Here on IMDb users' reviews and elsewhere Turn: Washington's Spies has been castigated for 'historical inaccuracies', and I don't doubt the series is guilty of changing the facts to suit itself. For example, Anna Strong and Abe Woodhull, part of the Culper Ring of spies, were not romantically involved and, furthermore, Strong was ten years older than Woodhull, and apparently there are many more instances where the series doesn't stack up with what we know about the spy ring. But that begs the question: is AMC's series intended as an historical document or as entertainment? If the former, if the series was produced as a documentary, then certainly playing fast and loose with what historians have established really happened is unacceptable. But it doesn't to me seem that it was.
AMC is in the entertainment business, and I think we can be sure that Turn was intended more as commercial evening entertainment than has a history lecture. But that doesn't mean it is all fictional and 'made up' or not in any way worthwhile. In fact, I think it has struck the right note between a broadly historical account and out-and-out fiction rather well, especially for a US company: I have watched too many American films and series which have laid on the patriotic schmaltz rather to much for me to have acquired a taste for it (Designated Survivor, and Steven Spielberg's Lincoln and the thoroughly dishonest Amistad spring to mind. It might be worthwhile if parts of America took to heart the observation by non-Americans that no country on Earth prides itself on being 'the second greatest nation in the world').
Dealing as it does with the beginnings of the war of independence, AMC seems to get it right not to stick to the Dick and Dora version of history so love by Hollywood of a 'freedom-loving people struggling to shake off the yoke of British tyranny'. If only it had been that simple (though many Americans still like to push that line).
Obviously, there are many different interpretations of the genesis and motivation for the formation of the Continental Congress and its aftermath. But one of these interpretations is that essentially the struggle for independence was by some of the ruling classes in the colonies who simply wanted to call all the shots rather than just some of them and most certainly not on behalf of a king several thousand miles away. Oh, and they also wanted to keep more of their money. There is scant evidence of a 'popular uprising' by 'the people' who had come to hate the king, and as revolt against the Crown and his representatives in the colonies grew, many remained loyal to the king simply because independence would make very little, if any, practical difference to their lives: it didn't matter who they were paying rent to or for whom they toiled: they still had to pay rent and still had to toil for a pittance, and were hounded if they didn't.
Essentially the colonies were divided, and war was, at first at least, civil war, and AMC's Turn conveys that sense well. Many of the 'Americans' were, in fact, British, some third and fourth generation, who had settled in the colonies and who, crucially, still regarded themselves as British.
As for the production itself, Turn deserves a lot more bouquets than brickbats (in fact, so far I can't even think of a brickbat I might want to wield). The actors are all well-cast and persuasive, the direction is unobtrusive (and successfully avoids pretty much all patriotic grandstanding and posturing), the story neatly interweaves the political and historical with the personal, and there is, thankfully, none of that 'olde English' 18th-century speak which can mar and jar just as much as using modern anachronism. (So far no one has said anything along the lines of 'General Washington, I've got to do this thing, for me its personal!' and we can thank God for small mercies.)
So if you come across Turn and are tempted to look in, do so by all means. It does a good job very well, although given the period it covers, you will be disappointed if you crave bucketloads of patriotic syrup and a rousing soundtrack. I, you might have gathered, don't.
AMC is in the entertainment business, and I think we can be sure that Turn was intended more as commercial evening entertainment than has a history lecture. But that doesn't mean it is all fictional and 'made up' or not in any way worthwhile. In fact, I think it has struck the right note between a broadly historical account and out-and-out fiction rather well, especially for a US company: I have watched too many American films and series which have laid on the patriotic schmaltz rather to much for me to have acquired a taste for it (Designated Survivor, and Steven Spielberg's Lincoln and the thoroughly dishonest Amistad spring to mind. It might be worthwhile if parts of America took to heart the observation by non-Americans that no country on Earth prides itself on being 'the second greatest nation in the world').
Dealing as it does with the beginnings of the war of independence, AMC seems to get it right not to stick to the Dick and Dora version of history so love by Hollywood of a 'freedom-loving people struggling to shake off the yoke of British tyranny'. If only it had been that simple (though many Americans still like to push that line).
Obviously, there are many different interpretations of the genesis and motivation for the formation of the Continental Congress and its aftermath. But one of these interpretations is that essentially the struggle for independence was by some of the ruling classes in the colonies who simply wanted to call all the shots rather than just some of them and most certainly not on behalf of a king several thousand miles away. Oh, and they also wanted to keep more of their money. There is scant evidence of a 'popular uprising' by 'the people' who had come to hate the king, and as revolt against the Crown and his representatives in the colonies grew, many remained loyal to the king simply because independence would make very little, if any, practical difference to their lives: it didn't matter who they were paying rent to or for whom they toiled: they still had to pay rent and still had to toil for a pittance, and were hounded if they didn't.
Essentially the colonies were divided, and war was, at first at least, civil war, and AMC's Turn conveys that sense well. Many of the 'Americans' were, in fact, British, some third and fourth generation, who had settled in the colonies and who, crucially, still regarded themselves as British.
As for the production itself, Turn deserves a lot more bouquets than brickbats (in fact, so far I can't even think of a brickbat I might want to wield). The actors are all well-cast and persuasive, the direction is unobtrusive (and successfully avoids pretty much all patriotic grandstanding and posturing), the story neatly interweaves the political and historical with the personal, and there is, thankfully, none of that 'olde English' 18th-century speak which can mar and jar just as much as using modern anachronism. (So far no one has said anything along the lines of 'General Washington, I've got to do this thing, for me its personal!' and we can thank God for small mercies.)
So if you come across Turn and are tempted to look in, do so by all means. It does a good job very well, although given the period it covers, you will be disappointed if you crave bucketloads of patriotic syrup and a rousing soundtrack. I, you might have gathered, don't.