MovieChat Forums > John Adams (2008) Discussion > Accuracy of John Adams' portrayal?

Accuracy of John Adams' portrayal?


Hi all, just finished watching JA and enjoyed it very much, although after doing some research on it versus the actual events I am aware that certain liberties were taken with the facts and story (I have read the article by Jeremy Stern).

My question is about the portrayal of Adams by Paul Giamatti: is it accurate in terms of his general character and demeanour? Obviously we don't know exactly what sort of personality John Adams had but there were times watching the series when I bordered on dislike of the character - he was a little waspish and overly-concerned with his reputation and standing. I'm aware that he was not ever supposed to be a perfect hero but I'm wondering whether that is an accurate depiction of him given the historical record?

If so, then Paul Giamatti did a wonderful job, even if he disconcertingly came to resemble Bilbo Baggins in the final episode!


"We're actors! We're the opposite of people!"

reply

I am not an expert on American history, but from what I know of him, Giamatti's portrayal is probably fairly accurate. Adams made a lot of enemies, and was known to be stubborn, borderline arrogant, and sometimes offensive. None of that detracts from his patriotism and strong set of principles, but Adams does not seem to have been a likeable guy. Consider this quote about him, said by Jefferson:

"He is distrustful, obstinate, excessively vain, and takes no counsel from anyone."

One of the reasons I thought it was cool to make a miniseries about Adams is that he was a very flawed man, and the miniseries makes no attempt to hide it. I agree with you, though, I thought it was an excellent production by HBO.

reply

His portrayal rings true to Adams's basic personality - if anything, the series's portrayal might have been more sympathetic than the real man.

"We're bowling for sinners today!"

reply

Thanks for the responses, much appreciated.

In that case, I really think PG did an excellent job as he captured those contradictions quite well. I did admire Adams' sense of purpose and history in regards to his actions, but felt there was sometimes less to admire about the man on the personal level. It's nice to know they did not try to sugarcoat the character for television and modern audiences.

Thanks again.


"We're actors! We're the opposite of people!"

reply

I have to admit that Adams one of my favorite presidents because he was so human and flawed, and yet still so often rose to the occasion despite himself. I admire his sense of justice (such as defending the British officers); his hatred of slavery and fighting to get that banned on the Constitution; and how his marriage to Abigail was an equal partnership and he valued her advice and counsel, something rather rare in their era (can't remember where I heard it, but a historian pointed out that most of Adams' disastrous or controversial decisions as president were made when Abigail was away from D.C. when he didn't have her around to talk things through). It's also worth noting that in his later years, after retirement and his initial flurry of vitriolic letters and articles towards just about anyone that slighted him, he went through a big personality change. His family members and old friends all remarked at how they had never seen him so happy, content and mellow as he was in those later years.

Come, we must press against the tide of naughtiness. Mind your step.

reply

I found it less sympathetic, especially in his family life. While in reality John Adams took his son John Quincy with him the first time he went to Europe, he actually returned briefly (skipped over in the movie) and was then sent back to Europe. On his return he took his two younger sons, Charles and Thomas. Then after Adams helped sign the peace treaty to end the Revolutionary War - left out of the miniseries entirely, oddly enough - he sent for Abigail who came WITH Nabby. Nabby in fact met her husband in Europe and they had their first child while Adams was serving as ambassador to England. They even had Jefferson comment, "I wish I could have met your children," when in reality he DID meet John Quincy and Nabby in Paris and became very well acquainted with the whole family...John Q especially became enamored of Jefferson and often had dinner with him in Paris. Later, when John Q was moving up in national politics (first as the Secretary of State to Monroe, which was seen as a stepping stone to the Presidency, and then as President himself) Adams remarked to Jefferson that John Q sometimes felt, "almost as much your boy as mine."

I understand why many dramatic liberties were taken with history, because this was to be entertainment, not a documentary. That is why, for the sake of story-telling, we did not need to see Adams's brief return visit to Massachusetts when he was only there for a couple of months before being sent right back. Certain things that David McCullough (in his biography that this mini-series is based on) said were almost certainly inaccurate - such as Adams telling Jefferson that he should write the Declaration because he, Adams, was 'Obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular,' which McCullough points out was Adams looking back at it from old age...At the time he was not suspected, NOT unpopular, and most definitely not referred to as obnoxious by anyone. He was widely considered to be the primary force behind Independence...Jefferson ended up getting the lion's share of the credit through history for writing the Declaration (which is funny because after the oft quoted and incredibly famous first paragraph, the Declaration is nothing special and is in fact sometimes ridiculous in that it blames George III for things that not only did the majority of the Continental Congress and the people know at the time to be blatantly false, but some of which were patently absurd, making it mostly propaganda) while Adams's role is less remembered and cherished.

The miniseries isn't far off on most major things, even if it makes him look like an absentee father and thereby giving more substance to Charles's anger with him in the miniseries than he'd have had if the truth had been shown. On the whole it does an excellent job of shining a light on the remarkable life of John Adams, his accomplishments, and bringing to the forefront the truth that Adams is the most responsible person as a legislator for our break from Britain. Before we built our nation in 1787-88, we had to separate from Britain in 1776, and while George Washington was the key man in actually winning our independence and making it a fact with victory in arms, Adams was the key man in declaring it, and in getting the other colonies to acknowledge themselves as states separate from the power of George III and his Parliament. Our society values action, and especially military action, over words and legislation, which is why Washington was more esteemed at the time and still is today, but the actions of Washington from 1776 in Boston to 1781 in Yorktown would not have been possible without John Adams.



"Well if you wanted to make Serak the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."

reply

From my personal experience the portrayal is quite accurate. Most medium-large size university libraries will actually contain volumes of "The writings of John Adams". The diary entries can usually be disregarded as "true" because they were generally written for posterity however his letters to his wife and Thomas Jefferson paint a clearer portrait of the man, so we can actually understand his personality quite well.

I can not claim to have read them all but I spent many nights pouring over the writings in the library for a paper I wrote on the Adams/Hamilton feud.

reply

[deleted]

Adams and Jefferson had a hot and cold relationship. Abigail never forgave Thomas for turning politically against John. But they did reissue their friendship (while Abigail was still alive, not after as the miniseries presents).

To be sure, the miniseries is based on a very loving biography by David Mccullough. I wouldn't call it a hagiography, but it's close. There's not much difference in how Mccullough views Adams and how Adams viewed himself. Remember, in his own lifetime Adams was bitter and self-pitying, and felt he was shafted as far as recognition in the place of the founders. Mccullough has the clear agenda of rehabbing his image (as does the series), which isn't to say there's anything wrong with that, but let the student beware. Whenever you're dealing with a political figure, you have to look at a variety of sources so you can see the difference between who the person was, how he saw himself, and how his admirers and foes viewed him.

reply

[deleted]

Paine had Adams right; he said Adams supported separation from England because he expected to be made great by it. Adams can only be understood as a frustrated monarchist. As Paine put it, his head was as full of kings, queens, and knaves as a pack of cards. He saw monarchy as the future of the U.S., and despised the Revolution for its democratic (in our more modern conception of the word) elements. He also despised his betters among the prominent founders (Jefferson, Paine, and, most especially, Franklin, among many others), and is, through most of the formative years of the U.S., a villain in the story.

McCullugh's book was hagiography, and based mostly on Adams' later writings wherein he extensively rewrote reality, Orwell style (including trying to erase his monarchism), in an effort to gain a less ugly place in history. His late correspondence with Jefferson was also written for posterity; they play a lot nicer than they ever did in life. The movie is based on the book, and I assume it carries over the books' nonsense.

---
"The Dig"
http://cinemarchaeologist.blogspot.com/

reply

John Adams was not likeable. He knew himself to be obnoxious. Even Abigail tried to tone him down. He had no patience for consensus building but was toward it by Franklin.

reply