Sophomores, we spent 2 days watching part one of HBO's John Adams series. Not only did it re-emphasize most of the notes from class, but hopefully it also was neat for you to see a modern day re-enactment of significant events that shaped our country. As your extra credit option, respond to ONE of the following topics. Your response should be detailed and at least 20 lines in length.
1. Describe what the court house was like throughout the trial. Be specific. Who was there? Where did the witnesses speak? How is it similar to or different than modern court scenes?
2. Explain the importance of Abigail Adams as seen in the film. What was John's and Abigail's relationship like? Be specific by referring to particular scenes or event from the film. Provide details/
3. Be a critic of the film by writing your own review. Explain why you liked or disliked the film. Be specific and honest in your answer. Do you think it portrayed Massachusetts in the Revolutionary era in an effective way? Was it an accurate depiction of the pre-Revolution events that took place in Massachusetts? Why or why not?
Value: Up to 5 points
28 comments:
I did like the film. I feel like its very well made and a lot of time was put into re-making the 1700's. The film definitely looked like what I would have imagined it being. The actors did a good job of actually taking the role of their character to heart. John Adams seemed like a realistic 1700's man. The actual crowds and mobs that attacked the British soldiers seemed real and something along the lines of what it would have been like back then. The Boston Massacre part was well done because it depicted the terror that the colonists may have felt that night. One part that I wasn't much of a fan of was the tar and feathering scene. I thought it may have been a bit too graphic, but things like that did actually happen in the early times of America. Overall, some things may have been spiced up or may have been taken down a bit, because it was made for TV, but it was a well-done episode and it was pretty good. It was a classy documentary-type of TV shows that showed what the 1700's were really like
1. Describe what the court house was like throughout the trial. Be specific. Who was there? Where did the witnesses speak? How is it similar to or different than modern court scenes?
The court house was a very large open room with two floors. The judge and the jury at the front of the first floor and there was a large open area in front of them where the lawyers would go to speak. also when it got two noisy there was a man who stood up in front of everybody and slammed his stick on the ground to get people to be quiet. the witnesses spoke in the same place that the lawyers did. finally in modern day courtrooms there is a row of seats and the judge and jury sit in front along with the witnesses
Question 2.
John and Abigail Adams lived a very proper life full of morals and commitment to eachother. Abigail played a huge part in John's life. She was there for him with everything whether it was her point of view on his work (cases he was working on) like when the British came to Massachusetts and Abigail basically told John to do what is right, and what is the law and to go forward with integrity or being there for him while he was at the court house. Abigail was not only John’s wife, she was a friend, a leader, an intelligent individual, she was a mother, and a great person. In the film john is going to Pennsylvania and Abigail is a very big support system for him she says her good bye and watches him leave. To me that takes a lot. The couple had a great amount of strength and love and that’s why they were so successful with their marriage and partnership.
The courthouse was a large open room with two floors for spectators. The atmosphere of the room was hot and very stressful because they were all wearing warm clothing, some with wig and some with hats. Courtrooms back then weren't as safe and were more violent. The people being questioned were surrounded by the angry people who didn't care at all about the trial being fair. Even the people being accused had to stand with the friends and family of the people who were killed, so control was lost multiple times. And when control was lost a man would walk out with a bar and silence everyone. Today the courtroom is a little more relaxed, but still as stressful and demanding as in the 1700's.
Question 1.
The court house was very large and very open. In front of the court room sat the judge and the jury. In front of the judge was an open floor where the lawyers such as John Adams sat and questioned the witnesses and victims. The witnesses and other people stood behind a gate and they would shout out and when it got too loud a man with a tall stick would bang it against the ground to make people be quiet. People in the courtroom were John Adams, Captain Preston, Richard Palmes, Sam Adams, Abigail Adams. The courthouse in the movie is much different than a courthouse today. Courthouses today there are rows of seats where people sit. Also the judge is in front of the room and next to him are seats where the jury sit. The lawyers in modern day have desks they sit at and in the movie the lawyers just have a chair to sit on. In the movie the outfits the lawyers had to wear were long black gowns with white wigs and today lawyers wear suits.
The courthouses have everyone stand up. The accuser, accused and the witnesses all stand up during the heated session. The lawyers stand up in front of their clients. Everyone is so close together because it is one big crowd. There are two floors in the courthouses back then. The witnesses the accused and the accusser all stand on the first floor and the spectators stand on the second floor. Th e judge gets his own stand. The lawyers and the judges all where wigs that are white and big. The coutrooms today are more layed back then they were back then. There is also a guys that slams his stick on the ground when the room gets too loud.
I loved this film. Not only did it portray the Revolutionary era spectacularly, but it made me feel like I was actually there. The film showed you everyting from the rich and snooty in Massachusetts, to the poor and gritty rope-beaters that work on the streets. It was very effective in showing me how things worked in this era because it did not beat around the bush, it even got graphic about things such as the tar and feathering. I do believe that it was an accurate depiction of the pre-Revolution events in Massachusetts. This is because, for example, with the Boston Massacre, it actually showed you what happened chronologically, and then you were able to hear the story of what happened from both the American and British side through an active trial, which John Adams himself was a part of.
I also larned that John Adams, even though he was a President, was not "perfect". He wasn't very sure of himself, and sometimes relied on his wife Abigail to help him through tough situations.
In the court house everyone that was in the case was on the ground standing. Everyone observing was on a upper level and watched. Where the members of the law were was very open and they could walk around and express their questions. But it is still similar to are court house. They can still have people that are not in the case watch. Another thing that was the same is the judge wears a robe.
1. Describe what the court house was like throughout the trial. Be specific. Who was there? Where did the witnesses speak? How is it similar to or different than modern court scenes?
The court house seemed kind of modern compared to modern day court houses. Except for the face that the people who are watching have to stand and the witnesses stay in the crowd. Almost the whole town was there. The main people in the courtroom were John Adams, Captain Preston, Richard Palmes, and Sam Adams. There were 2 floors for the spectators. The spectators seemed very crunched up as they all pushed towards the front so they could see. It also gets very noisy because it can echo and there is not any electronics that can calm the specatators down or for the judge to speak without raising their voice. All in all, i thought the court houses are simliar in more ways then they are not.
John and Abigail had a very strong relationship. she was always there for him through his work and just in general. She was at all the trials and she listened to everything he had to say. For example at the end of part 1, when John had left on the horse, although she was sad because he was leaving, she knew it was the best and he thought it was the best so she stuck with him trough that and all of his other decisions and had never for one second doubted him.
The court house throughout the trial was very different from todays court house. The court house in the movie was very different because it was very open in the middle of the room. At the front of the room sat the judge and jury. In the back of the room was a gate where all the people would stand. They were allowed to speak out at any given time. If it became too loud, a man with a tall stick would bang it on the ground for everyone to settle down. John Adams wore a long black gown with a white wig. He was also allowed to ask anyone in the crowd questions about the scene. The people who were at the court room were Captain Preston, Sam Adams, Abigail Adams, Richard Palmes, Mr. Holmes, John Hancock, and of course John Adams. It is different than modern court rooms because the setup of the room and apparel they wore were not similar. Today, the rooms have the judge in the front of the room, the jury on the side, next to the judge is were the witness is being questioned, in the middle of the room are tables where the defendants and lawyers sit, and in the back rows of seats where people watch from. The apparel is different because today men wear suits with ties, and women wear suits or skirt/dress with heels.
Yes, I really enjoyed the film because it was interesting to learn about the Revolutionary Era. I feel Massachusetts was portrayed in an effective way because the film showed in a detailed way what it was like to back than during the war. It show how brutal the punishments were such as taring and feathering. This is done when they strip you and poor hot tar and feathers on your skin. Yes, it was an accurate depiction of before the war because we got to see how poorly the British soldiers were treated and how the courtroom was ran. The film also showed the Boston Massacre and how scared the colonists were when the soldiers fired their muskets into the crowd of people.
1. Describe what the court house was like throughout the trial. Be specific. Who was there? Where did the witnesses speak? How is it similar to or different than modern court scenes?
The court house in the movie was well put together. It looked just like the old picutres of a court room I would find in a history book. The English men were off to the side, infront of all the defenders. The judges were lined up under the head judge, which is didn't from our court rooms today. Usually the judges are lined up on the side of the court room instead of under the stand. John Hancock,Captain Preston and his men were there, along with John Adams as their defender(lawyer). Many of the other men were their too such as, Mr.Palmers, MR.Holmes, and Richard Goddard. Also, the defenders wore white wigs, and a cloth; instead of their everyday wigs they usually wear. The witness of the trail spoke in the front the front of the crowds, their was two levels were people stood. Their was a bottom floor and a atop floor for people to be witnesses and see the trail. In the court room people were also able to speak freely until it got out of hand. Now a days you're not allowed to say anything until called onto the stand, or asked by the judge. In conclusion the court rooms weren't that different then today.
The court house in the movie was very different then a court house today. In the movie the court house was smaller then one would be now, they is also a lot more people then a case would usually have. The witnesses would speak in a crowd, this could scare people if they were speaking out about the people surrounding them. It became very loud in the court room and people would just start arguing, and finally the judge would call someone to bang the stick on the floor to let everyone know they needed to be quiet. The movie did a nice job of showing us what a court room would look like and the differences from then and now.
Yes, i really liked this film and loved how good of a job it portrayed the way it was during the Revolutionary War. They did a real god job showing the extremes the sons of liberty would go to make themselves heard. The tar feathering specifically was a great and important scene. Also it was a good depiction of before the war because it did a great job showing the unfair and brutal way the British soldiers and Americans treated each other. You could actually see how close war was about to break out before it did. Lastly i thought the way they setup the court hearing was great. The testimonies were great and helped you understand what was happening.
Option 1:
The scenes from the Courthouse, about the Boston Massacre trial, have wiped out all the problems against Captain Preston and the Britsh soldiers. It turned into a celebration for John Adams because he completed the trial peacefully. The Boston Massacre was all caused by the British Soliders and Captain Preston who lead these soliders. During the trial John Adams was the defense lawyer. He kept asking questions of witnesses, especially Richard Palmes, "What exactly did you hear Captain Preston order?" "Did the British soldiers say fire or did Captain Preston?" Captain Preston was caught redhanded saying "Damn your blood" and "Fire" to the Boston citizens. John Adams felt this was very wrong because it was such a brutal act against the Boston citizens. But in the final verdict, Captain Preston and his soliders were found NOT GUILTY. The actions by John Adams were significant because it led to his role in the first Continential Congress.
The modern courtrooms are different then before because people today have rights that are protected and they are given a fair trial. But in the trial we watched with John Adams, it was not a fair trial.
In the film the court house was a large room. In the front of the room there was two rows the top row was for the judge and the bottom row was for the jury. In the middle of the room there were two desks one for each attorney. Then behind the two desk's there was a place where the witnesses and observers stood. There are some differences in the court house today. For instance, the jury now sits to the side of the court not in front. Another difference is that the wittnesses are seperated from the people watching the trial not standing in the same place as them. In addition the people who are observing the trial are not allowed to comment while the trial is taking place.
I liked the film. I thought that it portrayed the Colonial era well by showing what the colonists wore back in that century. The actors in the film would change their wigs depending on the occasion. The actor who played John Adams changed his wigs many times. He would wear a basic type of wig at home but when he went to the court house he had a formal wig. The film showed what a court case would be like during that era. The trial was against the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre. The court room setting resembled what it would have looked like in the 1700s. The room was just a large room with many people watching the trial. The observers at the trial stood with the accused. In conclusion, it was a great movie with very accurate facts from the 1700s.
The court house has a big open center for the judge, the jury and the lawyers to stand. Then an area for the accused and the people accusing the defendant can stand so the lawyers can ask them questions. Also in that area is where people that come to watch stand. Then there is another floor for the people that are watching to stand. While court is going on the spectators will put in their input wether it is wanted or not. Then if they get to out of hand a man with a stick will come out and bang it on the floor to restore order in the court.
3. I thoroughly enjoy this film and I believe it has some great and entertaining elements. I think the style and direction is great. It really looks and feels like the 1700s. Paul Giamatti as John Adams is very good and so is the rest of the acting. They do a great job depicting the people and situations that they are playing. The boston massacre was portrayed wonderfully and it is an amazing and realistic scene that wraps you into the film. I think that the tar and feather scene was also done great and it makes you cringe. But that is not the goal, it is to educate and have a realistic portrayal of what happened in those turbulent times that changed history. That is what the overall objective is for this film/mini-series and I think it was done excellently.
1. Describe what the court house was like throughout the trial. Be specific. Who was there? Where did the witnesses speak? How is it similar to or different than modern court scenes?
The court house in the movie shared a few similarities between a court of today and a court of back then, but there were more noticable differences between present day court and court back then. For example, witnesses or people testifying stood with the audince among the crowd. today, prople being testified are in an isolated area closer to the judge. The officials running the trial were drastically different as well. Espaecially when it came to uniforms. they were dressed in robes and powdered whigs, that all matched eachother. the finall difference I notede was the physical layout of the trial room.
The court house scenes from the movie showed many things about the colonial times. In one way that it was completly different was how all the people that were just there to watch were just standing around the whole thing and would give their opinions at anytime that they would feel like it by just yelling it out. Another difference was that the witnesses would just stand in front of the crowd of people and not on a stand or anything. This aloud intimidation and corruption to take place in the court house by other people fust standing there. There were many people at the trial of the British soldiers. among the people there were Sam Adams, John Adams and many other inportant people that suported or opposed the British soldiers. This is how the trials in colonial times took place.
3. Be a critic of the film by writing your own review. Explain why you liked or disliked the film. Be specific and honest in your answer. Do you think it portrayed Massachusetts in the Revolutionary era in an effective way? Was it an accurate depiction of the pre-Revolution events that took place in Massachusetts? Why or why not?
I personally did like the film. The film strongly depicted the family life during this time. The film definitly showed how the lives of many people suffered from the British. The way the film captured the mobs seemed just like what I would have imagined it being like. For example, they had to improvise since they didn't have weapons, so they put oyster shells in snowballs. Another part of the film I was very fond of was how John Adams proved how the British were innocent in court.
The court system in the 1700’s is very different from how we practice law in the 21st century. The court system for one wasn’t very disciplined back then. The attendees of the case could openly object the defendants statements. The court room was filled with any and all those who were even remotely involved with the case. This lead to the courtroom being too overcrowded. The defendants also stood along side the witnesses of the prosecution which usually meant that there very high tensions between the both the defendants and the prosecution just like in the video. The 1700’s court system also had more than one judge on the case. In the video there were several judges almost like the modern day supreme court justices. The prosecution could pull any witness and use there statement in the trial even if it was a false statement. The court system also lacked the professionalism of a modern day court system in that the defense could argue with the prosecution and almost reason with them they could some how relate it to the case at hand. The judge also only asked for opening statements and let the two lawyers debate the case with each other.
The courtroom was a large two story room. the spectators could go on the first or second floor. The judge and the jury were on the first floor. there was plenty of room for the lawyers to walk around and question the witnesses. The witnesses just stood in front of the crowd to speak. Also it was very unorganized. the witnesses just spoke from the crowd and the crowd was very loud. The judge needed to make the crowd quiet many times. It is different from a court room today because the crowd sits the whole time and the witnesses are questioned up front, not just out of the crowd.
Question 2:
Jonh Adams and Abigail Adams had an affectionate relationship, Abigial always a spiritual support with John. Sometimes John discuss with Abigial some sences about what he thought in someting, and Abigial can also gave him some valuable views, she always a good helper to John. The scene which i most impressed is John Adams will leave the home to attend the parliament, Abigial and her childern are stand in front of the door. In that time, Abigial's eyes are shining and very deeply, the expression on her eyes are like she is talk with John about some thing. It's contain how much love, hope and strength. Actually ,in some ways, Abigial not only John's wife in his life, but also she is his friend, counselor and strength.
In the court house everyone that was in the case was on the ground standing, everyone observing was on a upper level where they watched. For the members of the law there was very open area where they could walk around and express their opinions and ask questions, the witnesses spoke in the same place that the lawyers did. Yet still similar to our court house. Court houses in our time are more relaxed but still as demanding and harsh as they were in the 1700s and they still have people that are not in the case watch.
Post a Comment