As a miniseries about an FBI profiler, Manhunt: Unabomber is quite engaging. The series follows the search for the Unabomber, which increasingly focuses on the way he writes, as well as preparation for trial two years later, going back and forth.
The protagonist is a profiler called Fitz (excellent performance by Sam Worthington) who starts off as a seemingly happy family man and two years later is living in a cabin in the woods, giving the audience two mysteries: how was the Unabomber caught, and how did Fitz's life fall apart.
While the story is intriguing, The series insists on an Imitation Game approach in which a brilliant individual singlehandedly solves the problem while everyone fights him at every step.
As with the infamously inaccurate Imitation Game, Manhunt's historical accuracy is doubtful. In fact, I did some research and easily found discrepancies. A New York Times story indicates that there were a number of people, including some outside the FBI, working on the textual clues that the miniseries has Fitz solve almost singlehandedly.
The series portrays Fitz in a formulaic manner. For example, his profiling duties lead him to identify too closely with his target, just like most series about profilers.
There's also an amusing scene where a bunch of men yell at each other while the one woman in the room asks the only intelligent question and becomes a major help to Fitz. This seemed a little too perfect (when you see a scene that perfectly illustrates something, it's often, as in the case of some scenes in Hidden Figures, completely made up). The woman is probably just a composite character, since I read an article saying there were numerous people contributing information that in the series all comes from her.
The only thing the producers have admitted to making up are the meetings with Fitz and the Unabomber. The reason for the first meeting makes no sense, which would be a good reason to have not done it, but the producers wanted to make sure there was a setup for a second meeting in which, in the final episode, Fitz cracks everything wide open. Of course.
The series drifts a bit off course towards the end. One episode leaves the investigation to show us the Unabomber's life, but since the series tight focus on the technical aspects of the investigation didn't make me wonder about the man, it just felt like the investigation grinding to a halt. And the final episode, while generally satisfying, felt far too pat.
Does historical accuracy matter? Overall it is an entertaining series, (although it virtually ignores the mystery of Fitz's downfall as set up in the beginning, which felt like a cheat). Personally, though, I often find the sloppiness of historical truth more interesting than the neat packages we get from Hollywood. I wish the writers had been less interested in creating a hero and more interested in the chaotic, collaborative nature of true investigation.
The protagonist is a profiler called Fitz (excellent performance by Sam Worthington) who starts off as a seemingly happy family man and two years later is living in a cabin in the woods, giving the audience two mysteries: how was the Unabomber caught, and how did Fitz's life fall apart.
While the story is intriguing, The series insists on an Imitation Game approach in which a brilliant individual singlehandedly solves the problem while everyone fights him at every step.
As with the infamously inaccurate Imitation Game, Manhunt's historical accuracy is doubtful. In fact, I did some research and easily found discrepancies. A New York Times story indicates that there were a number of people, including some outside the FBI, working on the textual clues that the miniseries has Fitz solve almost singlehandedly.
The series portrays Fitz in a formulaic manner. For example, his profiling duties lead him to identify too closely with his target, just like most series about profilers.
There's also an amusing scene where a bunch of men yell at each other while the one woman in the room asks the only intelligent question and becomes a major help to Fitz. This seemed a little too perfect (when you see a scene that perfectly illustrates something, it's often, as in the case of some scenes in Hidden Figures, completely made up). The woman is probably just a composite character, since I read an article saying there were numerous people contributing information that in the series all comes from her.
The only thing the producers have admitted to making up are the meetings with Fitz and the Unabomber. The reason for the first meeting makes no sense, which would be a good reason to have not done it, but the producers wanted to make sure there was a setup for a second meeting in which, in the final episode, Fitz cracks everything wide open. Of course.
The series drifts a bit off course towards the end. One episode leaves the investigation to show us the Unabomber's life, but since the series tight focus on the technical aspects of the investigation didn't make me wonder about the man, it just felt like the investigation grinding to a halt. And the final episode, while generally satisfying, felt far too pat.
Does historical accuracy matter? Overall it is an entertaining series, (although it virtually ignores the mystery of Fitz's downfall as set up in the beginning, which felt like a cheat). Personally, though, I often find the sloppiness of historical truth more interesting than the neat packages we get from Hollywood. I wish the writers had been less interested in creating a hero and more interested in the chaotic, collaborative nature of true investigation.