John Adams, HBO-style
Having done without it since The Sopranos and Deadwood ended, I forgot to turn HBO back on in time to catch the premier of the cable channel’s take on John Adams, based on David McCullough’s much-maligned-by-me biography. The McCullough version seemed potentially more suited to filming than to a serious print biography, so my mind is open. I plan to catch up with the series soon, but if any readers did see it, please share. The New York Times reviewer was not impressed, but it does sound like there was a realistic tarring-and-feathering scene that bids fair to become a staple of my survey class.
I saw the first two parts this Sunday. I liked it, but I wasn’t quite as happy with it as I thought I would be; but it’s always that way, it seems, when you expect something (a party, a movie, a concert) to be really enjoyable. It can turn out a bit flat.
Anyway. I don’t think the NY Times reviewer covered herself with glory, either. Nothing interesting to say, and the pronouncements on the various character realizations seemed off the mark in most cases.
1. Overall look and feel: This jury of one is still out. The trailers brag about the scrupulous attention to detail and spot-on recreations, but the rooms looked suspiciously large to me. But, then, I know that TV makes small stages look big (late-night shows, quiz shows, etc., are really really tiny in real life, but look like spacious venues on TV), so maybe that’s the explanation. Outside it looks pretty good, though no period pieces like to show horse shit, and here’s no exception.
2. NYT didn’t like Adams (here and below, I use character names rather than keep looking back to see actors’ names), but I think he’s pretty good. Maybe he could and should show that trait of the maverick that can be almost loathsome at moments. I never disliked this Adams, but I gather that even his admirers had to work at it to like him consistently.
3. Abigail, well naturally, especially in this market, they would overdo her wunnerful traits, and they/she did. Still and all, she’s okay and fun to watch.
4. George Washington’s tall, but otherwise I think they just miss him, from what I’ve gleaned here and there. NY Times thought Adams should have had more charisma or something (I’m not sure what), but it’s GW who definitely needed to show us something, something consistent with his (I gather) huge personal authority for his peers.
5. Thomas Jefferson is, I’ll grant, an interesting character, as NYT says, but I don’t think he’s right, either. He’s way too short, but maybe that’s not such a big deal (although, tall as he was back then?). But somehow I never got the sense that he was an odd duck, intensely and intelligently brooding in the background, as he’s played here, so far. Let’s see how he handles Paris before deciding.
6. Tar and feathers, yes, pretty bad, though not bad enough, imo. What they put him through gives the lie, as it ought, to any notion that it was a rude and humiliating practice, but not torture (even unto death!). The scene shows how godawful it must have been, except that the victim doesn’t act like one really would with hot tar poured on like that. (I was caramalizing suger the other night and dribbled some on my thumb. Yow !!!!! It won’t quit !!! So how about melted tar all over your body?) I appreciate that such scenes have to walk a line between realism and voluptuous voyeurism; I’m just saying.
7. Ben Franklin, so far, is wrong, too. –Or maybe he really did go around pretending to be Ben Franklin by that time in his life?
Looking forward to subsequent episodes to see how the Adams character progresses. He’s the only way, given the format (which might have tried, for example, a voice-over narrative?), that the series is going to gain traction, if it does. Kind of a slogging start.
Comment by Rod Bell — March 17, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
Thanks for the review. I am going to catch up with the Adamses over Spring Break. HBO On Demand rules.
Comment by Jeff Pasley — March 20, 2008 @ 12:12 pm