Review: John Adams – Part 1

HBO has risen to the challenge of showing America a glimpse of what 1770 (and on) was like with their mini-series John Adams. It focus is covering the major historical events of the time of America’s birth through the life of John Adams, one of the more well-known founders. The series is now on DVD and I rented the first disc that has the first two shows. I’ve seen the first, and as I go through them I would like to give my take on them.

Synopsis of Part 1 – Join or Die (spoiler warning)

Boston, 1770. John Adams, supported solely by his wife, in court defends a group of British soldiers responsible for the deaths of six civilians that were out late one night causing “a disturbance.” The crowd of rebel colonists that witnessed the events accuse the British troops of murder. John is not so sure what to believe himself till well into the trial.

After winning the case, knowing justice has been served, John turns his attention to his own crisis of loosing work as a lawyer in a city that feels John’s less than patriotic to the cause of liberty and fighting the king. John is convinced the jurisdiction of British authority is still lawful, till King George enforces restrictions on the colonists that look a whole lot like the beginnings of overthrowing all the rights of the Americans as English—due the same rights as the British back home. John now agrees, along with his cousin, Sam, that the only way to handle the matter is to bring to order a continental congress to consider their options. John is appointed, along with four others, to make the trip to the first meeting of the congress, and resolve how America will respond to the abuse from their mother-country.

My Take

As this is only the first installment I’ve seen, I will not address the characters and their qualities since I hardly know the scope about them. I do not know yet how their developments will change from this point. I’ll cover them in a later review closer to the end of the series.

The depiction of the time and local is very authentic in all aspects. I am sure that the filmmakers did their best to keep the film consistent with David McCollough’s book, John Adams, considering the great lengths I saw taken in the first installment not to commercialize the historical context with traditional Hollywood values that come out of their theater and television epics. It would have been very easy to slip in modern ideals, values, and common modern relationships into the show in order to produce a better connection with the story to a modern audience. I am glad they did not do this. What you see in the film is straight from history’s mouth. If you don’t like it, it should be noted the film is not worried about you. Go watch something else that peeks your interests. This series is not meant to be popular, but as close to historical authenticity as reasonably possible. No glamourized, commericialized, movie-making cheese.

The accounts are all real-world in nature. Scenes are slow and thoughtful, giving you the chance to know the main characters in a way that school—or some movies like The Patriot—never afforded. By the end of the first part, if you know anything about the living conditions and culture of 1770 before watching the film, then you have a good idea of what’s going on with or without much knowledge of the exact historical accounts unfolding. The sum total purpose of the film is to give you a little piece of what it must’ve been like, and it succeeds in this aspect.

I’d give Part 1 3 out of 4 stars.

Those are the pros. Here are the cons:

At times it was difficult to understand their english. It’s realistically different from modern english since they spoke much more refined then but it can’t be ignored. Some might have a hard time following if your dependent on dialogue. Still, this is an accurate portrayal of speech in their day, so I can’t say it really bothers me. The film is still very easy to follow if you have patience to the the characters clarify the situations, which they frequently do. Just listen to the next line if you didn’t get the last one.

These were different times, with different measures of what was politically correct, ethically correct, and culturally accepted. At one point, a British man is tarred and feathered by the mob, shown in all it’s revelry. They strip the man naked to tar him. After they’ve thoroughly humiliated the man, and severely hurt him with the hot tar from head-to-foot, the mob parades him through the streets to further make their point, frighten the British, and satisfy their urge for immediate gratification. I thought this was a shameful display, briefly showing the Brit in full nudity and seeing the crowd be so abase. I like to think of it as barbarism, as John Adams called it with his own discussed in the scene. Fortunately, this display was shown as anything but patriotic by the craft of the film.

Final Note

If you want to improve your understanding of America and it’s true beginnings, I say this series would appear to be a great place to start. I’d highly recommend it to seriously mature individuals and people that want to be mature. There are difficult aspects to grasp from an in-depth look at our country’s founders. There times were so different from ours—but it would be a good thing to learn what we can from their faith, values, mistakes, and successes.