Historicrizing John Adams

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 filmwas
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 filmor, 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." SaintJoseph'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
n.d. Web.

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
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
n.d. Web.
7 Graff, Henry F. "John Adams." The Presidents:A Reference History.2nd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1996.23-24. Print.

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

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
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-criticismand 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
9 David McCullough,John Adams, Simon & Schuster, 2001, pg. 627.
10 Livingstone, Brian."A Review of HBO's John Adams." N.p., n.d. Web.

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
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.
11 Rakove, Jack."Sorry, HBO. John Adams Wasn'tThat Much of a Hero." Washington Post.The Washington Post,20
Apr. 2008.
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.

Historicrizing John Adams

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Historicrizing John Adams