I remain curious as to whether the story we are about to see is remarkably different that the 2002 @AmExperiencePBS program on Grant. So far, in terms of content, that one spent more time on Grant as president. In terms of interpretation, I've see nothing new from #GRANT promos.
That Grant's story has been reduced to a mishmash of talking heads and reenactors (which many in the viewing audience more interested in examining the accuracy of the latter than the former) suggests that there's been a failure of imagination here.
As someone who's been a talking head for a number of programs (on @foxnewspolitics, @AmExperiencePBS, and @History), I wonder why we need them. Talking heads offer obvious observations in authoritative voices. It's an illusion that they are thus authoritative.
Oh, talking heads can have wonderful scenery behind them, including vintage houses or the ubiquitous bookcase (now being replaced by the close-up), but do any of them say anything that most people already interested in the subject don't already know?
Perhaps the information is new to someone new to the topic, much as Chernow's synthesis popular biography is new to someone ignorant of decades of scholarship. That conveying of the well-known serves a purpose, but #twitterhistorians aren't the audience.
Besides, at most these little witty comments and commonplace observations are little more than Lego blocks assembled by the filmmaker into a vision that is of the filmmaker's making. Talking heads lend their credibility to someone else's story.
Although I had some input into the @AMExperiencePBS program on Grant, in other cases the first time I saw what was included (and not included) was when I viewed the finished product. So what purpose did I serve? What did I contribute that wasn't common knowledge?
Easy: I gave the final product credibility. @AMExperiencePBS sought to bring together the best people who had written on Grant. #GRANT is Ron Chernow's show. That's how @History wanted it.
Now, what do reenactors contribute to the show? Entertainment? Education? Drama? Why not simply do a film on Grant that does for Grant what @Lin_Manuel did with Chernow's Hamilton biography ... or what Spielberg did with Kearns's Lincoln?
Given #GRANT's decision to focus on Grant to 1865, why not be creative and frame a movie around Grant reflecting on his past as he prepared his memoirs? Was that too hard for these people?
Or why not focus on some meaningful decisions that illustrate important themes in Grant's life, such as his actions in 1875 concerning Reconstruction in Louisiana and Mississippi (talk about dilemmas and tragedy!) or his decision to keep moving on in May 1864?
I have looked at the previews, and what I see is a failure of imagination. Talking heads are tired fare. So are mediocre reenactments that scream reenactment with all the nitpicking that we'll see about buttons, etc.
Sure, I'll watch. I have to watch. But there are interesting stories to tell about Grant: I've told some of them. #GRANT will do wonders for those people attuned to historical documentaries as currently fashioned who know little or nothing about Grant.
There's nothing wrong with that, so long as we understand that #GRANT employs conventional approaches to share long-established mainstream understandings with a broader audience. To people who know very little about the man on the $50 bill, that's a good thing.
But I sense that there's been a missed opportunity to make larger points in a more engaging and absorbing manner. We might consider what stories we want to tell, why we want to tell them, and how we choose to tell them.
I for one would like to hear more about President Grant than General Grant, for the Grant of 1865-1885 did much to define what the Civil War achieved (and did not achieve) and how it would be remembered.
I'd like to hear more about how Grant's public life meshed with his private life. Son of a politically-active antislavery businessman, married to the daughter of a slaveholder, whose relatives and friends took advantage of him in later life ... hmmm.
Or how the man who emerged from such circumstances, the last slaveholder to become president, wrestled with his attitudes toward race, slavery, freedom, and nation. Black enlistment was not only a matter of principle, but of necessity in a war of resources.
What commitment do you have to securing black freedom and equality after the war in the face of white racism, North and South? How do you battle terrorism in an increasingly unpopular struggle? When do you have to make political compromises that damage black freedom?
Basically, Grant's a lot more interesting than debating over whether Grant drank too much too often. We can address important questions about our history and ourselves through looking at Grant.
Or we can tell the same story again and again.
We'll see tonight.
Or we can tell the same story again and again.
We'll see tonight.
