In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Cheers & Jeers
Jeers: Is John Adams Too Hot for TV?
Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney by Kent Eanes/HBO
Jeers to HBO for declaring its independence too strongly with John Adams. As a pay-cable outlet, the net isn't subject to the same censorship standards as broadcast or basic-cable channels. But that doesn't mean all of its productions must include graphic content. The superb Adams would make perfect viewing for history buffs of all ages, were it not for the nudity (did we really need to see the full monty during the tar-and-feather sequence?), sex scenes between John and Abigail and gory depictions of various 18th-century diseases. I know — it's not TV, it's HBO. But it's also not necessary.
• For more Cheers & Jeers, check out the new vodcast.
• Share your own raves and rants about other shows on the Reader Cheers & Jeers discussion board.
• We may feature your Cheer or Jeer on TVGuide.com or in TV Guide magazine!
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Apr 6, 2008 1:16 PM
|
|
I had no problem with the tar and feather nudity (though it wasn't necessary) or the gory diseases. But I did feel like the almost sex scene was not appropriate or needed.
|
|
Apr 6, 2008 5:49 PM
|
I completely agree with plinstrot. I think that the sudden public tar-and-feathering scene would have lost some of its jarring brutality if it hadn't been clear exactly how the man was treated, although perhaps a back or side view would have communicated the same thing. I also was much more moved by the smallpox inoculations than I would have been if the dying man hadn't been shown at the height of the disease.
With episodes in history like the American Revolution, which all kids growing up in the U.S. have been taught since preschool, I think we often end up with those early (mercifully) sanitized versions as the basis for what we learn later. Maybe it takes graphic depictions of what the words on the page actually mean to let those of us who aren't historians understand what the situation was like.
And it was nice to see, assuming it's true, that the Adamses were still passionately in love after a long and trying separation, but once he loses his wig, they could easily have cut to another scene. Nothing against Paul Giamatti, but his bald head is plenty of nudity, thanks very much.
|
|
Apr 6, 2008 6:17 PM
|
My son (age 8) and I have been watching the episodes together. While I haven't let him see the "sex" scene from the fourth episode, the rest was not too much for him.
He has Asperger's Syndrome and has a hard time with empathy. Yet seeing the tar and feather scene as well as the smallpox scenes brought out a feeling of sympathy for those characters. The harsh truth of those scenes gave us a chance to talk about the brutality shown by the patriots we think of as heroes as well as how scary the choice Abagail made, really was. If I felt he was fully ready for the details of sex education we would have talked about that sex scene as well. I commend HBO for being willing to show history in all of its ugliness.
If the violence, nudity or gore had felt gratuitous I would be the first to object. In this case each choice was carefully made and done for historic accuracy. In any case each scene gave me an opportunity to impress some important lessons on my son, ones that I have the greatest indication will stick.
|
|
Apr 6, 2008 6:37 PM
|
|
If it's meant to be a true portrait of the time, than the graphicness of such scenes is necessary. History is too often whitewashed. And that sex scene wasn't graphic at all. All we saw was two people passionately embrace while remaining mostly clothed. All they showed was a bit of Linney's legs along with Giamatti's bald head. That scene was positively tame.
|
|
Apr 6, 2008 8:05 PM
|
so don't watch, i'm sure that there is a nice mindless reality show you can view. idiot!
|
|
Apr 6, 2008 8:31 PM
|
|
Obviously a religious right winger who's afraid of that dirty little secret, sex! It gets so old when half of America (the puritans) want the other half to abide by what they want to see...its ridiculous. So, its a pretty accurate account of the live and times back then...so with your viewpoint, there would be no sex?
|
|
Apr 6, 2008 9:24 PM
|
I don't feel like they have put a step wrong.
If I hadn't seen the man I love in years....it would have taken a lot more than seven layers of clothing to keep me from him. I thought it was rather a sweet moment.
as for the tar and feathering....and the nakedness of the man.... I was far more disturbed by John Hancock calling for it and the crowd wanting the thing so badly. Made me remember that protestors can sometimes loose there heads.
|
|
Apr 7, 2008 1:50 AM
|
|
Although I like Paul Giammatti very much in everything he's done (even including the unfortunate Lady in the Water!), to me there's only one John Adams--William Daniels as in 1776. But I'll take Laura Linney over Virginia Vestoff (although she was very good) as Abigail. VV sings well, though!
|
|
Apr 7, 2008 8:20 AM
|
|
The show is superbly written, directed, and acted. Granted, the scene you mention was a bit uncomfortable to watch, but not because of the nudity. The violence was more offensive to me, but one really can't show tarring and feathering without it, can one? I've got nothing against full-frontal male nudity. It seems only fair considering all of the f-f-f nudity we have to endure with The Tudors.
|
|
Apr 7, 2008 10:08 AM
|
|
So 80% of the people going here don't have kids they think could have been benefitted from watching this show, except they have to have gratuitous nudity and gore? Is that what I'm gathering?
|
|
Apr 7, 2008 10:20 AM
|
As one of the 80% who disagreed with the "Jeer" and with 2 children in my house, my position is that approximately 5 seconds of nudity presented in a non titillating way, brief glimpses of war injuries and the ravages of disease, and showing brief but tasteful relations between two people who loved each other (in the form of John and Abigail) in a HISTORICAL context is perfectly fine with me and in this household.
In my opinion, the jeer is another example of needless whining, bitching and moaning without context OR perspective.
Frankly, to my knowledge HBO did not advertise "John Adams" as a "family" program and they have clear warnings at the beginning of all of their programming, including this fine miniseries. I didn't have any trouble reading these bumpers and I don't see any excuse why any other parent with such concerns doesn't read them for themselves ... and their children.
Finally, if what was presented bothered some people that much, David Mccullough wrote a terrific biography called "John Adams" that perhaps might be better suited for parents and those concerned with their children's and their own delicate sensibilities to read.
The very same upon which HBO's miniseries is based.
|
|
Apr 7, 2008 11:28 AM
|
This definitely comes off as prudish.
If you have kids and you want them to see it, just fast forwrard that part. And is a kid really going to be so corrupted from a second or so of a willy onscreen?
|
|
Apr 7, 2008 11:30 AM
|
I think that what parents should do is watch a show in its entirety first. When the show is re-broadcast, record it and just pause your recorder on the objectionable scenes, so that little Johnny or Sally won't see them when you show it to them.
When my son was younger, I only allowed him to watch "R rated" movies when they were broadcast on non-cable TV channels. All of the sex scenes were removed and the obscene language was "sanitized".
|
|
Apr 7, 2008 12:30 PM
|
I too totally disagree... This was not like Sideways where the totally nudity was somewhat gratuitous... this was shown in the context of what a real tar and feather was like....
Also... I will say that last night's ( this week for all those watching in non-realtime) episode was the best of the series so far... I think I know something about hisory but I learned something and listening to JA and TJ argue and knowing that they remained best friends and died the same day was terrific....
|
|
Apr 7, 2008 1:14 PM
|
|
|
