There were a lot of things to like about this film. First of all, the music. Original score by Robert Lane. It is very reminiscent of the soundtrack to Last of the Mohicans. Weston was trying to convince me that it was indeed the same music as Last of the Mohicans. But turns out it wasn't even the same composer. Just the same key and similar fiddle action. I actually liked this soundtrack a little better.
Next, the acting. Paul Giamatti was great and so was Laura Linney as Abigail Adams. Dimples and all. It was actually the dimples that gave her away as Truman Burbank's wife and so occasionally I found myself thinking about the Truman Show instead of American History. And along those lines, tonight we watched Fred Clause and I just couldn't let go of Giamatti as John Adams.
There was apparently a goodly amount of artistic license incorporated in the retelling of John Adam's life. I'm mostly thinking of the relationship he had with his son George who died at an early age of alcoholism. In the movie he renounces his son for his wild and drunken behavior and won't forgive him, even after he is dead. However, historians on wikkipedia have contradicted that depiction saying that's not really how it was. How was it really, then? Who knows. In fact, Adams was pretty harsh with all of his children in the film, not having been around to raise them. I'd like to believe that wasn't an accurate depiction, either.
That brings us to a major theme of the latter part of the movie....historical inaccuracy. At one point, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discuss: "who is going to tell the story of our revolution?" They conclude that no one will. Well, at least no one will be able to tell it accurately. The history books will all be written by people who didn't experience it themselves.
Am I the only one who thinks this is ironic? A retelling of a historical event making the argument that retellings of historical events can't possibly be accurate? Hmmm....was it the chicken or the egg that came first?
Okay, so there was a lot to like. I suppose there may have been plenty to dislike also if I had been looking for it. Problem is, there wasn't much I could see beyond that GOSH DARN SHAKY CAMERA! It drove me crazy. I can understand that the competitive world of filmmaking induces directors and cameramen alike to implement a variety of filming techniques so they can make a pretense of being artsy and in vogue.
But, for the love of all that's good in the universe....could you just put that thing on a tripod every once-in-a-while? Or at least during the quiet or tender scenes when John and Abigail are talking to each other after having lived apart from each other for nearly a decade? I think a mark of good filmmaking is that the process and techniques used in making the film don't distract the audience from the story. I just wanted to enjoy and learn from the story and appreciate the film as a whole. Not to wonder every once-in-a-while if watching much more of this would make me throw up.
