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.

Vishal Agrawal 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.

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.

Howard Sauertieg I am a fan of Ken Burns films, but "Thomas Jefferson" is probably the nadir of the talking-head living-history documentary style he favors. In many respects "Thomas Jefferson" is a beautiful film, and it is clearly the work of intelligent people. Ultimately it inspires me to visit Monticello, which is admirably photographed. It fails to answer the question it poses at the outset - whether Jefferson the lover of Liberty can be reconciled with Jefferson the Master of Slaves - and by default suggests that raising this question is the film's chief contribution to Jeffersonian discourse. It's a timely question, but it isn't new. The mood of the film is outrageously depressive, a sedate musical score of American chestnuts underscoring lethargic readings from Jefferson's writings, and images of Monticello, slaves, Jefferson (portrait), historically significant parchments, John Adams (portrait), George Washington (portrait), etc. If this film is anything specific, it is a memorial service for the myth of Jefferson. I don't like it, but I appreciate the film maker's effort and the contributions of scholars involved in the project. A related Ken Burns biographical film, "Lewis and Clark," is similar in tone but less confused and more forthright in its storytelling. See it.