For the 4th of July weekend I decided to take a hike at a local state park and then check out the John Adams miniseries produced by HBO. I thought that watching that would be rather appropriate given that not only was John Adams one of the Founding Fathers of the country with the role he played in promoting independence at the Continental Congress and shaping the Declaration of Independence but also he was the second President of the United States and he died along with Thomas Jefferson on July 4, 1826 -- the 50th anniversary of the nation's birth.
I had some trepidations going in, based on the reputation that HBO has with its products. What convinced me to go forward was my respect for David McCullough's work. The series was based on his book.
Overall I was greatly impressed. I did not know that John Adams was the state's lawyer in the case resulting from the Boston Massacre, but his performance in that trial was impressive, and his belief in the rule of law and not man shone very brightly. He was full of passion (and in my opinion inspiration) as he participated in the events that led up to independence from Great Britain. From this point on the series seemed to drag more and more, but such was Adams's life after Philadelphia 1776. He is a fish out of water, caught in a world that he doesn't really understand and therefore cannot really relate to. His time as vice president under Washington was the same. His presidency was little different, as he spent most of his time trying to maintain some sense of balance between warring factions and parties, until there at the end he just grew so sick of the political game that he wanted nothing more to do with it. Again, a fish out of water, as the political game is best handled by those who have an agenda and work to move it forward. But I enjoyed the score.
I was rather shocked to see him sign the Alien and Seditions Acts, seeing as they were diametrically opposed to the liberty and freedom he defended so valiantly in the Continental Congress. He did hesitate because I think he sensed the danger, but he signed them because his wife told him to do so, and I think that she told him to do so because she was tired and wanted to be done with it. Disappointing to see that happen, but balanced out with the pleasure of seeing him resist Hamilton's desire for a national army as a step towards empire building.
As far as the actual production goes, the casting was incredible. I cannot think of anyone better suited to play each of the characters in the film. The score was amazing. I attached myself to it upon first hearing. And the issues that receive focused attention -- women's role in society, slavery, the balance between liberty and order, the relations within a family -- were fascinating to consider in the context of that day. Even more fascinating is how some of those issues, particularly those involving liberty and the rule of law, are still applicable to the present day. I would have liked to have seen more attention paid towards religious devotion. The dialogue contained many references to religion, but I did not see any religious acts portrayed in the film. In discussing this aspect with one friend, I was told that such inclusion in the film would have been too controversial and therefore it was not included. I have to disagree with that conclusion, given HBO's propensity to produce provacative films and series, especially those that tear at traditional religious and moral principles. So in that light, I suppose that I should be thankful that they did no more than omit demonstrations of religious devotion.
Notwithstanding that disagreement, I found the way in which they balanced the characters laudable. John Adams in real life was not the most attractive of men. He was short, stubborn, and lacked a certain diplomatic tack in his dealings with others. How do you tell the story of such a man without having other bright and glorious characters of the day overshadow your main figure? George Washington was perhaps the brightest star, but it was easy not be overshadowed by him since he was such a humble man. Benjamin Franklin too shown brightly, but he also was not threatening in that his tack for diplomacy served to highlight Adams's lack of it. Thomas Jefferson, however, posed a real problem. He did not speak much in public, but in private his true colors shone brighter than the sun at noon day (amazing how that reminds me of myself). Jefferson was also a man of many contradictions: wild yet tame, defending liberty yet owning slaves, eager to shame his enemies with scandals yet just as eager to hide his own scandals -- all of this and yet largely likeable at the same time. An inventor, engineer, architect, statesman, and scholar, Jefferson was a true Renaissance man. Such a figure could easily steal the limelight of any show, and yet the production was able to include Jefferson in a historically accurate way without overshadowing the main character. Absolutely brilliant.
The final DVD in the set contains a documentary on David McCullough that highlights some of his life and provides a brief overview of his work. That was most interesting, especially to see the small office he has behind his house where he does all of his writing on an old typewriter he bought second-hand in the 60s. I didn't think that anyone used those anymore. And it intrigued me think about McCollough's self-declared objective: to write history as literature, in essence to make the telling of history an art form. The DVDs also have an option entitled "Facts are Stubborn Things" which when selected will bring quotes and little historical tidbits on the screen as the film progresses, offering insights into life during those times. I only used that option in watching "Part 2: Independence" for a second time, but it was a very useful and enjoyable feature, unlike many added features on DVDs these days.
The film ends with some words from Adams himself: "Now, Posterity, you will never know how much it cost us to preserve your freedom. I hope that you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it." That was the real thought provoker for me. All of the intellectual exercises I engaged previously were not as personalized as this one was. What am I doing with the freedom which my forefathers purchased for me? Am I squandering it? Or am I using it to advantage? And would that be full advantage? Those reflections alone make the film worth watching. Everything else laudable therein only adds thereto.
I got out a few ingredients and a bowl to get started. Of course, Tashi always gets curious when I cook, so she was especially curious to see me experimenting.
I took a cup of dark brown sugar, 1/2 cup of orange marmalade, 1/4 cup honey dijon mustard, and a tbl of cloves. The marmalade is the all-fruit kind.
I started mixing this together when I got to this point and had an epiphany: "Hey, moron, since you are probably going to heat the glaze anyway, why not mix the ingredients in the pot and just skip the bowl?"
So I did just that.
While the glaze was heating, I took the Spam and cubed it. Then I placed it into a skillet to fry. I know you can eat Spam raw, something my brother always did while we were growing up. I never did that. If you're meat, you're better cooked. Period.
I turned back to the glaze to see the mixture liquifying a bit. I continued to stir this occasionally.
As I stir, I noticed that the glaze seemed a bit runny to me, so I tossed in 2 tbl of flour to thicken the mixture.
I removed the Spam from the skillet and patted it with paper towels to remove as much of the grease as I could.
Then the cubed Spam goes into the glaze mixture. I stirred just until the mixture started to boil. Then I removed from heat.
I served the Orange Spam over couscous and added in some salad and mixed vegetables on the side. The recipe makes enough for two servings, so I get the scrumdilliuptiousness of the experience repeated. Wonderful!
