Unabomber - Representation has gone too far once again
I just watched Netflix's Unabomber. I have seen many documentaries and biopics on this series of events. This left a bad taste in my mouth because of Netflix's decision to switch the gender of the protagonist, the real forensic linguist named James R. Fitzgerald.
I don't have a problem with creative liberties in a biopic. Obviously, you can't fit an entire investigation or someone's life into a two-hour movie. But there's a big difference between condensing events and changing who actually did something.
In the Unabomber case, the real forensic linguist was James R. Fitzgerald, a man who played an important role in the investigation. Netflix instead created a fictional female FBI agent and gave her much of the investigative work associated with Fitzgerald. That wasn't necessary to tell the story, and viewers who don't know the history can easily come away believing that fictional character actually existed and did those things.
My concern isn't that the character is a woman. It's that when movies and series presented as being based on true events repeatedly alter the identities and accomplishments of real people, they can eventually distort the public's understanding of history.
There's nothing wrong with representation, but I don't think representation should come at the expense of historical accuracy—especially when the real people and their contributions are interesting enough to tell the story honestly in the first place.