What Are BARKSKINS?

Article first published as TV Review: BARKSKINS on Seat42F.

Recently, National Geographic aired the scripted drama BARKSKINS, based on a small part of the Annie Proulx novel of the same name. Now available on Hulu, the eight-episode drama follows French (and a few English) colonizers in the so-called New World, or New France as it was known, in the late 1600s. What would become the United States and Canada is still a wilderness, and the people portrayed live far away from their familiar civilizations. Their best connections back to their homeland are the new arrivals, but those newcomers must adapt quickly to the harsh life of the forest or die. Native Americans fight for their land, while the Europeans bicker amongst one another. It’s a wonder our current society came out of it.

The title BARKSKINS refers to indentured servants who labored three years in return for freedom and a chance at prosperity. Two of the characters in the series, Rene Sel (Christian Cooke, Witches of East End) and Charles Duquet (James Bloor, Shoplifters of the World), are in the titular position. Though, Charles has no intention of serving out his time. They work for Monsieur Claude Trepagny (David Thewlis, the Harry Potter films), who has dreams of building an everlasting city. Will they help him?

It’s actually quite easy to miss that Rene and Charles are supposed to be the leads. Yes, there is a quite a bit of screentime with them, but there’s plenty without them, the show boasting a sweeping cast. Among the most recognizable are Marcia Gay Harden (Code Black), who plays innkeeper Mathilde Geffard, Matthew Lillard (Good Girls) as the sleazy Gus Lafarge, Zahn McClarnon (Longmire), Aneurin Barnard (The White Queen), and Thomas M. Wright (Outsiders). But there are plenty of others besides, representing a wide swath of people that make up the residents of the area.

BARKSKINS is trying to be a sweeping drama, but lacks the feel of one. Quite honestly, most of the characters blur together, and after watching the premiere, it’s hard to actually sit down and pick out each player and actor (sans beards in their IMBD photos). It’s not confusing, exactly, since the same players tend to stay in scenes together. But picking up names is difficult, and without the context and backstory as the show begins, harder still. Lots of these characters have pasts, but they are slow to reveal them to the audience.

The production looks fantastic, of course. This is clearly a show with a budget, or at least they spent it on look. Period costumes and miles of actual wilderness help BARKSKINS feel like it’s another time and place, nature only beginning to be spoiled by man. But it lacks the epic feel that compelling characters and a sweeping score could lend it to kick it up a few notches. There are a number of recent shows that have achieved a similar thing with a lot more filled out than BARKSKINS presents, leaving this more like a cable also-ran than an awards contender. It doesn’t feel like a show that’s going to amass a following and run for very long.

Also confusing, while it is a National Geographic series, and NatGeo’s website boasts that you can watch your favorite shows from them on Disney+, don’t look for this one among the offerings on the new streaming app. Surprisingly, it IS on Hulu, so you can find it if you want it and are up on your streaming subscriptions. It’s just not in the obvious place.

All in all, I can’t say BARKSKINS is disappointing because I’d heard almost nothing about it and no expectations had been built up. But it doesn’t feel like the type of series that will be a sleeper hit, either. It’s fine, no major complaints other than the size of the cast and lack of distinguishing characteristics and personalities (at least initially). Just nothing special.

As mentioned, you can watch BARKSKINS now on Hulu.

Killing Lincoln half dead

Article first published as KILLING LINCOLN Review at Seat42F.

Grade: 78%

The National Geographic Channel has a new docudrama entitled KILLING LINCOLN, airing tonight. It is based on the book by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard, and revolves around the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, looking at what motivates John Wilkes Booth to do the deed, and the immediate aftermath of the act.

The screen version of KILLING LINCOLN unfolds much like a History Channel special. There is narration by Tom Hanks, whom we see from time to time as he speaks, and events are re-enacted. There is some degree of repetition, though not as much as you’d expect from something like this, and suspense is built somewhat artificially, even though just watching things unfold would provide excitement enough.

The difference between KILLING LINCOLN and other history specials is the level of acting presented. While this special does still contain some hammy exaggeration, this is accomplished by well respected performers in their fields, whom have resumes of other television and movie work. As such, it feels a little more authentic and of slightly higher quality than most of its peers.

Billy Campbell (The Killing) plays Lincoln himself. Campbell takes a softer tact, and his version of the POTUS is a kind and gentle man, friend to cabinet members and former slaves alike. He comes across as almost saintly. Similarly, Mary Todd Lincoln (Geraldine Hughes, Gran Torino) is whitewashed into a charming and loving wife and mother, with barely a trace of the mental instability that she is so famous for.

I admit, I am disappointed to see Lincoln so affectionate towards Secretary of State Seward (Ted Johnson, Lincoln), laid up in bed from a carriage accident. If one has studied these two men at all, the animosity between them is infamous. Yes, they get along by the end of Lincoln’s life, but the sort of relationship we see between them here is not at all complicated or reminiscent of their past feuding. Again, like much of KILLING LINCOLN, we are viewing this through biased, rose-colored glasses.

Booth, on the other hand, played by Jesse Johnson (Redline), is the polar opposite of this Lincoln, loud and dramatic. An actor by trade, this may make sense for the character, who has a huge ego and much affection for the South and its way of life. He is dastardly, a criminal mastermind and leader of the hit squad, drawing all focus whenever he is on screen, and seen as the person behind it all.

This makes for a relatively entertaining piece. Yes, the good and evil sides are taken to extremes in such a way that it’s hard to believe it can realistic. But it does an adequate job of outlining what happened, and the narration does admit to being a little unclear about some of the details, such as quotes said or not said. In the end, the story gets told, and though the focus is on Booth, those who don’t realize the killing was supposed to be part of a triple attack will learn something.

The pacing is a little slow, especially after the murder. Not a lot happens as Booth flees, and yet, this is a significant chunk of the running time. Other reviewers have accused KILLING LINCOLN of being boring, and I wouldn’t go that far. But it certainly doesn’t feel like something that would have run in theaters, or even broadcast television.

There are definitely scenes that are likely fictional, added just to prove a point. One such moment is when Lincoln stops to speak to an elderly African American while touring the conquered Southern capital. Something similar may have actually happened, but the way that it plays out in this special leaves little doubt that it’s a parable, meant to teach a lesson about Lincoln, rather than repeating exact dialogue from those involved.

As for historical accuracy, well, that leaves a little something to be desired. The source material which KILLING LINCOLN is based on has been criticized quite severely because of the numerous untruths contained within, and while O’Reilly calls it non-fiction, others consider it a novel. The missteps are mostly details, such as a scene set in the Oval Office that couldn’t have happened since the Oval Office hadn’t been built yet, and Ford’s theater did not have the portrait of Washington on the front of the box. But it’s enough to make one question how much research and care actually went into the book.

In the film, some of the disputed details are present and some aren’t. This worries me, as many will likely see KILLING LINCOLN as fact, given Hanks’ involvement and the cast, even as some will dismiss this because of O’Reilly’s famously conservative bend. Again, it’s more details that are wrong, rather than the broad arc of the actions themselves. But it’s these minor things that could have been corrected that would have made it a more reliable and important work.

Overall, KILLING LINCOLN could be better, but it could be worse. If you are curious about the assassination, it’s not a bad piece to check out. But for those who know the story well, it comes across as hokey, exaggerated, and a little off, so the history buffs may want to skip it.

Want to read some of my fiction? It's on my website, JeromeWetzel.com! Also, for the latest updates and article links, as well as commentary on episodes I don't fully review, please follow me on Twitter.