Atlantic Crossing

This may strike other viewers as trivial nitpicking...but it made me wonder how careful the series makers were about other matters. Episode 3 has Norway's U. S. Ambassador greeting the Princess after her transoceanic voyage, to lead her to the press briefing he's set up. He's quite proud to tell that representatives were present from all the press, radio broadcasters, AND TV!! In 1940, what's 'TV'?!

As many have noticed, this story takes the "inspired by true events" a bit too far on occasions. But still I recommend watching it as it gives another side of the grim events more than 70 years ago. I find the acting credible and good but as said.. the historical correctness is highly questionable.

So much of this story is genuinely interesting, especially to an American audience that most likely is not aware of Norway's history during WW II. Or knowledgeable about the friendship that developed between the Crown Princess and FDR. The sets and locations are great (except the production team seems to think it snows a lot in WDC, which it doesn't), the costumes have been done well and, as I mentioned in the title, the acting is superb. However, if someone were to watch this and not know much US history they would think all FDR needed to run the country was one advisor, one girlfriend, his wife and the Princess who got together at cocktail hour for a laugh. The way he is depicted borders on the ridiculous (and I'm not referring to his roving eye). Our country was in the middle of a depression and, eventually, at war and all we see FDR do is eat, drink and be merry as if he had no responsibilities or a care in the world. I've just finished E.6 and we've seen FDR in exactly one Cabinet meeting (that lasted a nano-second). I think the moment that really strained credulity was FDR being driven 30 minutes out of WDC to see the Princess on the evening of Dec. 7, 1941. Really?! The US is attacked by the Japanese that day and FDR is having drinks with his lady friend instead of being in a cabinet meeting?! I realize the focus of this limited series is more human than political (although we're seeing an awful lot of political meetings in Norway and London) but the 'lighter' side of FDR should have been balanced with at least some gravitas. He didn't win four elections because he knew how to flirt and drink Scotch. Where are the producers at Masterpiece?! Am I the only one seeing how this one-dimensional depiction of our wartime President diminishes the whole series.

I've read that Shakespeare's Hamlet and Macbeth have little to do with the actual historical characters and events on which they are based. Still, I've never met anyone who cared about that in deciding whether they liked those plays.

The same approach should probably be taken to this series, which plays fast and loose with World War II history. But that's hard to do, because we're so much closer to the real events that this series rewrites than Shakespeare's audience was to minor figures in Medieval Scottish and Danish history. (Did they know anything about those fields at all?) It was very hard for me to sit through the depiction of the female lead, the Crown Princess of Norway, inspiring Lend-Lease, for example. I can imagine that Swedes don't particularly enjoy seeing their former king portrayed as a Nazi sympathizer. But if you don't know anything about World War II history, then I guess that wouldn't bother you. Just as I am not bothered, in reading Hamlet, by the discrepancies between the play and Medieval Danish history.

What we are left with is imitation Downton Abbey - lots of nice-looking aristocracy and their homes, not too much concern with unglamorous commoners.

Also a story to inspire timid women: a timid young princess - think Princess Diana - comes into her own and eventually grows a backbone. She even helps to save Western civilization. A story lots of timid women could relate to.

If you're a World War II history buff, or a guy, or a woman who does not need fantasy history to feel inspired to develop her potential, this will probably seem like a long-winded costume drama, which is what it actually is.

But if you're part of the intended audience, you might enjoy it. And so long as you don't mistake what happens for history, I don't know that there is any harm in that. George Washington didn't chop down that cherry tree, after all, yet Parson Weams' tale of how he did but then did not lie about it provided moral courage to countless young Americans of a previous era. If this series helps timid women develop moral strength, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

------------------------------------

I just watched Episode 6. When FDR, having learned of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, goes first to see the Crown Princess to find courage to deliver an address - what becomes the *A day that shall live in infamy* address to the joint houses of Congress - I almost puked. The rest was pretty much the same thing. FDR turns out to be a lover who finds strength and inspiration in an initially timid Norwegian princess. It's sort of like bad old-fashioned Disney applied to World War II history. Bad imitation old-fashioned Disney.

This could have been a masterpiece of historical storytelling with a script that focused on the Norwegian peoples' suffering under Hitler and the Royal family's many efforts to free them. But after the first riveting episode, the script becomes stuck inside Sweden's politics, Buckingham Palace and Washington DC with boring storylines that go nowhere. Honestly, I was insulted for the brave Norwegians and their Royal Family. They deserved far better, especially from Masterpiece Theater.