BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

2hotFeature one of my absolute favorites!

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Orla Zuniga It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

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."

MartinHafer As always, this is a top-notch biography by Ken Burns. Lots of interesting and often famous folks are interviewed, lots of paintings and photos are employed with a moving camera and nice evocative music is used to spin the story of Thomas Jefferson's life.The film is broken into two parts when I saw it streaming on Netflix. The first portion is about Jefferson's life from birth until the time of the French Revolution in 1789 (which he was a huge supporter of at the time). Now this film is NOT a white-washing of the man, as it talks about his many amazing gifts but also his intense failing when it comes to human rights and the lack of rights accorded to slaves. While he DID push for this when he was younger, he quickly abandoned this when he saw resistance--and it just didn't seem that important an issue to him. Other topics covered include his family tragedies, the Declaration of Independence, the Revolution and religious liberty. The second portion is about the time of the creation of the government of the new United States up until the death of Jefferson in 1826. Jefferson was serving as a diplomat in France while the Constitution was created and adopted. And, when he returned he was appointed to President Washington's cabinet as the first Secretary of State. However, this was not a great match, as the Federalists (who dominated the Cabinet), had a slightly different view of the role of government--and this ended up causing serious divisions as Washinton's administration and Jefferson eventually quit. Washington had envisioned a system with no political parties--but men with strong views like Hamilton and Jefferson ended up doing just that--creating the first political parties. Eventually, Jefferson was roused from his early retirement when he was elected Vice President under John Adams--and his problems with the Federalists continued. Eventually, he'd have the last laugh as he and his Democratic-Republicans came into power and stayed in power for decades to come (with few interruptions). And, oddly, Jefferson's notions of a small and very limited government were things he violated when he was responsible for the Louisiana Purchase! So much for core political values....Then, following his presidency is a very lengthy portion of the film devoted to his retirement years. His creation of the University of Virginia, financial difficulties and his correspondence (among other things) are the subject of this final portion of the film.By the way, this film seems to give undo credit for the Declaration of Independence to Jefferson. I am NOT trying to discredit Jefferson, but the document didn't just appear out of no where--the context is missing. His writing of the Declaration was STRONGLY influenced by George Mason's Declaration of Rights for Virginia--as well as other documents. In addition, to Jefferson's dismay, his original draft was changed MANY times by the Continental Congress. But this is barely mentioned in the film--and none of the previous Declarations (several States had already issued their own) were mentioned. As a retired history teacher, I have picked up these things over the years--and they are not common knowledge. This is NOT a major criticism--as apart from this the film is exceptional and quite engaging.

seepruittsplace In reading this review I find myself asking what this viewer is really looking for. In one voice we are told the production show Jefferson "warts and all" and in the next appears to condemn the work for showing he was a Southern with slaves and that his relationship with those slaves (i.e. Sally Hemings) and his animosity towards other "Founding Fathers" as inappropriate at the least and cruel at the worst. This viewer states more of Jefferson's own words should have been used - which would have been wonderful, but if this viewer truly knew Jefferson's history, this viewer would also know that Jefferson destroyed nearly everything he had ever written about or two anyone along with nearly everything anyone wrote to him. Therefore we can only piece together a picture of this man by others of the period who wrote "about" him, not necessarily to him as well as records found in France, England and our own Archives. An American who wishes to examine American history is hard pressed to find the facts which would make our history clear and easy to understand and perhaps that is for the better as it forces us to look closely and most of all to think.

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.