the decision
to begin to actually tax and rule the colonies which began in 1774 and led to
the break. And there was opposition in Parliament to the decision to go to war
to keep the colonies.

Collapse


Packmd4 1 week ago
more replies

True, Burke and Fox did see the issues but unfortunately less capable statesmen
like George III held the power of government and kept using brute force and
antagonizing even moderate colonists. A more deft touch could have resolved the
dividing issues but unfortunately Britain didn't have competent governance until
Pitt became PM in 1783.

Collapse


Kbg 1 week ago
more replies

I'm not sure the issue could have been squared. The Colonists and the Crown had
fundamental and irreconcilable differences on how and who could levy taxes. The
American's position was only local state legislatures could pass law to tax
Colonials.

Collapse


Packmd4 1 week ago
more replies

Considering the political climate of 1770's Britain you're likely right. I would
say that the example of Canada and Australia shows that it would have been
possible but to be fair it was likely the lesson of American independence that
made those much more peaceful separations possible.

Collapse













Tmcke 1 week ago
more replies

I am sure I would have been a loyalist. In fact a number of folks who started
out wanting self govt ended up as passive loyalist just because that had a
business or farm to keep going and a family to raise.

Collapse







Ted Gale 1 week ago
more replies

I did not find the 1619 Project terribly eye opening . . . it was not news to me
(at least) that the first slaves appear to have arrived in what is now the U.S.
in 1619, and that the practice was well established in all of the colonies
(although more predominant in the plantation economies in the southern tier).
After all, it was Vermont that was the first state to formally ban chattel
slavery--not one of the original thirteen. That does not mean that the U.S. was
founded on slavery--but it was a reality on the ground that had to be dealt
with--often poorly, always uncomfortably, and, in the end, with a great deal of
bloodshed.

Collapse


Dougrhon 1 week ago
more replies

History as propaganda is never acceptable and the 1619 project is just that.
There are reliable historians who can be trusted to tell a complex story without
the need to make shit up for a political point.

Collapse




Tmcke 1 week ago
more replies

Well for me, I was surprised the when NJ formally set an end to slavery, it was
full of what we might now call loopholes. So looking at accounts from Paterson,
one sees advertisements for runaways that sounded just ads to obtain a slave. So
Negro wench etc. Also to capture a runaway. For me, it was new - this was in the
second decade of the 19th century. And a small number of slaves remained so even
till 1865. Again, a surprise for me. Also factories in the North were heavily
dependent upon the cotton produced in the South. That was not really news but
the systems of credit that allowed mill owners to pay for bales of cotton was
entwined with the system of credit that allowed for slaves to be bought and
sold. So for me... a change in emphasis

Collapse










Mudskipper 1 week ago
more replies

Oh, for heaven's sake! I followed the link to Rebecca Onion's review and
Lucchese almost entirely misrepresents it here to score culture war points.

First of all, Onion mentions this series ONLY as part of list of other Apple TV+
historical dramas. That's it. That's the sole mention of it. She certainly
doesn't criticize it because it is out-of-step with progressive values. Even in
the main focus of her review--the series Manhunt--she doesn't do so; in fact,
one of her criticisms of that show is its heavy-handed introduction of current
political preoccupations into the story.
She appears to be saying that these dramas would make for better TV if they paid
a little more attention to human drama and a little less to absolute historical
accuracy. There is nothing about inserting "narratives of oppression and power
politics" into the stories.

This is a thoroughly dishonest take on Onion's piece. Lucchese should be
ashamed.

Collapse




Pohl 1 week ago
more replies

But is it as good as HBO’s “John Adams”? I hope so. Thanks for the heads-up
about this new series. I’m not a Franklin aficionado, so I will definitely learn
something.

Collapse


Dougrhon 1 week ago
more replies

How could it be? John Adams was absolutely fantastic.

Collapse




Wilhelm 1 week ago
more replies

May I recommend "The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin" by Gordon S. Wood.
He's a smooth writer and the length doesn't make it chewy.
I feel confident that Stacy Schiff wrote a gem in "Benjamin Franklin and the
Birth of America," but I haven't read it yet.

Collapse


Pohl 1 week ago
more replies

Thanks for recommendation.

Collapse




Ted Gale 1 week ago
more replies

There was a bit of a run on Franklin in the early years of this century. Wood's
book is excellent, as are "The First American" by H.W Brands (if I recall
correctly); "Benjamin Franklin," by Walter Isaacson; and (my personal favorite
(albeit for sentimental reasons)) "Benjamin Franklin," by the great Edmund
Morgan.

Collapse










Ben Connelly 1 week ago
more replies

“Slate senior editor Rebecca Onion dismissed the show as “AP U.S. History TV,”
for example. Her criticisms are reminiscent of the way historian (and Franklin
biographer) H.W. Brands coined the label “Founders Chic” for the kind of
storytelling that foregrounds the great men of our past. These writers and
others argue that a reverential attitude toward the early republic distorts a
record full of injustice and imperfection.”

Spoken like people ignorant of scholarship about the American Founding and who
would prefer to remain so.

Collapse


Scarlette Tarte 1 week ago
more replies

Except she didn't really criticize the show, at all. The article is about
Manhunt, mostly, and about the plethora of these history series and which ones
are better and why.

This author makes a statement that the "left is unhappy" and backs it up with
this pablum?

He owes everyone, especially the left, an apology. No one of any note is
"unhappy" with this series, and what's more, he just engaged in a bit of culture
war inflammation for literally no reason at all except he figures you cons are
so triggered by the "the left" that all it takes to get you to engage with
something, is just to mention "oh, btw, the other side just HATES it!"

Wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels.

Collapse


Mudskipper 1 week ago
more replies

I should have read this before I posted my own comment and spared myself the
effort. Apparently we were working along the same lines at the same time.

I really found Lucchese's misrepresentation of Onion's review to be shocking.

Collapse


Scarlette Tarte 1 week ago
more replies

It's fine, I think the more people who bring stuff like this to everyone's
attention, the better.

I have also started noticing links that, when you click on them, take you to a
tweet. Now, I don't know about you, but a tweet is not a proper reference or
really indicative of any sort of evidence (unless it's a tweet to a link to a
study or poll, but then, why not just link the poll itself?), it's just an
opinion by someone else.

This morning Rachel Larrimore placed a link to a tweet of a Jewish guy filming
that he couldn't get to class. But it was just a video of him claiming he needed
to go to class "over there" and "this is what "they" do. He was being blocked,
but we don't hear why from the other students, who are silent. It probably was
the case, but we actually don't know that for sure.

I find this very, very misleading. Linking to tweets is like linking to a
Facebook post. It is really evidence of nothing.

And I see this all the time in these admissions, often from the main Dispatch
contributors themselves.

Everyone should start following every link. And pointing out when it's
misleading, false, not evidence or mischaracterizes something.

So the more voices the better.

Collapse







Centrist 1 week ago
more replies

Agreed. Hard to believe the author of this article actually read the linked
Slate article with any care.

Collapse




Ben Connelly 1 week ago
more replies

Yeah I saw that. The linked article doesn’t talk about Franklin.

Collapse










Earl King 1 week ago
more replies

It is beyond maddening that the “America haters”, those who look at America and
its founding as some sort of human stain, are quick to blame slavery on America
when in reality America became saddled with slavery imposed by a British King.
Not America nor its Declaration nor the Constitution. Our great failure was not
living up to all the ideals expressed. That was a process. Did it take too long,
of course. What is always missing from America’s critics is context. It is
thought approximately 26 million African slaves were taken out of Africa from
600AD to 1800. Roughly half went east with the rest going west. Out of 12
million or so, approx 480,000 went to America. In 1619 the same time the first
slaves hit our shores the first Abolitionist movement began. It was simultaneous
and largely due to Puritans. We must also never forget that is wasn’t the
Portuguese or English that went to the bush and took slaves. It was the Africans
themselves. All this to say humans are tough and certainly can be evil. They
still are.

The glory of Franklin is a noble experiment they were fighting for. That freedom
for individual pursuit of happiness for men alone and not to solely be granted
by a King.

Collapse


Ted Gale 1 week ago
more replies

I don't think if would be accurate to say that "America became saddled with
slavery imposed by a British King". Slavery took root where it did in what is
now the U.S. because it made a certain economic sense in a plantation economy
devoted to a cash crop (primarily tobacco, but also such things as indigo). But
I doubt that there were any British agents telling planters in Virginia and the
Carolinas saying, "you must have slaves," and the planters resisting and
resenting that. It grew as a practice during a period of general neglect by the
government in England, on its own, essentially thoughtlessly.

(It is, of course, also ridiculous to say that America was founded on slavery.
Slavery was a well-established practice long before anyone had a thought of
separating from Britain.)

Collapse


Earl King 1 week ago
more replies

Many colonists did not want slavery. That is evident in Puritan writings. So
indeed it was imposed on the county. The percentage of colonists that owned
slaves is very very small. While we didn't have polling I believe it is safe to
say we don't know what the vote would have been on a plebiscite over whether the
states would have voted for slavery. This is why I come down to the King's
imposition of slavery. it was big business, trade in molasses, rum, cotton, etc
was paramount.

I have no doubt there were discussions about trade and the amount of it. Taxes
were also important for the Treasury. I think I'd be safe in saying it was
likley that trade from the Caribbean probably drove the decision to bring in
slaves. They needed the labor.

Collapse


SamCOS 1 week ago
more replies

I take issue with "imposed". Did the King mandate slavery in the colonies? It
seems more like it was adopted rather than imposed.

Collapse


Earl King 1 week ago
more replies

I wasn't around when Charles or the British Governors of the Islands made the
decision. Between the British and Portuguese the slave traders filled a need. I
could be wrong but since the King and Parliament made and imposed Law I'm
guessing there must be some piece of paper or a bill allowing it. I could be
wrong, but there was no America in 1619, the colonists, some of them were
British subjects. I don't have any knowledge of what the French were doing in
their territories. It is simply not factually correct to say America adopted
slavery. It was inherited and of course the politics surrounding the war of
independence would not have occurred if slavery had been the issue.

Collapse
















The Bell Tower 2 weeks ago
more replies

I’m sure if some of these modern progressive “historians” had their way,
Franklin would be portrayed by a gay black Indian and Abigail would replace John
in France.

That the left is unhappy now has convinced me to see it. Gonna be hard not to
see Franklin looking for Joan Wilder in Cartagena but I’ll give it a go.

Collapse


Slaffey 2 weeks ago
more replies

"The left is unhappy". I can't find anything in this story that backs this
statement up. The Slate article is not behind a paywall, and if you read it you
will find that it is not about "Franklin" at all. In fact, it was written before
the series came out. I'm not convinced the author read the article. I checked
out several on line reviews, including one from NPR. While some were positive
and some were negative, I couldn't find any that reflected any unhappiness by
the left.
If the author really thinks there is some unhappiness on the left about this
series he should have done a better job of backing that opinion up.

Collapse


Williams0019 1 week ago
more replies

Did you actually read THIS article? If you disagree with this review of a TV
miniseries, maybe you should do a better job of backing your opinion up.

Collapse


Mudskipper Edited 1 week ago
more replies

Did you actually read Slaffey's post? Because if you had, you'd realize he isn't
disagreeing with the author's review of the miniseries itself.

He is disagreeing with the author's take on the left's response to it. He's is
absolutely right: the Slate article is not about this series at all. Moreover,
the article doesn't criticize any of the Apple TV+ historical series for not
being progressive enough. Lucchese simply deliberately misrepresented the Slate
article.

Collapse







The Bell Tower 2 weeks ago
more replies

That’s a bummer. Maybe I won’t like it as much.

Collapse










BillAZ 2 weeks ago
more replies

Sorry, can't get past Michael Douglas as Ben Franklin.

Collapse


RC 2 weeks ago
more replies

I’ve been watching “Franklin” and Douglas does a fine job. Michael Douglas
portrays Franklin with an impish spirit that I think fits.

Collapse




Aylene Wright 2 weeks ago
more replies

Yeah, same here. When I look at that photo, I see Michael Douglas in period
garb. I just can't see him as Franklin. And it's not just because Douglas is so
famous. Daniel Day-Lewis was pretty famous already when he played Lincoln, but
it was easy to see him as Lincoln.

Collapse


SamCOS 1 week ago
more replies

I am struggling with Douglas as Franklin as well. I feel like it is one of those
boxes to check like doing Shakespeare where an actor feels the need to play a
major historical figure to round out his IMDB resume.

Collapse




DougAz 2 weeks ago
more replies

I may be the only person here that enjoyed both Lincoln, and

Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter!

Collapse


BillAZ 2 weeks ago
more replies

😂 Finally a film critic with refined and discriminating taste.

Collapse


DougAz 2 weeks ago
more replies

Have you seen it? It's a riot !!

Collapse


BillAZ 2 weeks ago
more replies

No… I’m saving it for a special day along with the film “Ishtar” for a
double-feature.

Collapse













BillAZ 2 weeks ago
more replies

Day-Lewis was so excellent in that. That high reedy voice he emulated that was
attributed to Lincoln. Perfect.(Not that I'm so old I remember the original)

Collapse


Natty Bumpo 2 weeks ago
more replies

Agree about Day-Lewis vocal performance in Lincoln. As I recall Harold Holzer's
Lincoln at Cooper Union was pretty descriptive about Lincoln's speaking voice
based on contemporary descriptions. Day-Lewis was dead on what I would expect
from those characterizations.

Collapse




The Bell Tower 2 weeks ago
more replies

I knew Abe Lincoln. Abe Lincoln was a friend of mine….

Collapse













Aylene Wright Edited 2 weeks ago
more replies

This article addresses important cultural issues, but unfortunately comes across
as a tad incomplete as an actual review of the miniseries. It mentions that it's
"far from perfect" and concedes that "The 'Founders Chic' genre certainly has
its problems and Franklin is no exception", but other than a brief comment about
being too mean to John Adams, doesn't actually mention any specific negatives
about the production.

Obviously, the writer found some other problems, not just the depiction of the
Adams-Franklin rivalry. But he doesn't mention them. Indeed, much of the article
is about the *historical* Franklin, who I do find to be a fascinating character,
but that doesn't mean I am automatically going to watch any historical drama
that depicts him.

I come away with the message that I should watch this show, mostly to prove that
I am a patriot who *doesn't* think the entire Founding was too problematic to
celebrate. Sorry, that doesn't make the sale, anymore than marketing campaigns
for more progressive productions that imply people should watch a show to
express support for, say, LGBT rights, not because the show is actually of high
quality.

Indeed, this continues a pattern of TD Culture articles that are just way too
skewed towards a positive spin on the topic. The recent Lord Byron and Marlon
Brando hagiographies also flattened out the subject by just going on and on
about how great they were.

Collapse


EricRemcon@gmail 2 weeks ago
more replies

The two points in your first paragraph are exactly what popped into my head
after reading this. This would have been a meatier article if the author would
have explained himself.

But I think you are a little too harsh with the rest. I didn’t get the “you
should watch this if you are a patriot” vibe. To me, it was more like ‘it has
its flaws, but at least it is a well produced show about a subject that you
should know/care about’.

I do not have Apple TV so I cannot watch it. If I did, I would watch it because
of my interest in Franklin as a character and my like/respect for Michael
Douglas as an actor.

This reminds me, the only Franklin biography that I have read cover-to-cover is
Walter Isaacson’s. I should probably pick up one or two more for balance.

Collapse


Aylene Wright Edited 2 weeks ago
more replies

Points taken. I think that perhaps I made a mistake in expecting the article to
be primarily a review of the miniseries, as opposed to one that merely used the
miniseries as a starting-off point to discuss the current cultural Zeitgeist on
the Founding.

The Dispatch movie review of the "Killers of the Flower Moon", also discussed
what the critical reception of the film meant about greater society, especially
how many on the Right rejected it out of hand as "Woke" merely based in the
topic, while many on the Left rejected it because they didn't think Scorcese, as
a White Man, should have made the movie, that it was a Native story and should
have been told by a Native director.

But, that article was still primarily a review of the movie itself.

PS: Perhaps this article would have actually worked better if it wasn't framed
as a review at all. The cultural issues it raises are interesting. Lately I keep
wondering if the Hamilton musical could even be made today. Or would the Right
reject it out of hand as just more Woke anti-white propaganda, because the
heroes are all played by non-whites while the mad King is played by a white
actor? Would the Left reject it as just more Founders Chic that sanitizes their
moral depravity?

I mean, Slavery really isn't addressed with any depth as I recall. It was used
to label Jefferson as a Bad Guy because he owned slaves, but Washington, who
also owned slaves, was still portrayed as a Good Guy.

(I also found the way both Hamilton himself as well as Burr and others, identify
him as an "immigrant", to be quite anachronistic.)

In hindsight, the musical really did reflect the era in which it was made, when
the Obama Presidency had so many people in a hopeful mood.

PPS: I mean, we certainly don't live in such an era now. We've come to a point
in which even the writer of Techne, who I assume has center-right politics, and
is certainly not a Woke scold, casually referred to the Founders as "wise
barbarians".

Collapse


Scarlette Tarte 1 week ago
more replies

I really enjoy the Techne contributor. I learn something new every time I read
that column.

Collapse




EricRemcon@gmail 2 weeks ago
more replies

I don’t think I commented on that TD review but my critique of Killers of the
Flower Moon (ignoring all of the woke/White man stuff) is that it did not follow
the book very well. I understand that you need to develop the characters and all
but the book was told more from the law enforcement side. With 3 hours there was
plenty of time to do both angles.

When it comes to reviews, while I don’t appreciate preachy ones either, I kind
of like it when they give you a flavor without giving too much away. I am one of
those freaks that rarely watches movie previews because I don’t want to know
anything. It is difficult watching a preview with my wife because she watches it
close enough to say “see, that was the end” and I am like WHY did you tell me!
😅

I agree about Hamilton. I don’t think that it would be as big a hit if it came
out today. But don’t listen to me because I am not a musical/rap lyric kind of
guy (I am an idiot when it comes to musicals except The Sound of Music which I
saw on TV as a kid). But my wife and both kids loved both it and the music. I
was, ehh, I’m glad it is popular, but it is still a musical.

BTW: Congrats on the Yankee walk off win over the Tigers last night. That is the
second time in three games that they have blown a 1-0 lead in the ninth. 😢 They
are getting great pitching, for the most part, but are blowing it at the plate
this year. At least they are still in contention.

Collapse


Aylene Wright 2 weeks ago
more replies

What I liked about Hamilton is that it's very self-aware that it's a
representation of history, but not history itself. It doesn't claim to show What
Really Happened.

Thanks for the baseball themed PS, too. Yes, the Yankees are off to a good
start, but that was the case last year too, and that didn't last. Hopefully this
year has a better outcome. 🤞

Collapse
















Load More
1 2 Next »
Fact-based reporting and commentary on politics, policy and culture – informed
by conservative principles. Tens of thousands of paid subscribers. JOIN SIGN IN
 * Newsletters
 * Staff
 * Why The Dispatch

 * About Us
 * Careers
 * Contact Us
 * FAQs

 * Store
 * My Account
 * Twitter

 * © 2024 The Dispatch
 * Privacy Policy
 * Terms & Conditions
 * Collection Notice

1 of 1 free articles
×
Join today for full access.
Join Now

Notifications



✓
Danke für das Teilen!
AddToAny
Mehr…



SEARCH RESULTS

Magnifying Glass
Search
Close search results
Sort by:
Relevance•Newest•Oldest


NO RESULTS FOUND


FILTER OPTIONS


Close Search