John Adams on HBO

[Primus Pilus]

David McCullough's captivating biography of American founding father John Adams has been turned into an HBO film. If it's even half as good as McCullough's writing, I'll be quite pleased. Thought I'd point this out for you early American history buffs out there.

 

Coming March 16

 

http://www.hbo.com/films/johnadams/

[spittle]

I'll enjoy watching this film as I know nothing about him and little about the founding fathers.

 

Anthony Hopkins was great as John Quincy Adams (son of above) in Amistad.

[Moonlapse]

Hmmm... I'll have to wait for the DVD.

[Primus Pilus]

Hmmm... I'll have to wait for the DVD.

 

 

Ahh, your trial period of HBO must have run out? My wife made me keep ours. She's evil.

[Moonlapse]

Heheh, I canceled HBO when the last place I worked for went belly-up and I never resubscribed. The wife didn't like it, but I think she's forgotten all about it by now. If I could, I'd probably cancel my television subscription too.

[Primus Pilus]

The series premiered last night with the first two (of 7) parts.

 

I was impressed with everything... the actors*, the screenplay, the videography and visuals, etc. Adams is rightly portrayed as at first a reluctant participant in the growing Boston revolution and later as it's most fiery advocate in the Continental Congress. British sensibilities vs. the Boston mob mentality (though British viewers should understand the inherent American perspective) is well portrayed as well as the segmentation of the Congress. It may be a bit slower than one would expect as this isn't a series about the war itself (though clearly it plays a definitive role in backdrop). It is truly an examination of John Adams the man (and Abigail... finely played by Laura Linney) and his personal role in American independence. So far, it unquestionably does justice to McCullough's book and the historical record (understanding constriction for time constraint).

 

A personal favorite moment is the depiction of Benjamin Franklin altering Jefferson's text in the Declaration of Independence and of course, Mr. Jefferson's portrayal as a relative "back-bencher".

 

* While it might take a few moments to let the idea of Paul Giamatti as John Adams sink in, I do believe he does a fine job. In fact, I think he does look a bit like him. However, if people are going to dislike this series, I am tending to think that the title character might be the issue.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I was riveted by John Adams--the acting, the re-creation of colonial Boston, the attention to historical detail, and especially the classical allusions (e.g., to Demosthenes and De Bello Gallica). The debate over declaring independence was the highlight though--as it ought to have been, since this is where the historical John Adams made his mark on history.

 

My only two complaints are minor. First, the depiction of the British occupation of Boston was terribly underplayed. The quartering of British troops was a policy that mothered innumerable outrages. The vaunted British regulars were frequently drunk, even selling their muskets for rum, and--like the British officer who smashed the face of a child Andrew Jackson--cruel and abusive. The Boston Massacre that opened the television series was in fact only the climax in a series of incidents stretching back to the beginning of the occupation in 1768. Indeed, the intolerable behavior of the Redcoats inflamed even British opposition to the Intolerable Acts, yet the television portrayal fails to convey any of this at a personal level. Thus, it's impossible to see what drove men into the Massachusetts militia in the first place, and why Bostonians like Sam Adams were ready to see the lobsterbacks cooked. After all this, the Massachusetts Government Act of 1774, which declared that Massachusetts "should henceforth be put upon the like footing as is established in such other of his Majesty's colonies or plantations", was merely formalizing the de facto martial law that had existed since 1768.

 

My other minor complaint--and it's related to the first--is that the readiness of Americans for armed rebellion wasn't clear. It's certainly the case that George Washington found an under-supplied, under-trained, and undisciplined force when he came to New England. But that force was only a small part of the resistance. American school-children know the rest of the resistance from a few famous names, like Nathan Hale, Paul Revere and Ethan Allen, but what they are meant to symbolize are whole networks of spies, couriers, and spontaneous militias that gave Americans superior intelligence on enemy movements, superior communications of orders, and a superior ability to take advantage of the opportunities that arose. The capture of Fort Ticonderoga was a great example of Americans pressing their few advantages to real victory, and the John Adams series gives only passing nod to the wide array of revolutionaries that prepared the way for Washington.

 

Still, these are only quibbles. I can't wait to see the next episode.

[Primus Pilus]

My only two complaints are minor. First, the depiction of the British occupation of Boston was terribly underplayed. The quartering of British troops was a policy that mothered innumerable outrages. The vaunted British regulars were frequently drunk, even selling their muskets for rum, and--like the British officer who smashed the face of a child Andrew Jackson--cruel and abusive. The Boston Massacre that opened the television series was in fact only the climax in a series of incidents stretching back to the beginning of the occupation in 1768. Indeed, the intolerable behavior of the Redcoats inflamed even British opposition to the Intolerable Acts, yet the television portrayal fails to convey any of this at a personal level. Thus, it's impossible to see what drove men into the Massachusetts militia in the first place, and why Bostonians like Sam Adams were ready to see the lobsterbacks cooked. After all this, the Massachusetts Government Act of 1774, which declared that Massachusetts "should henceforth be put upon the like footing as is established in such other of his Majesty's colonies or plantations", was merely formalizing the de facto martial law that had existed since 1768.

 

Excellent point. If one did not already have an understanding of the situation going in, the notion of the building revolution as portrayed in the opener did not make a great deak of obvious sense. In fact, without understanding the entire affair, you are quite right that one's sympathies tended to be not only with the red coats (at least while on trial for the Boston Massacre), but quite against the mob activity overall.

[Nephele]

I'm another one who'll be waiting for the DVD release, as I haven't had HBO since their Rome series. Thanks for the reviews.

 

-- Nephele