Wow, I can't believe how many inaccuracies there are in this, both big and small.
I don't see the point to many of them. Some of the inaccuracies in this were particularly egregious.
See http://hnn.us/articles/56155.html
I agree, after reading John Adams diaries many things are out of context and sequence.
shareAgreed. But if it gets people interested and actually reading the real history, then I can deal with the inaccuracies.
.
Yes, leading people to read history books would be great. But I am afraid most will be satisfied with a story with huge holes in it.
I am particularly amazed by the way France is showed in the serie. France was the first big nation to recognise the United States, gave a lot of weapons, money, military advisors... Frenchs are depicted as a bunch of decadent aristocrats but anyone who reads books knows that it was much more than that, and that American revolution had raised great interest in the whole population. Not a word about Beaumarchais and absolutely nothing about Lafayette ! Why would the new states send people in Europe if they finally didn't need them. This show is really more than inacurate, it is just an historical lie. The United States are showed like something out of the real world, with just an ennemy, Great Britain. I understand that actual people experience a reflex of turning on oneself on the cultural level, but I hoped that this kind of show could help understand what bonds always linked peoples of the globe.
It was a biopic about John Adams, not a documentary about the American Revolution. John Adams was sent to France to assist Benjamin Franklin in campaigning for French support. Again, it's about John Adams's life and his role in the American Revolution, not France's.
France helped America hugely, not because they were magnanimous, but because they hated the English and wanted to do anything they could that would hurt the English. I doubt that they expected the United States to win the war. Afterwards, they treated us with contempt and attempted to take advantage of us, as depicted in the series. This led to the Quasi War, the first undeclared American war.
America did have only one enemy from 1775 to 1783, Great Britain.
While the series includes a lot of speculation on John Adams's personal life, I think it is fairly accurate. Like all historical dramas, it does take some liberties to emphasize drama at the expense of historicity. However, I will add that if you are going to slam it for being "terribly inaccurate" that you be specific and cite what you claim to be erroneous or intentionally untrue.
Thanks for giving a reasoned and coherent answer to these critics. Mine would have been much nastier and far less effective.
sharewow. after reading from your link all the inventions & distortions, i'm appalled at the liberties taken by the writers of this series.
i was not a fan of the presentation. giamatti is a hammy & irritating sort of person to have to watch in any case, linney was also over the top.
the music was unrelievedly saccharine & moody.
they present Alexander Hamilton as a complete crank.
all the psychodrama of Adams treatment of & relations with his children were cooked up bunkum.
the PBS American Experience Presentation on John Adams was much better, in every respect, including the principle actors.
Right. But you're watching a piece of entertainment, not a documentary. A filmmaker's job is to tell a story that is going to be dramatically satisfying to their audience. That doesn't include being 100% faithful to reality. It means that they have to adjust, shift timelines, add things that will create the drama that is required for a *film*. Again, it's not a documentary.
shareTypical modern American response: Where lying is normalized to such a degree that you don't even expect, much less demand, that telling a story about our own national history be accurate.
Your "entertainment" defense is pure sophistry. And John Adams is pure rubbish.
That's your opinion. Based on the overwhelmingly positive reviews, you are pretty lonely up on your high horse. I suppose you would take Shakespeare to task for historical inaccuracies in some of his plays. Well to each his own.
Its a drama, not a documentary. Or course, they are going to take certain dramatic liberties.
For example, Adams did not cast the deciding vote on the Jay treaty. There was no tie, and indeed, since 2/3rds of the Senate had to approve, there could not have been a tie.
But those misrepresentations are relatively minor and tend to be the exception more than the rule.