User Reviews

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.

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.

I am an Asian Indian. I think America is a successful experiment. I like almost all the people who played any role in kicking Britishiers out of America. I watched this film with only one information about Thomas J that he wrote Decration of Independence. This documentary talks about a lot of stuff. After watching this documentary I am convinced that personally he was an average man who liked women, prawns, palatial houses, money, freedom from family, wine basically anything which can be considered material gain. Still It can not be ignored that he separated state from the church and had ideas of about university for learning. A man who owned slaves and thought they were inferior, conspired against Indians, came into power claiming John Adam stood for despotism and became a despot by putting embargo on the ships.

I owe this to Ken Burns for bringing out the real contradictions and negatives and positives of this very celebrated dwarf. Andrew Burnstein should try his luck in drama. He is damn funny with his extra emotional tone for a slave owner who made a fool of common people by feeding them 'Liberty' and reached the highest office . Gore Vidal is right in saying that if there is any American spirit then its him. American spirit is just the same as Indian, Ethiopinan, Pakistani or Chinese spirit which is to say something else and do something else. No idea why people are confused with his contradictions. He was just a regular politician with a fantastic timing. As John Hope says "he is a blessing and a curse". Thomas J was a blessing when he represented Dr Jekyl and was a curse when he was Mr Hyde. Its nice that people and circumstances brought Dr Jekyl out of this Mr. Hyde. Thanks to intelligent people of that time. Great Documentary. A must watch. 9/10.

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."