I watched John Adams OnDemand yesterday and it was pretty good stuff, but it raised a question in my mind as to in what sense the series is based on David McCullough's book? McCullough didn't acquire ownership over historical facts (defended the perpetrators of the Boston Massacre! delegate to the constitutional convention!) when he wrote his book, and it's not as if he did stunning new original reporting.
« Kilpatrick | Main | Maybe He Should Have Briefings »
Based On
20 Mar 2008 12:12 pm
Comments (48)
I haven't read the book or seen the show, but I'm guessing that McCullough's contribution was to select and shape actual historical events into some kind of coherent story-with-an-arc, on which the creators of the show did their basing.
It's based on McCullough's book in the sense that saying so will make it more respectable and popular.
$$$$ talks.
I don't know if you are being willfully obtuse about this, but while the facts are set, the narrative and the tying together of them about a man who is usually a sideshow in bios of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, or others. The book made Adams, at least for pop culture, an important founding father in a way that he was not before.
Your comment, taken to the extreme, means that movies, plays, or other performances could never be "based" on a nonfiction book, although it is clear that such books form the foundational narrative and focus of the audience on events that the author has connected and has deemed to be important. It isn't just facts, its the story that ties the facts together, and that (as I am sure you know as an author writing about facts) it what something is "based" upon.
I think we will have to wait until we get into the parts of the story that are based on the letters between John and Abigail before we can really see McCullough's book.
I also watched it last night and the question in my mind is did the typical viewer really appreciate the differences between John and Sam that were portraited in the first episode. I think it needed some background on their differences to really understand the conflict that was hinted at on TV.
It is not something you get in an introductory history course.
Mr. McCullough has such a rich, compelling, gravelly voice that we should just give him ownership of those historical facts.
James Gary and tinisoli above hit it on the head -- accessible-to-the-layman history with a bestseller label.
Heck the book even puts drama into Adams' voyages -- an aspect of his life I never really considered until I read the book.
My heart is racing to hit the "on demand" button...
Speaking of esteemed popular biographer-historians: anyone know when volume 4 of Robert Caro's LBJ series is coming out?
in what sense the series is based on David McCullough's book?
In the sense that they paid McCullough cash money in exchange for the right to slap the name of a bestselling author and book on all of the ads.
You can't copyright historical facts and so McCullough obviously doesn't have a claim on John Adams' life, but if a movie or television show draws heavily on the organization and/or narrative arc of a work of nonfiction they option the book and give the author credit, even if the author isn't famous.
Without source material, hiring screenwriters to research and write a 7-part historical mini-series is just way too expensive and time-consuming. Besides, whoever gave a second thought to John Adams before McCullough's book was published?
Let's do a survey: how many people who have seen or heard of the movie had honestly never heard of McCullough's book? The sad truth is that John Adams is such a niche figure in early American history that I would wager there's alot of overlap between those who know about the book and those who know about the movie. For those unfamiliar with the book but who've heard of the movie, if the book does indeed provide the narrative vehicle for capturing the contradictions and contributions of this oft forgotten Founding Father, then so much the better.
Attributions to McCullough would be entirely within bounds, as long as its kept reasonable. It's not like HBO is billing it as "David McCullough's John Adams" a la "Gore Vidal's Lincoln".
Let's do a survey: how many people who have seen or heard of the movie had honestly never heard of McCullough's book? The sad truth is that John Adams is such a niche figure in early American history that I would wager there's alot of overlap between those who know about the book and those who know about the movie. For those unfamiliar with the book but who've heard of the movie, if the book does indeed provide the narrative vehicle for capturing the contradictions and contributions of this oft forgotten Founding Father, then so much the better.
Attributions to McCullough would be entirely within bounds, as long as its kept reasonable. It's not like HBO is billing it as "David McCullough's John Adams" a la "Gore Vidal's Lincoln".
Aside from the factors already mentioned, there is also the fact that if you're doing a movie or TV show that draws from multiple sources it's good to say that it's based on one paid off source, in order to protect yourself from lawsuits. You often see this with science fiction movies that claim to be "based on" Philip K. Dick stories (or Isaac Asimov stories) but actually use generic material from the larger body of sci-fi. The idea is, I think, to be able to say that you took the time travel concept from Dick or the robots from Asimov, so other potential claimants can't say you ripped them off.
Let's do a survey: how many people who have seen or heard of the movie had honestly never heard of McCullough's book? The sad truth is that John Adams is such a niche figure in early American history that I would wager there's alot of overlap between those who know about the book and those who know about the movie. For those unfamiliar with the book but who've heard of the movie, if the book does indeed provide the narrative vehicle for capturing the contradictions and contributions of this oft forgotten Founding Father, then so much the better.
Attributions to McCullough would be entirely within bounds, as long as its kept reasonable. It's not like HBO is billing it as "David McCullough's John Adams" a la "Gore Vidal's Lincoln".
Let's do a survey: how many people who have seen or heard of the movie had honestly never heard of McCullough's book? The sad truth is that John Adams is such a niche figure in early American history that I would wager there's alot of overlap between those who know about the book and those who know about the movie. For those unfamiliar with the book but who've heard of the movie, if the book does indeed provide the narrative vehicle for capturing the contradictions and contributions of this oft forgotten Founding Father, then so much the better.
Attributions to McCullough would be entirely within bounds, as long as its kept reasonable. It's not like HBO is billing it as "David McCullough's John Adams" a la "Gore Vidal's Lincoln".
Let's do a survey: how many people who have seen or heard of the movie had honestly never heard of McCullough's book? The sad truth is that John Adams is such a niche figure in early American history that I would wager there's alot of overlap between those who know about the book and those who know about the movie. For those unfamiliar with the book but who've heard of the movie, if the book does indeed provide the narrative vehicle for capturing the contradictions and contributions of this oft forgotten Founding Father, then so much the better.
Attributions to McCullough would be entirely within bounds, as long as its kept reasonable. It's not like HBO is billing it as "David McCullough's John Adams" a la "Gore Vidal's Lincoln".
Aside from the factors already mentioned, there is also the fact that if you're doing a movie or TV show that draws from multiple sources it's good to say that it's based on one paid off source, in order to protect yourself from lawsuits. You often see this with science fiction movies that claim to be "based on" Philip K. Dick stories (or Isaac Asimov stories) but actually use generic material from the larger body of sci-fi. The idea is, I think, to be able to say that you took the time travel concept from Dick or the robots from Asimov, so other potential claimants can't say you ripped them off.
God forbid the series be based on the work of Gordon Wood or someone who has done actual research.
Let's do a survey: how many people who have seen or heard of the movie had honestly never heard of McCullough's book? The sad truth is that John Adams is such a niche figure in early American history that I would wager there's alot of overlap between those who know about the book and those who know about the movie. For those unfamiliar with the book but who've heard of the movie, if the book does indeed provide the narrative vehicle for capturing the contradictions and contributions of this oft forgotten Founding Father, then so much the better.
Attributions to McCullough would be entirely within bounds, as long as its kept reasonable. It's not like HBO is billing it as "David McCullough's John Adams" a la "Gore Vidal's Lincoln".
Considering that less than 5% (and I'm probably being generous) of the American people could identify John Adams or his impact on the founding of this country or even the major events surrounding it (Thank you American public school system), anything that provides accurate, though obviously highly dramatized, information to the people is to be applauded. If only to remind them that when compared to the Founding Fathers, our contemporary politicians are a worthless bunch of "wankers" as our British friends would say.
Do you remember what happened with Spielberg's Amistad? Maybe it's so they don't get sued by ALL the people who have ever written on the subject.
I imagine it's because McCullough is the primary source material. I'm not an American history scholar, nor have I read McCullough's biography, but it's a pretty common phenomenon in bio-films to take one source as the ur text. Sophia Coppola's Marie Antoinette is based on Antonia Fraser's biography, for instance. And the BBC's The Secret Life of Mrs. Beeton was based on Kathryn Hughes's biography on Isabella Beeton. It even included Hughes's speculation that Beeton was infected with syphilis by her husband, which no other biography on Beeton discusses. (Hughes's point is compelling and probably correct, but not fully substantiated.) McCullough was also a consultant for the HBO mini-series, which may be why is his name is more prominent.
My only beef with the miniseries so far is the lengths they go to get Laura Linney screen time. I mean, it stretches belief to think that the patriot army is constantly passing in front of the Adams' house.
True, Cain, but she does look rather, uh, fetching in period costume.
I doubt HBO came to McCullough and asked to shoot a series based on his book. His people probably shopped it around.
"John Adams" is an entirely fictional character created by John Quincy Adams and carefully written into American history thereafter in a conspiracy that is still giving pointers to the Illuminati among others. The short version is that JQA and the newly ex-Federalists, desperate to keep Andrew Jackson out of the White House, inserted the life and presidency of "John Adams" into the history books (on the advice of the "Mark Penn" of his day, a direct ancestor of Mark Hanna, believe it or not) to set their man apart as the son of a Founder and President. [NB: The second US president was, of course, Thomas Jefferson, who served three terms.] The conspiracy was greatly aided by two facts: No Internet; and Americans drank a lot back then. Apparently the toughest sell was the idea that a President did not hail from Virginia, hence all the 'friendly' correspondence with Jefferson, and the BS that they died on the same day, etc.
Abigail is also a fiction, of course.
I liked the parts where the self-loathing Adams stole money from his elderly mother's dresser drawer and drank from the spit bucket at the winery.
Those of you saying that Adams is considered a fringe figure by the average person have things exactly backwards.
Ask an average kid in a US History class "who did" something during the Constitutional or Federalist period, and their first guess will be John Adams. Second is Benjamin Franklin. When teaching US History, you have to explain gently that while Adams and Franklin were incredibly important as advocates and diplomats during the revolutionary era, they didn't do much of the actual founding of the government.
In short, John Adams is overrated by most people with little knowledge of US History, not underrated.
I suspect the reason that most people are disproportionately aware of John Adams has to do with the play and movie "1776", which came out in the years leading up to our Bicentennial. The play had two major achievements. First, it captured the essence of the roles played by Adams, Franklin, Hancock, Washington, Jefferson and the rest in the debate leading up to the Revolution. Adams was the "obnoxious and disliked" guy pushing endlessly for independence, Franklin was the sneakier behind the scenes guy, Jefferson was quiet but you know, a pretty good writer, and so on. Second, the play captured the spirit of the debate beautifully, ranging from the passionate advocates of independence to those equally passionate about staying with England and every shade in between.
To demonstrate the standard that 1776 set, consider that the NY Times review of HBO's John Adams says that the big problem with the show is....John Adams. Why? Because he's not as good as William Daniels in 1776:
Mr. Giamatti is not helped by the precedent set by William Daniels close to 40 years ago, when he played Adams in both the musical and the film version of “1776” and was pitch-perfect in the part. Mr. Daniels made a career playing brilliant, pompous and irascible men (“St. Elsewhere,” “Boy Meets World”), and he was at his peak as the most confounding of the founding fathers. As conceived by Peter Stone, who wrote the book (Sherman Edwards wrote the music and lyrics), Adams is irritable and irritating, but ultimately irresistible; decades before Mr. McCullough wrote his biography, Mr. Stone had captured the vitality, passion and humor that made Adams’s hot temper and vanity endearing.
If John Adams were only a fringe figure in the American consciousness, William Daniels wouldn't have spent much of his career playing Adams' family members. In contrast, there's no actor who can point to his long history playing Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or (god forbid) Alexander Hamilton.
Adams may have received short shrift from historians before Attenborough's bio, but he's long been more dominant in the public awareness.
Hmm, I am an American historian and it is more than a bit strange to hear John Adams described as a "niche figure nobody has ever heard of." Ack, really? That makes me feel pretty disconnected. I mean I guess he isn't Washington, Jefferson or Lincoln in the popular imagination, but he's an important figure and I would have thought a reasonably well known one.
All the criticisms I read of the series (I haven't watched it) seem to point out the major problem I had with the book. Basically McCullogh is a bit of a hagiographer and so any criticism of John Adams is told but not seen. His critics called him vain and bombastic but it is hard to tell from the biography why they thought so. Contrast this with Caro's biography of LBJ where you can all sides of a pretty compelling figure. Adams comes off a nice somewhat misunderstood figure in McCoullughs book.
God forbid the series be based on the work of Gordon Wood or someone who has done actual research.
Well, the problem with that approach is that it would have increased the likelihood that "Unitarian" would have appeared somewhere in the index. And God forbid (heh heh) that a biography of Adams would delve into his actual religious philosophy, or his advocacy for Unitarianism's official legitimacy in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
I still remember fondly that contemptuous letter Adams wrote to Jefferson about all those so-called Christian nuts running around proclaiming the imminent end of the world. Plus ça change...
you guys need to get away from your keyboards and re-enter the real world.
John Adams too well known! Perhaps in a graduate American History seminar. If not for McCullough's biography, few students would be able to tell you anything about him. Facts are stubborn things...
I haven't seen the show yet either, but Suzanne Fields just wrote a pretty convincing column about it. The link is Here.
Gabe,
I'd say most people know the name John Adams, and if they think about it remember that he was the President between Washington and Jefferson, and maybe even that he was John Quincey Adams father, but beyond that not much, he is just a name that gets lumped in with the other founders not named Washington, Franklin or Jefferson.
In other words about a Trivial Pursuit level of knowledge:-)
I didn't like the part where John Adams yelled at Thomas Jefferson about merlot. It just wasn't realistic. The grape didn't become popular until well into the 20th century.
I saw most of the first episode on HBO and found it interesting.
I guess I'm looking forward to the episode(s) when he is President to see how (or if) they handle the Alien and Sedition Acts that Adams used to throw political enemies into prison. That's something that seems to get thrown down the memory hole when most people write or talk about him.
I did see parts 1 and 2 and I thought it a major snooze. A lot of the previous discussion deals with Adams' fame - or lack therof - as a founding father. In the nearly three hours of viewing Sunday night, I didn't see anything that would tell me why this man is important at all. The only thing I could see was that he just happened to be there when important events happened.
For example, at the Continental Congress we saw a man who was plodding, bombastic, stubborn and incredibly unpersuasive. As far as I could see, the Congress voted for independence because of Ben Franklin's skillful maneuvering behind the scenes and because external events were moving in that direction. There was no indication that Adams' eloquence had anything to do with it. In fact, it looked like he hindered more than he helped.
I will not be watching part three. Besides, I know how it ends.
I guess I'm looking forward to the episode(s) when he is President to see how (or if) they handle the Alien and Sedition Acts that Adams used to throw political enemies into prison.
I believe McCullough glossed over the Alien and Sedition Acts. Said they were no big deal.
I second the notion that Adams is widely known, at least among those of us of a certain age, via 1776. Whether this is a good or a bad thing is left as an exercise for the student. Beyond that, I suspect the Trivial Pursuit level of knowledge is accurate.
"I believe McCullough glossed over the Alien and Sedition Acts. Said they were no big deal."
More's the worse if the series does not include Citizen Genet and Adams as President donning epaulets and strutting about.
I mean, it stretches belief to think that the patriot army is constantly passing in front of the Adams' house.
Yeah ... Henry Knox, moving cannons from Fort Ticonderoga (in VT you may recall) passes right in front of the Adams farm (which is in modern-day Quincy)?!?
Those cannons were taken to Cambridge, on a route that is marked today with several plaques. That route doesn't go anywhere near Quincy. I think some of the cannon were placed in Dorchester Heights, still too far north to have passed by the Adams farm.
"I second the notion that Adams is widely known, at least among those of us of a certain age, via 1776. "
All I knew about John Adams was that he was the second president, until I read the 1776 book. This was mainly because the only time he came up was when we were memorizing the names of presidents in elementary school. I would say for my generation (currently 26) that John Adams is at the Trivial Pursuit level of knowledge for those that haven't read the book.
He's really not very well known, maybe even less so than Sam Adams. People don't glorify presidents that go out of their way to prevent wars.
what sense the series is based on David McCullough's book
In the sense that McCullough's writing and research pulled together a wonderful sense of who the Adams were, from the original sources. A couple in an ordinary life, no sense of greatness pending, with various foibles, doing some awesome things and sacrificing tremendously for their values and commitments. A couple made quite human and brought to life for us again through the thoughts contained not in observors writing about them after they were powerful and famous, but in their extensive letters.
What really gives us a sense of who Adams was a person is the comic book that he wrote about his life. It was critical to McCullogh's research.
I think it goes without saying that this Adams fellow was a trivial figure in American history (which as far as I'm concerned didn't really start until FDR became president - it was all a whitewash of indian killing and negro enslaving before then [oh yeah except for the Irish who were white but still oppressed and quite full of soul in my opinion]) who censored the media (most of which was at least as kewl as the dailykos) and persecuted kind, dainty Frenchmen in the name of nothing whatsoever except his big fat ego.
Or if you prefer: that Adams was a tub of lard but his idea about censorship were good.
Adams was a delegate to the Continental Congress; he was in England at the time of the Constitutional Convention. I don't mean to be snippy, but I thought someone should point that out.
"Adams was a delegate to the Continental Congress; he was in England at the time of the Constitutional Convention. I don't mean to be snippy, but I thought someone should point that out."
Well, geez, Jefferson was also overseas on a diplomatic mission during the convention (working with Adams on a host of thorny issues). That doesn't diminish Jefferson's importance in the grand scheme of early American history.
Comments closed April 03, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I haven't seen HBO's John Adams series yet, but I think McCullough's book was hailed, beyond it's strong novelistic writing, for the focus and prominence it gave to the letters between John and Abigail. The letters weren't new, but McCullough's formula of building a single-volume biography around them was.
Posted by dry_fish | March 20, 2008 12:33 PM