Gettin' Wiggy With It

Being the world's most reliable consumer of historical dramas, I obligingly clicked on HBO for the first two episodes of its seven part series on John Adams, which was titled, with no-frills certitude, John Adams. The show was as dutiful, as earnest and as joyless (and ultimately less moving) as a big bowl of All-Bran.

And I think I know why.

Eight years ago, when the Mel Gibson blockbuster The Patriot came out, I wrote an article for The New York Times wondering why there weren't more movies about the Revolutionary War. One person I asked to comment was the historian David McCullough, who was still a year away from publishing his masterful biography of John Adams, which he titled, with no-frills certitude, John Adams. He said "A lot of us have trouble at first perceiving those people as real, because of their clothing, and the wigs, and their mannered way of speaking, they are like characters in a costume pageant."

After watching almost three hours of last night's late eighteenth century pageant, I am convinced McCullough was onto something, even though he didn't manage to head it off for the adaptation of his book. But it's not so much the clothing or the way of speaking. It's the wigs.

Adams' puritan pewter-colored wig, Washington¹s powdery white wig, Rutledge's ornate frosting wig -- they were big distractions. When Adams was talking about liberty, I was thinking, "Doesn't he have any idea how goofy he looks?' When Adams was going on about the futility of petitioning the king, I kept thinking, "Look at Jefferson -- look how flattering that simple ponytail is. And Franklin -- that aging hippie look works!" When Adams recruited Jefferson and Franklin to write the declaration of independence, I thought, "Would it have killed them to have included a Manifesto of Style?''

You know, wigs weren't some overnight, Nehru jacket fad. Wigs were the fashion throughout Europe and the Americas for almost 200 years. Elizabeth I kicked off the fashion among women in the late 16th century, and the Louis XIII of France pioneered wig-wearing among men in the 1620s. Apparently Louis felt badly about going prematurely going bald, and had a wig made for himself. The ass-kissing toadies at court soon followed. Charles II of Britain took up the wig when he was in hiding in France during Cromwell's administration, and brought it back to England, which, weary of all that severe roundheadedism, was ready for some frills. Unfortunately, the wigs just kept getting longer and more elaborate. Hard as it to accept, the whole of the Enlightenment was thought up under wigs. The style was on its last legs when the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia, but it really didn't die out until Napoleon kind of kicked off a new era of natural coiffures. (Oh, think of Oliver Perry's feathery bangs! Andrew Jackson's mane! Davy Crockett's pelt! And then came the beards -- the 19th century really was the century of hair.)

It's all well and good that the Adams and his pals shook off the shackles that bound them to the despotic motherland. But had they really wanted to do something revolutionary, they should have declared that among man's unalienable rights was life, liberty, and the right to show the world his own God-given head of hair.

Comments

[lwaxanatroi]

Irony: the wigs were in part meant to make living people look as much like marble busts as possible, hence the powder. So now the illustrious dead actually are marble busts in museums and statues in parks, and the wigs really are made of marble.

[Pythia]

Mr. Malanowski,

Upon reading your post, it seems impossible you are a reliable consumer of anything historical. Or do you prefer your history to be inaccurate and as air-brushed and glossy as the women in your magazine? (Playboy) I for one greatly appreciate when artistic direction and production attempt to portray the past as we might have seen it, stepping back in time. That is one of the very reasons I am a true and reliable consumer of anything historical. I shake my head in derision at sophomoric mistakes like the National Geographic's "Blackbeard" portraying the South Carolinian city as Charleston instead of Charles Towne in the early 18th century, while proclaiming in voice overs that the movie was the most "accurate" depiction of pirates and their world. Not to mention ABC's "Empire", which had every Roman incorrectly draping their togas over their right arms instead of their left. But would that cloud my judgement of otherwise fine acting or screenwriting?

No. Does it distract you when Holocaust dramas show shaved-headed thin bodies? Is historic reality so abhorrent to your 21st century mindset that you bash an intelligent production for attempting to portray the 'smallpox and all' unpleasant muddiness that our ancestors faced? I for one thoroughly enjoyed the series and look forward to the next installment. I am so tired of the endless vapidity of reality television, welcoming anything produced from such an eminent historian as Mr. McCullough. It is not lost on me that this blog is obviously your attempt at satire. Perhaps you need to read "The Satyricon" by Petronius, to remind you that satire is meant to be funny. Sadly, you missed both humor and saliency in your criticism of "John Adams".

[SkimaskBob]

i've read a couple of reviews of John Adams (cant exactly call this a review) and have been utterly INFURIATED by how dismissive the critics are - a review on slate chastised the show for being too bogged down in history and cheekily predicted Hollywood would lavish the show with awards due its patriotic themes as opposed to artistic merit. I for one, and it looks like many of the commenters here as well, AM SO FRAKING PROUD THAT SOMEBODY IS MAKING AN HONEST BIG BUDGET WELL THOUGHT OUT EPIC ABOUT THE FOUNDING OF OUR NATION. The series is excellent. And if you're going to focus on the wigs in a 'review' - please be funnier.

[3fingerbrown]

You're right about the "joyless and humorless" part, but why tap dance around the obvious source of the problem? Blame must be laid at the feet of the book's author. McCullough is the most joyless and humorless writer ever to get rich writing biographies. He sells lots of books, but I'd be interested to know how many people actually finish reading his arid tomes.

About wigs: American politics would be a better place if male politicos wore the powdered wigs favored by the founders. It would negate our TV-induced aversion to bald-headed presidential candidates. Think of it: No seriously bald man has been president in the TV age. (You can make the exception of Eisenhower, but remember that his two-time opponent managed to look even balder than the famously smooth-pated general.)

I wonder how many good presidents we missed out on over the past 50-or-so years because they weren't sufficiently telegenic above the eyebrows. In these troubled times, we no longer have the luxury of selecting our presidents based on their looks, or their locks. Bring back wigs and you create a level playing field. When all men are bewigged, really smart bald-headed guys will reassert themselves in national affairs. Dumb hirsute presidents are wrecking this country.

[NotBeatenYet]

Gee, Mr. Malanowski-- I'm not the history-on-TV aficionado that you apparently are, but I found the first two episodes to be quite interesting, and, at times, poignant.

[Mizfitz]

I too will be watching the whole thing as I live in VA and am surrounded by history. I am having a little trouble understanding the language tho and will probably have to watch it a few times to "get it" even tho I know the history lesson. I was also distracted by the wigs a little, till I saw John whip his off when he got home, and after checking everyone's out I was through with it. Love David Morse and his presidential nose. Excellent cast. Couldn't help but wonder if I could have made it back in the day - when John had to leave Abigail, severely pregnant, with a load of children, with wood to chop, water to haul.....tough tough women. I asked my husband and he laughed saying not only would I have made it, I would have left John Adams at home and gone to PA to straighten them boys out personally LOL.

[Libsrule]

No comments lately?

[Libsrule]

UH that was humorous I guess, but please tell me that was not all you took away from that show???

I personally loved every aspect of the show and loved the removal of wigs during meetings and at home etc.

Personally I could have done with a little less grit and dirt but someone didn't want anything glossed over thus we got digging hands directly into pigshit and dirt to get the real feel of making fertilizer.

Uh no thank you, but it's what they wanted.

The rest though....wow.

It was, I thought, especially moving as they worked up their courage and finally stood together and read the Declaration of Indepence and one can only imagine what that finally meant to those involved.

Stunning.

[Yat1954]

Wigs being a non-issue for us, my wife and I will be tuned in for the whole thing.

[StephenSmoliar]

I whole-heartedly agree; and the following should demonstrate, wigs were the last thing on my mind!

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/03/john-adams-experience.html

[hoodrat]

I tell you what I got from the first two installments - that black man, was under threat of dire harm, for speaking the truth, probably following one of the tenets taught to him by the dominant religion, in the area. By those who conceivably attended the same Church that taught it to him. All pontificating on the rights of "Free Men", at the same time initiating laws destined to restrict the rights/freedoms of people of color. You have your heroes, mine was that poor guy standing in the middle of bullies, and speaking truth. The wigs hid the fleas/lice, along with that other vermin - hypocrasy.