Sally Hemings: An American Scandal

I thoroughly enjoyed this mini series, it was very well written, entertaining and one of the best I have seen. Very historically accurate in terms of what the slaves went through and a good quality production. The entire cast are some of the most talented actors I have seen, no one was a disappointment. Carmen Ejogo portrayed Sally as an intelligent woman and was very convincing and wonderful in her part. I think we will see a lot of her in the future. Sam Neill was also wonderful-based on historical information I believe his portrayal of Jefferson was accurate. Mare Winningham was excellent as always but I enjoyed every actor down to the smallest roles. I wish there were more quality programs like this one on television. The only disappointing part was when it was over.

I wish I had run across this unheralded made-for-TV film several months ago, while I was writing a graduate-level paper on the Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings controversy. Director Charles Haid's production brings this age-old debate to life in a moving and – I believe-historically accurate manner.

Although the writing credits do not mention Barbara Chase-Riboud's 1979 novel, `Sally Hemings,' this work of inspired historic fiction seems to be the primary inspiration for Tina Andrews' screenplay. The novel, likewise, was built upon the 1974 landmark book by Fawn McKay Brodie, `Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate Portrait.' Savagely attacked by the academic elite at the time, Brodie's work was supported by Annette Gordon-Reed's `Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy' in 1996 and by DNA testing two years later. Some still refuse to believe. For the open-minded, though, Brodie and Gordon-Reed's books (which I highly recommend) painted a clear portrait, even if it may have been blurred a bit around the edges. The DNA evidence merely cemented their scholarship.

Andrews and Haid, like Chase-Riboud, Brodie and Gordon-Reed, take an even-handed, fair look at events as they may well have happened. Naturally, like Chase-Riboud's novel, this is historic fiction. Large chunks of private lives are recreated on the sparsest bits of evidence and speculation. The story, however, stands up to scrutiny as a fictitious narrative. Did Jefferson and Hemings exchange years of romantic letters, which were later destroyed? We will never know. Did Jefferson's long-term relationship with Hemings, which by its very length would seem to dispel the arguments that it was either an ongoing rape or purely a sexual relationship, affect his ideas on slavery and emancipation? We will probably never know. Does this movie paint a portrait of two very real human beings, acting and reacting as they may very well have done 200 years ago? I believe it very much does so.

This is probably not the place for an in-depth analysis of the arguments for and against the Hemings' family claims. Personally, I found in my own research that the relationship between the two seems very likely to have been real and to have been a true love story -albeit a tragic one. If one accepts the basic tenets – that Jefferson and the teenage slave became physically and emotionally involved in Paris and that they continued a somewhat secret love affair for nearly 40 years, which bore several mulatto children, then the story of Jefferson and his slaves is a particularly complex and poignant one. A true Enlightenment man, Jefferson was certainly keenly aware of the disparity between his words `all men are created equal' and other such epitaphs and his ownership of more than 100 African-American slaves.

As in the Chase-Riboud novel, Jefferson is seen as a good man, but far from perfect. Sam Neill, although his physical resemblance to the third president is slight, captures the complexity and ambiguity of this brilliant, yet tortured individual. In his heart he knows slavery is wrong, but can never bring himself to abandon his rising political star by taking such a politically suicidal stance. Later, after his wealth and influence have crumbled, he is wracked by regret for not having used his earlier power to fight slavery. At least this is Haid's take and I think it is a perfectly supportable one. Carmen Ejogo, meanwhile, is lovely and convincing as the mysterious Sally Hemings. Unlike Chase-Riboud's character, Ejogo's Sally is not sophisticated beyond all likelihood for her time and place. She could read and write French and English and obtained many of the social skills of a genteel country lady; yet she was probably not the cerebral debutant of the novel.

The rest of the cast is strong, including legendary black actress Diahann Carroll as the family matriarch, Betty Hemings, and Mare Winningham as Martha Jefferson Raldolph. While Andrews and Haid may occasionally slip into presentism and have Sally and others mouth very 2000-sounding lectures on black pride, etc., they generally avoid such temptations. The movie transports the viewer into Jefferson and Hemings' world – and into their lives as they very well may have been lived.

The belief that Thomas Jefferson had a long-standing sexual relationship with his slave Sally Hemings rests on four grounds: 1) the contemporaneous charges of journalist James Callendar, who smeared members of both political parties, sometimes truthfully and sometimes not, as his allegiances shifted. Callendar's charges were made in viciously racist terms, and they were never directly addressed by Jefferson. Callendar is strikingly portrayed as a snake by Rene Auberjonois in this film. 2) The claim of Madison Hemings, one of Hemings' sons, who first wrote that he and Hemings' other children were fathered by Jefferson in a newspaper interview and then in a short memoir, both written in the 1870's, when he himself was in his seventies, and nearly fifty years after Jefferson's death. 3) DNA testing of the lineal descendants of Eston Hemings, Sally Hemings' youngest child, that showed a familial link to a male Jefferson, but not specifically to Thomas Jefferson. 4) Timetables that show that Thomas Jefferson is the only male Jefferson who can be proved to have been at Monticello around nine months before the births of all of Sally's children. If we make the assumption that all of Sally Hemings' children had the same father, that would tend to show that Jefferson was the father of all of them. Each of these, by itself, proves nothing; even taken together they aren't conclusive proof. But they certainly are suggestive.

What is more important in judging stories about Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson is that we know practically nothing about the nature of the relationship between them. Hemings left no papers; Jefferson wrote nothing about her. Madison wrote that Sally went to France as a companion to Jefferson's daughter Maria when he was the US ambassador; that she and Maria stayed eighteen months, during which Sally became pregnant with Jefferson's child. "She was just beginning to understand the French language well, and in France she was free, while if she returned to Virginia she would be re-enslaved. So she refused to return with him. To induce her to do so he promised her extraordinary privileges, and made a solemn pledge that her children should be freed at the age of twenty-one years. In consequence of his promise, on which she implicitly relied, she returned with him to Virginia." He wrote that these promises were kept: "He (Jefferson) was not in the habit of showing partiality or fatherly affection to us children. We were the only children of his by a slave woman. He was affectionate toward his white grandchildren, of whom he had fourteen, twelve of whom lived to manhood and womanhood." He also wrote that, "We were permitted to stay about the 'great house,' and only required to do such light work as going on errands. Harriet learned to spin and to weave in a little factory on the home plantation. We were free from the dread of having to be slaves all our lives long, and were measurably happy. We were always permitted to be with our mother, who was well used. It was her duty, all her life which I can remember, up to the time of father's death, to take care of his chamber and wardrobe, look after us children and do such light work as sewing, and Provision was made in the will of our father that we should be free when we arrived at the age of 21 years."

Assuming this is all true (and the movie doesn't stick to even this much) everything else about their relationship is invented. Were Sally and Thomas tender and loving partners over several decades, was Thomas a mean and ruthless exploiter of a vulnerable slave, or did they both have what was just a practical arrangement? Nobody knows, so we all bring to their relationship our own prejudices, wishes, and hopes. It's a mirror, and what we see in it is ourselves, not any historic fact. What is written and filmed about them is a "plantation romance," whether it is of the whips and chains variety like Mandingo and parts of this movie, or whether it is more hopeful that love could overcome the institution of slavery, as are other parts of this movie.

As to the movie itself, it has a serviceable script and is well filmed by TV mini-series standards, and its four-hour length doesn't seem too long. Its main advantages are that Neill and Ejogo provide two good lead performances and that Ejogo is a world-class beauty. Its only distracting flaw is the excessive and quite noticeable make-up jobs on all the actors who are supposed to be elderly. In sum, it's worth watching if you're interested in the subject and don't think that movies tell the truth about historical characters.

This movie was not immediately something I found great. In fact, as I watched the beginning, I began to find myself laughing at the absurdity of some of the scenes... a reaction not sought after, I am sure. It wasn't awful, and it did have some good parts, but it was something out of a Harlequin romance novel, it seemed. But, as time rolled on, the movie began to unveil its value as a serious, thought-provoking, and often moving portrayal of a time when the human condition outshined the laws of the day. In the end, what made this movie work -- and it worked quite well once it got past the poorly written first scenes -- were the performances of Sam Neill, and Carmen Ejogo. It was not a surprise that Sam Neill made bad lines sound so good -- he's an extremely talented actor -- but it was a surprise to see Carmen Ejogo, a virtual unknown, act so beautifully and eloquently. She is going to be an actress to watch. Not only is she gorgeous to look at, she's talented, as well. Both actors were brilliant in their roles, and that alone makes the movie worth watching. They should be proud of the work they did.

Personally I'm tired of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, what's so shocking about a man taking a mistress whether they are white, black, purple or green. Why is Jefferson put on this golden pedestal? What's so shocking about finding out that this man ascending to heaven had flesh just like everyone else.

Personally, I came away feeling angry about the movie. Can't people to any more research than what they do? James Callender was scrupulous, yes, but he was a reporter and jailed under the Alien and Sedition Acts. He could have been reward a little from his trouble, after all Jefferson couldn't be happier when he was publishing his History of 1797 against the Federalists. If it wasn't for James Callender we probably wouldn't even be seeing this movie and the gossip that came of it would have died a gradual death. Next is Dolly Madison. Did any of those people actually look at a picture of Dolly Madison? She had black hair not red and that table scene when James Callender was asking her about her and Aaron Burr in New York. She wasn't even in New York; she was in Philadelphia burying a husband and a son from the yellow fever epidemic. There were other things I could point out as well but the average person doesn't realize the mistakes and that's what makes me so angry.

I see historical movies and how they botch things up makes me so mad and what I get angry over is the fact that people see these movies and believe what they see. They don't bother to look for themselves to find the truth.

Besides the great criticism I did enjoy Sam Neil as Jefferson I thought his manner seemed fitting, better than Nick Nolte in Jefferson in Paris. Mare Winningham was perhaps the best as Martha Jefferson constantly struggling between the duties of a mistress of the plantation, daughter to her father, and his relationship with Sally. When it was all over, it was entertaining and that is the number one motive behind this movie.