Media Maven Musings

Hello readers! Long time no see– I’ve just returned from a lovely week in the Dominican Republic without any television or film, and I am more than ready to jump back into the blog full force. We’ve got shows popping up all over the calender and it appears as if, finally, the media-less drought of the last 3 months is at an end. My first foray back into media was last night’s premiere of the HBO miniseries John Adams, a seven-part series based on the David McCullough biography (which I read in December– its quite good). But does a biography about our first Vice President/second President make for good tv? Read on and find out!My answer to the above question? No. John Adam’s story does not make for good tv. Well at least not so far. Allow me to explain my first reactions upon watching the series last night.

1. Paul Giamatti sucks. Ok, he doesn’t suck (quite the contrary, actually), but as I’ve said on more than one occasion, Paul Giamatti is NOT a leading man. The only thing he leads is my slow descent into sleep as I watch his expressionless face speak in a hushed monotone to his wife, played by Laura Linney (who looks great in Revolutionary era garb, by the way). For whatever reason, Giamatti just doesn’t have that “it” factor, for me at least. I think his technical acting is very good, and his courtroom and Continental Congress speeches were passionate and riveting, but on the whole, he just doesn’t do it for me. He’s just a bit bland, a bit boring, and a bit too fake for me to embrace. I don’t feel like I’m watching John Adams (or Abigail Adams, for that matter). I feel like I’m watching Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney play John and Abigail Adams. As long as I sense this distance, as long as I feel this detachment and workmanlike effort, I cannot buy into the series 100%. Remember Band of Brothers? Did you ever feel for one second that those men were actors? No way– that felt like a documentary on the men of Easy Company. But this? This feels more like a super high budget History Channel dramatization of events. A very high pedigree dramatization to be sure, but certainly more reenactment than film.

2. HBO must be ridiculously wealthy. How else can you explain their decision to produce this miniseries that only 1% of the population can even understand? I love that they have the balls to put out this relatively actionless, slow-paced, highly intellectual miniseries. Who do they think is watching this? Yes, HBO’s viewers are by and large intelligent, progressive people, but this miniseries really pushes it. It’s the most verbose series I’ve ever seen, as each scene is essentially a long, dense conversation about politics and independence between John Adams and somebody else. I’m a history buff, I love movies, and I read the McCullough biography– if there’s anyone this series is marketed to, its me, right? Well then why was I so bored? If I found the first two episodes to be as tiresome and slow as the Continental Congress meetings portrayed in it, then who enjoyed it? Historians? High school history teachers? John Adams’ descendants? Paul Giamatti’s extended family? Again, I appreciate HBO’s willingness to pull the trigger on a high profile historical series like this, but from a business standpoint, what were they thinking? I know they’re hoping the pedigree of the series will be enough to net them a bunch of Emmy’s and Golden Globes, as HBO is known for spending money on projects it believes in, such as the Empire Falls miniseries. But the target audience for this one seems ludicrously small.

3. So far, the series has no heart, no anchor. What made Band of Brothers so amazing, in my opinion, is that on the one hand, you cared about the soldiers and their predicament. You wanted to know what happened to them plotwise, as they battled to free Europe from the Nazis through dozens of wild and dangerous military missions. But more importantly, you cared about the men on a personal and inter-personal level. You cared about them as individuals and you were deeply affected by how they interacted with one another and by what befell each man. With John Adams, I don’t give two musketballs about anyone. Where is the humanity? It’s not enough for me to see Laura Linney struggle to keep her family together while John is away– for those of you who don’t know, Adams is about to be away for a LONG time. Dude spent years in France and other parts of Europe trying to get funds, alliances, and recognition for the newly formed states. Where is the engrossing humanity in watching Adams be a diplomat? Until I truly care about Adams as a person and not just as a historical figure, this series will feel like educational television and not a real filmic narrative.

4. How ridiculous are everyone’s wigs?! People just walked around wearing obviously fake, ill-fitting, and ugly colored wigs all the time? Was everybody bald or did they just shave their heads? Does anyone believe they’re passing as hairy? Because they aren’t. I haven’t seen hairpieces this bad since TNT’s Craig Sager first starting wearing neon yellow leisure suits with paisley bowties.

5. A few images from last night that stand out in my mind: the all-knowing fire burning in Laura Linney’s eyes when the British dude comes to ask John to defend the soldiers in court; Ben Franklin’s sweet walking stick and chariot/wheelchair/Zoltar machine from Big; Adams’ sweet speech when he accepts the nomination as delegate.

When all is said and done, I enjoyed last night’s installments. I didn’t love them and I was more than a little bored, but intrigued enough to stay tuned. The writing is excellent (those speeches are really outstanding; I wonder how much comes from the original words spoken), the acting good if not a bit forced, and the story compelling, even if its a bit stiff. Will others stick around for the ride? Can courtly diplomacy be made interesting? Will there be enough scenes of war (in which Adams never participates) to keep us invested and viscerally excited? For the sake of our Founding Father, let’s hope so.Grade: B-