I just have to boycott Ken Burns’ new documentary on the Revolutionary War (that all of my friends are watching). Burns has become so partisan and his editorializing so blatant in his recent production that i won’t trust him any more. Instead, I decided to view HBO’s acclaimed “John Adams” series, which originally watched in 2019. At the time I wrote here,
“I watched this seven part HBO series for the first time since it premiered. I’d love to know how many public school students are shown the series in class, or at all. It is an superb civics lesson, despite some historical liberties. Come to think or it, I wonder if any of the “Squad” has seen it; or any of the Parkland anti-gun shills, or, for that matter, President Trump. The series vividly shows what a miracle the creation of the United States was, the ethical values that formed its philosophical foundation, and the brilliance of the Founders that by the sheerest moral luck, the infant nation, happened to be in the right place at the right time, over and over again. Now, 240 years later, lesser patriots with inferior minds think it is wise to undo their unique and fortunate creation.”
I pretty much hold the same opinion today after seeing the series again last week. But have some new doubts about the showing of the series in public schools. It still is inspiring and justly so; the acting (and casting) is impeccable, and the personalities of the Founders portrayed are vivid and generally accurate. Among other contributions to historic literacy, the series demonstrates how remarkable Adams’ wife and advisor Abigail Adams was, and how essential she was to his success. In historian Joseph Ellis’s book “Founding Brothers,” he includes Abigail as a Founder, so influential was she on Adams, his public speeches and his writings.
But how much historical fiction is acceptable in an educational context unless the teachers can be relied upon to inform students of where a presentation is simply untrue, either for dramatic purposes or carelessness? And we know, do we not, that teachers cannot be relied upon.
There are many examples of misinformation in the “John Adams” series, and some of them even misled me. I was under the impression, for instance, because of the series script, that George Washington whispered to Adams, when he had been elected President to succeed the General, “I am fairly out, and you are fairly in. See which of us will be the happiest!” That did not happen, however, and upon reflection, of course it didn’t. Washington, always scrupulous about manners and decorum, would never stoop to snark at such a moment. No, it was Adams, in one of his bitter reflections on his frustrating term as POTUS, who wrote that Washington was probably thinking that.
In 2008, shortly after “John Adams” premiered, historian Jeremy Stern wrote a critical essay listing all of the distortions, omissions and misrepresentations in the series. The article is bit pedantic; a lot of the inaccuracies he lists are trivial. However, he made an important and valid point when he wrote,
Some degree of compression and alteration is, of course, unavoidable in any dramatization: history is too complex to be rendered literally on film. Using quotations from letters as the basis for spoken dialogue is, for example, a reasonable technique, allowing a historical figure’s attitudes and ideas to be accurately reflected. Likewise, it is sometimes necessary to re-stage an exchange of letters as a face-to-face discussion, to roll longer events into a single scene, and to compress people’s coming and goings. But it is truly astonishing how often “historical” dramatizations make changes that are simply unnecessary, that rewrite fundamental historical reality to create ‘dramatic’ moments, which are, in fact, no more dramatic than the real events would be if depicted honestly….since the show was well-done, dramatic, entertaining and widely praised, it will be all the more widely seen, and its audience will all the more readily assume it is definitive. Undoubtedly, it is already being used in classrooms. Fictionalized history can gain traction with alarming ease, spreading both factual errors and fundamental misconceptions: people tend to believe what they see on the screen. Wikipedia has already provided a depressing piece of proof. The last episode of the series depicts the death of “Nabby” Adams, the daughter of John and Abigail, from breast cancer. An on-screen caption marks the start of Nabby’s ordeal as “1803.” In fact, the cancer was diagnosed in 1810; her mastectomy followed in 1811…..Yet, as I write, Wikipedia’s entry on Nabby dates her diagnosis to 1803….. Nabby’s entry used to include the correct date of 1810 – but it was altered to 1803 in late August of this year…Whoever made this erroneous “correction” clearly assumed that television had provided truer facts: the reviser noted a “change of date for diagnosis” to replace previously “false information.”
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:
Ethics Alarms 
If the series is largely pro-American (I haven’t seen it), then I expect the kind of teachers who would show it without with correction are the kind who wouldn’t show it to begin with.
You should see it.
It is intrinsically pro-American.
Our whole family watched this back in 2008, and has re-watched it multiple times since then, both on DVD and streaming. Back in ’08, it counted as part of the kids’ “mommyschool” (supplemental homeschooling in addition to what they learned in public school), and my husband, who has always been the family’s big history buff and inspired a love of history in the rest of us, was in charge of fact-checking any inaccuracies. (Although I’m embarrassed to admit that I wasn’t paying attention to the year claimed for Nabby Adams’ mastectomy and subsequent death from breast cancer at the time.)
Given that it is unlikely that most of the History teachers in any school would be competent to find most errors then it makes little difference as to what medium the teachers uses.
It is also unlikely that that any student will commit any errors to memory and those that might are also the type that will, if confronted with different information, choose to seek out third party confirmations to validate any particular misrepresentation.
Being a responsible citizen does not mean that each of us must know the life history of every historical figure. A citizens responsibility is to be able to understand why the Revolution occurred, the basis for which the historical figures developed their ideas and what those ideals were. In my opinion, knowing when a daughter developed breast cancer is trivia unless the person were investigating the detailed elements about a specific figure and how it affected his or her thinking. No public school gets that granular. I have always hated history classes that focused on testing for names and dates. What is important is how events are related in time and space. The historical figures are actually secondary to the societal events of the day. The historical figures have a role as being the catalyst of change. It makes little difference to me whether it was Billy Gibbons or Davy Crockett at the Alamo fighting for the Republic of Texas against Santa Ana but knowing what led up to that event and after the event in American History is what is important.
Unless the instructional medium grossly distorts the real history then using it as a means of instruction bolstered by discussions of interpretation led and guided by the teacher I see no reason not to use it.
Chris, you provide a VERY good counterpoint to what I posted just below. Thanks!!!
This is a great question to post to us.
In general, I am against watching video versions of books. I write that, regardless of whether the subject is Ludlum’s “Jason Bourne”, Tolkien’s “Frodo Baggins”, the Bible’s “Jesus”, or McCullough’s “John Adams” (…and I recall reading that the Adams series was based on his book).
If a teacher is going to present a series like Adams to students, it is incumbent on the teacher to do the research and point out discrepancies between what is viewed and what is real. Alternatively, it could be an assignment given to students to fact-check certain aspects of what they watch against various written sources. That might make viewing a series in the classroom worthwhile and educational.
But there are larger issues.
License (a euphemism for “compromise”) always…ALWAYS…has to be taken when transitioning from the written page to the screen. Conversation is almost always added to a visual to contend with what cannot be carried over from a page’s narrative. Video must always be formatted for a time slot, which necessitates altering or cutting material – often salient material – so a program can fit into (in the case of a typical one-hour program) about forty-six minutes. This means a television program or movie loses accuracy. As a viewer, I am enslaved to a restrictive format (a screen), a restricted time box, and the world – however accurate it may be – that is created by those in charge of set construction and content. After viewing a series like “John Adams”, many people forget that Adams didn’t look at all or sound at all like Paul Giamatti, even though he may have said the things Giamatti said.
A book, to the contrary, is not bound by such restrictions. I can pick it up and set it down when I choose. I can read for fifteen minutes or four hours. I am not constrained in the time format, which leaves an author free to cover the subject with as much detail – and accuracy – as necessary, knowing the reader will get all the information at his/her discretion. Furthermore, the power of my imagination is fully engaged to construct the scene. In the case of a biography like “John Adams”, McCullough included images of portraits – created by artists contemporary to the players involved – that give us enough to build panoramas in our minds that are as vast and intricate as necessary for us. And they are our images, not what directors and costume/set designers have stitched together.
The written word gives us the one thing that no video screen could ever provide: the ability to play God. Every time I open a book, I create the scene, whether it’s the plains of Rohan or colonial Brainard in Massachusetts. I build, ex-nihilo, the world in which the book’s pages live. A movie or a TV series is someone else’s view, and it robs me those moments of omnipotence.
So while a TV series like “John Adams” has some value, it can never replace a book.
When I was in college, my summer speech class included me giving a talk entitled “Mental Fitness by Lifting Paper Weights”. If you read this response, I’m guessing you won’t need Ken Burns to determine the speech’s subject matter.
“(I)t is incumbent on the teacher to do the research and point out discrepancies between what is viewed and what is real.”
Like they should have, but didn’t, with Phat Albert’s slideshow schlockumentary An Inconvenient Truth…?
PWS
Check and mate, Paul…
As usual excellent points. My commentary was based on classroom experience. Like video classes are time limited as well. The advantage of a well crafted film depiction is that it can convey the ideas within a given time slot. You have pointed out quite eloquently the problems with film. What you left out was the actual option to use film instead of having the written word as the medium of conveyance. I suppose film has replaced the storytellers of yore who would pass down knowledge through the spoken word because so many were illiterate. In short, history is repeating itself.
I loaned my copy out 15 years ago. Never got it back.
I think that some use can be had in showing students these types of works even if some of them are flawed. Much of “John Adams” portrays him speaking statements he actually wrote, particularly “I am Vice-President. In this, I am nothing.”
I did, however, particularly enjoyed the scene in which he suggested increasingly-elaborate titles for the POTUS. I think it’s a good primer for some of the early founding ideas. I like that it shows Adams defending the Boston Massacre defendants (because “facts are stubborn” things) as it shows students that even unpopular people deserve legal counsel.
Nevertheless, showing this particular film requires some caution. The tarring-and-feathering scene near the beginning has a brief glimpse of full-frontal male nudity, Nabby’s mastectomy displays her bare breasts and there is the passionate reunion of John and Abigail after his years abroad.
A teacher would probably need to be prepared to edit, fast-forward or pause before the offending parts. What students may or may not see at home is far different from what parents will accept them being shown at school.
That scene in which Adams proposes the high-falutin’ titles for the office of President is one of the ones the historian-critic was annoyed with. It was one that bothered me at the time I first saw the series because Hamilton is generally regarded as the main advocate of the kingly honorifics. Congress was also not as hostile to the suggestions as the series shows. Ultimately, George, wisely as usual, rejected anything but “Mr. President.”
I wouldn’t show a class the whole series. Just episodes 1, 2, 6, and 7. And here is my case for that.
In the middle three episodes he is bumbling and ineffectual, a figure on the periphery of the other great men doing great things. Time showing those episodes would be better spent focusing on Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, and so on rather than Adams whining and waiting around for his return to real importance. His role in the early stages of the revolution, the depiction of his incredible personal principles, involvement with the Declaration of Independence and other collaborations at the continental congress, his presidency, and his reconciliation with Jefferson at the end of his life; these are worth the limited time and attention span of students learning early U.S. history. Those four episodes are already 2 to 3 times the length of the “Hamilton” musical.
On that note, I was very amused watching Hamilton when the script quickly glossed over Adams’ presidency. They were willing to show Hamilton’s personal disagreements and blunders, and his political disagreements… but not his political blunders during Adams’ presidency. Adams of course made at least one huge blunder during his presidency in the Alien and Sedition law.
They also wouldn’t miss out on seeing a lot of Abigail’s impact as she is more present in the first and final two episodes. In fact if I had to choose a book for students to read that shows the arc of the revolution AND satisfies the current trend in historical studies for learning about the life of the “common people” of the time, a biography of Abigail Adams would be a good choice. I read one with my daughter for her homeschooling last year. Her letters straddle input into pivotal history and concerns of day to day early American life quite well. I richly enjoyed Founding Brothers in college too but unfortunately haven’t read other book-length works I can remember on the Revolution and the founders.
Joe Ellis’ “First Family” might be a good read in this lane as it focuses solely on John and Abigail Adams. I’ve had it on my shelf for several years, but have yet to read it. I finished Chernow’s bio of George Washington on Thanksgiving morning. It was 100% masterful and a must-read for any fan of that era.
I think I’ll pull “First Family” and read it next before jumping either to Meacham’s bio of Jefferson or “Mr. Jefferson’s Hammer” (a bio of William Henry Harrison).
Books rule!
Fascinating argument. As a student of Presidential character, I’d use the omitted episodes to point out how Adams was an anomaly for POTUS who would not normally get the job, and indeed was unsuited for it; also that following Washington was a hopeless challenge that all of the successors to our best and most natural leaders failed, Adams as badly as any. It’s also worth pondering how Abigail helped push him into his worst decision as President, signing the Alien and Sedition Act. It’s a great example of bias making a brilliant woman stupid: she was more concerned with her great love being unfairly vilified than in making sure his ego didn’t betray his integrity. That’s a lesson students need to learn as quickly and as well as possible. John counted on Abigail to save him from his own worst instincts, and in that case, she failed him.
As always, Ethics Alarms is time well spent!
Re: “high-falutin’ titles for the office of President”.
Ever since I first read ‘Lord of the Rings’ I have staunchly supported ‘Steward’ as the ONLY suitable title for the head of state! Everyone needs to have someone wispering ‘You are only a man’ in their ear.
Paul, as someone who’s read that trilogy too many times to count (it’s in the 50 range), I would highly recommend Harvard Lampoon’s parody “Bored of the Rings”. It’s hysterical…and the Ring Inscription alone is worth the price of the book.
Damnit! I had to log back in to WordPress and now I have a stupid name.
Paul Compton.
If your goal is to inspire students to pick up a history book, then it is a good idea to have them see the series first. In a movie form, it is much easier to see our leaders as people rather than the facts presented in a history book. Once you have a general idea of who the people are and the ideas presented in the movie, it makes it easier to read the book or books because you know the general story and then can focus on the details.
I sometimes wish when they make a series like this, they would also do a commentary about why they chose to edit it the way they did.
The screenwriter has written substantially about the choices he made. I know they are out there…
But I agree with your position. Drama, on stage, TV and movies, greatly help students contextualize and focus on historical people and events.