MovieChat Forums > John Adams (2008) Discussion > Good, but jarring too

Good, but jarring too

posted 14 years ago by doughdee222
13 replies | jump to latest

I liked this series as it was well done. But much of it was jarring as well.

For example: Episode one ends with John and Sam Adams riding off together as part of the Sons of Liberty with Abigail standing in the doorway of the Boston home. Part two opens and suddenly the Adams are living on a farm in the countryside and the Sons are never mentioned again. This transition could have been handled better. I would have liked a scene or two concerning what the Sons did in New York or Philadelphia.

John Quincy is in Paris then suddenly sent off to Russia for a few years. I understand that his story is a side issue but I would have like to see a bit more about these events.

I wonder if the Adams-Franklin relationship was as antagonistic as portrayed, particularly in the Paris scenes.

Jefferson is played as a quiet, laid back kind of guy. I wonder how accurate that was.

The Washington presidency is passed over in about an hour and even then little seems to happen. Maybe Adams was unimportant to it but again I would have liked a couple more scenes describing this time period.

Anyone else agree?

-Doughdee222

"Fire me, boy!"

[–] thedude47374 14 years ago

I don't know, it's hard for me to think of how they could have changed the series without losing sight of the main story.

As for Jefferson, he was quite the introvert and I think the actor nailed down his intricacies fairly well. They really did their homework for this, as even lesser known founding fathers are portrayed fairly and accurately.

[–] dab6 14 years ago

And they did significant simplification of the Paris period since Adams actually made two trips.

By following Adams point of view a lot of things are missed (like the Constitution writing for example). There's a difficulty in pacing since they have to juggle the personal and the public life, and the beginning and end have to be slowly paced so they can establish/wrap up the family story.

[–] suessis 14 years ago

The main focus of the story is Adams and how Adams was involved or reacted to the events and people of the time. To off into other people's lives would have distracted from that. If you want to know about the Washington presidency a mini-series on Washington would have that.

This is an extremely well researched series because it's based on a very well researched book. I think they way things are portrayed is probably very accurate.

"These are only shadows of the real world..."

[–] jriddle73 14 years ago

This is an extremely well researched series because it's based on a very well researched book.

I haven't seen the mini, but the book was most definitely NOT "very well researched." Late in life, Adams, who was always his own biggest fan (no one else could stand him), authored a lot of after-the-fact material in an effort to rewrite his own history, which was pretty ugly. McCullough treated most of that material--which was nonsense--as gospel, and he continues in Adams' own tradition, systematically covering up for Adams. For anyone seeking any real understanding of Adams or the events of his life, it's a worthless document.

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

[–] suessis 14 years ago

I haven't seen the mini, but the book was most definitely NOT "very well researched." Late in life, Adams, who was always his own biggest fan (no one else could stand him), authored a lot of after-the-fact material in an effort to rewrite his own history, which was pretty ugly. McCullough treated most of that material--which was nonsense--as gospel, and he continues in Adams' own tradition, systematically covering up for Adams. For anyone seeking any real understanding of Adams or the events of his life, it's a worthless document.

Odd because that wasn't my impression AT ALL. In fact I was left with a much better understanding not only of Adams but of his times. McCullough makes a point through out the book of not covering up for Adams, in fact he presents him with all his flaws and mistakes. He also did it in a very balanced way. He took no sides on any issue that was presented. He discussed both his contemporaries views of Adams and Adams' own side of things. I wasn't left with the impression that Adams was some kind of demigod. He was a very flawed man with good intentions. It maybe your perception but it certainly wasn't mine.

"These are only shadows of the real world..."

[–] jriddle73 14 years ago

Be very skepical of any understanding of Adams or his times you think you gained from McCullough. McCullough is a very gifted writer, and offers up quite readable prose, but he's definitely not a gifted historian. Rather than run through some of the crippling distortions in the book (which I don't have handy), I'll cite some others who have already pointed out many of them:
http://www.andrewtobias.com/bkoldcolumns/030921.html
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/90636/david-mccullough-john- adams-book-review

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

[–] pe81171 14 years ago

I've always liked John Ferling's book on Adams as much if not more than McCullough's. Ferling can be very critical of Adams but is fair and judicial overall in the discussion of the man. Plus, Ferling writes about as good as McCullough does.

These two books do not cover up the very real flaws of the man.

I think it is much easier to criticize these individuals when we have two hundred years of history behind us and can write these things with all the documents in hand from the comfort of our homes while these men were fighting for their very survival in an insanely different world than we live in now.

Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.

[–] suessis 14 years ago

Interesting articles, and I'm starting to wonder if I read the same book as they (and obviously you) did because that wasn't at all my impression.

"These are only shadows of the real world..."

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 14 years ago

Mr. Riddle has been obsessively seeking to tear down Adams and McCullough for years. I don't know why he's made this his personal hobbyhorse but it's beyond irritating by now.

"I may not punish you for treason, but I could slap you for stupidity."

[–] jriddle73 14 years ago

I wonder if the Adams-Franklin relationship was as antagonistic as portrayed, particularly in the Paris scenes.

Don't know how the mini portrays it, but that was an extremely antagonistic relationship. Franklin was a brilliant, practical, get-it-done fellow, and Adams despised him. Adams was a blundering, egomanical clown with no understanding of diplomacy, and he hated the French the way white racists hate everyone who isn't a white racist. After seeing Adams' dangerous blundering first-hand, Franklin took steps to isolate him, and contain the damage he could cause, while Franklin successfully went about the business to which he'd been assigned. Adams saw Franklin as an old reprobate who failed to see the wisdom, in all things, of John Adams, which, to Adams, was the worst sin one could commit. For a while, Adams was refusing to even meet with Franklin.

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

[–] suessis 14 years ago

Adams was a blundering, egomanical clown with no understanding of diplomacy, and he hated the French the way white racists hate everyone who isn't a white racist. After seeing Adams' dangerous blundering first-hand, Franklin took steps to isolate him, and contain the damage he could cause, while Franklin successfully went about the business to which he'd been assigned.

Which is portrayed in the book you claim to have read.

"These are only shadows of the real world..."

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 14 years ago

I wonder if the Adams-Franklin relationship was as antagonistic as portrayed, particularly in the Paris scenes.

It was probably even worse than the show portrayed - Adams very abrasive and chafing at the lack of attention he got while Franklin was revered by the French. Supposedly the two even shared a bed for part of their time in Paris, which would aggravate even the mildest of friction.

"I may not punish you for treason, but I could slap you for stupidity."

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]