User reviews

I wouldn't have been too surprised if Merchant and Ivory had attempted to suit up Anthony Hopkins as Thomas Jefferson or perhaps even fitted Hugh Grant with shoe lifts and an ersatz Viriginia accent for the role. Instead they went with Nick Nolte - who at first glance seems an almost equally unlikely choice. However the casting proved to be inspired for Nolte does a remarkable job of capturing Jefferson during his stint as U.S. ambassador to France on the the eve of the French Revolution. Nolte effectively projects Jefferson's pride, intelligence and intellectual curiosity............ and human frailties.

Most of what I read and heard about this movie led me to believe that it was chiefly concerned with Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemmings (Thandie Newton) - However, there are other threads running through that take up as much time and attention in this film. If there is a central theme here it seems to be an examination of some of the failures of Jefferson as a man of principle. Both Jefferson's public and private ideals are put to the test during his stay in Paris. And he, arguably fails on every count. However, somehow (at least for me) he remains a sympathetic character-even with his many faults.

Early on in the film Jefferson is called to account by the liberal French aristocrats that he associates with regarding the failure of the American Revolution to address the issue of slavery. Jefferson admits that slavery is evil (he even tried to have an anti-slavery clause inserted in the Declaration of Independence) -but he has no answer when the Frenchmen assert that the American Revolution was "incomplete".

The question of slavery also figures into Jefferson's rather ethereal romance with the wife of an English painter (Mrs Cosway played by Greta Scacci). When questioned about the matter he is only able to put her off by simply saying that it would be impossible for a foreigner to understand slavery as practiced in the American south.

Gwyenth Paltrow gives perhaps the best performance in the film as Jefferson's troubled oldest daughter (Patsy). She sees her close relationship with her father threatened by both Mrs Cosway and then later by Sally Hemmings' appearance on the scene as the nursemaid to Jefferson's younger daughter. Jefferson puts Patsy into a convent but is later taken aback when she evidences an interest in converting to Catholcism. The Mother Superior (Nancy Marchand) of the convent taunts Jefferson, when he comes to retrieve his daughter. by pointing out that freedom of religion is an idea (after all) championed in the U.S. Constituion. The idea here, of course, is that Jefferson is being a hypocrite once again by denying his daughter her own choice in the matter. I must say though that the Mother Superior's jibes ring rather hollow to me in as much as an 18th century Catholic nun would not be my first choice to represent the voice of conscience regarding the promotion of human liberty.

Thandie Newton may have the most difficult job here in so much as so little is known about Sally Hemmings (We do get a couple scenes of ineffective exposition in the guise of Sally's son (James Earl Jones) being interviewed seventy years later). Newton chooses to play the character very broadly and she comes across as quite believable in both reflecting the speech and manners of a 15 year old slave girl fresh off a Virginia Plantation (all the more remarkable since she is a 22 year old Englishwoman---her accent only fails her in one scene I think). The character of Sally Hemmings stands in sharp contrast to the almost painful sophistication exhibited by the French nobility that Jefferson associates with. I note that some posters on IMDb criticize Newton's portrayal as lacking depth and even sinking at points to the "stepanfetchit" level. I disagree. Newton- is showing us a confused girl-far from home--and certainly a girl at times who has her own agenda--however naive.

It is obvious here that Merchant and Ivory are attempting to get us, at every point in the picture, to question the character of Jefferson--However,- the way the affair between he and Hemmings is handled speaks much to the limit of how far the film-makers were willing to go. The affair itself is still clouded by controversy but in almost all circumstances, a 50 year old man having an affair with a 15 year old girl must be considered, at least, culpable if not criminal. There really is no such thing as consensual sex between a slave and a master. Since nobody really knows the hows and whys of the affair, Merchant and Ivory had free license to present it in any light that they wanted---and they chose to make (unrealistically in my view) Sally Hemmings the sole initiator of the affair -- In fact, it's difficult to picture Nolte's Jefferson as initiating the affair--much less forcing it. I think that this version of events rather begs credulity.

As usual, Merchant and Ivory, have produced a movie that has wonderful period details - the costumes and sets are at the very top of the line in every way. The building storm of the revolution is set as the backdrop to all that happens in the film. Mob scenes are inserted between views into the luxury and leisure of the French nobility in an effort to remind us that many of these extremely glib and well dressed people will be without heads in the near future.

"Jefferson in Paris" offers a little something for everyone---History -Romance----class and race conflict----take your pick....It's a movie well worth watching.

We are invited here to see some of the more infrequently discussed aspects of the multifaceted Thos. Jefferson: architect, scientist, horticulturalist. Less of these perhaps than we might like, but more than we usually receive. Jefferson the scientist is mostly implied -- he witnesses one of the early Montgolfier ballooning experiments, for example.

The primary focus is on the contentious matter of Jefferson's affairs of the heart. These include, most notably, a speculative miscegenetic one, but there is a second one, better documented, for contrast. Even if one suspects that the decision to direct attention here was primarily a commercial one, those portions of the film are well enough executed, while the creators, Prawer Jhabvala and Ivory, do provide us with a little seasoned food for the intellect, both here and elsewhere.

"Jefferson in Paris" does contain a few speech anachronisms but otherwise seems to have found the flavour of the period. Altogether, not an exceptional film, but one which has much to recommend it.

This is a screen account, directed by James Ivory, of a fascinating historical episode - Thomas Jefferson's period as US ambassador in Paris for the five years leading up to the 1789 revolution. Many Americans may be put off the film, because they do not accept its assumption that Jefferson was the father of children born to his young slave Sally Hemings. Non-Americans may be less interested in this arguable relationship than in the undoubted fact that Jefferson - a passionate believer in individual liberty and draftsman of the Declaration of Independence with its ringing references to equality and inalienable rights - was a slave-owner, and that he could justify his two-way stance (at least to himself).

Jefferson also displays double-think when, though a fierce defender of religious liberty, he stops his pious, dutiful daughter Patsy (Martha) -an admirable portrayal by Gyneth Paltrow in a difficult role - from converting to Catholicism and joining a convent. Overall, Jefferson does not come out of the movie too well. In addition to revealing him as a child-molesting hypocrite, Ruth Jhabvala's scenario allows Nick Nolte to convey the tentative and observant side of Jefferson's character, but gives him scant opportunity to bring out the depth and breadth of Jefferson's mind or his political philosophy.

In addition to the visual delights of costume and setting that we have learned to expect from Merchant-Ivory productions, the most successful aspect of the movie is the all-but love affair between Jefferson and witty, charming Maria Cosway - the wife of a foppish English artist (Simon Callow in full make-up) - a role in which Greta Scacchi lights up the screen. By contrast, Thandie Newton has been criticised for her awkward hamming as Sally, but it should be remembered that she is playing an uneducated 14 or 15 year old girl.

Perhaps the movie's worst features are the "framing" sequences set in the late 19th century, where a Jefferson/Hemings descendent (James Earl Jones) relates his family history to a newspaper reporter. If these superfluous scenes had been cut, perhaps there would have been time to go deeper into Jefferson's politics, which after all is why the man is remembered today.

A well researched period piece from the Merchant-Ivory team, the depicted setting and era come alive with the apt costumes and sets. The film however tells little in the way of a story, and the methods of narration are awfully clumsy. The whole Jefferson story is supposedly narrated by one person, however that story in itself is narrated by the Jefferson character and others through different letters. It is a bit confusing, and does not gel well together. Even if it is hard to explain, it should be easy to pick up on this awkwardness when watching the film. Some of the sequences also feel like they are just for show, for they add very little to the story. However, even if this is a flawed film, it has enough good qualities to rate above average. The film is set to wonderful Richard Robbins music and Thandie Newton really makes the most of her role. There is quite a bit that one can enjoy in this film, even if it is hardly perfect viewing.

I have to say I'm not 100% sure how to rate this movie. On the one hand there were several things I didn't like. #1 where were the subtitles? For someone well versed in French history it would be easy to deduce what is happening, but someone who isn't would be very confused. Subtitles would've been an easy remedy. #2 the the ages (or appearance of age) was inaccurate. Surprisingly I thought Nick Notle did well, something I didn't expect, but M. Conway was too old, G. Paltrow was too old, Louis XVI & M. Antoinette were too old & Lafayette looked too old though the acting was well done so, despite his age, I was happy with the performance. #3 The historical events were glossed over which was very disappointing. Having said all that, I must say I'm pleasantly surprised that this movie was made, ESPECIALLY considering how little was known at the time (1995) & much of what was portrayed was still considered speculation & rumor. Because of this I've given it a better rating than I initially planned. I think something should be said for a film company that is willing to make a movie that is so controversial, though I don't know that I agree with how it was portrayed.

After years of adopting highbrow novels for the big screen, Merchant and Ivory made a movie about Thomas Jefferson's years as an ambassador for the fledgling United States. "Jefferson in Paris" casts Nick Nolte as the future president, faced with the dilemma of promoting freedom while owning people as property, and having a fling with a British-Italian socialite (Greta Scacchi).

Since there was no doubt a lot to focus on, I think that this probably would've worked better as a miniseries. Even so, we still learn a fair amount - although I don't know exactly how accurate it is - and the cast members play their roles well. In addition to Nolte and Scacchi, it has James Earl Jones, Gwyneth Paltrow, Thandiwe Newton, Seth Gilliam (Gabriel on "The Walking Dead"), Simon Callow, Vincent Cassel and Nancy Marchand (Tony's mom on "The Sopranos").

Not a masterpiece, but passable.

The lavish production values that you generally find in a Merchant/Ivory film are all here, but this is an exceedingly dull take on what could have been a very lively affair. I agree with an earlier poster that it makes no sense for the story to be unfolding through the eyes of an African American family and yet their own ancestor, Sally Hemmings, has barely a role to play in the proceedings. There is not much clarity to be found in helping the audience understand the motivations of any of these historical figures. And I was very bothered by the accents of a number of the characters. Nancy Marchand sounded very British for what one assumes is a French nun. And both Gwyneth Paltrow and Greta Scacchi seemed to be trying out different accents in various scenes. In fact, Gwyneth is very poorly served in this biopic. Her role as Thomas Jefferson's daughter, Martha, is written in such a manner that we never get a handle on who she really is. One moment she is slapping a slave, and another moment, she's deploring the whole system of slavery. Nick Nolte performs the role well enough but doesn't ever make us truly care for Jefferson or any of his exploits. Very disappointing all in all.

Thomas Jefferson is one of our most fascinating presidents, so it's no wonder Hollywood keeps making movies about him. In this one, we get to see his relationships with the women in his life. It's always very interesting to find out a revered and powerful man has a weakness. Nick Nolte portrays a pre-president Jefferson, and after he's widowed, he goes to Paris to become the US minister. This is during the time of Marie Antoinette so be prepared to see some beautiful costumes and set designs. While he's there (remember the title) he meets Greta Scacchi and forms an attachment. The problem comes in the form of his daughter, Gwyneth Paltrow, who doesn't want her father to remarry.

Where's the romance you've been waiting to see, between Jefferson and Sally Hemings? Don't worry; it's there. Thandie Newton plays the next beauty in his life, and as we all know, there are obstacles to their happy-ever-after as well. If you find Jefferson an interesting subject, you'll like this intimate portrait that shows him as an imperfect man. You'll also see Simon Callow, James Earl Jones, and Nancy Marchand in the supporting cast.

It is documented that John Adams, second President to the United States, loathed Parisian excess and found the endless gossip, parading, and parties to be a bore. Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, it is reported, liked Paris much better, and had a reputation of being more of a dandy than is portrayed in this film. Not only is 35% or more of the movie's dialogue in untranslated French, that is, without subtitle either, but the endless tedium of the suffocating excesses of 17th century France are too accutely conveyed. I found Nick Nolte uncompelling and Gwynneth Paltrow's performance doesn't seem like it was fully captured, somehow. The costuming is beautiful and particular attention seems to have been invested in hair and wig styling history. As far as the story goes, though, I kept wondering what Jefferson saw in either his European love interest, or in Sally Hemmings that drove him into the arms of either of them. The accents of all the actors just don't work for me. I didn't buy it that Sally Hemmings would have such a pronounced country accent after living exclusively with Jefferson and his immediate family for such a time, if anything, she would have picked up a French lilt to her speech.

So many of the negative comments seem to be reactions against either downplaying or overemphasizing Jefferson's relationship with Sally. It strikes me that this is a reasonably balanced presentation of what's been learned in recent years. Other negative critiques are the disappointments recorded by patriots expecting some grandiose pageant for Fourth of July consumption. But this is all-in-all a less pretentious and better film than the typical celebration of Americana. Nolte presents Jefferson as an idealistic but very human being. Paltrow is very persuasive as Patsy, and many of the rest of the cast present excellent (or well-proportioned) characterizations. Except for some trivial inaccuracies, this is a richly textured reconstruction of history as it may very well have occurred. I find that I look in on it just about every time it pops up on cable--and I'm always rewarded.

The DNA test is inconclusive, there is just as much likelihood that Randolph Jefferson was the father. To make this the opening scene and a big part of the story is a travesty and worthy of tabloid press not a historical drama.

"Historians have the wrong Jefferson. Hyland, an experienced trial lawyer, presents the most reliable historical evidence while dissecting the unreliable, and in doing so he cuts through centuries of unsubstantiated charges. The author reminds us that the DNA tests identified Eston Hemings, Sally's youngest child, as being merely the descendant of a "Jefferson male." Randolph Jefferson, the president's wayward, younger brother with a reputation for socializing among the Monticello slaves, emerges as the most likely of several possible candidates."

Although I have been interested in Jefferson for many years, I put off seeing this film for some reason, and only caught it recently on cable.

I give it mixed reviews, generally favorable. Ivory/Merchant have again fashioned a lavish tableau, and the sets, costumes, props, etc. are first rate.

The cast is solid. I was afraid Nolte would be a little too rough for my image of Jefferson, but that played out all right.

What made this film interesting to me was certainly not whether it was accurate in a historical sense. How could it be--not nearly enough is known of that situation. The question is whether or not the film is plausible and "honest within itself," i.e., whether we can accept the story as having something to tell us, if what is depicted is historically true or not.

To me, the movie is about freedom, and the contradictions of freedom. Jefferson, freedom's advocate, is ensnared within the institution of slavery, and that ends up torpedoing any mature romance with Maria Cosway. Jefferson is also in his own life quite rigid, pulling his own daughter back from possible conversion to Roman Catholicism. His granting of freedom to James and Sally Hemmings has limitations.

What bothered me some about the movie was its use of the backdrop of the coming French Revolution--by itself a commentary on the limitations of freedom. To the filmmakers it seems "the Terror," two or three years in the future, is the definitive statement and stage of the revolution. The movie even seems soft on the ancienne regime, which over time killed a lot more people than the Terror.

These muted investigations of freedom in the film move very slowly, but still hold interest--they are thoughtful, probing, and, to a degree, don't pass simplistic judgements on people.

Cerebral film, but then Jefferson was a cerebral guy!

Even though this film's trailer and poster imply that Sally Hemmings was an important character, I might not have been as shocked to discover she was just a minor (and I do mean Minor) character if this movie was suppose to being told by Sally's very own family! I mean if you are going to tell the story of a member of your family that has been ignored by history, would you really tell it with the man who relegated her to obscurity at the main character? His other lover (who happens to be white) as the actual love interest? I know I wouldn't! I am as pale as they come and normally a big fan of Merchent~Ivory flicks, but I couldn't stomach this film's treatment of poor Sally Hemmings.

I looked forward to spending part of my Independence Day weekend watching a good film about Jefferson. This film was not it. It was rather long, drawn out, dull and unbalanced. Too much time was spent exploring Jefferson's relationship with Cosway and not enough time was spent on his relationship with Sally Hemmings. The lady who played Sally, Thandie Newton, was absolutely awful. Her acting was so bad it was like watching an A1 airhead trying to recite Shakespeare. Her constant whining voice grated the nerves! Nolte's accent made Jefferson sound like an ignorant man, rather than a genius. Jefferson's relationship with his daughters and their feelings on slavery was also underdeveloped, yet his eldest daughter's rebellion (Patsy)is a key event late in the film. The film was too long and the script lacked energy and excitement. On the positive side, the costumes were quite beautiful, and Greta Scacchi played the part of Cosway well. If you want to watch a film about the revolutionary era and/or Jefferson, then watch 1776, it's much better than Jefferson in Paris.

We sought out this hard-to-find VHS after watching two excellent Merchant-Ivory pictures back to back. Knowing it was an instant box office failure, a failure as a rental, I thought it might be worth seeing anyway based on M-I's reputation. Too bad! Nine years ago, it was very much a Liberal Agenda objective to trash the Founding Fathers and indeed they had some success in eradicating the Founding Fathers from many American classrooms including, for example, New Jersey; whose eradication of our great founders quickly ended when the Washington Times shone the spotlight of truth into the NJ School Board and their subversive deed. A small part of this was headlining the alleged Sally Hemmings-Thomas Jefferson connection, disregarding the inconvenient DNA findings which failed to support the wacky left's agenda. Never mind! They got James Ellis, an author of dubious reputation, to put it in a book, and Columbia University sealed the deal by giving Ellis a Pulitzer.

As to Jefferson in Paris, the Liberal Agenda spin begins in the opening scene wherein James Earl Jones is claiming to be the son of Jefferson. The spin simply continues in flashback mode to Paris. The unmistakable truth is that even if a person assumes the lie is true the Hemmings allegation would be an insignificant detail into the larger matter of Jefferson's prolonged and vital diplomatic mission to Paris (as well as to the Netherlands where he secured crucial financial backing for America when our infant nation was without funds).

Besides the Liberal Spin Job, there is nothing else of interest in this drab and tortuously dull movie. Some of the other history is indeed accurate --- adding credence to frame the lie --- but this movie takes one of the most interesting moments in American history and reduces it to a remedy for insomnia.

Please do not ask me why Liberals set out to trash the Founding Fathers, because I don't waste time explaining the acts of such people. Don't ask them either; they usually respond to such questions with the same answer: "SHUT UP!"

It was said by one of Thomas Jefferson's successors that when he (John F. Kennedy) gathered a distinguished group from the arts and sciences for a White House dinner, Kennedy was wont to remark that this was the most eclectic and brilliant group of people ever gathered at the White House except when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. A tribute indeed to the versatility and genius of our 3rd president who more than dabbled in so many fields.

Philosopher, inventor, politician, farmer, musician, and chronicler of events this film focuses on Jefferson as father and lover and slavemaster. Whatever else he was Thomas Jefferson was a product of his times and culture in the colonial plantation culture of tidewater Virginia.

Nick Nolte who did a lot of action/adventure films cuts a nice figure as Jefferson. Certainly better than the originally intended Jack Nicholson would have been. No reflection on Jack, but can you see all those imitators reciting the Declaration of Independence in that Nicholson voice?

When Jefferson became our Minister to France under the Articles of Confederation he brought his eldest surviving daughter Patsy played by Gwyneth Paltrow. He was a widower at the time, formerly married to Martha Wayles Skelton who died in 1781.

During that time Jefferson had a rather open affair with artist Maria Cosway who was married to a regency rake type Richard Cosway. As Cosway played by Simon Callow was a serial cheater, Maria didn't let grass grow under her feet either. The times were pretty bawdy in Paris during those last years of Louis XVI. A seductive Cosway is played by Greta Sacchi.

Later on Jefferson is joined by his younger daughter Polly and she gets accompanied by slave Sally Hemmings who was maybe 15 at the time she first came over. Hemmings was actually a biological half sister of his late wife,, she was fathered by the father of the late Mrs. Jefferson. As played by Thandie Newton, Sally is one sly little minx.

Over earlier with Jefferson was her brother who was brought over to Paris to learn the art of French cooking. The dialog between Seth Gilliam as the brother and Thandie Newton about how slaves survive in a white man's world is quite insightful. In fact Gilliam demands and gets wages from Jefferson while in Paris.

Paris and continental France may not have had slaves, but I daresay Gilliam might have changed certain attitudes as he was not possibly aware of what the French were doing in the West Indies, especially Haiti. That pot would boil over in the beginning of the upcoming century.

What I liked best was the recreation of decadent Paris of the 1780s before the Revolution. The producing directing team of Merchant-Ivory did a superb job recreating the period with Nick Nolte narrating some of the correspondence of Jefferson as commentary. Other foreign observers had a much different take on these events. Just read A Tale Of Two Cities for an alternative view of events.

Jefferson In Paris is a superb production and highly recommended to those who want to learn about Thomas Jefferson and a slice of the time he lived in.

Aside from historical correctness, bias issues and topic choice, let's start with evaluating the movie as though it was purely fictional. The biggest problem is the vast scope of storylines. Too many plots and subplots make this movie quite messy, the more so because these storylines are completely intermixed (which is needed to retain chronology). There's Jefferson's encounters with the French royalty and nobility, the romantic liaison between Jefferson and Maria, the discussions on slavery, the experiences of Sally and James, Jefferson's affair with Sally, Patsy's dealings with Catholicism, Patsy's dealings with her father's affairs, Patsy's dealings with slavery... All merged into a 90-minute feature film. Not that it's hard to follow, it's just very tedious to be warped from one storyline to the second to the third in a matter of minutes.

Kudos however to the casting director. All the actors are very much perfect for their jobs. Even Gwyneth Paltrow, who, as a self-pitied whiner, stays very close to her own self.

...and the old one collapsing.How tempting!Jefferson,who epitomizes democracy and freedom visiting the old wreck,France on the eve of revolution.

Ivory's precedent works were masterpieces (Howards end and remnants of the day)but they took place in England and they were not really historical,even if "remnants" made a fine blend of the historical background with the storybook elements.When it comes to history,and mainly French history,all we get here is a full load of clichés:Marie-Antoinette, playing with her flock of sheep,Doctor Guillotin,showing his new machine (he used to say that the condemned person could feel a nice fresh sensation before dying!),La Fayette and his wife Adrienne,and of course,the de rigueur lines (c'est une révolte?Non sire,c'est une révolution").The only daring gesture,so to speak,is the puppet theater,but even that was already in Ettore Scola's "la nuit de Varennes",(1982)with much more finesse,at that.A lot of French actors appear,which is the least Ivory could do but they are not always well cast:Michel Lonsdale is a very competent one,but he's too old to be a credible king (64 when Louis XVI was about 30!)Charlotte de Turckheim is an ugly Marie-Antoinette and some scenes in which she appears ,probably influenced by "Fellini-Casanova" (1977),do not help. This is Jean-Pierre Aumont's farewell to the screen (he was in Carné's "hotel du nord" in 1938!)in a very small part:I thought he was playing Mirabeau,but actually it's an obscure D'Hancarville.Lambert Wilson ,on the other hand,is a good choice for La Fayette,but h,most of the time,he's reduced to a walk-on.

As for the American side of the story,of course,Ivory focuses on slavery,and deservedly so.The French cannot understand that a country so in love with freedom could approve of such a thing.But it finally boils down to Nolte-and-black babe affair and it's overlong and tedious.The first scene between Jefferson and the abbess promised great things.But it's a disappointment when they meet again towards the end.

All in all,this is a lavish production,which is sometimes entertaining,but which lacks epic strength and has missed its date with

destiny.

It is set from 1784-1789 in Paris, France, and is a fictional account of Thomas Jefferson's life as U. S. ambassador to France. It focuses primarily on his relationship as a widower to two women.

Thomas Jefferson (Nick Nolte) arrives in Paris and is immersed in the corrupt, shallow culture of King Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette. Thus we see the beginning of the French Revolution. With Jefferson are his daughter, Martha or "Patsy" (Gwyneth Paltrow), and a slave, James Hemings (Seth Gilliam). James was brought to learn how to do French cooking for the Jefferson household.

During his time there, Jefferson begins a quasi-romantic relationship with Maria Cosway (Greta Scacchi), an Italian artist and musician who is in a sham marriage with her openly homosexual husband, Simon (Richard Cosway). However, the film is not clear if the relationship ever moved beyond tender words.

In 1787, after the death of one of his daughters back in America, he had another daughter, Polly (Estelle Eonnet), sent to Paris along with an accompanying slave, 14-year-old Sally Hemings (Thandlwe Newton), the younger sister of James. Sally is the half-sister of Jefferson's dead wife, Martha. Martha's father had made liberal use of his privileges as a slave master.

Patsy Jefferson is very protective of her 45-year-old father and resents both Maris Cosway and Sally Hemings, who has taken on many personal duties with Thomas Jefferson. The film suggests that Sally Hemings essentially seduces Jefferson and becomes pregnant by him at age 15 or 16. James and Sally Hemings return to America with Jefferson on the promise that they and any children that Sally has will be freed at age 21.

This is really a James Ivory costume drama that does not seriously grapple with any real issues, either political or personal. It's thus disappointing at many levels. When the movie was made in the early 1990s, there was still some controversy about Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings. It's now settled history that Jefferson had multiple children with Hemings. It seems bizarre to imply that a 45-year-old man would be seduced by a 15-year-old slave girl and not to portray a more logical storyline that he forced himself on her, which was typical of slavemasters and female slaves.

I have viewed this movie numerous times and find the story profound. The acting supersedes the actual script, but this is why I rate this movie so high. Thandie Newton as Sally Hemming is as good as portrayal as any I've seen. Her naivety, yet bountiful charisma lingers in your mind for days and even now I can see her frolicking, sweet character. As for Nick Nolte, he IS Thomas Jefferson: stern yet generous, political yet extremely intelligent. And, unlike other Gwyneth Paltrow roles, she CAN play vindictive and succeeds wonderfully. Her contempt for her father's relationship with Sally, her slave/maid, coupled with her religious beliefs only compliment the main plot line. Her angst over joining the nunnery or continuing on to care for her father, provides the overall story with some depth. This helps suggest a theme of moral temperament and uninhibited enlightenment over issues of race and religious convictions. Although the movie drags at times, the acting shines through as superb.

My interest in seeing this movie was to compare it with the recent CBS mini series, "Sally Hemmings," which I recently saw and enjoyed. This movie was slow moving and not nearly as interesting as the mini series but it did provide some supplementary information about Jefferson that was not in the mini series. The movie, of course, was written from Jefferson's perspective while the mini series was written from the perspective of Sally Hemmings. The photography in the movie was wonderful as well as the acting. The last part of the movie, was by far the best.

I watched this movie last night. Unbelievably, Channel 4 (tv channel here in the UK) scheduled it at 2.15am - right in the middle of the night! Who on earth is likely to watch it at that time? I just hope some people decided to record it & watch it later.

I think its a great film. I couldn't stop watching it. It gives you an insight into Thomas Jefferson and his personal life, and into the French society of the time. The film is also visually great.

But, as with any movie, it has its flaws. My main criticism is that it was too much like an historical documentary. It didn't have the courage to speculate more about the relationship between Jefferson and Sally (the black slave girl). Jefferson must - in real life - have displayed more emotion with the slave girl than is depicted in this film, especially behind closed doors. Yet we don't see it. We see Jefferson being more affectionate with his daughter (Jefferson hugs her at one point in the film), than with Sally the slave girl, and yet he is supposed to have been passionately involved with Sally & fathered her children. Therefore it has a documentary feel to it, without any fictional element, which leaves the viewer somewhat detached & disconnected.

But credit to the maker's for tackling the subject, and it's certainly made me interested in learning more about the man.

I'm very surprised at the low rating of this film, which I found fascinating if only for the view we get of French high society just before and at the start of the French Revolution. I loved the glimpses we got of French Opera, the Montgolfier brothers' balloon, Franz Mesmer's experiments, the Royal Court, and a Convent school. All of these are recreated in lavish detail. A considerable amount of the dialogue, especially during the first half of the film, is in French. I can only assume that for many viewers all this detracts from the central drama of the rivalry between three women for Thomas Jefferson's (Nick Nolte's) affections: his troubled and possessive daughter Patsy (Gwyneth Paltrow) whose love for the church threatens to supplant her affection for her father; Maria Cosway (Greta Scacchi), an Anglo-Italian artist and musician whose marriage to painter husband Richard (Simon Callow) is one of convenience and not of passion; and Sally Hemings (Thandie Newton), a young slave who is a much loved nursemaid to Jefferson's younger daughter Polly but also half-sister to his late wife and very much on the cusp of womanhood. Added to this is another family drama, the tension between Sally and her brother James, who has been brought to Paris to learn the secrets of French Cuisine, but who also comes under the influence of revolutionary ideas and yearns for his freedom.

These intimate dramas are all very civilised and restrained, somewhat in contrast to the increasing lawlessness around the protagonists as the revolution gathers pace, but as a stiff upper lipped Brit I enjoyed all the suppressed emotion and coded conversations, and didn't find the film overlong despite its considerable length. But what we see also poses questions about who the liberty and equality promised by the American revolution and the coming French one is for.

With so many ingredients, this is certainly more of a sprawling royal banquet of a film than a perfectly arranged nouvelle cuisine dish, but in an age where "The Crown"'s recreation of the British Royal family's doings has been such a success I think it perhaps should be better received now than when it was first released.

Perhaps not quite such an elegant delight as some of their other films, but still a very worthy opus in the Merchant Ivory catalogue, and I think very much underrated by both critics and audience.