Revisiting John Adams

I recently decided to re-watch the HBO series "John Adams" and read the book on which the series is based ("John Adams" by David McCullough). I don't remember which I decided first and which second. But having done so, there is a slight re-evaluation in my esteem of the series.

"John Adams" is one of the finest books I've ever read. A large part of what makes it so enthralling is the persons of John and Abigail Adams. They are Salt of the Earth people, superior in intellect, superior in morals, yet friendly and down to earth folk with great senses of humor.

For Episodes 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the series, they effectively communicate some sense of this. But 4-6 take a strange turn. There is no doubt that John Adams was an emotional man, prone to outbursts and negative thoughts but, perhaps for dramatic effect, these qualities are exaggerated (to mind) to an unacceptable degree to the point that he's made out to be an ass. In particular Episode 5, there are Dutch angles and arguments with everyone as he rants and/or raves that it becomes a cartoon. I watch Episode 5 and I don't know why we care about this man or what happens to him. I suggest a Christmas Special of the series where he could be telling people "bah humbug" and slamming the door on charities.

The book notes that Adams was vain, too emotional, too spontaneous, too unthinking. No one told the series that these criticisms come from John Adams himself, not the people around him. Are they not aware that a person can be their own worst critic, and often are? In fact, I'd say the more self-critical a person is of their own flaws, the less likely those flaws are to be seen by others.

If the first great advantage of the series is to give historical figures three-dimensional weight and character, the second is to imbue the history books with the emotion and intensity of current events. This is another thing that the series does well but takes too far. There is a scene in Episode 1 where Samuel Adams takes John to see an American protest where a man is stripped naked and tarred. Samuel Adams looks at it with the relish of a vampire while John Adams is justifiably appalled. This scene never happened. It is put in to communicate their differing views on peaceful protest vs lawlessness - yes, Samuel Adams was much more enthusiastic about protests and Adams much more worried about law and order - but Samuel Adams was not a sadistic sociopath hungry for violence, as far as history records.

Again Episode 5 is the worst in this too. Adams lived in difficult and stressful times, his presidency was hard, it was turbulent. But, I venture it wasn't a descent into Hell, as that episode portrays. The goal is to take the events from the philosophical heavens and plant them solidly in the soil, but they've skipped that sphere and gone below the earth, creating events as though they took place where the fire is not quenched and their worm never dies.

There is a scene in Episode 7 that is so ironic I have to believe it is intentional. John Adams (aged 90) is brought in to review a new painting of the signing of the Declaration. It's the painting used for the back of the $2 Bill. Adams, reviewing the painting, completely eviscerates and berates the painter to the point of inhumanity. Again, this is not what actually happened. The series is portraying Adams as a jerk, for reasons only they know.

But here's the thing... In this scene the fictional Adams's criticism is that "it is very bad" history. The painting arranges all the signers together and in a semi-circle so that all their faces are recognizable. All the signers were never all together in the same room to sign. The painter essentially argues that even if the piece is not factually accurate, artistic license is necessary to nonetheless capture the greater truth. Adams responds, "Do not let our posterity be deluded with fictions under the guise of poetical or graphical licenses... I consider the true history of the American Revolution as lost forever."

Just as the painter needed to take license in order to neatly portray the entire truth, the series "John Adams" takes huge leaps of artistic license in order to shape a 650 page book into a compelling 7 episodes. Conversations that actually took place in letters are, in the series, face-to-face; secret differences of opinion are stated openly; different times and events are combined into one. All of these shortcuts are, to me, completely acceptable. But the people who made the series decided to portray Adams as decrying artistic licenses - and therefore their own series - as bad history and worthless. As I say, I have to assume this much is intentionally tongue in cheek. But the double irony is that the very speech in which he does it is not just artistic license but made up whole cloth. The series wants to declare itself not just worthless in its finest moments, but also less than worthless in its nadirs? I can't fathom what they intend.

All of this is not to say that "John Adams" is a bad series. I still consider it one of the greats. Episode 2 is one of the greatest pieces of television ever made. Episode 1 is fierce and most excellent. Episode 7 is a sublime meditation on the nature of existence. The rest of the series is still very compelling. No, my re-evaluation serves merely to take it from "Perfect" to "Imperfect" but not much further.