Gold Derby

Tom O'Neil has the inside track on Oscars, Emmys, Grammys and all the award shows.

« Previous Post | Gold Derby Home | Next Post »

How gutsy and 'authentic' will HBO's 'John Adams' really be?

March 10, 2008 |  8:09 pm

Hurry, weekend! I can't wait to see HBO's new miniseries "John Adams," which commences at 8 p.m. ET this Sunday, then continues through seven installments at 9 p.m. every subsequent Sunday till April 20. See the full TV sked HERE plus background info at the program's special website — HERE.

What looks great about this inevitable future winner of the Emmy Award for best miniseries is that it takes a leisurely pace to tell the tale of American independence through the perspective of our least statuesque, most bungling, most bizarre and most interesting founding father.

Adams_pq

Produced by Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman ("Band of Brothers") for $100 million, it was directed by Tom Hooper ("Longford," "Elizabeth I") and written by co-exec producer Kirk Ellis ("Into the West") based upon David McCullough's Pulitzer Prize-winning bestseller. It stars Paul Giamatti as Adams and Laura Linney as his firebrand wife, Abigail. Timespan covered: Boston Massacre of 1770 to Adams' death in 1826.

"I don't think any film that's been done about this all-important part of our [national] story has ever been done with such authenticity," McCullough boasts in the promo video below.

Oh, yeah? That's what I hope to see, all right, but am skeptical. From the trailer and early PR info, this looks like the classic, butt-smooching, flag-waving treatment instead. First off, why, oh, why did they cast Giamatti? Sure, he has a schlubby, everyman quality about him, which Adams did too, but that was a secondary characteristic of America's second president. Adams was widely loathed and despised because he was insufferably smug, lording over everyone with cartoonish pomposity. I don't see any of that coming through in the video trailers below.

Nor have I heard that this miniseries bothers to show us Adams' creepy dark side — why his enemies believed he was a dangerous buffoon who secretly plotted to wipe out democracy in favor of a Federalist aristocracy that could rule with absolute, unchecked power.

CLICK HERE to Continue Reading MORE!

Adams_pq_2

Granted, Adams was a great champion of American nationhood. In late June 1776, he burst into a rant at the Continental Congress that was so dazzling and so inspiring that it probably swung the key votes needed to make the break from Mother England. Thomas Jefferson — who was one of Adams' most fierce critics — conceded that Adams was the "Colossus of Independence" because of the vital role he played at key times like that in early American history.

But once the republic was launched, Adams' politics were scary, and I doubt that this miniseries will do an honest job dramatizing same — just like McCullough's book brushed off the really nasty stuff.

Sure, the mini 'fesses up about Adams' enactment of the Alien and Sedition Acts when he was president, but it looks as if the blame is passed off to Abigail, who, yes, did pressure John to squash freedom of speech just seven years after the passage of the Bill of Rights, allegedly because of the threat of looming war with France. But Adams really didn't need prodding, according to Jefferson, who believed that once he was president and corrupted by power, Adams was a serious, sinister threat to America's sacred values.

I consider myself to be an amateur historian — I study American, world and Hollywood history voraciously all the time — so I happen to know a lot about the backstory here and I sure hope HBO has the guts to tell it to us. The Alien and Sedition Acts were not really enacted as a necessity of national defense during a pending war with France. We know that claim was bogus because the Sedition Acts prohibited criticism of all top U.S. leaders except the Vice President. Isn't that curious? Guess who was Vice President under Adams — Thomas Jefferson, his fiercest critic. Adams even used the laws to level huge fines on people who joked about him or called him "proud."

Adams was so adamant about squashing freedom of speech that he shut down all major opposition newspapers north of the Mason-Dixon line, tossing their editors in jail — with one exception. The Philadelphia Aurora held special status because it was published by Benjamin Bache, grandson of Benjamin Franklin, in Franklin's old print shop using Franklin's old printing press. But finally Adams could suffer its criticism no more and hurled Bache into jail, where he died of yellow fever before he could be brought to trail for sedition. But that didn't stop the Aurora from continuing to publish. Bravely, it soldiered on, sometimes from secret distances, and years later Jefferson gave the newspaper credit for saving the democratic republic. Ultimately, the Aurora reaped revenge. By fearlessly continuing to expose the antics of Adams and other Federalists, it caused them to lose the White House to Jefferson and his new, rival party.

Will this miniseries honestly portray the shocking truths of that story? Will it reveal that Adams didn't want America's elected officials answerable to the electorate? Once installed in office, he wanted the president and congressional leaders to remain in office for life. The notorious aristocrat wished the presidents (Washington and himself) to be referred to as "His Highness," by the way.

Another interesting aside: Though Adams didn't own slaves and refused to employ slave labor, he fought against the emancipation of slavery in his home state of Massachusetts and against allowing free blacks to fight in the Continental army.

Yes, all of our Founding Fathers have scary dark sides we don't like to acknowledge today. But I'm digging up all this old dirt about Adams now because I want us to keep it skeptically in mind when viewing this mini that promises to tell its story with fearless and honest "authenticity." Just out of curiosity. Just to exercise my own freedom of speech.

Post a comment
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.
Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In





Comments

Would some website please offer a list of characters with pictures to differentiate the historically verified from the fictitious?

John Adams was an exceptional human being and not deserving of the smears and slander he is being tarred with by the fascistic extremists here. While Washington and Jefferson, for example, were slave owners, Adams was not, and did not use slaves. In fact he established a precedent of hiring free blacks. Was he perfect? No, but who among us is? Certainly not those in evidence here, or their preferred choice of historical figures.

When Adams became president, we were in a war, and while the Alien and Sedition act, etc.. went too far, it was repealed. For it's time, the fledgling US government was head and shoulders above all other governments, and is still the only one that ever provided an example for the achievement of true civl rights and freedoms.

Itt continued to provide that opportunity when Europe was birthing monsters like Karl Marx, who was responsible for an ideology that has been guilty of rationalizing genocide and mass murder. Marxist ideology has the blood of more innocents on it's hands than any other throughout history, and it continues today.

The fact is that those who attempt to take swipes at Adams here, are sick with that same ideological disease.

They are willingly indiferent to, or ignorant of the fact that what they advocate for delivers only one thing, despotism and no rights and freedoms for anyone. Even more laughable is the paper their rants are published in . The LA Times is owed by a right wing corporatist who seeks to destroy rights and freedoms.

Another example of revisionist history at its best. Your two sentecent description of the reasons behind the Alien and Sedition acts horribly distort history and the crisis facing the newly created United States.

Yes, we could use the truth warts and all!! The book probably tips the hand. Not bad but abit of a wasted opportunity...

If we can survive those guys; maybe there is chance for us even after W,

This is exactly what I needed to read before deciding whether or not to sit through seven parts of the same white-washed history I learned in public high school.

While I didn't exactly expect them to use Howard Zinn as a consultant, I was hoping for something new.

Maybe, maybe.

Interesting that you consider your version of history accurate and other's not; yours complete and other's wanting depth and true inspection. Typical.

I am not sure I agree with the comments above. Adams did have a pompous side, but his motives were in my opinion often misinterpreted. Jefferson, the Democrat, had a "dark side" as well and was in fact manipulating much of the press at the time AND public opinion against Adams. Of the two, Adams was much more genuine person and honest in his dealings with his colleagues.

Scary darkside seems a bit mellodramatic. These were individuals living in a radically diffrent time with radically diffrenrent perceptions of the world and government. Scary darkside implies a sort of universal morality and world understanding that is profoundly ahistorical. None of the founders would fit easily into today's moral or political system.



Stay Connected:


Advertisement

About the Blogger


The Dish Rag
Pop & Hiss
Notes on a Season
The Circuit: Awards and Festivals News



Categories


Archives