linney-giamatti.jpgBeen watching HBO’s John Adams? You should be, if only for the magnificent performances of Laura Linney and Paul Giamatti. They give what could have been a standard revolutionary soaper weight, dignity, gravitas. As Abigail and John Adams, they are most believable as a couple who are committed to one another, despite their foibles (mostly John’s) and some pretty cataclysmic things happening around them.

Other than Linney and Giamatti, the HBO miniseries seems to be a rather standard affair, detailing the events leading up to the American Revolution through the eyes of the Adams’ and their children. It dutifully runs through the events leading up to the declaration of independence, spending a fair amount of screen-time on the political machinations leading up to the Continental Congress’ unanimous vote. Meanwhile, Abigail is holding down the home front, caring for the children, fighting off a terrible plague.

The production design is sumptuous and authentic, especially the interiors, shot partially on soundstages in Hungary. tom-wilkinson.jpgAnybody who’s been in restored or reconstructed houses of the era will recognize their cramped authenticity. The details of 18th-century family life and courtroom procedure seem grounded in solid research; the series is based on historian David McCullough’s book John Adams, which you can get at Amazon, replete with a cover shot of Giamatti in full grimace.

Director Tom Hooper seems to have studied at the Paul Greengrass school of nervous filmmaking. We get lots of paranoid shots from behind and through things, including some of those annoying over the shoulder shots where just a fraction of the speaker’s face is visible (see The Bourne Ultimatum). Much of the rest of the photography is hand-held — I suppose to bring a sense of immediacy — but I wonder: is it really necessary in courtroom and legislative scenes?

A larger problem lies in the screenplay, which merely skims the surface of events that in reality were far more complex. Its treatment of the central conflict between Britain and its colony is simplistic and one sided — the British are evil, General Howe is a monster, and the King a despot. The Americans, on the other hand, are all true-blue patriots, even though some don’t see the wisdom in our hero’s point of view. It’s undoubtedly reassuring to a nation increasingly isolated and despised by the rest of the world; it reinforces our sense of moral superiority over our snotty cousins from across the pond.

Still and all, it’s been an entertaining first couple of episodes, largely because of the profusion of fine acting on display. Zeljo Ivanek brings anguished depth to his performance as John Dickinson, Adams’ chief opponent in the congress; David Morse combines resolve with a certain, courtly humility as George Washington. Tom Wilkinson is a hoot, ingesting great chunks of scenery as Benjamin Franklin, but the show belongs to Linney and Giamatti, who show why they’re two of sthe greatest film actors of our generation. Linney is particularly fine; she has a transparency of technique that nevertheless conveys a world of emotion and pain. She manages the difficult task of being supportive of her husband and yet conveying the independence of a woman who was ahead of her time.

John Adams isn’t perfect by any means, but it’s worth a look if you appreciate good acting and meticulous period detail. Its first two episodes premiered Sunday night, and are playing all this week; there are five more episodes to go. I, for one, will be there.

Tags: , , , ,