When engaging with a work of historical fiction, no matter the medium, one should avoid taking fact for fiction and fiction for fact. Rather, one needs to focus on how artistically satisfying the approach is and on the validity of the themes conveyed.
This was certainly the case with the recent production of Franklinland, presented at the Arts Club’s Granville Island Stage.
Based on the relationship between Benjamin Franklin and his illegitimate (but happily raised) son, William, the Canadian play largely consists of a series of purported conversations between Benjamin and William.
As such, it makes a number of references to historical fact. Thus, we got Franklin’s famous kite experiment proving that lightning is electricity, the Franklin stove, and Franklin’s extensive trips to London and Paris as a scientist and diplomat. More importantly, we saw the ultimate conflict of the play: Franklin’s vital and pivotal promotion of the cause of American independence versus William’s espousal of loyalty to the British Crown, including his acceptance of the role of Governor of New Jersey. This did, indeed, cause a significant rupture in the relationship between father and son.
What seemed to be a complete invention was the idea of Franklinland—an area of Nova Scotia which, according to the play, was a tract of land owned by Franklin, where he toyed with the idea of setting up a non‑political, neutral colony—presumably a kind of utopia where political differences could be relegated entirely to the realm of philosophical debate.
I say it is a “complete invention,” but I am willing to be corrected here, as my knowledge of Franklin is based on my high school studies of American history, largely framed by Charles and Mary Beard, my recollection of Walter Isaacson’s highly readable biography, and the PBS documentary of his life. As far as I can recall, Franklinland did not exist, though the ongoing tension between father and son did last up to the elder Franklin’s death.
What was certainly wildly inaccurate was the portrait of Franklin the man. In the play he was shown as arrogant, vain, condescending, self‑centred, and at times something of a boor. All this is in complete contradiction to everything that is reported of the man—a man universally loved and revered.
So, if we cannot turn to the play for historicity, what could we get from it artistically and thematically?
In its 80‑minute running time, the play was entertaining, with a number of comic touches, an interesting portrait of the growth in confidence of the character William, and, ultimately, an engaging debate about pragmatism versus idealism.
It was the sort of play that invited one to attend, go for a late dinner, and discuss ideas until the wine bottles were empty.
Well acted by Brian Markinson as Franklin and Luc Roderique as William, the play was admirably staged against a simple series of drapes and wooden steps, redolent of both Franklin’s humble beginnings and the achievements of the state, as symbolized in its grand, classical architecture.
While Franklinland may not have been a lesson in American history, or even a trustworthy account of Franklin himself, once again the Arts Club company has shown its readiness to offer the unusual and the stimulating in its ever‑varied programming. That variety continues to be promised in upcoming productions. Consult the Arts Club website to see what lies ahead—and book well in advance.
Your voice matters! Join the conversation by submitting a Letter to the Editor here.
