Presidents and would be's, in ars

First off, how 'bout that John Adams. What a jerk. Disowning his son like that. HBO's recently concluded mini-series seemed intent on driving the point home that, guess what, the founding fathers were fallible. Did you know Jefferson raped slaves and, on top of that, had a prickly personality? And that Ben Franklin could be domineering and philandering? And Hamilton...woa boy, don't even get me started. Not only did these people have ideas, it turns out, but they also had lives, wifes and sons, teeth and farms. Well, what do you know?

It seems, though, that HBO, for a change, got it just right. The highlight of this impeccable mini-series, I think, was the use of oblique camera angles, mostly for establishing shots but also when the drama got most intense or otherwise warped. The slant mirrored the oddness we felt, playing voyeur to our most famous Americans' lives, and it set the tone for the high drama, and melodrama, that became the focus of these stories. But Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney--who last played house in the 'oh my god I'm flying to Los Angeles I'll watch anything' Nanny Diaries-- will both surely be adding Emmys (Emmies?) to their already crowded mantles. But I also suspect that Stephen Dillane will have many doors opened to him on the basis of his portrayal of Thomas Jefferson, having stolen every scene every time.

These episodes served as interesting contrast to two other presidential depictions I've seen in the past few days. The first was a painted portrait of Hillary Clinton, which displayed the Senator and former first lady bare-shouldered, sitting in a bathtub, staring straight at us, while the artist, in self-portrait, sat equally naked next to her, but in profile, looking at the candidate with inquisitive wonder. A friend's friend had purchased the painting from the painter for $1000. It was definitely a conversation piece.

The portrait of Barack Obama I saw under an overpass in Philadelphia, a spray-painted, half-reverse silhouette of the Senator in his true form: jacket off, sleeves rolled up, one hand clutching a microphone, another extended in explanation. His hands and face were black, but his white shirt was simply the color of the concrete, with only a slender black chord extending from the ground to the microphone.

It seems odd that Mr. Arugala should be the one in spray-paint, tucked away at the place of least inspiration, offering quiet comfort to a crumbling city, whereas Ms. Gas-Tax-Holiday should be the one for whom an ivy-league artist would dedicate her summer holiday. It just goes to show how warped of a narrative we receive from the media, who, as far as I can tell, run cover stories based solely on how clever of a cover the graphics compartment can dream up. Is Barack Obama doing so well in cities not just because of upscale liberals and african-americans, or because his message really resonates with the urban poor and disenfranchised in a way that doesn't translate, yet, with rural voters? Is Hilary doing so well with older females not only because she is an older female herself but because she generates the most trust among a voting bloc that consistently views the issues of national security, economics, and environment as paramount? Can newsweek stop reprinting the same old polls?