The (Character) Assassination of James Garfield

What Netflix's new show gets right and wrong

Last week I started watching Death by Lightning, a new show on Netflix. I’ve actually been waiting for this show to come out for several months, because I happened to read the book it is based on last year. Candace Millard’s Destiny of the Republic tells the story of James Garfield’s unlikely ascension to the presidency and the bizarre circumstances around his assassination. It’s a very good book and I also happened to read it about the same time as a biography of Grover Cleveland, so I spent a good amount of time in late 19th century America last summer.

I don’t mind movies or shows that are difficult to follow (see: Tenet) or “bad” in the sense that they’re just fun and not meant to be taken seriously. But I am pretty hard on shows and movies when it comes to the writing. Good writing covers a multitude of sins, but bad writing is unforgivable. Death by Lightning is really straddling that line for me right now because of how Garfield is being written. I should say that the cast is great overall. I don’t think I know of another major show or movie to take place during this time period so it’s enjoyable to see really good actors portray people like Roscoe Conkling, James G. Blaine, and Chester A. Arthur. Nick Offerman’s Arthur is particularly fun. Think of an even more aggressive ancestor of Offerman’s best-known character, Ron Swanson.

Arthur is written well, I think. The show takes place during the election of 1880, when Arthur was the Collector for the Port of New York, an incredibly powerful position at the time. He was also a supporter of Roscoe Conkling, Senator from New York. Arthur was added to the ticket as Garfield’s Vice President as a way of placating the Stalwarts, a political faction led by Conkling. Conkling told Arthur to refuse the offer but Arthur defied Conkling, telling him, “The office of the Vice-President is a greater honor than I ever dreamed of attaining.” The quote makes it into the show, and I’m really glad it did.

Chester Arthur was corrupt, as pretty much anyone who was the Collector for the Port of New York was. Yet, reading about him gives the impression that he was a man who wanted to be more than who he was. When Garfield finally died, months after being shot, Arthur wept. He wept for the president but also because he felt the immense weight of the office that was now his, knowing he was not equal to it. I am very curious to see how the show portrays this, or if it will reduce Arthur to a caricature. The real Chester Arthur surprised people because he was more than he seemed.

The show leans heavily into the truth that James Garfield was more than he seemed but this is where it actually stumbles. Garfield was present at the 1880 Republican convention to give the nominating speech for John Sherman (brother of General William Tecumseh Sherman). His speech was so good that after many deadlocked ballots, he emerged as an acceptable alternative to the existing candidates. Thus, a man who had no interest in the presidency found himself nominated for it. He was horrified. The show basically follows this sequence of events but when Garfield receives the nomination things go a little bit off the rails.

Michael Shannon as James Garfield in Netflix’s “Death by Lightning”

The historical James Garfield seems to have been an unfailingly decent and honest man. The show’s writer tries to portray that, but decency and goodness do not seem to have been enough; someone clearly felt the need to complicate matters. First, some of the people closest to Garfield, including his wife, accuse him of secretly wanting to be president. Then, the show portrays the scandal around the so-called Morey Letter, a forged letter bearing Garfield’s name, declaring his support for Chinese immigration, which was electoral poison on the west coast at the time. The real Garfield denounced the letter as soon as he was able to see it and confirm it was not his. The fictional Garfield wants to do so, but this is not enough drama for the writer. So, Garfield’s teenage daughter Mary declares that he is cynically betraying his principles by not standing up for the immigrants, just so he can win the election.

Assassin Charles Guiteau, in contrast, is portrayed with a sympathy that I think is done well. Played by the exceptional Michael MacFadyen, Guiteau is no 19th-century Travis Bickle. He is not a menace, sociopathic and violent. Rather, he is borderline normal. While he is certainly a liar, a cheat, and a scoundrel, he is basically harmless, awkward, and in fact rather likable. He has unlimited confidence and determination, which enables him to gain access to powerful people. Yet his schemes are always half-baked and end in disappointment. Like Chester Arthur, Guiteau is more than he seems, but he is also less than he seems and that tension is done very well.

I wonder if the writer’s understanding of what made Guiteau and Arthur compelling figures is what leads him astray with Garfield. The problem with the real Garfield seems to be that he was too simple. What do you do with a man who seems basically decent and good, whose closet is free of skeletons? How do you make a presidential election thrilling when your main character is uninterested in being president? “All happy families are alike” as Tolstoy wrote and apparently they also do not make for binge-worthy television. The show tries to do Garfield a favor by complicating him, but it ends up missing what made the man extraordinary.

I’m reminded of one of my very few complaints about Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings movies. In the books, Aragorn, heir to the throne of Gondor, always intends to reclaim the kingship that is rightfully his. In the movies, though, he is conflicted, fearful, and reluctant to pursue his destiny. Obviously, Jackson thought that would be more compelling than a character who forthrightly accepts his destiny and moves towards it single-mindedly. Yet, some people really do live with pure-hearted integrity.

I admit I am probably overstating things. Death by Lightning is very well done and it does portray Garfield as a basically good man. The real problem is that Jackson and Netflix are right: We do find people like that boring. Perhaps it is because we have a hard time seeing ourselves in them. Perhaps we’d prefer to bring men like Garfield down to our own level, rather than aspire to theirs. Maybe that is why he has been largely forgotten. I suspect, though, that James Garfield would care as much about that as he did about becoming president.