"He was a weird character, and in a lot of ways we had just had to create a 'character' out of it, because you'll drive yourself crazy trying to recreate something that isn't historically accurate," said Giamatti. "I mean, he was a weird guy. For people who come to these things expecting this sort of iconic, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, white, marble bust kind of thing. He was kind of a lunatic. He was a hypochondriac, he [had a] violent temper, he was constantly sticking his foot in his mouth. He was a nightmare of a guy."

Even though he achieved the highest office in the country, the miniseries suggests he did not emerge a hero. "He was this huge figure to people and there was a lot of weird political maneuvering around that went on. Hamilton and all these guys maneuvered around to get him elected. He was a terrible president. He was a terrible politician. So, we are making a thing about a guy who was basically a failure as a politician. So it will be interesting."
Even in wartime, the John Adams miniseries will not present the typical battle footage. "It's much more a kind of political history because he sat the war out. There are no battle scenes in it. It's all him wandering around begging for money. I don't know how interesting that will be, but that's what he did for the whole war. He kind of traveled around Europe trying to get people to give money to finance the war. And he was sick all the time and out of his mind and depressed. He was a really weird guy."
John Adams will air on HBO this March.
Related Items
| Movie: | Shoot 'Em Up |
| Celeb: | Paul Giamatti |
|
Segkee writes: on Aug 24 2007 12:27 AM Awesome... I smell GWB lingering in the subtext... (Reply to this) |
|
paoli writes: on Aug 24 2007 01:08 AM Nothing to do with GWB. Weird is not the same as stupid. Also, he had a very bright, affectionate and articulate wife unlike GWB. To compare GWB to John Adams is like comparing a turd to a fine meal. You can certainly smell GWB but not in the subtext of anything concerning John Adams. (Reply to this) |
|
Bardego writes: on Aug 24 2007 01:50 AM Sounds interesting, though I hope that this miniseries remembers to highlight some of the POSITIVE aspects of John Adams as well. (Reply to this) |
|
Lizard Brain writes: on Aug 24 2007 03:04 AM Hmm, Adams voted the Alien and Sedition Acts into law. They were allowed for fines and jail sentences for those who oppossed the government. Sounds like they were precursors to the "Patriot Act" too me. Yes, he did do good things too, but the A&S's will follow him through-out history. I'll take Thomas Jefferson anyday... (Reply to this) |
|
Hiro Protagonist writes: on Aug 24 2007 05:26 AM "Also, he had a very bright, affectionate and articulate wife unlike GWB." Oh, leave Laura out of it. (Reply to this) |
|
lauriemann writes: on Aug 24 2007 06:05 AM John Adams was very bright and ambitious (both for himself and for the country) but he also had some very stupid ideas (like the Alien and Sedition Act) and he was a proud man. Read the McCullough biography (which is fairly sympathetic to him, and which is basis for the HBO miniseries). Adams and James Madison had something of a long-distance feud over much of his life, though they did not see each other very often after the Constitution was written. While Laura Bush is no Abigail Adams, Laura's not exactly inarticulate. Check the IMDB listing for this project as it has a really terrific cast. (Reply to this) |
|
Baccus83 writes: on Aug 24 2007 07:34 AM I don't know if I'd call Adams "a failure as a politician." (Reply to this) |
|
Merlin235 writes: on Aug 24 2007 09:57 AM I love when politics infects this website. It generally degrads into "G.W. Bush sucks". (Reply to this) |
|
asilentmovie writes: on Aug 24 2007 10:47 AM In reply to this comment (#1068449) As it should! I'll see anything with Giamatti, and I love history, so I'm in. (Reply to this) |
|
ninjaandy writes: on Aug 24 2007 10:57 AM Finally! A John Adams movie. Next stop -- Martin Van Buren! (Reply to this) |
|
saiga6360 writes: on Aug 24 2007 11:49 AM To me, he will always be Number 2. (Reply to this) |
|
JamesEarl writes: on Aug 24 2007 02:10 PM asilentmovie: you love Giamatti and history. Have you checked out Tourist Trap? (Reply to this) |
|
Merlin235 writes: on Aug 24 2007 03:18 PM In reply to this comment (#1068790) The sitting president always gets the most grief, because people do not have the correct mindsight to put historical context into it, or remove their own political bias. (Reply to this) |
|
Lizard Brain writes: on Aug 24 2007 04:37 PM In reply to this comment (#1070321) You know, maybe it's because he's broken the laws of the very Constitution which he swore to protect, lied about a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and pretty much left the people of New Orleans to fend for themselves. And I'm not even mentioning his attempt to privatize Social Security (dumb idea which will ruin the savings of millions), allowing the healthcare in this country to be monopolized by crooks, spying on Americans, leaking Valerie Plame's name to the press which endangered her career, and allowing the CIA to torture and retain prisoners indefinately. Is that enough, or should I go on? (Reply to this) |
|
CoUcH ToMaToE DoUgIe writes: on Aug 24 2007 05:48 PM In reply to this comment (#1070407) no, go on i have quite some time, i have nothing planed and i eagerly await for your advice on who we should elect in the upcoming election as well. oh, and John Adams was not a great president because anyone who lets the white house get burned down to the ground by our arch enemies/mother country Great Britain is JUST NO GOOD I SAY! Plus, his son John Quincy also sucked as well and we can only hope we never have another adam in the highest office in this grand land. oh, and by the way as bush ends his horrible reign it makes me think who was a worse father/son presidents combo? Was it the adams or the bushes? I guess it is not too hard but still bush earned that title and i bet the adams are thankful the bushes came along to take away their shameful legacy. and now they get paul giamatti to play john adams? well, who's gonna to play Sam Adams and all the benefits that come with it? (Reply to this) |
|
Ruckas356 writes: on Aug 24 2007 06:04 PM cool but i dont have hbo so who cares. (Reply to this) |
|
Mazula writes: on Aug 24 2007 09:14 PM who ever said John Adams LET the White House get burned? and I dont think Great Britain is our arch enemy. maybe at one time, but that was a while ago. and Valerie Plames info was leaked by Richard Armitage to Robert Novak, both of them being idiots by giving and using that info. it wasnt Bush. and what the frick is people's problems with wire-tapping? really? do you think the government is trying to listen in on your conversations to find the latest bit of gossip on you? no, the purpose was to identify possible threats within the United States, as it is known that there are such terrorists living here. to find these people, I am more than glad to allow them to listen to my conversations or whatever. I have nothing to hide and it helps in taking down terrorists. so chill out. Why not let the government use every possible means to bring down the terrorists, even if they break a few rules? (Reply to this) |
|
Stankton writes: on Aug 24 2007 10:10 PM This sounds fantastic, and I'm sure that Giamatti will do wonders in the role, but William Daniels will always be John Adams in my mind. And Mr. Feeny. And the car from Knight Rider. (Reply to this) |
|
CoUcH ToMaToE DoUgIe writes: on Aug 25 2007 01:41 AM In reply to this comment (#1070774) Mazula, i did not say he "let" the british burn the white house like he encoraged them to do it but he and his wife fled in fear like cowards after the country got into a war with the british that he started and then his troops were clearly overmatched and humilated, besides andrew jackson, his entire army. this all led to a humilating and cowardily defeat at the white house where the captain left his and the country's highest ship get destroyed in a nonhonorable way. a bad war started and lost by well agreed bad president. basically he's the bad book between the perfect pillars on the mantle known as washington and jefferson. also, i meant great britain was our archenemy at the time and not now and i thought i apply that. and if you want to support anything done by george w. bush then may god help your, soul because you are beyond help. not saying he's the worst president ever but LETS just say he's in the top ten or even five. (Reply to this) |
|
Lizard Brain writes: on Aug 25 2007 05:02 AM In reply to this comment (#1070774) I'll bite. First, what use is a "warrantless" wiretap anyways? By its very definition, 'warrantless,' it is unallowable in court, so why do it? Perhaps its only use is to gain information on political rivals to use against them? But we do know that there are people being held without access to lawyers and without knowing what their crimes are (Breaking a few amendments there). Do you know if these people are criminals or are they just people the administration "doesn't like?" Also, so you say you have 'nothing to hide.' That's fine. However, much like "1984," have you considered the ability the government has to dispell dissent against what it does because it can spy on anyone? Or its ability to blackmail those it dislikes? As in, if the government has all the information, who are you to say what it does with such information? (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |







