"Am I the only one who doesn't really like HBO's "miniseries event," John Adams?"

Yes. You are.

"The point of making the book into a movie was, I thought, to make the experience shorter."

You are quite unclear on the point.

God didn't invent cinema to save you time on your reading.

Actually, I think you're just resentful that they didn't cast Zach Braff as Adams and Natalie Portman as Abagail.

(You did note Portman's recent endorsement of Clinton, didn't you?)

Wow, Petey is getting desperate.

"Wow, Petey is getting desperate."

No. I'm just in the minority in a blogosphere that tends to be male oriented rather than female oriented, and personality obsessed rather than policy obsessed.

You're not the only one. The first two episodes were okay--lots of nice period details, really good costumes, Laura Linney looking tense all the time and Paul Giamatti yelling alot. But that's pretty much it. For a man who was more than a little complex, and a sometimes unusual marriage(for the times) that weathered a number of storms and separations, this miniseries is terribly thin. Schoolhouse Rock has more depth, it seems. And catchy tunes.
Although Schoolhouse Rock does not have gory re-enactments of immunizations against (and the effects of) deadly diseases and unsanitary amputations aboard warships without anesthetics.
I don't know that I'll watch the rest.
Also, Tom Hanks has repeatedly said that he had no idea Adams successfully defended the British officers and enlisted men accused in the Boston Massacre. I don't know why, but that comment really irks me, and seems to explain nearly every single problem I have with the whole production.

I'm loving the "John Adams" series. I found the "Independence" episode suspenseful and exciting, despite the major spoiler I was handed in history class a few decades back. And I'm learning some things I didn't know (but should?), like the fact that poor little 14-year-old John Quincy was packed off to Russia to help the ambassador for a couple years--yikes! And I think the portrayal of the unique Adams marriage is quite affecting. Oh, and that Thomas Jefferson seems a fascinating fellow...but that's just me.

Personally, I've never liked Paul Giamatti, but I suspect that Petey identifies with the annoying, whiny characters he typically plays.

Barbara Tuchman, in The March of Folly, makes a similar point to Ezra's. The British government acted extremely foolishly by going to was rather than conceding the Americans' rather moderate demands.

Petey, get real. Natalie Portman is an actress with no political training or experience. You're not trying to put forth a female point of view, you're merely grasping at straws.

And be more honest, you prefer pro-Clinton blogs. The fact that many are run by females is a result of her base demographics.

Personally, I've never liked Paul Giamatti...

Yeah, that's my problem with it. I did the first, but couldn't bring myself to do any more.
I like John Adams and will probably wind up reading the book, but not for the reasons cited by Ezra.

What's the difference between a "miniseries event" and a miniseries?

"Laura Linney looking tense all the time"... LOL. She's been looking tense her whole career.

Personally, Ezra, I like this new, angry revolutionary side of you. I'm sure after a lunch of fried tofu, the urge to get all riled up will pass... but it was a satisfying five minutes, I'm sure, imaging the whole "we have nothing to lose but our chains" romance of revolution. :) I think DC's revolution is long overdue... unfortunately, too many people mistake Happy Hour for doing something.

What's the difference between a "miniseries event" and a miniseries?

One's awards bait, and the other just fills time. Sometimes sweeps month factors in, too.

"Personally, I've never liked Paul Giamatti, but I suspect that Petey identifies with the annoying, whiny characters he typically plays."

There's nothing more boring than watching a movie or TV show where you're being asked to identify with a sympathetic character.

I hold no particular brief for Giamatti. I wasn't a fan of Sideways, for example. But I certainly do have a soft spot for narrative where identification is complicated.

No, you are not alone. It is boring, badly directed, overly long, and even badly acted. Linney, usually effective, is given too little to do except smile or grimace, depending on the situation. And Giamatti is TOTALLY miscast. It took special talent to make the American revolution uninteresting, but this miniseries has accomplished it.

"And Giamatti is TOTALLY miscast."

As far as I can tell, he's perfectly cast.

Giamatti has made a nice career out of playing unappealing characters, and Adams is an unappealing historical figure. Put George Clooney in the part, and the whole thing wouldn't make any sense at all.

Basically, I think the problem a lot of folks are having with the series is that they don't like Adams. But that's kinda the point here...

Schoolhouse Rock has more depth, it seems. And catchy tunes.

Yeah, but you can go see "1776" without having to make some offspring-centric excuse. And it has catchy tunes, too.

Ah, "1776"--I forgot about that one! That's a good little show. Catchy tunes abound--"Sit Down, John!" and "But Mr. Adams."
I think I will throw a Schoolhouse Rock/1776 viewing party next Sunday instead of watching the next installment of "The HBO Miniseries Event John Adams."

"Yeah, but you can go see "1776" without having to make some offspring-centric excuse. And it has catchy tunes, too."

Another effort which casts an actor who made a nice career out of playing unappealing characters as Adams.

The difference, of course, is that 1776 didn't require the viewer to sympathize with Adams, which makes it a bit more of an audience pleaser.

It took me more than 7 hours to read the book, but that was with all the footnotes.

As an impression of the book the movie is fine. Episode 2 was especially gripping. I did not believe that the real John Adams was anything like Paul Giamatti, but he is growing on me. Whoever played Benjamin Franklin is perfect.

"The point of making the book into a movie was, I thought, to make the experience shorter."

You're usually a lot smarter than this, Ezra--the point of making the book into a movie was to MAKE MONEY FOR HBO.

But I'm actually quite enjoying the series. The vast bulk of revolutionary war history focuses on the military campaigns with occasional stops in philadelphia for the politics side, but here for a change we see the reverse. On the other hand, I didn't find Adams's conversion from opposition to rebellion to support very convincing.

I think the series is fantastic. Too often, people think it chic and makes them elite if they criticize something of art, e.g., film, tv show, book, or painting.

I am also a fan of Giamatti's and thought Sideways was wonderful, too. However, I am a lot younger than some of the old farts here, so I wouldn't expect a lot of them to like Sideways, Giamatti, or this John Adams miniseries.

I like it. Besides, what fuck else is there to watch on HBO post-Sopranos, Deadwood, Rome, Six Feet Under, and Sex and the City??? Great shows, all.

1776 didn't require the viewer to sympathize with Adams, which makes it a bit more of an audience pleaser

But it did illustrate the need for someone with his stubbornness.

And, for the Nutmeggers here, what could be more crowd-pleasing than coming up with a rhyme for "Connecticut"?

PS: Although not covered by the play or TV (yet), the circumstances of Adams' and Jefferson's deaths are so unique that no screenwriter would dare make it up. As an early portrayal of these Great Men as human beings, it adds to the luster of "1776".

Count me as another 1776 fan. I show clips of it to my US History survey course (preparing them for the big end of the year tests).

It really captures the essence of the debate without any attempt at verisimilitude. Adams the obnoxious and disliked, Franklin the schemer, equally dedicated, John Dickinson, who fought to stay with England and then was willing to fight for his new country, even George Washington, there through his dispatches. Great stuff.

I couldn't even plow through Attenborough's book and had no desire to see the series. I'm not a major Giamatti fan, either.

"Although not covered by the play or TV (yet), the circumstances of Adams' and Jefferson's deaths are so unique that no screenwriter would dare make it up."

Yup.

It's interesting that the teaser for episode four seems to indicate Jefferson/Adams is going to get more play.

I've been surprised how minor a character Jefferson has been so far.

"It should be noted that in 2003 the Fairfax County VA school board banned 1776 over Jefferson's declaration of his yearning for his wife. If this is a point of concern for you, view the movie before showing it to your children."

IMDb parents guide

Adams is thoroughly disappointing. It's true that we all know the skeleton of the story, but where is the motivation? Where is the human depth? It's hard to believe that Petey thinks these characters are multi-dimensional. The only well-acted, nuanced moments in the first two episodes occurred when the three holdouts finally helped negotiate their own capitulation, producing a unanimous Declaration. Other than those 10 minutes, the only parts I've enjoyed have been the slices of life, like the rope-makers at their job.

Giamatti does have an appropriately soft and doughy face, I'll give him that.

"That said, anyone who's indignant over Jeremiah Wright's comments should really take some time to look into the trumped-up shit the Founding Fathers used to foment a bloody revolution."

That argument is supposed to make me more, rather than less disposed to excuse Wright's bombast? I think this statement of yours has the opposite effect than what you intended. Am I supposed to say "Jeez, it's just bloody revolution fomenting type rhetoric... it's all good?"

the fellow playing Adams is terrible. I know it's somewhat unpopular an opinion to hold, be he is just utter crap.

The British government acted extremely foolishly by going to was rather than conceding the Americans' rather moderate demands.

That's about as good as 20-20 hindsight gets.

Not that it was politically feasible in Britain, given the makeup of the government at the time. Nor was it likely to be sustainable in anything other than the short term.

Ezra's right, though, that the list of grievances against the King in the Declaration of Independence, while a masterful bit of rhetoric -- the whole thing's a great primer on eighteenth-century prose -- is, seen in context, a lofty pile of whinges.

I also find the series badly made. Parts are excruciatingly tedious. It's like watching the Revolutionary war in real time. Key scenes, especially between John and Abigail, seem underwritten. All the hammy acting in the world cannot compensate for a weak script. Some nice set pieces, like the trial and Continental Congress. And great costumes and scenery. But where's the drama?

So Ezra Klein doesn't care for The Adams miniseries? Gore Vidal wrote an excellent essay explaining this phenomenon among certain coastal elites.

By "this phenomenon" I'm referring to a disdain, disinterest or contempt for anything the crackers were up to prior to Ellis Island.