John Adams Show discussion (open spoilers)

Cafe Society
1

I just caught the first two episodes and I liked it quite a bit. I haven’t read McCullough’s book but now I think I’ll pick it up. I found the show’s depiction of both the historical figures and the momentous events to be very refreshing and interesting in how objective and realistic it tried to be. I liked seeing these guys taken off the oil paintings and the mountains and the dollar bills and shown as people who really seemed like people, flaws and all.

I’m not familiar with the actor who played Jefferson, but I liked seeing the slight air of arrogance and self-satisfaction – and the youth. He didn’t come off like an icon, he came off like a brilliant yet slightly full of himself young know it all.

David Morse as Washington was intriguing too. The way people always just naturally want him to be a leader and the good grace but private trepidation with which he accepts are very accurate

Wilikinson was good as Benjamin Franklin. Franklin came off as the most like his legend but I think the real Franklin was one of those historical figures who actually lived up to the hype.

Giamati is playing Adams as the principled grouch he really was and I think the show is doing good job showing how instrumental he was behind the scenes even if he never made it onto the money or the mountain.

I was glad they showed some accuracy in how they depicted the Boston Massacre and how they didn’t sugarcoat how the shooting was justified or how it was shamelessly twisted and exploited for propganda reasons.

My favorite scene was in the second episode when Adams and Franklin were critiquing Jefferson’s submitted draft of the Declaration of Independence and making suggestions for it (was it really Franklin who suggested “self-evident” in place of some words he thought sounded too much "from the pulpit?). Jefferson’s casual false modesty (“well, it’s what I believe”) during that scene was terrific.

I admit that I teared up when they were reading the DOI out loud at the end.

If there’s a weakness, I think it might be that Laura Linney’s scenes are tending towards the hackneyed “loyal, long suffering wife of a great man” cliche, but other than that, I think I’m hooked.

2

The “youth” of Thomas Jefferson is being portrayed by an actor who is over 50.

I didn’t realize that tarring and feathering was as brutal as depicted. I didn’t think the victims were completely stripped, nor did I expect a Full Monty shot in this series.

3

I enjoyed it quite a bit. Unfortunately I’m only home for spring break so I’m not going to be able to catch the rest of it.

It seemed to move very quickly through the events, I guess that’s just because I’m more familiar with the Revolution than I am with Adams’ presidency, so I don’t know as much about what they’ll fill the later episodes with. I also teared up at the reading of the Declaration, I’m a sucker for things like that.

4

Well he seemed younger than that to me. [shrug]

I remember a lecture in college that covered tarring and feathering and I was surprised too at how brutal it really was. The hot tar burned the skin and left the victim scarred and disfigured. It could also cause festering infections in an era without antibiotics. It wasn’t the comic humiliation it sounds like.

That was something else I liked about this show was the way it portrayed the dark side of the early insurgents.

5

I agree with this a lot. I expected more fire from Abigail Adams. A woman who would write to her husband, “remember the ladies,” would not be as retiring as Linney is coming across. She seems so hesitant at times.

6

Maybe she’ll grow as the series continues. I hope they do something more with her. The real Abigail Adams was much more than a supportive housewife. She was as much an intellectual as her husband and he sought her advice on political and philosophical issues all the time. Their letters are filled with political discussions. She was also an abolitionist (one who wasn’t afraid to call the founders on the hypocrisy of their “all men are created equal” stance) who refused to own or countenance slavery in her own household, choosing to employ free blacks for a slary rather than accepting slaves even as a gifts.

She was a feminist too, advocating for women’s rights and agitating her husband to treat them as equals or pay the price. This is the rest of the quotation from which you quoted:

There’s a very rich character there. I hope they don’t waste it by just showing scrubbing floors and hugging the children while daddy rides off to to do Big Importnat Things for the country.

7

Exactly. Abigail Adams is an important historical figure in her own right, not just because she was the person John Adams whispered sweet nothings to. They’re my favorite historical couple, just because they are so very human and outspoken. It would have taken a strong woman to be married to John Adams, insufferable man that he was. The way she has been portrayed so far has been less than satisfying.

Even though it’s a musical, Abigail Adams is presented in a much better way in 1776, naughty letters and all.

I wish people who thought history was boring could just learn a little about the Adams. They completely blow any illusions about people in olden times being stiff and formal out of the water.

8

I hope this shows up later on DVD. I don’t have HBO, and when I saw this show advertised I was depressed I wouldn’t get to see it.

I had a however many greats grandfather who was a soldier during the Revolution.

9

It’s impossible for me to watch this and not think of the musical 1776. In fact, I had the same thought while reading McCullough’s books **John Adams ** and 1776. I sort of think he’s got a chip on nhis shoulder about that stage musical and movie. His books contain quite a few quotes that are used in it. Admnittedly they are historic quotes, actually uttered, but very often not essential to his point. And pretty often not spoken by the people who say them in the play 1776. It’s as if Mccullough wants to demonstrate all the times Peter Stone misattributed lines (something Stone admitted to in his afterword to the published play, by the way).

The set for the Continental Congress looked almost precisely like the one in the film 1776. I realize it’s based on the same actual chamber, but I’ve seen plenty of other cases where two works were based on the same location , and don’t recall any cases when they looked so much alike.

Great production. Great acting and effects (I was blown away by some of them, as revealed in the piece following. So much more of it was CGI than I’d realized). I’m surprised Tom Hanks didn’t know about John Adams defending the soldiers at the Boston Massacre – that was driven home to me many times in my schooling. we even saw a film about it.

I’ve read about this myself, and you have to realize how grotesque it was – the tar itself is extremely hot and clings tenaciously to your skin. Not only does it burn you, but you can’t get it off, so it continues to burn. Even jumping into water doesn’t help – tar is used on ship’s lines precisely because it resists water. That poor guy would’ve had second and probably third degree burns. I suspect the scene was inspired by a famous engraving of Bostonians tarring and feathering an official, then pouring tea into his mouth.

10

And how can I forget this link:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_020.html

11

I liked it quite it a bit.

The things that bothered me were when it seemed too much like a hollywood script. . .Abigail saying, (roughly) “they need a woman to knock some sense into them”.

Or, when the lightning and thunder started as Adams began his big speech.

I half-expected Jefferson to go, “whatever, dude” and I think one of the congressmen almost said, “tell it to the hand, because the delegate ain’t listening.” They seemed to plumb Poor Richard’s almanac for most of Franklin’s dialogue, but when he was speaking naturally, he was very good.

But, I’m not a big history or biography reader, so I haven’t really been exposed to a lot of this stuff since high school, and getting a lot of the history again was interesting to me.

I love Giamatti. He looks great, and I like him with more confidence than his usual roles provide. Love Linney. David Morse makes a great looking Washington.

I thought the sets and costumes and hair were all excellent without looking over the top. Accents and diction seemed believable.

Overall, very good. Informative, balanced, and maintained enough dramatic tension to keep you hooked. Looking forward to the rest.

I think the line was “sacred and indelible” perhaps.

That whole scene just seemed to be there to establish, “well, we won’t go into detail, but he didn’t write it all by himself”.

12

Next week’s episode explores the animosity that developed between Adams and
Franklin after they were sent to France. I’ll be curious to see how they portray this.

And Jefferson WAS very young. Remember, thirty years after the revolution, he was serving as President and sending Lewis and Clark out into the wilds.

13

I’m positive it will. I’m surprised they’re not offering it already, telling you they’ll ship it when the series is over.

I think David Morse is so good I wish they could have cast him as both Washington and Jefferson.

14

Regarding ages, at the time of the signing of the DOI,

Alexander Hamilton was 21.
Abigail Adams was 32.
Jefferson was 33.
George III was 38
Hancock was 39.
Adams was 41.
Washington was 44.
General William Howe was 47.
General Thomas Gage was 57
Franklin was 70.

Just to give you an idea of some of the ages involved.

15

I was very impressed by the production values; HBO has really gotten good at this kind of stuff. I’m glad it’s so gritty. Wouldn’t have thought of David Morse for Washington, but he does look just right.

16

I thought they portrayed Abigail Adams as a lot more than a dutiful housewife. She seemed to be managing John and making him a better person a lot of the time. His closing remarks at the Boston Massacre trial were largely designed by her. She told him to address people’s frustration with taxation, and he did. She told him to cut back on the erudition, and he did. When she gave her letters to Washington to deliver to her husband, Washington implied that he’d deliver the letters because they needed Adams to be confident and forceful in his beliefs, and he never really was until she had approved them.

The way the show handled Abigail’s influence on her husband was subtle, but it made her seem strong to me. She didn’t tell her husband what to do. She told him what she thought, knowing that it would shape what he did without demanding it of him.

17

We know quite a bit about the Abigail Adams/John Adams relationship because their letters have been preserved and published. Pepper Mill’s read a collection of them (I haven’t), and Peter Stone pretty clearly drew on them for his play, as did McCullouch for his books. The portrayal in the HBO series seems true to life.

18

Trepidation? Don’t let old Georgie fool you. He was wearing his uniform to Congress for a reason. He wanted the job.

19

They’re doing some screwy things with the accents. I guess they’re trying to show a transition between the British accents and the American accents. I disagree with the way they’re doing it for reasons I’ve stated in other threads. (I think American accents were largely in place by the time of the Revolution.)

20

So he was a geezer when he was the prez. That’ll teach me not to do a fact check first!