Once again HBO has come through with another quality mini-series. If you read this blog then you might remember a post I wrote about how HBO has recently put out better movies than what most of Hollywood is doing. Band of Brothers is the best WWII drama I have ever seen and Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee is just as excellent. This time HBO has taken on the long overdue bio-pic of John Adams. Even before I saw the movie I was happy by the subject. John Adams is one of the most important founding fathers, yet is largely overlooked and forgotten. From personal experience in the class room, around 7 out of 10 students say that Jefferson was the second president. With so much talk about Washington, Franklin, Madison, and Jefferson, everyone forgets Adams came before Jefferson. One reason for this omission is possibly because Adams was not a great president, but when his career is taken as a whole it rivals, and I would argue possibly surpass, the accomplishment of Jefferson. Jefferson may have been the mouth behind the revolution, but Adams was the brains.
As for the movie, it was based on David McCullough biography of Adams, and he served as an advisor to the film. McCullough’s book was an excellent read and gave great detail on our second president (maybe if we are lucky HBO and McCullough will continue their partnership and make a movie about Truman). With McCullough as advisor, the film gave a very accurate depiction of Adams, though they did not make him out to be a very sympathetic character. From what I know of Adams, this was the case. However McCullough in his book made an interesting comment of how Adams was not as hated in Congress as he made himself out to be in later years. He seemed to love to be portrayed as the bad guy and yet according to McCullough he was not. Yet in the movie he was portrayed exactly in that negative light, as a hard man to like. My take is that Adams may have wanted to be the martyr, knowing that he would be forgotten, as he said in the film, all credit for the Revolution would be given to Franklin and Jefferson. I also found the portrayals of other characters as interesting, showing how the filmmakers saw different men. Washington and Franklin were the great sages. Jefferson was shown in an interesting light, most of it positive, until the end of the saga when you discover it was Jefferson leading the negative attacks against his friend. They kept their most bitter portrayal for Alexander Hamilton. I find I like Hamilton, probably because no one else does, then or today. One character I think they could have done more with was Adams’ son, John Quincy. It is just my own personal preferences, but I think John Quincy may have been one of our all time greatest leaders, maybe one day someone will do a show on him (if you have seen the movie Amistad then you saw one version of the president),
As for the themes of the movie, I was happy with their choices. They began by showing the character of Adams when he defends the British troops from the Boston Massacre. That was the perfect beginning to establish who Adams was, a man who would defend those he disagreed with out of principle. Also, even though he was a revolutionary, he was not a radical. They used his cousin Sam Adams to demonstrate the differences. There is a good argument that states that the Sons of Liberty were created to keep the colonial mobs in check, that on their own they would have created more havoc and violence as portrayed in the movie. The most important parts of the movie were the scenes dealing with the Congress. We call these men the founding fathers and give them reverence, but in reality they were a mess of squabbling children. The congress was in such chaos during most of their sessions that in the middle of the war Benedict Arnold switched sides thinking we would be better off remaining with the British than to be governed buy such men.
The most boring parts of the movie were the scenes in France, yet they are important to the story. As shown in the movie, Adams struggled in France, he did not have the personality to deal with foreign emissaries, yet his brilliance in the Treaty of Versailles can not be overlooked. Adams and John Jay quickly realized after the war, that their best chance for a prosperous America would be to connect themselves politically with England and to leave their ally France out of the negations. It was shrewd political maneuvering to pull off what Adams did.
As I said earlier, Adam’s presidency was not a remarkable one. He was not a good politician, and struggled when asked to compromise his beliefs. In order to compromise he had to admit someone else had a valid point, and he always believed he was right. At the same time, he had his beliefs and standards and would not budge on his principles. He might have won a second term had he only declared an official war on the French. Jefferson was politically tied with the French and it would have hurt Jefferson’s campaign had the US been actively engaged with the French on the battleground. Yet Jefferson would not go against his principles, even when it meant hurting his political career, some thing we should respect. Also Jefferson would not have done. As shown in the movie Adams presidency was scared by a struggle with France and his passing of the Alien and Sedation Acts.
I did enjoy the love story of the movie. Because Adams and his wife, Abigail, were apart so often they were forced to write letters, and fortunately for us those letters have survived. When you read the correspondence between the two, you can see how much Adams loved and depended on his wife. His confrontational personality was softened by his very strong and patient wife. She is one of the most remarkable first ladies, and brought strength to Adam’s lack self confidence that he experienced in private. The most touching moment came with the death of his beloved wife, Melissa and I found ourselves very choked up. A fascinating aspect of the movie was contrasting Adam’s affection for his wife that seemed to be absent for his children. He was hard on his family, and drove some of his children away, yet at the same time raised at least one who was exceptional. One area they could have explained a bit more was how Adams came from a Puritan background. His rigidness was a product of his time in New England, and would not have stood out to his peers from the same up bringing. Even the bedroom scene where John and Abigail were intimate without disrobing would have been normal; they would have practiced modesty even amongst themselves. But that behavior was only common among the New England Puritans, and not the other founders. The movie contrasted Adams behavior with the personality of Franklin who was a playboy. They could have helped viewers to understand Adams more by discussing his religious background.
I did enjoy some of the cultural and social history thrown in amongst the politics. They dealt with colonial medicine in a few scenes. Some the treatments were as bad as the problems, especially treatments like bleeding. They also had a scene where Dr. Rush (a very important man in his own right) preformed a mastectomy. As a whole, this was a very family friendly film, but this scene and one at the beginning had nudity. I did find this unfortunate, it was not necessary. Neither time was the nudity sexual, but none the less nudity. One time was the mastectomy, the other was a scene where a man was stripped down and tarred and feathered. I can understand the argument that both were needed to show the harshness of the acts, I understand but do not agree, mainly because outside of those scenes there was nothing in the film that was not PG and you could show your children a film that captured our founding fathers the way no other film has.
As a whole I greatly enjoyed the film and would recommend it. It is very long, and at times does drag, where as Band of Brothers was much longer but you never noticed. This movie can be slow at times, but the slow parts were necessary to get the entire story. I would even go further than just recommending this; I think you should see it. We at times take for granted what others did before us; it was the struggle of men like Adams that have given us our freedoms today. He was a remarkable man, and invaluable man to the revolution, and a forgotten man. I hope more people watch this film and come away with a greater appreciation for this great man.
As for the movie, it was based on David McCullough biography of Adams, and he served as an advisor to the film. McCullough’s book was an excellent read and gave great detail on our second president (maybe if we are lucky HBO and McCullough will continue their partnership and make a movie about Truman). With McCullough as advisor, the film gave a very accurate depiction of Adams, though they did not make him out to be a very sympathetic character. From what I know of Adams, this was the case. However McCullough in his book made an interesting comment of how Adams was not as hated in Congress as he made himself out to be in later years. He seemed to love to be portrayed as the bad guy and yet according to McCullough he was not. Yet in the movie he was portrayed exactly in that negative light, as a hard man to like. My take is that Adams may have wanted to be the martyr, knowing that he would be forgotten, as he said in the film, all credit for the Revolution would be given to Franklin and Jefferson. I also found the portrayals of other characters as interesting, showing how the filmmakers saw different men. Washington and Franklin were the great sages. Jefferson was shown in an interesting light, most of it positive, until the end of the saga when you discover it was Jefferson leading the negative attacks against his friend. They kept their most bitter portrayal for Alexander Hamilton. I find I like Hamilton, probably because no one else does, then or today. One character I think they could have done more with was Adams’ son, John Quincy. It is just my own personal preferences, but I think John Quincy may have been one of our all time greatest leaders, maybe one day someone will do a show on him (if you have seen the movie Amistad then you saw one version of the president),
As for the themes of the movie, I was happy with their choices. They began by showing the character of Adams when he defends the British troops from the Boston Massacre. That was the perfect beginning to establish who Adams was, a man who would defend those he disagreed with out of principle. Also, even though he was a revolutionary, he was not a radical. They used his cousin Sam Adams to demonstrate the differences. There is a good argument that states that the Sons of Liberty were created to keep the colonial mobs in check, that on their own they would have created more havoc and violence as portrayed in the movie. The most important parts of the movie were the scenes dealing with the Congress. We call these men the founding fathers and give them reverence, but in reality they were a mess of squabbling children. The congress was in such chaos during most of their sessions that in the middle of the war Benedict Arnold switched sides thinking we would be better off remaining with the British than to be governed buy such men.
The most boring parts of the movie were the scenes in France, yet they are important to the story. As shown in the movie, Adams struggled in France, he did not have the personality to deal with foreign emissaries, yet his brilliance in the Treaty of Versailles can not be overlooked. Adams and John Jay quickly realized after the war, that their best chance for a prosperous America would be to connect themselves politically with England and to leave their ally France out of the negations. It was shrewd political maneuvering to pull off what Adams did.
As I said earlier, Adam’s presidency was not a remarkable one. He was not a good politician, and struggled when asked to compromise his beliefs. In order to compromise he had to admit someone else had a valid point, and he always believed he was right. At the same time, he had his beliefs and standards and would not budge on his principles. He might have won a second term had he only declared an official war on the French. Jefferson was politically tied with the French and it would have hurt Jefferson’s campaign had the US been actively engaged with the French on the battleground. Yet Jefferson would not go against his principles, even when it meant hurting his political career, some thing we should respect. Also Jefferson would not have done. As shown in the movie Adams presidency was scared by a struggle with France and his passing of the Alien and Sedation Acts.
I did enjoy the love story of the movie. Because Adams and his wife, Abigail, were apart so often they were forced to write letters, and fortunately for us those letters have survived. When you read the correspondence between the two, you can see how much Adams loved and depended on his wife. His confrontational personality was softened by his very strong and patient wife. She is one of the most remarkable first ladies, and brought strength to Adam’s lack self confidence that he experienced in private. The most touching moment came with the death of his beloved wife, Melissa and I found ourselves very choked up. A fascinating aspect of the movie was contrasting Adam’s affection for his wife that seemed to be absent for his children. He was hard on his family, and drove some of his children away, yet at the same time raised at least one who was exceptional. One area they could have explained a bit more was how Adams came from a Puritan background. His rigidness was a product of his time in New England, and would not have stood out to his peers from the same up bringing. Even the bedroom scene where John and Abigail were intimate without disrobing would have been normal; they would have practiced modesty even amongst themselves. But that behavior was only common among the New England Puritans, and not the other founders. The movie contrasted Adams behavior with the personality of Franklin who was a playboy. They could have helped viewers to understand Adams more by discussing his religious background.
I did enjoy some of the cultural and social history thrown in amongst the politics. They dealt with colonial medicine in a few scenes. Some the treatments were as bad as the problems, especially treatments like bleeding. They also had a scene where Dr. Rush (a very important man in his own right) preformed a mastectomy. As a whole, this was a very family friendly film, but this scene and one at the beginning had nudity. I did find this unfortunate, it was not necessary. Neither time was the nudity sexual, but none the less nudity. One time was the mastectomy, the other was a scene where a man was stripped down and tarred and feathered. I can understand the argument that both were needed to show the harshness of the acts, I understand but do not agree, mainly because outside of those scenes there was nothing in the film that was not PG and you could show your children a film that captured our founding fathers the way no other film has.
As a whole I greatly enjoyed the film and would recommend it. It is very long, and at times does drag, where as Band of Brothers was much longer but you never noticed. This movie can be slow at times, but the slow parts were necessary to get the entire story. I would even go further than just recommending this; I think you should see it. We at times take for granted what others did before us; it was the struggle of men like Adams that have given us our freedoms today. He was a remarkable man, and invaluable man to the revolution, and a forgotten man. I hope more people watch this film and come away with a greater appreciation for this great man.
1 comment:
Post a Comment