Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Robert J. Maxwell This was produced by Ken Burns, whose documentary on the Civil War was a revolutionary undertaking in terms of technique and approach. I don't suppose "Jefferson" had the same budget because it's not as satisfying.The narrator is Ossie Davis and he's expressive enough, although his voice sounds as if it's beginning to gargle with age, and it lacks David McCullough's tone of resigned objectivity, as he dispassionately announces a great tragedy.And in my expert opinion -- "expert" in the sense of once having heard the name "Thomas Jefferson" mentioned -- too much time is given over to Jefferson's obsession with his home, Monticello, in Virginia. It's possible to get tired of looking at spinning wheels sitting placidly on highly polished wooden floor.And, okay, Jefferson went through all kinds of tribulations as he aged. Don't we all. And he kept slaves too, one of whom, Sally Hemmings, the talking heads hint he may have slept with. Well, according to the recent DNA evidence, there's no reason to hint that he did -- because he did, and the congress produced six children.None of this demeans Jefferson himself. He was a man of his time. Judged in retrospect, his aim seems to have been to reproduce the social structure of his family's source region. He wasn't a rabid slaver. He saw the political ideal as a model of the English aristocracy, semi independent, benign, free-flowing, patronizing, given to science and invention, and above all peaceful. Not a bad model if you're the aristocrat in charge.The first half deals not just with Jefferson's childhood and upbringing but outlines the formation of his paradoxical political views and his fierce conflict with representatives of opposing sentiments like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. They wanted a strong central government. Jefferson, concerned as he was with "freedom," saw it best expressed in a looser confederation of states or even agrarian manors. He hated cities with their diversity and industries. A gentleman's life was a farmer's life. The argument between the two points of view is as bitter today as it was then.That, I think, is the main weakness of the program. The Louisiana Purchase, which Jefferson wrought, did everything that he opposed -- national expansion, monstrous debt, and acute disagreements over the westward spread of slavery, which led finally to you-know-what. The Louisiana Purchase is sloughed off in about four minutes.Jefferson was a human being, and a fascinating one, but beyond that he was a politician and a theorist, a founder, a writer of our charter documents. I'm sorry that his granddaughter was deserted by her husband, and that Jefferson could never make up his mind to finish Monticello, but those facts of his life don't deserve the attention that his career in the sociopolitical arena deserve.Also, there is no mention of Jefferson's bringing ice cream recipes back from France! What flavors did he favor? Not vanilla. The beans at the time could only be gotten from Tahiti!Speaking editorially, the internet and street demonstrations have copped a quotation that Thomas Jefferson used in talking about George I. "The Tree of Liberty Must Be Watered With The Blood of Tyrants." Only now the reference is not to the King of England but to the president of the United States, a tyrant in some eyes, who disregards the Constitution.There's another quote from Jefferson that nobody ever seems to hear:"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

CitizenCaine From the opening use of the tortured Hamlet, Ken Burns documentary on Thomas Jefferson paints an enigmatic portrait of self-contradiction. The first half of the film focuses on his younger years leading up to his presidency. The film presents a fascinating illustration of a young man that attended the College Of William & Mary, studying 15 of 24 hours per day en route to his early beginnings as a law apprentice. Highlighted are the many personal setbacks Jefferson experienced: the deaths of his parents, in-laws, most of his children, and eventually his wife before he reached age 40. It details the construction of the Declaration Of Independence, which Jefferson wrote. One astonishing sequence shows the progress Jefferson made in writing it, complete with crossed out phrases and corrections provided. The commentators note that Jefferson wrote nothing short of an abstract assertion of tenets that touched all of us on a basic human level. His years in Paris touch on his longing to be reunited with his daughter and a love affair with Maria Cosway, a British cultural aesthete. Jefferson was present in Paris at the dawn of the French Revolution and then finally he returned to Monticello.His presidential years were marked by the contradiction of the expansion of individual freedom and the exclusion of that freedom for certain groups: namely, Native Americans and Blacks. Jefferson was responsible for the Louisiana Purchase, yet encouraged the removal of Native Americans from the east to the west. Jefferson owned slaves, many of them inherited from his father-in-law, but introduced or pushed no less than a dozen pieces of legislation to emancipate slaves long before he became president. One effort fell heartbreakingly short by a single vote in 1780! Imagine what a different country we might have had, if this was accomplished at that time. The film draws Jefferson as a family man, scientist, and scholar, who was disinterested in politics and being a statesman. Yet Jefferson became the very first Secretary Of State and the third President, and is mostly remembered by all for being a President. However, Jefferson himself valued his founding of the University Of Virginia, his writing of the Virginia Statutes, and the Declaration as his greatest accomplishments. His later years were marked by more personal tragedies, financial ruin, gardening, house parties, and more reading and studying. His library consisted of over 6,000 books! Perhaps the historically significant thing about his later years was the renewal of his friendship with our second President, John Adams, in the form of correspondence. The incomplete building of Monticello is a metaphor for Jefferson's life really. He was, what we would call today, fundamentally a life-long student; he was always growing and learning. The film is reverential in tone, with solemn musical interludes, and praiseworthy commentary from historians. It raises no questions and provides no answers really; it just presents Jefferson's life in straight-forward fashion. It does not avoid the difficult issues, but neither does it tackle them in great depth completely. That would be taking us away from the subject, which is Jefferson. ***1/2 of 4 stars.

P Carr First, let me preface my review...Thomas Jefferson was a man that I admired as a kid. When I was young, I read many of his biographies and loved all that he did, particularly the articulate ways the Renaissance Man expressed the nation's desire for freedom and equality. He was my favorite Founding Father. I still remember when I first learned that he owned hundreds slaves, in direct contradiction to his written words. It was shocking, as I discovered that one of my patriotic heroes had such a double standard in his life. Having said all that, I hoped that this documentary would accomplish two things: Unearth the truth, and dive deeper into this intriguing man's life. Both goals were met.Using narration and the perspective of multiple historians, the documentary covers virtually every significant aspect and passion of Jefferson's life, including both common knowledge stories and lesser known events. Among the more interesting lore are his early political years, the vastness of his knowledge, and his late-life correspondence with erstwhile rival John Adams. Controversial issues such as Jefferson's alleged affair and illegitimate children are addressed in a fair way. No definitive conclusion is stated, but all opinions are given, and those thoughts match up with the information I have found. The only thing lacking was a snapshot of Jefferson's religious beliefs. To my knowledge, he was a Deist rather than a true Christian. That point was alluded to, but never elaborated upon.A theme of the documentary was the contradiction that seemed to run through Jefferson's life. The primary instance was his duplicity in being a champion for freedom and equality, yet simultaneously owning hundreds of slaves. To compound matters, Jefferson also harbored complex racist tendencies, although not in a malicious way. Given his time period, I don't know that these pitfalls taint his reputation, but they definitely tint it a darker hue.I won't elaborate on all of the other stories told, but many were new and fascinating. History such as his battle to be elected president, and stories like the fact that his tombstone contains no mention of his presidency, or his financial troubles late in life. All of this information adds up to paint what appears to be an unbiased and accurate portrait of one of the country's great yet flawed men.If you've seen any of Ken Burns's work (Baseball, The Civil War, etc.), then you are familiar with his trademark style of filmmaking that is present here. He once again utilizes the panning of still photographs and paintings, often accompanied by the appropriate sound effects. A slight twist is that Burns also uses many beautiful shots, both still and action, of modern-day Monticello and other places. This is a wise choice, as those pictures, which are recent but also period, add a vivacity to the film. The music was also standard Ken Burns. He picked a handful of tunes, including hymns and patriotic songs, then had them played in a variety of ways to provide a suitable soundtrack. His choice of the hymn "Be Thou My Vision" as a primary theme did strike me as odd though, considering Jefferson's strong Deist beliefs that contradicted traditional Christianity. Aside from the three-hour documentary, there are two short featurettes on the DVD. The first is an eight-minute glimpse inside Burns's filmmaking world. The second is a ten-minute conversation with Burns about his work. Both are definitely worth watching if you like any of his films, as they provide good insight into his processes. If anything, the two featurettes are too short, but worthwhile nonetheless.The downside to this doc was that it didn't suck you in. It felt more like reading a good history textbook. Interesting stuff, but occasionally I zoned out. If you don't have an interest in Jefferson or early American history, then you will probably find the film dry and boring.Even if you are a history buff, I don't know that you need to purchase this DVD. It's good stuff, but I don't feel it can be viewed multiple times. I borrowed it from the library, and that (or a rental) is my recommended route.Bottom Line: This is for history buffs and for people interested in Thomas Jefferson. 8 of 10 from one who had that interest. Others will probably be bored.

ivan-22 Ken Burns and company do an excellent job of giving us the whole Jefferson, warts and all. But one begins to wonder why they didn't do a documentary about someone else of the times, someone who didn't own slaves, didn't deport all Eastern Indians to the West, didn't build a museum for his personal abode, didn't praise the French Revolution in the most immoderate terms and didn't sink deep into debt. Whether he impregnated slave Sally is almost tangential and immaterial. He "did" so many other things! It is often said, one shouldn't judge a historical figure by today's exacting standards. Yet it is also said, by those same people, that time must pass to allow us to objectively evaluate today's leaders. And as if this weren't enough, one also hears these souls denounce "moral relativism". Go figure. But one needn't judge Jefferson by today's "politically correct" standards. One can be content with judging him by his own time's and, indeed, by his very own standards. And, one can emulate his own extremely harsh judgments of fellow founding father Alexander Hamilton. It's disrespectful to the founding fathers not to judge them. They judged each other, and they wanted to be judged. This good documentary is marred by interruptions from overexposed, self-important pundits from all corners of the vaunted political spectrum, a common documentary flaw. Interpretation and opinion should be served on a separate plate - please! A little more verve and humor would have added spice and made for a less reverential opus. Jefferson wrote so many letters. There should have been more quotations from the horse's mouth.