S.M. Huq Date: 6/5/2014

HBO John Adams

John Adams and American Revolution

HBO John Adams is a 2008 American Miniseries which shows the American Revolution and

post-revolutionary American through the eyes of John Adams. The miniseries shows the life of

one of the USA's Founding Fathers, its second President, and his role in the nation's first 50

years. Paul Giamatti Acted as John Adams. The miniseries was based on the Book John Adams

by David McCllough. In one of the previews David McCllough said, “John Adams never failed to

answer the call of his country to serve. He understood what it means to be a citizen and I hope

that comes through in this Production (HBO John Adams).”1 The miniseries was made in 2008. It

depicts the time-period from 1770s till John Adams’ death (1826). The miniseries was directed

by Tom Hooper. Kirk Ellis wrote the screenplay based on the book. The miniseries is divided into

7 episodes. It was well presented, and to a certain degree reliable. It is obvious that people of

the U.S. know their past very well. Therefore, over-dramatization of the book “John Adams”

while writing the screen-play and manipulating the history have actually belittled our founding

father John Adams and Antagonizing Thomas Jefferson has brought insult to his bright political

life. The filmmaker wanted to show how the combination of politics, Geography and passion

contributed towards the American Revolution. In one of the previews, Tom Hanks, the

Executive producer said, “We need to be able to show how hard it was to be alive in the 1700s.

How difficult it was trying to survive the long winter.”2 The filmmaker’s main focus was to show

John Adams’ political life, His struggle for independence, His role as President. The miniseries

1 McCllough, David. "John Adams: A Closer Look (HBO)." YouTube.2 Hanks, Tom. "John Adams: A Closer Look (HBO)." YouTube.

also show the growing rivalry between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson- From friend to rivals

to almost enemy. A good side of the miniseries was Abigail Adams’ influence over John Adams

for making Decisions.

The main characters of this miniseries are John Adams, Abigail Adams, Benjamin Franklin,

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and others. The actors were Paul

Giamatti (John Adams), Laura Linney (Abigail Adams), Stephen Dillane (Thomas Jefferson), Tom

Wilkinson (Benjamin Franklin) and David Morse (George Washington), Justin Theroux (John

Hancock), Danny Huston (Samuel Adams) and others. The miniseries depicts places Colonial

Massachusetts, Philadelphia, France, Britain, Holland and other places. But, the film was

actually shot in colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, Richmond and other places.

The first episode (join or, die) shows the aftermath of the Boston Massacre in 1770s John

Adams' reputation as a crusader for justice, and he is invited to join the Continental Congress in

Philadelphia. The Second episode (Independence) shows British attacks on Lexington and

Concord in 1775 spur debate among the Continental Congress, but Adams' arguments on behalf

of Massachusetts and independence are met with skepticism by some of his colleagues. The

third Episode (Don’t Tread on Me) shows that, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin travel to

France to land support for the colonists' revolt against England. But after mixed results in Paris,

Adams continues on to Holland on a similar mission. The fourth episode (Reunion) portraits the

scene in 1781, while recovering from an illness in Holland, Adams is informed of Cornwallis's

surrender to Washington and is eventually reunited with Abigail in Paris. Later, Adams meets

King George III while serving as ambassador to England, finally returns home to Boston and his

now-grown children, and considers a position in the new government. In episode 5 (Unite or,

die), now serving as vice president, Adams is dismayed by his inconsequential role in the

government, and finds his friendship with Jefferson suffering as a result of the conflict between

England and France. In 1797, Adams succeeds Washington as president, but needs Abigail's

help to make sense of this important position and the future of the country. Episode 6

(Unnecessary war) gives details that, as president, Adams tries to keep the U.S. out of war with

France. But his retention of Washington's cabinet and his support for the Alien and Sedition

Acts of 1798 cause much controversy and effectively end his bond with Jefferson; Adams is

bitter after the death of one of his sons, but sets his sights on reelection after moving to the

country's new capital city. Last of all, in the series finale (Episode 7: peace field) a retired Adams

begins work on his memoirs. Despite several family tragedies, he also embarks on mending his

friendship with Jefferson through a series of letters and lives long enough to see his son John

Quincy become president.

The John Adams miniseries is very accurate for portraying the colonial time periods and

early America. It also shows their culture, traditions, people, point of view, dress-code, and

other important factors. David McCullough himself was a technical advisor while HBO was

making this film. Again, the accuracy and detail are quite simply breathtaking. The costumes

and other accessories produced looked as if they were pulled right out a portrait of that period.

The details of each set, from Boston Harbor to the great palace of Versailles in the miniseries

were quite marvelous.

While describing the events chronologically it showed major Historic flaws; some of the

scenes were completely fictional while other historical facts were manipulated, subtracted or,

re-imagined in favor of John Adams. John Adams was obviously the center of the whole

miniseries, he was overestimated in the series, and he was given much more credit than what

he deserved. Before even initiate historicizing this miniseries, it has to be noted that, why a

miniseries was made on John Adams, why not on Thomas Jefferson or, George Washington,

Alexander Hamilton or, Benjamin Franklin or, other founding fathers. The background is

necessary and it is the path towards the historicizing a film or, series. John Adams was an

independent political thinker. He was not an abstract political thinker, rather a person who

would read, write and understand in order to solve problem. Among the Major founding

fathers, let alone John Adams’ personality, even his role and impact is difficult to understand. It

is easy to describe Franklin's genius, Washington's charismatic leadership, Jefferson's

paradoxical egalitarianism, Madison's brilliant constitutionalism and Hamilton's ambitious

state-building. On the other hand, it is a tough task to identify John Adams’ legacies and

influences. As Adams said in his own way in the miniseries, “I’ll not be in the history books. Only

Franklin. Franklin did this, and Franklin did some other damn thing. Franklin smote the ground

and out sprang General Washington, fully grown and on his horse. Then Franklin electrified him

with that miraculous lighting-rod of his, and the three of them – Franklin, Washington, and the

horse-conducted the entire War for Independence all by themselves.” John Adams had great

political power and influence and as a part of this political power he had to do many unpopular

things. John Adams was a plain and simple man, he was very honest. His being honest and naïve

cost him in the long run. One of the purposes the filmmakers stated that it was made to show

John Adams to the people in a new way. He did not have any superhuman characteristics

neither, the figure. But, he stood for justice and went into upper level from his simple

background and that is what made John Adams great. John Adams is great to us from the

history. Making a miniseries and dramatization actually changed people’s point of view, the

Historic John Adams will be replaced with an acting figure. In this case, making this miniseries

was not a good thing. "In HBO's version, Adams almost single-handedly engineered the fight for

independence. To be sure, Adams did lead the pro-independence faction in the Continental

Congress. However, it would have helped if the series had pointed out some of the influences

beyond Congress that were moving colonial opinion toward revolution. Perhaps, television may

not be the best medium for capturing the history of ideas.”3

“Changes are not unreasonable in a dramatization. But, from the very start of the series,

far more serious and gratuitous distortions abound, simultaneously exaggerating Adams’s

centrality and the hostility he faced. These problems do not stem from David McCullough’s

book, on which the series claims to be based. There are issues with McCullough’s interpretive

scope – the degree to which he situates Adams in the political context of his time – but his

factual narrative, though somewhat skimpy before 1776, is solidly researched, well-presented,

and reliable. Yet, just as scriptwriters adapting great literary works for the screen often seem to

think they know better than the authors themselves, the “John Adams” screenwriters seemed

to think they could improve upon the actual past McCullough had chronicled.”4

3 Hyson, Jeffry. "John Adams: Historical Accuracy And Artistic License." Saint Joseph's University. N.p., n.d. Apr. 02, 2008.4 Stern, Jeremy. "What's Wrong with HBO's Dramatization of John Adams's Story." History News Network. N.p., n.d. Web.

“Some degree of compression and alteration is, of course, unavoidable in any

dramatization: history is too complex to be rendered literally on film. Using quotations from

letters as the basis for spoken dialogue is, for example, a reasonable technique, allowing a

historical figure’s attitudes and ideas to be accurately reflected. Likewise, it is sometimes

necessary to restage an exchange of letters as a face-to-face discussion, to roll longer events

into a single scene, and to compress people’s coming and goings. But it is truly astonishing how

often “historical” dramatizations make changes that are simply unnecessary, that rewrite

fundamental historical reality to create ‘dramatic’ moments, which are, in fact, no more

dramatic than the real events would be if depicted honestly. Fictional motivations and

incidents are created as if historical actors were fictional characters; to be defined and depicted

in whatever manner best suits the script.”5

“As a drama, HBO’s series is generally first-rate, including an impressively authentic

evocation of the 18th and early 19th century physical environment. Recently, it has been

liberally bedecked with Emmy awards. Paul Giamatti, Laura Linney and Tom Wilkinson

deserved their acting trophies; purely as a drama, the series deserved its best miniseries win as

well. Such accolades, however, only compound the problem: since the show was well-done,

dramatic, entertaining and widely praised, it will be all the more widely seen, and its audience

will all the more readily assume it is definitive. Undoubtedly, it is already being used in

classrooms. Fictionalized history can gain traction with alarming ease, spreading both factual

errors and fundamental misconceptions: people tend to believe what they see on the screen.”6

5 Stern, Jeremy. "What's Wrong with HBO's Dramatization of John Adams's Story." History News Network. N.p., n.d. Web.6 Stern, Jeremy. "What's Wrong with HBO's Dramatization of John Adams's Story." History News Network. N.p., n.d. Web.

The miniseries is full of Historical flaws, inaccuracies and fiction which will be explained

chronologically. First of all, after the Boston Massacre, there was shown a sharp contrast

between John Adams and his cousin Samuel Adams and his sons of liberty. In reality, John was

actually Samuels’ ally in those years. The Boston sons of liberty were much more violent than

the New-York’s. Despite that, and popular tradition of tarring in colonial America, tarring was

never common in revolutionary Boston and were not promoted by the opposition leadership.

Set in late 1773 during the Tea Act crisis, in which one of the tea-ship captains is tarred and

feathered at the direct urging of John Hancock, while John Adams rails against such immoral

lawlessness and Samuel struggles to defend it. The entire scene was bias and bogus. It has been

shown that, John converted at last to the Revolutionary cause by Britain’s harsh response, the

Coercive Acts. In fact, he needed no converting. He actually turned from the British

government when they launched the Stamp act. According to John Adams it was a

“Constitutional violation of colonial liberty”.7

In the 2nd episode, it has been shown that John Adams was sent to the first continental

congress in 1774, but in the filmmakers listed the delegates from the 2nd continental congress

into the 1st one. Later, in the episode, Adams is shown riding into the immediate aftermath of

the bloody fighting at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775; this is simply not true since

according to his own account Adams went to that place several days after the battle.

Historically John Adams did play an important role for establishing the continental army and

nominating George Washington as its commander. But in the miniseries, only he was given

credit for those two deeds. Reality is, John Adams, as McCullough correctly notes, returned to

7 Graff, Henry F. "John Adams." The Presidents: A Reference History. 2nd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1996. 23-24. Print.

Philadelphia in May to find a virtual armed camp. While some delegates did grumble that New

England had incautiously pushed too far, Congress quickly voted to ready the colonies for

military defense – and. Adams was central in urging the creation of a continental army, but

Congress voted to do so on June 14, appointing Washington its commander on the 15th. The

first version of the declaration of independence read by Abigail Adams was not a printed copy;

rather it was a hand-written copy by John Adams. Events are continually manipulated to keep

John Adams and Adams Family in the central stage. It has been shown that the militia,

withdrawing from Bunker Hill, passed directly by Abigail Adams’s door; she sees the mutilated

body of Joseph Warren drawn by in a cart. In reality, Bunker Hill was on the opposite side of

Boston Harbor, and the Adams home was entirely off the militia’s line of march. General Henry

Knox's cannon which was taken from Fort Ticonderoga is depicted passing by the Adams' house

in Braintree, Massachusetts en route to Cambridge, Massachusetts. In reality, General Knox's

caravan almost certainly did not pass through Braintree. Ft. Ticonderoga. The furious debate on

Richard Henry Lee’s June 7 resolution for independence is represented reasonably accurate.

The committee to prepare a declaration of independence is shown being authorized almost as a

casual afterthought: in fact, this committee was established by a proper vote of Congress,

revealing a greater willingness in the delegates to consider independence than the miniseries

wishes to admit. The renewal of debate on July 1 is again falsified to make Adams appear more

beleaguered and more central than he actually was. Dickinson did oppose him, but the New

York delegation – shown here violently hostile to Adams and his opinions – actually supported

independence, though they still lacked authorization to vote for it. The initial vote was not 9-4,

but 9-2 with two abstentions (New York and Delaware). Pennsylvania’s Dickinson and Morris

did agree to absent themselves for the sake of unanimity, but they did not do that as part of a

deal to appease New York. Despite his concerns that the colonies were moving too quickly, the

hostility of South Carolina’s Edward Rutledge is exaggerated, and there is no evidence of his

making a crucial deal with Adams: he also suppressed his doubts about immediate

independence for the sake of unanimity.

In part 3, it has been depicted that, Adams is departing for Europe without his upset nine-

year-old son Charles, leaving only with older son John Quincy Adams. According to David

McCullough's book, young Charles accompanied his brother and father to Paris. He later

became ill in Holland, and traveled alone on the troubled vessel South Carolina. After an

extended journey of five months, Charles returned to Braintree at 11 years of age. During

Adams's first voyage to France, his ship was caught up in a battle with a British ship. During the

battle, while Adams assists a surgeon performing an amputation on a patient who dies. In

reality, Adams helped perform the amputation several days after the capture of the British ship,

following an unrelated accident. The patient died a week after the amputation, rather than

during the operation as shown in the episode. Adams’s conflicts with Benjamin Franklin in

France involve much elaboration of events, some of which is justifiable in a dramatization. But

Adams’s open and undiplomatic quarrels with French officials are significantly and needlessly

exaggerated: to stress the forthrightness of plain-speaking John, the program seriously

overstates his diplomatic insensibility. Adams lacked French. While this was true at first, he

quickly became proficient – this is never suggested, presumably since it would again undermine

the ‘plain, simple John’ image the miniseries so carefully cultivates.

After his removal as joint minister to France – less of a personal insult than the program

insinuates – Adams was, as the series shows, left without instructions, neither recalled nor

reassigned. But he did not, as the screenplay has it, then go to straight to Holland in search of

loans: he instead returned briefly to Massachusetts. The scriptwriters doubtless considered this

short return dispensable in the interests of dramatic compression. But the omission is actually

extremely unfortunate, since this interval included probably the greatest single achievement of

Adams’s career. Arriving home in August 1779, he was almost immediately elected to the

convention drafting a new Massachusetts state constitution. The Convention in turn asked

Adams to draft the document all but singlehandedly. The series, indeed, shows Adams and

Jefferson in 1776 discussing the importance of the new state constitutions, which Adams says

he hopes, will form the inspiration for a federal compact – it is extremely odd to include such a

scene, then omit Adams’s vital achievement in fulfilling precisely that aim. His document did

indeed influence the federal constitution, and today remains the oldest written constitution still

in effect in the world.

After being appointed vice-president, John Adams rarely, consulted with president over

major political decision. It is being depicted in a good way, when President Washington asked

John Adams to leave the Cabinet hall in order to have conversation with the cabinet members.

As the vice-president, President Adams broke several tie votes in favor of administration while

presiding over the senate. But, this does not mean that he casted the tiebreaker vote in favor of

ratifying the Jay Treaty. In reality, his vote was never required as the Senate passed the

resolution by 20-10. Furthermore, the vice president would never be required to cast a vote in

treaty ratification because Article II of the Constitution requires that treaties receive a two-

thirds vote. The whole scene was left with no logic. After President George Washington 2 terms,

Election took place in 1796. John Adams won the presidency and the result of the election was

announced by Adams himself which has been fairly shown in the episode. After the election of

1796, we move to John Adams inauguration in 1797. It has been shown that John Adams

delivered his inauguration speech in Senate chamber which was located on the 2nd floor. The

audiences were depicted to be the senators. In reality, the speech was actually given in the

House of Representatives which was much larger in comparison and was located on the 1st

floor. The room was filled with members of both house and Senate, justices of the Supreme

Court, heads of departments, and the diplomatic corps of others. After the Inauguration,

Washington is shown whispering to John Adams, “I am fairly out and you are fairly in. See

which of us will be the happiest.” In reality that never happened. Adams might have thought

privately that Washington was saying these things. Words like these from a departing president

is a very different matter. It only darkened Washington’s nature and again painted Adams as

the disrespected victim of others’ bitterness.

The highest point of the series was shown in episode 6 during Adams Presidency. Although

for most important events the series showed fiction much separated from reality, this time the

complex issues and events of Adam’s presidency are handled quite well. There are still some

mistakes and dramatization made in an effort to burnish Adam’s image. For example, it has

been shown that Adams, after his inauguration suggested, that Jefferson should serve as a

special emissary to France. Thus, he is been boldly transcending partisan feuds while a more

petty Jefferson rejected him. Adams did make this proposal in reality but months earlier, before

his inauguration, when the split with Jefferson was far less advanced. He could certainly not

entrust such a role to Jefferson by the spring of 1797. Another example would be Adams

objection to the notorious, infamous Alien and Sedition acts. It has been observed that, he was

off guard by the bills when the congress sends him for signature, He seems anguishes, annoyed

and reluctant to approve such a harsh employment of government power stifles dissent. Finally,

urged on by Abigail, he reluctantly signs them. This was a highly dubious act. It is true that

Adams did not specifically urge the Alien and Sedition Acts on congress, he was aware of them

while they were under discussion. Indeed, Abigail supported the acts and Jefferson resisted it.

But, there is no evidence that Adams disapproved of the Acts once congress passed them, or,

hesitated to sign them. Again, the Drama was done to show Adams’ innocence.

Another significant alteration is Adams’ relationship with his son-in-law, Nabby’s husband

William Smith. It has been seen in the episode that, Adams angrily rejected Smith’s requests for

posts in the new National Army, declaring openly in the end that he has lost all confidence in

Smith due to the latter’s financial speculations; Smith bitterly insists that a mere words from his

father-in-law could repair all his prospects. It has been showed that, Adams maintained his

principled objection to nepotism, whatever the cost to his daughter’s family. These kinds of

exchanges of words are purely fictional. Despite reservations about his son-in-law’s character,

Adams did recommend Smith for the new army’s general staff: it was the Senate that rejected

the appointment because of Smith’s questionable private affairs. Despite the embarrassment

this had already caused him, Adams then pressed to get Smith a colonel’s commission, which

the Senate approved. The final months of Adams’ presidency involved irritation and again

entirely unnecessary manipulation. When Adams’s son Thomas brings word of France’s

willingness to negotiate, he attributes the shift to Napoleon’s seizure of power. But Thomas

brought his news at the beginning of 1799 while Napoleon was still fighting in Egypt, almost a

year before the future emperor took control of France; indeed, suggestions that France would

parlay had arrived as early as 1798. Adams’s careful retreat from war between 1798 and 1800

is thus shoehorned into 1800. But the handling of the renewed Adams-Jefferson

correspondence, the defining act of both men’s retirement and probably the greatest epistolary

exchange in American history, is far worse. Here is what the series shows- Abigail Adams dies in

1818; John’s old friend Benjamin Rush urges that he write to Jefferson about his loss, hoping

the two elder statesmen can provide each other with comfort in their final years; Adams does

so; Jefferson’s first reply is dated to 1819; the correspondence flowers, friendship is renewed.

Abigail did die in 1818 but the Adams-Jefferson correspondence started in 1812, and Rush died

in 1813.8 It was actually Abigail during her lifetime who personally involved in the exchange for

the rest of her life.

Last of all, Adams is shown inspecting John Trumbull's painting Declaration of

Independence (1817) and stating that he and Thomas Jefferson are the last surviving people

depicted. This is inaccurate since Charles Carroll of Carrollton, who is also depicted in the

painting, survived until 1832. In fact, Adams never made such a remark. In reality, when he

inspected Trumbull's painting, Adams' only comment was to point to a door in the background

of the painting and state, "When I nominated George Washington of Virginia for Commander-

in-Chief of the Continental Army, he took his hat and rushed out that door."9

8 Jeremy Stern (2008-10-27). "History News Network". Hnn.us. Retrieved 2013-07-01.9 David McCullough, John Adams, Simon & Schuster, 2001, pg. 627.

Although John Adams is the main idea behind the miniseries, the miniseries was full of

important and well developed characters outside the main character himself. First and

foremost is the Abigail Adams in John Adams’ life. Laura Linney does a fabulous job of

portraying this strong, intelligent, and principled woman. The film does well to establish her

positive influence on her husband, and leads the audience to believe that she is perhaps just as

responsible for John Adams’ accomplishments as the man himself.10 The film also delivers a

good representation of the ever evolving relationship of Washington and Adams. It is also

noteworthy that, in the miniseries Europe’s 2 of the powerful Monarchs were also shown- King

George of England and King Louis of France, although they were poorly presented in the

episode.

HBO John Adams seems remarkably a really good miniseries. The filmmaker tried to show

the personal and political life of John Adams; American Revolution and the development of

government through Adams’ eyes; above all, they tried to glorify John Adams. But, after

historicizing, it was full of bitterness and annoying; such alteration, falsification, imagination

and dramatization in historical record are pointless and needless. Because of that, the

miniseries faced Harsh-criticism and the ideas (whether they are visible or, indirect) behind

making this film fell apart. Annoyed by such a poor reflection of the history, one of the reviewer

said, “Sorry, HBO. John Adams Wasn't That Much of a Hero.” 11 Although based upon

McCullough’s book, the reality is too much molded to centralize John Adams and to give him

10 Livingstone, Brian. "A Review of HBO's John Adams." N.p., n.d. Web.11 Rakove, Jack. "Sorry, HBO. John Adams Wasn't That Much of a Hero." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 20 Apr. 2008.

credit much more than his contemporaries. John Adams does not need such revision; he is

great to us as how he was; not how the filmmakers elaborated. “HBO’s “John Adams,” despite

fine drama, excellent acting and impressive production values, is – sadly and unnecessarily –

seriously compromised as a depiction of history.”12The filmmakers simply could describe John

Adams as he was glorified in McCullough’s book. It simply does not bear the truth.

12 Jeremy Stern (2008-10-27). "History News Network". Hnn.us. Retrieved 2013-07-01.

Bibliography:

Jeremy Stern (2008-10-27). "History News Network". Hnn.us. Retrieved 2013-07-

01.

McCullough, David G. John Adams. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001. Print.

Hyson, Jeffry. "John Adams: Historical Accuracy and Artistic License." Saint

Joseph's University. N.p., n.d. Web.

Rakove, Jack. "Sorry, HBO. John Adams Wasn't That Much of a Hero." Washington

Post. The Washington Post, 20 Apr. 2008. Web.

Graff, Henry F. "John Adams." The Presidents: A Reference History. 2nd ed. New

York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1996. Pages 23-37. Print.

Clint, Dr. D. T. "Sons of liberties, Stamp Act Crisis." Colonial America. Vol. 9. Danbury, CT: Grolier Educational, 1998. N. pag. Print.

Tanley, Alessandra. "Blowhard, Patriot, President." The New York Times. The New

York Times, 13 Mar. 2008. Web.

Lepore, Jill. "The Divider." The New Yorker. N.p., 17 Mar. 2008. Web.