Directed by: Tom Hooper
Premise: An adaptation of
David McCullough’s book. The film is a mini-series of the life of John Adams
(Paul Giamatti), the second president of the United States. The film follows
Adams from his participation in the American Revolution through his presidency
and to his retirement years.
What Works: John Adams is an excellent bio-pic. The film balances between the micro and macro levels of the
story, by show the events through Adams’ point of view. As a result,
the film is able to give a rounded and complete view of history,
incorporating many of the major events of the revolution, such as the
Boston Massacre and the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and
using them as a backdrop for the immediate, intimate story of Adams’
family and his political career. One of the great elements of the film
is its portrayal of the relationship between Adams and his wife, Abigail
(Laura Linney). Their marriage does a lot to humanize Adams through
humor and intimacy and Adams’ ongoing and turbulent relationship with
his sons also grounds the drama in something that is much more immediate
and accessible to the viewer. As a historical dramatization, John
Adams does a great job of taking the Founding Fathers and presenting
these men in such a way that the film reinterprets the culture’s myths
and beliefs about these historical figures, making them much more human
and allowing us to see ourselves in them. Benjamin Franklin (Tom Wilkinson) is presented as an adept
politician who is very much Adams’ opposite in his willingness to play
political games even if they come at some cost to others. George
Washington also figures prominently and David Morse plays him as a quiet
and reserved man of the highest integrity but ultimately a flawed
politician. Stephen Dillane plays Thomas Jefferson and his relationship
with Adams is the most interesting with the biggest rises and falls in temperament as the two men differ greatly on how the republic
should be run and their political aspirations force them to become
rivals. Aside from all of the character work, John Adams also
works as a historical film by capturing the flavor of life at the time
and portraying the revolution and the culture as brutal and difficult.
Like Ken Burns’ documentary The
War, the film is able to dismiss the sense of inevitability that
often kills suspense in these kinds of films and makes it clear that the
revolutionaries could have lost the war. As a result, the film is able
to convey an appreciation for the work of these men and maintain the
dramatic tension of the story.
What Doesn’t: Some of
the later episodes in the series are lighter on action or intensity and take a
more contemplative tone. That tone works for what is going on in the film, but
they require more effort on the part of the viewer than the high tension and
action of earlier episodes.
DVD extras: Featurettes
and a historical guide.
Bottom Line: John Adams is a terrific piece of historical filmmaking. The film is long but even for those who do not normally watch historical fiction it is a very rewarding and well produced piece of work.