Monday, October 4, 2010

Sophs- John Adams Part 1 Extra credit



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?

28 comments:

Mark L. said...

1.
The courthouse was very different than what a courthouse would be today. It was loud, people chose to talk when ever they pleased, and the audience did not sit. The people in the courtroom were the British soldiers on one side vs. the rioters on the other. A wooden platform would seperate them from the judge and the rest of the courtroom. The witnesses would speak in the front. For ex. when John Adams was speaking he was outside of the platform and could walk around. It's very different because now in a courtroom you can not stand up but rather sit down. Also you can not just choose when you want to talk in the modern courtroom.

Natalie Frappier said...

For John Adams Part 1, I did really like the movie. It was actually very interesting to watch and gave a lot of detail back then. It depicted the setting and time frame very well. It showed how John Adams was very important to the people back then, and how without him the course of history would not be the same. During the film, it also showed how John Adams wife, Abigale, was an important part of his business. She proof read his work and made it better for him, and gave him a second opinion. Surprisingly I enjoyed watching the film and actually payed attention. John Adams Part 1 gave me a good idea of the history of all the unfair taxation, and the Boston Massacre. Most importantly it told a lot about the start of the First Continental Congress.

AlexaAikens said...

1. Throughtout the trial the court house was pretty crazy.Their were a bunch of colonists yelling at John Adams about the British soldiers. When witnesses spoke the colonists would stare them down with a "im going to kill you if you tell the truth" look on thier faces. The first colonist to speak was Mr. Goddard and he lied about what happened that day, and John Adams knew this because he toldhim that Captian Preston stood behind his soldiers. The second witness was Mr. Holmes, he was the one all the men gave the " i am going to kill you" look to because he was brave and told the truth about how the colonists ordered the soldiers to fire, not Captain Preston. Finally was the third witness, Mr. Palmes, he was also brave and told the court that Captain Preston was infront of his soldiers, not behind as Mr. Goddard said. British soldiers and Captain Preston were nnot guilty, the colonists hated that. The witness spoke infront of the crowd. Courts now days are overall the same concept, just a diffrent setup, such as their is seats for audience, jury,witnesses,and lawyersto sit. The Witnesses sit up in front near judge instead of near the audience.

Zhalen G. said...

I believe the film "John Adams" portrayed the Boston Massacre in a way that, i really understood the problems John Adams really faced.A scene I really liked was when John Adams finally convinced the jury that the general and his men did not shoot into an unarmed crowd. This showed even though the soldiers were not favored in Massachusetts, John Adams being a man of the law chose to represent them and give them a fair trial. This film was an accurate resource because it showed how the colonist really felt about the British soldiers taking control of their colony. Also the movie shows the famous parade the Sons of Anarchy made on their way to the First Continental Congress.

reid w. said...

A significant portion of the movie was based in the court room. Situated in the courtroom were all of the soldiers that were being charged for the massacre, and many of the colonists that were angered over the killings. John Adams was the lawyer who defended the soldiers and won the case. Sam Adams was the person representing Sons of Liberty. The court room had a different layout then the rooms you would see today. The witness stand is behind the railing where all the citizens stand. Modern day witness stands are on the side of the judge. In the movie the jury sat to the right and left in front of the judge. Modern day court rooms the whole jury sits together on the side of the courtroom. The men in the court room were wearing wigs, and they had a whole different attire then modern day court.

Reid W.

Brock L. said...

3. I liked the film because it helped me understand more about John Adams, his family and a overview of Boston in the moment of the massacre. I think it portrayed Massachusetts in the Revolutionary era because it showed me a overview of what the British and colonists looked like. It also showed me what Boston looked like in the past. I think the movie could have been better organized because a few times i got lost and confused. It was an accurate description because it matched what i learned in the past about the revolutionary time period. I also learned a new few things which helped me understand what was going on.

Gianna V said...

In the court scene. John Adams is asked to Defend the redcoats(british) in the court trial of the boston massacre. In this, the captain is accused of telling his men to fire and shooting down and killing 5 men. There are three witnesses...one for the british, one against the british, and one with no party. The apposing witness says he was standing near the captain who was behind his men when he shouted fire. But later we ind out tht the crowd was yelling fire and the soldiers shot in self defence. As a result they were found not guilty There apperal was much different from modern day court scenes and also the crowd is on their feet and very loud.

Ashley Szumowski said...

I really liked the movie cause it helped me better understand what we're learning rather than just reading the book and taking notes. I feel it did portray Massachutes in the revolutionary era in an effictive way because it showed you the court scene and what all the witnesses had to say about the first shot and the Boston Massacre itself. I believe it was accurate because it has the exact same things were learning in our text book and it also added a little bit more in there. The movie went into strong detail about John Adams and Sam Adams and both of them switching views on things from the battle and the tar and feather situation. Overall I thought it was a very good movie.

Kalla B said...

Throughout the entire trial it was very rowdy and obnoxious. Where people would usually be sitting, in todays court rooms, everyone was standing and shouting. If you were being asked to testify in court you would stand in the crowd near the railing and you would answer your questions from there. In todays courts you would be sitting in a seat next to the judge away from the people sitting. Also, in todays courts you would not be aloud to be that loud and obnoxious. In the court there were the Sons of Liberty, and the British soldiers, also there were the people who just wanted to watch. They also had much different attire in the court room in the movie than they would in todays court rooms. The court rooms back then were models to what we have today.

emily orzada said...

1. During the trial, the court house was loud and rowdy and they called out when people were making testimonies and the judge called for order in the court a lot of times. The people that were there at the trial were, John Adams, John Hancock, the british soldiers that were involved with the Boston Massacre, the Sons of Liberty and Sam Adams. The witness spoke behind a what seemed like a fence instead of sitting in front of everyone next to the judge. Also there is not a jury like there is today. Another thing that is different about the modern court scenes today, is the outfits that they wore. THhey all wore powdered wigs and dressed in a really different way than we do. Also, when the people spoke in front of everyone, the other people at the trial were very close to them instead of the witness sitting away from everyone else. It is similar to the court today by, the judge makes the decision to what happens to the suspect and they are allowed to call witnesses up to tell the judge what happened.

Anonymous said...

After watching the film John Adams, I came to a conclusion that it is a very detailed, exciting movie that relates to the mid 1700's. It portrays a good image of what Massachusetts could have looked at in the time, the clothing they wore, and their behavior. It definitely displayed an image in my mind that seems realistic. The scene of The Boston Massacre was probably the best picture I had gotten out of the movie. It showed the colonists taunting the British and throwing snowballs and clubs at them. I never pictured the colonists harming the British, so it was a shocking thing to see. One thing I noticed was John Adams always changed his wig for the different places he went. I assume each wig depended on the occasion and whether it was formal or informal. This was a symbol of the mannerism that was displayed in the 1700's. Another thing I noticed, was the children always curtsied the adult and never thought twice about back-talking, arguing, or disrespecting them. This shows the obedience of the children and adults. When the British came into
Boston to take over it showed a sign of corruption within the people. Overall, this movie was great, and I would recommend anyone to watch it.

-Courtney Manley

Lauren Talley said...

2.
Abigial Adams was very important in this movie. She was married to John Adams, but had a vocie of her own. She wasn't like many other women back in her time, she wasn't helpless or let other people speak for her. She was a wise women and John valued her advice and really listened to her when she had something to say. He valued her advice so much, in one scene, Abigial and John are in their bedroom and Abigial is proof reading John's closing arguement. She says to him "You don't need to refer to great men, to show that you are one" and right after she tells John that, he goes and corrects his speech. John really relies on Abigial for support, but also for critisim.

Paul T said...

In the movie John Adams the scene where the British soldiers are in court is an important part throughout the movie. The colonists in the courtroom are all against the British except for a few. One of these colonists is Mr.Holmes who told the truth about what he saw on the night of the massacre in front of his whole community. The witnesses spoke behind where all the colonists and soldiers were standing but in front of everyone and surrounded by them. The crowd was very rowdy and the colonists were trying every way they could for the British to be guilty. An example of this was the first witness Mr. Goddard who said everything he could to persuade the jury to agree with them for the British to be guilty. Lastly, courtrooms are not as like they were in the 1700s but many situations like this could reflect on how this situation turned out to be many angry people disappointed in the jury's decision.

Gabrielle B. said...

3.) In history class my peers and I watched and interesting movie called John Adams. This movie described many important parts and topics we covered in class. For example, the movie showed just how the Boston Massacre happened. How five colonists were shot because they were antagonized the British solders. There was a big debate about wether Captain Preston, ( the captain of the soldiers,) ordered his men to fire the shots. John Adams was there after the five colonists were killed. Adams was a lawyer and was defending the solders and Captain Preston. Not only because her was more of a loyalists that a patriot, but he sincerely believed that Captain Preston was innocent. He cousin Sam Adams who was a patriot, was furious that John was defending them, but John Adam simply said , "I am for the law." Which meant that he wasn’t just defending the solders because he liked the British, but he truly thought that Captain Preston did not tell his men to fire. In court, John Adams was almost positive that he would loose the case because he was one man defending British soldiers and he was in a court with a bunch of patriot. Despite that thought, he kept at it, and fought and fought until he won! In the end the people tell John to be in the First Continental Congress. John makes his speech and is off to Congress. I enjoyed this film very much. I though it was very interesting to see how the colonies lived in though days, what the punishments were, and what was considered fashionable. In though days colonists of course didn't have running water and no electricity so they used candles, and they had no form of transportation, other than a coaches pulled by a horse of just riding a horse. In the beginning you see John Adam riding his horse coming home from court. As far as punishment was concerned a very common punishment in though days was called being tarring and feathering you. That means just what it says. They would pour hot tar all over you and than through feathers at you and than carry you though town like that. It was the most humiliating thing that could be done to a colonist. The fashion in though days for the women were long dresses and hats. The men wore breaches and a coat. In court, for example John Adams, had to were a white wig. So did the other lawyers and judges. This movie defiantly show what it was like in the Revolutionary era. It showed everything in detail, such as, how the houses and streets looked, the way people acted and the different cloths they wore. If I was to be put in this movie, with out know it, I could honestly say that I would think I was back in the 1700's. The actors and actresses did a wonderful job. I high recommend this movie to people who love history.

John Slights said...

Review of 'John Adams':

Over the years, I have seen many miniseries on television based on famous people or events. I can honestly say 'John Adams,' the HBO miniseries that aired in 2007, is among the best I have seen. The costumes, the performances (Paul Giamatti is exceptional as the man himself), and the scenery are almost identical to that of paintings.

That's part of it's charm. The series documents the life of John Adams, a man who changed American politics and a man who truly lived for the laws and values of America. You see Adams as he defends a group of wrongly accused British soldiers, as he witnesses the Tea Party firsthand, and as he rides to Philadelphia for the First Continental Congress. Laura Linney also gets points as Abigail Adams, John's wife and best friend. The chemistry between the pair is perfect, and it proves the relationship and the bond they had together as a couple.

'John Adams' is a miniseries that needs to be viewed by all who appreciate American history -- Adams was a patriot, and a true American hero and icon. The HBO miniseries can be viewed as a supporting detail to the previous statement. Not to be missed.

Anonymous said...

EDDIE MENDEZ

Abagail Adams was important in this film becouse she was the person that kept John Adams calm when he was under all that pressure. John Adams and Abagail Adams have a good relationship for back then. Abagail gives him good advice. In the movie Abagail says to John that he doesnt have to quote great men to prove that he is a great man himself. I think without Abagail in Johns life, John wouldnt have anyone there for adive or anyone to talk to. John is a very active man n when he was being a lawyer for the British soldiers Abagail was always there when things werent going his way. Overall Abagail is a helpful person and they have much love for eachother. In the movie she is portrayed as a great women of her times.

Emily N. said...

The court room throughtout the trial was very chaotic at times. There was a lot of tention in the court room as you can tell in the scene. Everyone seemed furious about everything that had happened during the last few days and especially about the death of five citizens. John Adams, Boston citizens, and British soldiers were all debating in the cout room. One of the witnesses who was asked to come forward by Adams was Mr. Goddard, he witnessed the scene, he said the citizens were throwing snowballs and had clubs. There was another witness that was called forward by Adams that was Mr.Holmes, he said there was about 200 men in the crowd, they were all yelling fire. Throughout the scene, there was a lot of conflicts among different citizens and among citizens and the soldiers. This court scene is similar to today's court scenes because they both call up witnesses to come forward and speak what they witnessed and believe.

Abby M said...

The court house in the movie was similar to ones we have today. There was a judge, a jury, a place for the witnesses and lawyers. However, there were some differences. The men in "power" wore white wigs. Anyone was allowed in the court room while the session was taking place. You were allowed to speak out even if you weren't being spoken to. To regain order in the court, the judge would hit a stick against the floor instead of a gavel, which is used in today's court sessions. In the movie's court room, there was a balcony for extra seating. Today, we have benches or chairs for people to sit, they were standing in the movie.

Jackie C. said...

In the John Adams movie the court room scenes were very hectic, loud, and out of order. The scenes display how the courts opperated during that time period. the witnesses and the lawyers aren't in the typical places and it seems as though the the whole room is out of place. The witnesses typically are called into the court room to sit up next to the judge and make ther statmens. in the cause of the court rooms in the movie the witnesses all stan on one floor. In the movie the witnesses have to make their way to the front of the room and make their statements. they do not have to take an oath that they will tell the truth as is traditional in our court rooms today. their are many differences between our court rooms today and the ones back then.

Randy Husbands said...

One of the most important things about John Adams was his wife Abigail Adams. John Adams relied heavily on Abigails judgement when it came to everything. Abigail was John's closest confidante in both personal and political matters. Abigail was a better judge when it came to people then John was. She was a much more insightful politician. Abigail also loved her husbands John very much. They were married for about fifty years. When John had to take trips Abigail would send him letters. She used these letters to be John's political spy, and always his strongest advocate. After John wrote his speech for the 1st continental congress, Abigail explained to him that he didnt have to talk about if he was qualified enough. She said everyone new how smart he was. In conclusion, I think that Abigail Adams was a strong and intelligent woman who affected the American Revolution through her husband John.

Logan Worsh said...

The court house was very roudy and loud. There weren't any seats for the audince and the witnesses just moved to the front of the croud. The people who were there were the Judge, the jury, the lawyers and the accused or the audience. The courthouse was similar to ones now because of the set up of the speaking but the apparell and courtroom set up is different. The audience of the room had no specific order to stamd in, it was just two areas. One was a balcony and the other was the ground floor. The people in the audience were just colonist defending or trying to prove the people guilty.

anastasia said...

Courthouses differ then and now in many ways. In John Adams time there were two stories where the people would stand. Now there is only one floor and it extends far. The jury members used to sit right in front of the judge. Now a days they sit off to the side. The people being judged and questioned would stand in with the crowd. In court today they sit alone with only their lawyer. The crowd listening and watching could speak out and yell whenever they wanted. They were very routy. These days they must sit and be quiet unless called upon to speak. The lawyers and judge had to wear head dresses or wigs and a uniform. lawyers now just wear pant suits.
-Anastasia McGovern

Julia b said...

1. The court house was different from modern court scences. Everyone was standing and people could speak when they wanted. The colonist was laughing after someone said something and that would not happen in court today it wouldnt be allowed.The witnesses were mixed in with the crowd so they were not seprated from their group where today they have their own part in court where they sit next to there lawyer. Court houses back then were more free in a sense where they could say and speak when they wanted. Today you would get in more trouble for that. They are different because they are kinda mixed in with the people that are against them. Also i dont believe that now a days all those people would not be allowed in court it would only be the few people that are against each other.

Jenna Wolff said...

3) I really enjoyed the John Adams film, because it was very similar to what we read in our text book. The one thing that i disliked was that the wigs were very noticeable. Yes, it portrayed Massachusetts in the Revolutionary era in an effected way. In the movie, they show a British customs official getting tar and feathered, which John Adams calls barbaric. The movie was also very accurate, because it showed the gathering in the courtroom for the Boston Massacre trial and how Adams questions where Captain Preston was standing and who yelled fire. As John Adams gives his speech while representing Massachusetts at the First Continental Congress, he talks about how liberty will ring in America and that our rights are inherit and essential. I think that the movie makes the time period look better then it actually was back then. All the uniforms were nice and clean and then houses were pretty nice. Also, as John Adams finds out that his colony is getting taken over, he doesn't act as worried as he would have been.

Maggie G said...

The court house in the HBO's "John Adams" film was very chaotic. There were people yelling from all over the court room and unless they silenced, you could not hear the witnesses. This is important because if they could hear, they might get wrong information. In the movie, "Jon Adams", the court house is very similar but also very different then modern days. The people in the court room in the movie were all standing, where in modern days, people would be sitting down. Also, the prosecutor and defendant in the court house in the movie were standing with all the rest of the people, where in our modern day they would be sitting separately and away from the crowd.

Andrew A said...

When the courtroom scene first came on you could see that it was a building with two floors and that there was a room for the judge, jury and lawyers with a gate blocking them from the crowd. In this courtroom all of the people were standing except for the judge, jury and lawyers but even the witnesses stood behind the gate unlike today’s courtroom. Also the people the lawyers were defending were standing behind the gate. All of the important figures are wearing white wigs. The crowd was very rowdy in this courtroom and it was packed with people that just shouted out and the judge had to silence them many times. When the lawyers spoke to the witnesses they did not bring them forward past the gate they just talked to them while the crowd was around them which I think in many cases would influence the witnesses say if they were pressured, but that did not happen in this case. I think the main differences between the courtrooms back then and the courtrooms now are definitely the attire but also the structure and order things go. Like the way the audience acts today is very quiet and mannerly but back then it seemed like a huge shouting debate going on between the whole room. Another thing is that now the witnesses are usually called to the stand but that was not the situation back then.

Anuvrat Sheoran said...

Ans 2. John Adams was a father, and a devoted husband to Abigail (Laura Linney) His journey through the Revolution and the new government is retold through his letters--letters that reveal a radical revolutionary, a diplomat, a politician, and a husband who sorely needed the advice of his wife Abigail. Over the course of their fifty-year marriage, much of it spent apart, their letters show that Abigail was sometimes John's war correspondent, his political spy, and always his strongest advocate. Adams only soft side is with Abigail, who helps him see beyond his self-righteousness. Abigail isn't your typical wife/mother/spiritual adviser. The blood of a patriot courses through her arteries as mightily as John's, but she also bears the burden of her husband's sacrifices in service of his new country. Abigail Adams dies on October 28, 1818. At her beside John Adams says, "I wish I could lie down beside her and die too." To John Adams and his peers Abigail was much more than Adams' wife she was a colleague, and many remarked on her wit. John relied heavily on Abigail's judgment. She was his closest confidante in both personal and political matters. "

daniel downes said...

#3. this movie was a great piece of work. the reason this film was good was because it was so realistic. the whole movie it felt like i was there watching what was going on. it was also so action packed i wanted to keep watching to see what was happening next. the director of this movie portrayed it in a very effective way because it was unbiased. the whole time they showed both sides of the story and showed how fair john adams was to the british. i do think this was an accurate depiction of the pre-revolutionary events that took place in Massachusetts because it showed how everyone felt and in the movie everyone in boston pretty much hated the red coats after the boston massacre and i think that is most likely how it would have been. so overall i think it is safe to say that this was a great realistic movie.