Last night I watched the second episode of the seve part mini-series on John Adams, one of the “founding fathers” of the United States. My wife observed that this was just about the first historical series hat I had not pressed the “pause” button to demonstrate an historical innaccuracy. Welll….thats not entirely true.

I do not ALWAYS push the “pause” button. Maybe on occasions I have pointed out that the saddles on horses in westerns, American Civil War and other movies are too 20th or 21st century for the period……but it is understandable. Old saddles just dont exist in quantity and 20th and 21st century buttocks are just too delicate to be comfortable on old saddles.

That is of course “nitpicking”. Memorable Mel Gibson’s Braveheart has loads of nitpicking delight. But Historical innaccuracy is a bigger issue. To some movies like Braveheart, Michael Collins, Schindlers List are too riddled with historical errors to be taken seriously. I disagree.

The constraints of a two hour movie or a TV mini-series means that some events are over-played, under-played for dramatic effect or to create a narrative for the casual viewer. The key thing is that the overall “history” cannot be compromised.

Which brings me back to John Adams. The reason that I did not press the “pause” button was simply that I do not know this period of American history well enough to make informed comment. Rather than saying out loud “that did not happen”, I was at best left with the silent thought “did that really happen?”.

In episode two, the action alternated between the Adams farm near Boston and the Congress at Philadelphia 1775-76. One scene involving John & Abigail Adams has Mrs Admas wonder aloud that there should be more women in politics…….that every time she opened an empty cupboard, she was involved in politics. Of course even allowing for the fact that Abigail Adams was a woman ahead of her time, this was actuallya  very 20th or  21st century comment. Likewise Abigail points out that her husband for all his perceived liberalism wont make a stand against slavery for fear of offending his friends in the South.

Incidently, Id tend to wonder about the Battle of Bunker Hill (sic). My own recollection is that it was not known as such until many years after. But like I say this is something I just dont know.

The action around the Congress was really about the Declaration of Independence. And necessarily for dramatic effect it all comes together in a few short scenes. I thought the main players were a bit one dimensional and while it concentrated on undiplomatic Adams (Massachusetts), smooth operator Franklin (Pennsylvania) and silent but effective Jefferson (Virginia)…they all voice anti-slavery sentiments to each other……military man Washington (Virginia) is peripheral……….three other characters are depicted Dickinson (the Quaker pacifist from Pennsylvania), Dwayne (the New York “loyalist”) and Rutledge (South Carolina) who seems to exist only as the voice of the South.

Necessarily for a concise dramatic narrative, the other members of Congress are relegated to saying things like “Hear Hear” and waving their fists.

Certianly the whole Continental Congress is a subject which deserves some kind of better analysis.

While Drama is a good entrée into History…….it is NOT History. I have seen good Historical Drama and I have seen bad Historical Drama. Unfortunately I dont know enough about the precise period to judge John Adams.

It would appear that I need to read some books.