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.

I've enjoyed several earlier Merchant-Ivory films very much: Remains of the Day, Howard's End, Maurice. But this one, though it has all the same basic ingredients - director, script writer - left me flat. It moved far too slowly, and never caught me up in Jefferson the man - though I have always found Jefferson very interesting. We never see any conflict in Jefferson between his supposed vows to stay faithful to his first, deceased wife and then his feelings for either Maria Cosway or Sally Hemmings. Indeed, we really get very little sense of his feelings for Hemmings at all, and certainly they would have been complex. Nor do we ever learn why Jefferson's older daughter wants to convert to Catholicism - that, too, given her upbringing, would have caused conflicting emotions. There is also very little connect between Jefferson and the Revolution getting underway. The costumes and sets are all very beautiful, of course, and no doubt very well-researched. But I got no sense of Jefferson from this movie. (I leave to one side the issue of whether Jefferson did actually father Hemmings' children; this isn't a documentary, so that's not relevant.)

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."

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.