Unsubbed. Clearly you know nothing about history. What really happened was that Benjamin Franklin smote the ground, and out sprang George Washington, fully grown and on his horse. Franklin then electrified them with his miraculous lightning rod and the three of them - Franklin, Washington, and the horse - conducted the entire Revolution all by themselves.
John Cullum as Edward Rutledge singing “Molasses to Rum to Slaves” in the film is nothing short of magnificent. I’ve watched it a gazillion times & have yet to get tired of it.
No mention of the fact that "1776" was almost entirely the work of songwriter Sherman Edwards, who wrote no other works for musical theater or the stage. Edwards was a high school history teacher who gave that up to pursue a career as a jazz pianist, with considerable success, playing with the likes of Louis Armstrong, Tommy Dorsey and Benny Goodman. Sherman wrote a handful of hit songs in the 1950s and 60s but found himself at odds with the emerging genre of rock & roll in popular music and quit songwriting to pursue his concept for a musical about the nation's founding. He did the research, wrote the dramatic treatment, the lyrics and the music. It was a hit and an extraordinary personal achievement. 1776 won three Tony Awards, including best musical and ran for more than 1,200 performances. In 1972 Warner Brother made the musical 1776 into a movie. For the movie, Jack Warner eliminated the song "Cool, Cool Considerate Men" at the insistence of then-President Richard Nixon who objected to the song's portrayal of conservatives as self-serving, power-hungry opponents of the nation's independence. Sherman Edwards died in 1981. He was 61. 1776 was revived on Broadway in 1997.
While Jack Warner did in fact produce this film, it was made for and distributed by Columbia Pictures. Exteriors were shot at the Warner Ranch in Burbank, California, the former Columbia Pictures backlot, where they built an entire street of Colonial Philadelphia. Sony, parent company of Columbia Pictures (although not at the time) financed the first restoration effort for release on LaserDisc. After their release, Columbia Pictures also released this restored version on LaserDisc, which runs approx. 3 minutes longer than the current Director's Cut. For example, the Richard Lee song is longer in that version. I own both LaserDisc releases. I also own it on DVD, although I still need to get the blu-Ray release.
@@cessnaace I really wish that with all they restored to the Director's Cut, they'd restored the tag-end of "The Lees Of Old Virginia." I don't know why they thought three more minutes wasn't worth adding in.
Learning that Edwards was a jazz pianist explains why he roped in Eddie Sauter--a prominent jazz arranger--to do the orchestrations. IMO, Edwards, Sauter, and bookwriter Peter Stone did absolutely incredible work on this show and are the reasons it's so good.
Yes! Honestly, the 1997 revival on Broadway was the FIRST show I ever saw on the Great White Way. I was a theatre major at Eastern Michigan University, and we went as a group to spend New Years in New York and see shows. I was the only one out of the group who saw '1776'. It was starring Brent Spiner as Adams (I knew he was on Broadway before in the original company of "Sunday in the Park with George" but I really was a fan of his character Data, from Star Trek the Next Generation.) Was NOT familiar with the show beforehand, but it did instill me with a sense of patriotism by the end of it, and I learned a few things (and yes, I realize timelines were skewed, and people were omitted from the scenes in Congress (like Sam Adams), but Sherman Edwards DID capture the feeling of it I fully believe. It was a few years later that I actually got to ACT in a production of this, in Ann Arbor, MI. at the Michigan Theatre with an amazing group of actors and I played Roger Sherman, the delegate from Connecticut. We discussed the things that were 'made up for the sake of drama' parts of the show, but overall it was one of the best experiences i've had in my life to get to do this, and it's all because i got to see it professionally done :)
I'm so happy to see this. 1776 is my favorite musical. I always attributed Adams being portrayed as "obnoxious and disliked" to the film taking his point of view--and he certainly had insecurities about how others viewed him. The amalgamation viewing is a new-to-me take, and I rather like it!
As a teacher, sadly, I concede we mess up with details regarding the Revolution. However, I would say two mild, half-hearted defenses that 1.) we're given standards to follow from state departments of education and 2.) many teachers don't have as much time to give the thorough time to give these details in class with a crazy amount of additional work to put into jobs. For the latter excuse, that's on us and with time management. For the former, blame the legislatures and the departments of education for each state. Elections matter! Awesome review though!
You got standards from the state? When I was hired as teacher (back in the dark ages of the early 90's when Dinosaurs walked the earth) , My advisor threw a copy of the text book at me and told me ,I need to have two week worth of lectures ready to go in advance . That was all the advice and standards I got. I became known as the hardest teacher in the school. A vice principle who review my teaching one time told me "It a High School class, not a College Class" . But the Students who went on to College , would come back and thank me. They knew how to write a term paper with footnotes and how to answer a essay question in a exam.
@@unclepatrick2 the guidelines for Texas teachers are the TEJS, which provide guidelines and a framework, but also restrictions, meaning teachers are often at the whims of the state politicians’ grandstanding. One of the most recent problems being passed down the line was that the whole “critical race theory” craze had the state legislature passing a law that severely limited teachers’ ability to teach history, as well as prohibiting them from giving credit for political participation (students writing letters to their representatives, for example), and - in the words of my mother, a high school history and government teacher - “preventing us from teaching critical thinking.” Another issue is this “parental rights movement” arguing that parents don’t have influence over what their children are taught (again, complete bullshit), causing two bills, HB 1525 and SB No. 9, which meant schools had to get express permission from parents to teach sex ed (HB 1525) and topics like human trafficking, sexual abuse, and familial abuse (SB No. 9). I repeat: schools now have to get students’ *families’* permission to teach them what to do if they’re being abused *by their family* and how to recognize it. Ugh…
@@mirzaahmed6589 I sometime make spelling mistakes . Especially when I type on my iPad. That why I did not hold spelling errors against my students when I graded their papers .
The comment about the heat in the room rang very true. I live in Philadelphia and this summer my AC broke. Imagine the founding fathers in that portrait at Independence Hall in the blazing summer heat of 1776, wearing multiple layers and long wool jackets with no AC, surrounded by candles and fires. It must have been insane trying to think straight let alone be drunk and debate.
My college roommate introduced me to this musical and I loved it. It has become a yearly tradition for me to watch it (this year was a bit different). Even as a historian, it’s something I recognize, but put on the back burner and enjoy for its own merits.
I think it really depends on how such a story presents itself... when it announces "historical accuracy" but doesn't deliver it deserves a scathing reception, but when it's for a light hearted vessel like an upbeat musical it can hardly be faulted for SOME well "lee way"...
He'll do movies but not TV. He's said so a bunch of times. A movie is, what, 90 or 120 minutes. John Adams is 500 minutes. It's at least 4 times the work.
The ending in the film is my favorite interpretation of the signing. When the delegates signed, they were still waiting for Admiral Howe's attack on New York as his army had landed on Staten Island on July 2nd and the discordant notes play up the finality that A) They'd just signed their names and committed treason and B) Washington's army was facing a vastly superior force and the outcome of that battle might determine whether their independence could be achieved or go down in complete failure.
This has always been one of my favorite movies. I grew up on it and my father and grandfather played Hancock and Witherspoon in the same production in 1996. This will always have a special place in my heart. BTW, I got a chuckle every time you used the "Lee" joke. A thoroughLEE enjoyable video.
I watch this every chance I get. The one glaring alteration in this movie was James Wilson. They make him to be a dithering character who changes sides at the end, but the reality was he was always for independence and even wrote articles supporting it. However, I do like the aspect how one vote could have prevented the Declaration of Independence from being adopted. I don't think we give our founders the credit they deserve. We're so ready to criticize them for being men who lived in their time when we expect them to be men of our time. The country we have is because of what these "drunk lawyers" made it, and hopefully it will remain so.
Also, how do we know they were drunk? Lots of alcoholic beverages were essentially water mixed with booze because that was one you make water less dangerous to drink. There wasn't as much of a line between alcoholic and non alcoholic beverages because of this.
@@PJDAltamirus0425 Very good point considering that water was not always considered safe to drink at the time. In fact Taverns were often places where town meetings took place and I believe taverns were also rallying points for the militias during the Revolution. According to one show about alcohol in American history the term "short beer" was actually a beer for children during that time likewise because the water wasn't safe.
@@PJDAltamirus0425 per-person alcohol consumption was much higher then on average than it is today, and while limited availability of safe drinking water did likely have something to do with that, it was not the only reason; there were also cultural and economic factors. While alcohol was frequently diluted when simply being used as a source of hydration, it was also frequently drunk undiluted and in copious quantities for recreational purposes. I don't know if most of the Founders would have been considered drunkards (at least problematically so) by the standards of the time, but certainly by modern standards they were quite heavy drinkers.
@@nateyerruedinger-quispe2362 You forget it was also a source of cheap calories. Farm workers drank of bear for energy and cus bear lasts longer before going than raw grain or bread. Also, not sure becuase even though social views on alcohol comsumption has changes and masking drunkeness is a think, human bodies haven't changed. Our founding fathers weren't all massive bememoths or Winston churchills with high body mass... if they were heavy drinkers.. .... the Russian stereotype.... there would be evidence in paintings, writing, skeletal remains.
@@PJDAltamirus0425 paintings aren't necessarily always reliable. They give us some information certainly, but they are also generally an idealized representation of their subject. Unless a person drank an abnormal amount for the time in which they lived, it is unlikely that others would have found their drinking noteworthy enough to mention in writing. Even if a person is accused of being a drunkard in contemporary writing, the source of the charge needs to be considered as the Founders were not above using some pretty nasty smears to attack their political opponents. Nevertheless it is worth noting if the charge is common; for example, Franklin Pierce's copious drinking is well documented in primary sources, and there is no question that even for the time in which he lived he drank more than was typical. By today's standards he would likely be considered a raging alcoholic, and if I recall correctly his death was likely related to his alcoholism. Also, while body mass is an important factor in metabolization of alcohol, human beings are capable of building up some tolerance to alcohol, so the amount a person is in the habit of drinking is absolutely relevant to the discussion of how they will hold their liquor. Just because the Founders didn't look like Russian bodybuilders doesn't mean they weren't capable of drinking quantities of alcohol which we today might find shocking. EDIT: I had originally referenced John Tyler's alcoholism, this was in error. The president I was thinking of was Pierce.
There was a class trip we took on several school busses to go see this in neighboring suburban town west of Philly. I was a teen (mostly just happy for the morning out of classes!) at the time but came to love it immensely over the years. It's my Independence Day watching tradition. I also love the acting of its players, the clever lyrics, the familiar faces (over time), etc. It's a national treasure!
I recently showed this to my daughter...she asked me all the time to watch it..its my favorite musical..... Now we are at the grocery store signing the songs as we shop. Great musical.
@@gumgumdookuin7963 but what is a government than an institution to create and enforce laws? And by nature you would want experts on defining and interpreting laws to advise the lawmakers.
Inaccuracies like no mention of Robert Morris ? Washington offered Morris the office of Secretary of Treasury and Morris turned it down. Morris was the person that suggested Hamilton to Washington for that job.
I have been involved in Community Theater since I was 18, I'm currently 57, and the highlight of my stage "career" was getting to play John Adams back in 1996. Such a powerful role. I would Love the chance to reenact once again.
I love this movie and could quote most of it in middle school. (I was a weird kid.) I was so interested in John Dickinson and the portrayal of him as completely opposed to independence, but then willing to go serve in the Continental Army, that I wrote my senior thesis on him. The movie doesn't do him justice. He is fascinating.
It's long out of print, of course, but the libretto for the musical was published back in the day, and included a lengthy afterword from the authors about what sort of things they changed and why they did it - including blending John and Sam Adams into one character, having Martha Jefferson come up to Philly, placing the debate over the wording of the Declaration before the vote on independence instead of after, and so on. It's quite informative, and I recommend tracking down a copy to anyone who wants to analyze the show in depth.
The writers worked directly from transcriptions of the Continental Congressional sessions. They said the actually left out a line about "if we don't settle the slavery issue now there will surely be war over this a hundred years hence" because they were sure the audience would consider it unbelievably prescient while in fact, that's what they actually said.
There are two other things on the subject that are really good .. John Adams miniseries on HBO showed the politicking involved in the Congress and later in France and the Netherlands. It shows Dickinson was a Quaker. the But my favorite is TURN: Washington’s spies and it follows the Culper rings/army battles. Both are really good.
Turn was a lot of fun, a few. Inaccuracies but they were generally minor. I also enjoyed seeing a spy show set in a period that wasn’t WWII or the Cold War.
Found your channel because I LOVE this show. Played Abigail in it. The men in the cast have ALL the work, rehearsals, etc. Outstanding roles to play and so great to hear that language and music daily for a good six weeks of a four, rehearsals, and three, performances - in old Virginia, to boot..
@Gabi Vermes - Unless you’re underage or in a country that doesn’t import it, give it a try. :-) I quit drinking about a year and a half ago, but it´s pretty good. It’s what started the US on the “craft beer” trend.
Family went to Colonial Williamsburg years ago, got into a side conversation with a reenactor, He claimed that take out the music, and some of the comedy and it was fairly accurate. At least in overall spirit of the event. As an aside I really tire of people condemning our forefathers by our standards today. They were a product of their times and deserve to be viewed in that light. And yes they were lawyers, educated in British law, and mostly self taught, they read the law not taught the law, also most read Greek and Latin again many self taught. My favorite movie period.
Like you, I love this musical and at the same time recognize its flaws. I agree that what it got right (the complexity of slavery, including the complicity all colonies had in the slave trade) outweighs the errors, after all it is a musical and not a history text. The flaws can be used as a starting point to find out more about what did happen. It also is an accurate portrayal of the compromises that are necessary to achieve desired ends. “We’re not demigods.”
William Daniels again played John Quincy Adams in the PBS production The Adams Chronicles that I have not seen sense it was originally aired in 1976. I liked it at the time (I was a mere 21 years old then and very much impressionable) and have been a fan of William Daniels ever sense because of it.
I saw this movie in its first release in 1972 (worked at the theatre at the time), and watched it over and over again from the wings, as it did not do very well that year. "Molasses to Rum" just stunned what audience there was every time. "For the love of God, Mister Rutledge, please..." When they came out, it was all they could talk about. Me, I loved the movie so much that I asked the projectionist if I could record the sound from the headphone jack in the booth. He let me, and I memorized every moment of that movie and wore the cassette tapes out until first I bought the VHS and then the DVD. And then, yes, the Blu-Ray. Definitely my favorite musical of all time.
Our 7th grade class saw it in the local movie theater during school hours, special showing during the original run. We all cheered for the local (Connecticut) rep, Roger Sherman, yet the loudest cheers at the end were directed at John Adams. I've since seen it performed at a local college, and witnessed the same reaction from an older audience, 50 years removed. For those who are interested in more about John and Abigail Adams I'd recommend the novel Those Who Love.
Wow--an excellent analysis! In school, I had to do a term-long research paper consulting the various primary source and secondary source documents (as well as the popular history) concerning the Second Continental Congress and the events surrounding the promotion of the Declaration of Independence. My major popular source was the script of the stage version of 1776 (I'd seen the play, but the film was still in production at the time). You cover the various inconsistencies of the play with the actual history so very well and take appropriate pains to demonstrate how inconsequential most of them are. The play was superior to the film, but the film is really worth seeing--more than once. You must know the story of how Richard Nixon told Jack L. Warner to cut the Cool Considerate Men sequence from the film for fear it would offend the southern conservatives he courted throughout his Presidency. I am grateful that it has been restored in the DVD release of the film. Thank you for the well-produced video.
I really like the ending of this movie/musical. The bell, and music adds like a sense of dread and tension as the founding fathers sign the declaration. Hinting at what's already transpired and what's to come, knowing full well at the fact that they have each committed treason against the crown by having their signatures on the document.
Easily one of my favorite movies. Was first introduced to it in sixth grade when my teacher showed us the song about the Triangle Trade. After that class I went to the library and checked out the VHS (Yes, I'm old. Get off my lawn!).
Your comments on Richard Henry Lee's portrayal put me in mind of a trip I took to Williamsburg, VA, some years ago. There was an actor playing Patrick Henry (who was a cousin of Richard's) giving little presentations about his time and those around him. He also mentioned "prophetic visions" he'd had of things that were to come. One of them was of the disservice done to his cousin in a "film, I believe they're called" named 1776. "They make him out to be some sort of mad peacock! Nothing could be further from the truth...my cousin was never anything but a modest gentleman." (Well, sure, Patrick, but modest gentlemen don't get showstoppers. I understand that Lee's song was so flamboyant and outrageous because the writers knew there wasn't going to be another song for some twenty-five minutes, so they gave us a bit of excess to tide us over.)
This is very much a guilty pleasure. I watch it at least once every two years. And in certain situations I'll respond to something by saying "never!" And think about Adams as he storms out of the room while shouting that.
I do believe one of the reasons they gave for adding Martha to add another female into the story. That and it prevented Batman from Killing Thomas Jefferson.
I love this movie and the stage musical. I think if they kept "Cool, Cool Considerate Men" in the original theatrical release it would have been a bit better recieved (it was removed by Jack Warner at the suggestion of Richard Nixon since he saw it as critical of the Republican party and Conservatism in general.) Being an actor and a former historical interpreter (I worked at the Boston Tea Party Ships and Museums for 2 years) I can appreciate the theatrical side of constructing a story such as this but I also understand the complaints of those who wanted a more apt historicaly accurate piece. When it comes to the story of getting the vote on Independence passed it always seems the creators want a villain for the piece. Since the main one's are 3000 miles away they usually settle on Dickinson (the John Adams miniseries is guilty of this as well but they don't make him nearly as nasty as this musical.) The addition of Martha Jefferson was likely the creators wanting another woman in the show for another number (I recommend hearing Betty Buckley's "He Plays the Violin" from the original Broadway cast album.) I understand what many see as inexucable inaccuracies of the show by today's standards (and by the standard 50 years ago) but it doesn't take away any of my love for the show as well. If anything it made my love for history grow and pushed me to learn more about it. One of these days I'd love to see you do an episode on the Richard Harris/Alec Guiness epic Cromwell.
(it was removed by Jack Warner at the suggestion of Richard Nixon since he saw it as critical of the Republican party and Conservatism in general.) I saw 1776 in Middle School and afterwards the teacher gave a talk about how much better the USA was than the Soviet Union because for all our faults the government doesn't interfere in cultural expression. Oh the irony.
How about a more historically accurate version of this musical as a TV series? There's no reason why everything must be once done and finished. Neglected bits could be put in with new music and songs. Even George III could be shown singing Rule Britannia to Parliament, sort of like this th-cam.com/video/Sgd9nYqVz2s/w-d-xo.html
@@stanleyrogouski The government didn't force anyone to do anything in terms of 1776. Nixon asked a personal favor of Jack Warner. Now you could find recent examples of the fed gov infringing on free speech.
As you said, the film is a musical; it's not supposed to be a serious portrayal of history, and so I am tolerant of its inaccuracies. I am impressed by how they made John Adams the central character and showed how important he was to the revolution.
We were taken to see it as a fifth grade field trip when it first came out. I loved it. I wanted to play John Adams, but ended up singing Molasses to Rum to Slaves, He Plays the Violin, and Mama Look Sharp when I was in drama school.
I also saw it that way, but it was a parochial school. Even though they were MARRIED, every time there was a sexual joke about Thomas and Martha Jefferson, the students would laugh and the teachers would cringe!
@@Oppeldeldoc1 mama look sharp one was for me one of the better number is it captivating. Personally about the sexual jokes i always get a good chuckle when frankling bring up he meeting a friend but talking maker her nervous
The Triangle Trade song really freaked my wife out then she first saw it. She did not know about it and I got to put my historical nerd hat on to talk about it with her.
Thank you Cynical. I know at times I might have been a little impatient but I truly love this movie and I'm shocked that no one Not even Musical channels and fans have never heard of it. It is what made me a history buff today and I look forward to watch it every 4th of July. Thank you for your review and helping raising awareness to this Masterpiece that I think is way better than Hamilton. Also on director's commentary the director said the lyrics left and right had nothing to do with political parties but the votes on the board when a colony voted yay the colony vote went to the left side of the board, When a colony voted nay the colony vote went to the right side of the board and they're trying to to stay on the right side of the board and never to the left.
Love this musical. It was one of the things that got me into history as a kid. Despite it's inaccuracies, I think that's the benefit in movies/shows/musicals like this. Also, Wilson is just horrible.
I saw the show on Broadway and then, some time after that, the film, and loved them both. In spite of some of the inaccuracies, both transported the feeling that the "Founding Fathers" were real people: politicians, land-owners, very individual personalities, and some of them were genuine a-holes. Combined with the fantastic music, it was its own little perfection. Today, the polyester costume colors and the anachronistic hairstyles of the female characters plus the almost Disney squeaky-clean outdoor scenes are irritating, but the songs and the portrayals remain. Anybody thinking of maybe remaking the film with genuine period costumes and Philadelphia grit and grime? (PS I'll take back the "polyester". Looking again, the men's costumes are, indeed, the appropriate natural fibers.)
My favorite musical of all time and one of my three favorite movies. My wife and I watch it every July 4th. Yes, there are a lot of problems with historical accuracy...artistic livense...this is entertainment. Great fun with at least a background of what went on we don't hear about in class. It's a must see for everyone. Absolute...Lee.
I first saw this at the end of 5th grade when we had a field trip to a local movie theater when he was re-released in 1976 and have loved it ever since
As for the addition of Martha Jefferson, it is a decent "Hollywood" way to get a second female character on screen. She is historical, their romance is portrayed accurately, and it allows for diversity of characters without it being made up pandering
Count me in as one of the lovers of this show. Saw a stage production in Detroit - loved it. Bought a book of the songs for piano so very aware of "Cool, cool, considerate men ... ". I have a degree in hustory so i had done some research into accuracies. Found a few but still enjoyed the music. Loved Howard de Silva. My hubby not a history fan but he did learn to appreciate Ben Franklin. Biggest disappointment was finding out true character of James Wilson. Had loved the ending but said to myself - that's Hollywood! Try to watch the dvd on the 4th every year.
I love this movie. It's up there with the Music Man in terms of musical comedies. I think they do history justice and one should not take it AS as history lesson, but a work of art.
Thanks CH, I was overseas and didn't see the whole thing, though I saw/heard a few parts. I thought it was silly and dismissed it, but you have showed me that there is some value. My method of waging Righteous Constitutional War is to use dry quotes of the founders in the original 18th Century English. Using one of these songs is probably more palatable to ears younger than mine. Another excellent video, so do keep up the good work.
I read the musical's book in high school--three years before the film was made. And when it was released, I LOVED the casting of Howard Da Silva to play Franklin; Da Silva was one of the actors who were caught up in the Hollywood "blacklist" against liberal (meaning Communist) activists in the 50s. Vindication must have been sweet!
It should be recognized that the HBO series was a serious endeavor with critical backing from some noted historians. And 1776 was just a fun musical that took liberties with the story in order to make it fun to watch.
I love the movie too. It tells certain parts of history that doesn't get mentioned like the part about Jefferson's anti slave trade clause. And the part about the bell being rung as they signed the Declaration, I always thought it signified that they were signing their own death warrent, because the scene seems rather funeral like. Also just curious what editing software do you use?
Honestly, the historical tweaks add drama to the story. It's more fun to sing about Jefferson having writer's block because he wants to see his wife than it is to just say he went back to his hotel and wrote up a really wordy declaration. I also feel like part of the goal with movies like that is to make some sort of commentary on the period in which it's released. That could also be the reason for a lot of the fabrications.
It's telling that several members of the Massachusetts delegation were also against the Slavery Clause in real life: it was contrary to their own economic interests. It's also telling that I wouldn't either know or care about that fact if I didn't see 1776 as a teenager in the 1970s.
I Forgot a saw this as a kid, til the Turkey/Eagle punchline, which I loved as a kid. It probably let me hold patriotic innocence a few more years. While seeing it later, with more history, timely commentary and subtext understanding, might explain my present position as a dirty Commie from American Cloth. Tom Paine for the win. Or loss, depending on who's asking, I reckon. Good Vid Cy, keep em coming.
When Franklin talked about the militia, I felt that the term rag-tag implied their lack of training and effectiveness, hence the glee that they were able to finally do something in unison and shoot effectively.
i was so worried that you were going to ruin a childhood favorite of mine. In middle school we put this musical on. I got to play Stephen Hopkins. But love your review. Thank you!
Historical inaccuracies and exaggerations aside I think 1776 is an exceptionally good film. I am not the biggest fan of musicals and usually find the songs a dead point and bring the story a screeching halt. It does happen in this film, but for the most part the songs are catchy and add something of value to the story. I got to see this as a kid when we were taken to the Roger Sherman theatre in New Have, Connecticut. I'm fuzzy on the time. It couldn't have been on its initial release in '72. I would have been 8 at the time. Perhaps it was a special screening in honor of the Bicentennial. I loved it and was very absorbed in this story of how the Declaration of Independence was created. Unfortunately it didn't spur any greater desire to learn more about this era of American history until many decades later. But as I grew older I realised that films were seldom historically correct and oftentimes distorted the reality to more exciting and entertaining for a modern audience. I understand that going in and enjoy the film as nothing more than an entertainment. If I want the true history there is no shortage of books and documentaries on the subject. I personally don't take this films and their inaccuracies too seriously. I learned my lesson from the Oliver Stone film JFK not to take these films as gospel fact and that they all engage in varying degrees of distortion, exaggerations, and in many cases just outright lies. The historical records of 1776 are spotty and incomplete, but Hollywood is more than willing to fill in those gaps. Howard Da Silva and William Daniels are outstanding.
I've loved this musical for years, and watch it every Independence Day. Come to find out recently that I am actually a cousin (many generations removed) of Richard Henry Lee and his brother, Francis Lightfoot Lee. I will never listen to the "Lees of Old Virginia" the same way ever again. (My husband STILL hasn't stopped making Lee puns.)
Always thought it was strange that this musical focused on John Adams, yet his cousin Sam was completely absent from the story. As a musical and feature film, you have to economize some characters and events to fit the format, but it alters the story. Not only was he important to the events leading up to 1776, but some say he had a certain psychological hold over his younger cousin--and a willingness to thereby manipulate him. Also, the 2 were on opposite positions on the Boston Massacre 6 years earlier. Samuel was energized, thinking the sensational murders would spark the revolution he had been dying for, only for it to lead to...nothing, essentially. John, meanwhile, represented the British army officers in the subsequent trial. Which can be cited as a reason not every Massachusetts patriot and Tory would like him.
I actually tend to look at this musical as remarkable in how much it got _right._ Some modifications are inevitable when it comes to dramatizing history in a way that is both informative and entertaining. It presented the concerns and tensions of the time well, even if the characters are not completely true to life. Those concerned about accuracy will do their own research.
13:44 I've gotta challenge you on that point. "Lawyer" is, in fact, a grave insult within the legal profession. Why, no lawyer would dare introducing themselves as a lawyer in polite society without couching it in a lame lawyer joke.
I really liked this movie from the first time I saw it... I also appreciate how you worked in a note about Woodrow Wilson (may he rot in hell), not that I have anything personal against the guy!
I saw this on tv numerous years ago and it was fascinating to see founding fathers quibble with eachother over independence and forming a union of states .Like politicians quibble today
Unsubbed. Clearly you know nothing about history. What really happened was that Benjamin Franklin smote the ground, and out sprang George Washington, fully grown and on his horse. Franklin then electrified them with his miraculous lightning rod and the three of them - Franklin, Washington, and the horse - conducted the entire Revolution all by themselves.
I heard that before shooting lightning, Ben Franklin hit Down, Forward, Upper Cut although I can't find a primary source unfortunately.
Hey its that guy... the Checkmate King Philip guy...
... I like it!
Crossover!!!! Crossover!!! Crossover!!!!
Atun-Shei Films so will you cover 1776 in order to teach the masses the truth?
"I've come to the conclusion that one useless man is a disgrace. Two are a law firm, and three or more become a Congress."-John Adams "1776"
The first meme?
He not wrong. xD
very true, so true.God bless you.
Adams was the real father of the country. There would be no USA if it wasn't for him.
And By God I have had this Congress...
Imagine if the turkey became the national bird. The Philadelphia Eagles would be the Philadelphia Turkeys
Let's start the petition to change the name, LOL
Well Washington still needs a new name right? Washington Turkeys anyone??
With the way Washington and Philly have been playing either of them deserve the turkey moniker.
Well, there fans are turkeys.
So, basically no difference from how it ended up.
John Cullum as Edward Rutledge singing “Molasses to Rum to Slaves” in the film is nothing short of magnificent. I’ve watched it a gazillion times & have yet to get tired of it.
Totally agree!
No mention of the fact that "1776" was almost entirely the work of songwriter Sherman Edwards, who wrote no other works for musical theater or the stage. Edwards was a high school history teacher who gave that up to pursue a career as a jazz pianist, with considerable success, playing with the likes of Louis Armstrong, Tommy Dorsey and Benny Goodman. Sherman wrote a handful of hit songs in the 1950s and 60s but found himself at odds with the emerging genre of rock & roll in popular music and quit songwriting to pursue his concept for a musical about the nation's founding. He did the research, wrote the dramatic treatment, the lyrics and the music. It was a hit and an extraordinary personal achievement. 1776 won three Tony Awards, including best musical and ran for more than 1,200 performances.
In 1972 Warner Brother made the musical 1776 into a movie. For the movie, Jack Warner eliminated the song "Cool, Cool Considerate Men" at the insistence of then-President Richard Nixon who objected to the song's portrayal of conservatives as self-serving, power-hungry opponents of the nation's independence.
Sherman Edwards died in 1981. He was 61. 1776 was revived on Broadway in 1997.
While Jack Warner did in fact produce this film, it was made for and distributed by Columbia Pictures. Exteriors were shot at the Warner Ranch in Burbank, California, the former Columbia Pictures backlot, where they built an entire street of Colonial Philadelphia. Sony, parent company of Columbia Pictures (although not at the time) financed the first restoration effort for release on LaserDisc. After their release, Columbia Pictures also released this restored version on LaserDisc, which runs approx. 3 minutes longer than the current Director's Cut. For example, the Richard Lee song is longer in that version. I own both LaserDisc releases. I also own it on DVD, although I still need to get the blu-Ray release.
@@cessnaace I really wish that with all they restored to the Director's Cut, they'd restored the tag-end of "The Lees Of Old Virginia." I don't know why they thought three more minutes wasn't worth adding in.
I love this move and have since the 80s.
Learning that Edwards was a jazz pianist explains why he roped in Eddie Sauter--a prominent jazz arranger--to do the orchestrations. IMO, Edwards, Sauter, and bookwriter Peter Stone did absolutely incredible work on this show and are the reasons it's so good.
Yes! Honestly, the 1997 revival on Broadway was the FIRST show I ever saw on the Great White Way. I was a theatre major at Eastern Michigan University, and we went as a group to spend New Years in New York and see shows. I was the only one out of the group who saw '1776'. It was starring Brent Spiner as Adams (I knew he was on Broadway before in the original company of "Sunday in the Park with George" but I really was a fan of his character Data, from Star Trek the Next Generation.) Was NOT familiar with the show beforehand, but it did instill me with a sense of patriotism by the end of it, and I learned a few things (and yes, I realize timelines were skewed, and people were omitted from the scenes in Congress (like Sam Adams), but Sherman Edwards DID capture the feeling of it I fully believe. It was a few years later that I actually got to ACT in a production of this, in Ann Arbor, MI. at the Michigan Theatre with an amazing group of actors and I played Roger Sherman, the delegate from Connecticut. We discussed the things that were 'made up for the sake of drama' parts of the show, but overall it was one of the best experiences i've had in my life to get to do this, and it's all because i got to see it professionally done :)
I'm so happy to see this. 1776 is my favorite musical.
I always attributed Adams being portrayed as "obnoxious and disliked" to the film taking his point of view--and he certainly had insecurities about how others viewed him. The amalgamation viewing is a new-to-me take, and I rather like it!
It's one of my favorites too
As a teacher, sadly, I concede we mess up with details regarding the Revolution. However, I would say two mild, half-hearted defenses that 1.) we're given standards to follow from state departments of education and 2.) many teachers don't have as much time to give the thorough time to give these details in class with a crazy amount of additional work to put into jobs. For the latter excuse, that's on us and with time management. For the former, blame the legislatures and the departments of education for each state. Elections matter!
Awesome review though!
You got standards from the state?
When I was hired as teacher (back in the dark ages of the early 90's when Dinosaurs walked the earth) , My advisor threw a copy of the text book at me and told me ,I need to have two week worth of lectures ready to go in advance . That was all the advice and standards I got.
I became known as the hardest teacher in the school. A vice principle who review my teaching one time told me "It a High School class, not a College Class" . But the Students who went on to College , would come back and thank me. They knew how to write a term paper with footnotes and how to answer a essay question in a exam.
@@unclepatrick2 the guidelines for Texas teachers are the TEJS, which provide guidelines and a framework, but also restrictions, meaning teachers are often at the whims of the state politicians’ grandstanding.
One of the most recent problems being passed down the line was that the whole “critical race theory” craze had the state legislature passing a law that severely limited teachers’ ability to teach history, as well as prohibiting them from giving credit for political participation (students writing letters to their representatives, for example), and - in the words of my mother, a high school history and government teacher - “preventing us from teaching critical thinking.”
Another issue is this “parental rights movement” arguing that parents don’t have influence over what their children are taught (again, complete bullshit), causing two bills, HB 1525 and SB No. 9, which meant schools had to get express permission from parents to teach sex ed (HB 1525) and topics like human trafficking, sexual abuse, and familial abuse (SB No. 9). I repeat: schools now have to get students’ *families’* permission to teach them what to do if they’re being abused *by their family* and how to recognize it. Ugh…
@@mirzaahmed6589 I sometime make spelling mistakes .
Especially when I type on my iPad.
That why I did not hold spelling errors against my students when I graded their papers .
The comment about the heat in the room rang very true. I live in Philadelphia and this summer my AC broke. Imagine the founding fathers in that portrait at Independence Hall in the blazing summer heat of 1776, wearing multiple layers and long wool jackets with no AC, surrounded by candles and fires. It must have been insane trying to think straight let alone be drunk and debate.
For a comedy it is amazingly historically accurate.
My college roommate introduced me to this musical and I loved it. It has become a yearly tradition for me to watch it (this year was a bit different). Even as a historian, it’s something I recognize, but put on the back burner and enjoy for its own merits.
Is your college roommate me? This is also my legacy among friends. 😆
I think it really depends on how such a story presents itself... when it announces "historical accuracy" but doesn't deliver it deserves a scathing reception, but when it's for a light hearted vessel like an upbeat musical it can hardly be faulted for SOME well "lee way"...
Ugly German Truths You have to treat musicals more gentlee than historical movies, it is really hard to do all the history with the musical numbers.
Oh wow you're reviewing the 1776 musical, I know what is coming soon .
Yes that's right the 2008 John Adam's HBO Miniseries
I wish! He has a rule against covering TV shows. He says it's just too much material.
@@BradyPostma wait, wut?
he'll review a 50 year old trash flick but not John Adams?
He'll do movies but not TV. He's said so a bunch of times.
A movie is, what, 90 or 120 minutes. John Adams is 500 minutes. It's at least 4 times the work.
@@Bluebelle51 trash flick? Lmao...
@@BradyPostma would still be worth breaking the rule for. It was very, very good.
The ending in the film is my favorite interpretation of the signing. When the delegates signed, they were still waiting for Admiral Howe's attack on New York as his army had landed on Staten Island on July 2nd and the discordant notes play up the finality that A) They'd just signed their names and committed treason and B) Washington's army was facing a vastly superior force and the outcome of that battle might determine whether their independence could be achieved or go down in complete failure.
Gives me goosebumps.
Which never happened!
This has always been one of my favorite movies. I grew up on it and my father and grandfather played Hancock and Witherspoon in the same production in 1996. This will always have a special place in my heart.
BTW, I got a chuckle every time you used the "Lee" joke. A thoroughLEE enjoyable video.
My mother took my sister and I to a dinner theater production in early 75.
It was the first time I saw a musical on stage.
Nice to finaLEE see you cover this film.
I adore this musical! It became my mom's and mine favorite right until she passed in 2020. All the cast have such beautiful voices!!!
I watch this every chance I get. The one glaring alteration in this movie was James Wilson. They make him to be a dithering character who changes sides at the end, but the reality was he was always for independence and even wrote articles supporting it. However, I do like the aspect how one vote could have prevented the Declaration of Independence from being adopted. I don't think we give our founders the credit they deserve. We're so ready to criticize them for being men who lived in their time when we expect them to be men of our time. The country we have is because of what these "drunk lawyers" made it, and hopefully it will remain so.
Also, how do we know they were drunk? Lots of alcoholic beverages were essentially water mixed with booze because that was one you make water less dangerous to drink. There wasn't as much of a line between alcoholic and non alcoholic beverages because of this.
@@PJDAltamirus0425 Very good point considering that water was not always considered safe to drink at the time. In fact Taverns were often places where town meetings took place and I believe taverns were also rallying points for the militias during the Revolution. According to one show about alcohol in American history the term "short beer" was actually a beer for children during that time likewise because the water wasn't safe.
@@PJDAltamirus0425 per-person alcohol consumption was much higher then on average than it is today, and while limited availability of safe drinking water did likely have something to do with that, it was not the only reason; there were also cultural and economic factors. While alcohol was frequently diluted when simply being used as a source of hydration, it was also frequently drunk undiluted and in copious quantities for recreational purposes. I don't know if most of the Founders would have been considered drunkards (at least problematically so) by the standards of the time, but certainly by modern standards they were quite heavy drinkers.
@@nateyerruedinger-quispe2362 You forget it was also a source of cheap calories. Farm workers drank of bear for energy and cus bear lasts longer before going than raw grain or bread. Also, not sure becuase even though social views on alcohol comsumption has changes and masking drunkeness is a think, human bodies haven't changed. Our founding fathers weren't all massive bememoths or Winston churchills with high body mass... if they were heavy drinkers.. .... the Russian stereotype.... there would be evidence in paintings, writing, skeletal remains.
@@PJDAltamirus0425 paintings aren't necessarily always reliable. They give us some information certainly, but they are also generally an idealized representation of their subject.
Unless a person drank an abnormal amount for the time in which they lived, it is unlikely that others would have found their drinking noteworthy enough to mention in writing. Even if a person is accused of being a drunkard in contemporary writing, the source of the charge needs to be considered as the Founders were not above using some pretty nasty smears to attack their political opponents. Nevertheless it is worth noting if the charge is common; for example, Franklin Pierce's copious drinking is well documented in primary sources, and there is no question that even for the time in which he lived he drank more than was typical. By today's standards he would likely be considered a raging alcoholic, and if I recall correctly his death was likely related to his alcoholism.
Also, while body mass is an important factor in metabolization of alcohol, human beings are capable of building up some tolerance to alcohol, so the amount a person is in the habit of drinking is absolutely relevant to the discussion of how they will hold their liquor. Just because the Founders didn't look like Russian bodybuilders doesn't mean they weren't capable of drinking quantities of alcohol which we today might find shocking.
EDIT: I had originally referenced John Tyler's alcoholism, this was in error. The president I was thinking of was Pierce.
There was a class trip we took on several school busses to go see this in neighboring suburban town west of Philly. I was a teen (mostly just happy for the morning out of classes!) at the time but came to love it immensely over the years. It's my Independence Day watching tradition. I also love the acting of its players, the clever lyrics, the familiar faces (over time), etc. It's a national treasure!
I recently showed this to my daughter...she asked me all the time to watch it..its my favorite musical..... Now we are at the grocery store signing the songs as we shop. Great musical.
I'm gonna use that as an insult from now on: Lawyer.
Landlord!
Better than "Commie."
I would never use Lawyer as a insult.
My father was a criminal defense lawyer.
He busted his rear helping people in trouble .
@@unclepatrick2 And I'm sure he did his damnest, but we all need to understand that our government replies too much on lawyers.
@@gumgumdookuin7963 but what is a government than an institution to create and enforce laws? And by nature you would want experts on defining and interpreting laws to advise the lawmakers.
Referencing Wilson, without screaming his name?!?!? WHO ARE AND WHERE IS CYPER
I guess Cypher is slowly preparing to give up on Wilson as "WORST president in history"... only in the 20th century or so...
I'm really excited that you're making a Hamilton review! I love the musical even with some of the historical inaccuracies.
I would love all the Hamilton fans to watch this, I mean this here is priceless.
Inaccuracies like no mention of Robert Morris ?
Washington offered Morris the office of Secretary of Treasury and Morris turned it down.
Morris was the person that suggested Hamilton to Washington for that job.
I have been involved in Community Theater since I was 18, I'm currently 57, and the highlight of my stage "career" was getting to play John Adams back in 1996. Such a powerful role. I would Love the chance to reenact once again.
One of the funniest historical musical ever.
Assassins was also pretty funny. Some of the people died laughing.
The first act, yes; the second act is rather dark.
I love this movie and could quote most of it in middle school. (I was a weird kid.) I was so interested in John Dickinson and the portrayal of him as completely opposed to independence, but then willing to go serve in the Continental Army, that I wrote my senior thesis on him. The movie doesn't do him justice. He is fascinating.
You weren' juat wierd, just a geek just like me!
It's long out of print, of course, but the libretto for the musical was published back in the day, and included a lengthy afterword from the authors about what sort of things they changed and why they did it - including blending John and Sam Adams into one character, having Martha Jefferson come up to Philly, placing the debate over the wording of the Declaration before the vote on independence instead of after, and so on. It's quite informative, and I recommend tracking down a copy to anyone who wants to analyze the show in depth.
The writers worked directly from transcriptions of the Continental Congressional sessions. They said the actually left out a line about "if we don't settle the slavery issue now there will surely be war over this a hundred years hence" because they were sure the audience would consider it unbelievably prescient while in fact, that's what they actually said.
I don't know where you got the idea there were transcriptions. Brief notes by some members yes, but no verbatum transcriptions.
Saw the play on Broadway, too. The ending scene still gives me chills. On Broadway, there was absolute silence at the end, then roaring applause.
There are two other things on the subject that are really good .. John Adams miniseries on HBO showed the politicking involved in the Congress and later in France and the Netherlands. It shows Dickinson was a Quaker. the
But my favorite is TURN: Washington’s spies and it follows the Culper rings/army battles. Both are really good.
Turn was a lot of fun, a few. Inaccuracies but they were generally minor. I also enjoyed seeing a spy show set in a period that wasn’t WWII or the Cold War.
@@abisarh7031 The worst part of TURN was what they did to John Graves Simcoe...because apparently you always need a "Tavington."
I LOVE this musical!! We watched it every year on July 4 when I was growing up!
Found your channel because I LOVE this show. Played Abigail in it. The men in the cast have ALL the work, rehearsals, etc. Outstanding roles to play and so great to hear that language and music daily for a good six weeks of a four, rehearsals, and three, performances - in old Virginia, to boot..
But Samuel Adams made such bloody good beer...
And hard cider!
Real, genuine question, how is Sam Adams? Is it any good?
@Gabi Vermes - Unless you’re underage or in a country that doesn’t import it, give it a try. :-)
I quit drinking about a year and a half ago, but it´s pretty good. It’s what started the US on the “craft beer” trend.
@@RobKandell Neat, thanks
"Lee" joke gets an automatic like.
Yey verilee!
Absolute-lee
Real Lee?
Well done!
Side note, this musical is played often at Fraunces Tavern in NYC. The whiskey room and museum are some of my favorite places in the city.
Family went to Colonial Williamsburg years ago, got into a side conversation with a reenactor,
He claimed that take out the music, and some of the comedy and it was fairly accurate. At least in overall spirit of the event. As an aside I really tire of people condemning our forefathers by our standards today. They were a product of their times and deserve to be viewed in that light. And yes they were lawyers, educated in British law, and mostly self taught, they read the law not taught the law, also most read Greek and Latin again many self taught. My favorite movie period.
As a reenactor, several friends and I danced and sang the Egg on the steps of Independence Hall on July 4, 1976
I'd have loved to see that!
Like you, I love this musical and at the same time recognize its flaws. I agree that what it got right (the complexity of slavery, including the complicity all colonies had in the slave trade) outweighs the errors, after all it is a musical and not a history text. The flaws can be used as a starting point to find out more about what did happen. It also is an accurate portrayal of the compromises that are necessary to achieve desired ends. “We’re not demigods.”
I just saw this right after your Hamilton review. I absolutely love this musical and just how upbeat and colorful it is.
William Daniels again played John Quincy Adams in the PBS production The Adams Chronicles that I have not seen sense it was originally aired in 1976. I liked it at the time (I was a mere 21 years old then and very much impressionable) and have been a fan of William Daniels ever sense because of it.
I saw this movie in its first release in 1972 (worked at the theatre at the time), and watched it over and over again from the wings, as it did not do very well that year. "Molasses to Rum" just stunned what audience there was every time. "For the love of God, Mister Rutledge, please..." When they came out, it was all they could talk about. Me, I loved the movie so much that I asked the projectionist if I could record the sound from the headphone jack in the booth. He let me, and I memorized every moment of that movie and wore the cassette tapes out until first I bought the VHS and then the DVD. And then, yes, the Blu-Ray. Definitely my favorite musical of all time.
Our 7th grade class saw it in the local movie theater during school hours, special showing during the original run. We all cheered for the local (Connecticut) rep, Roger Sherman, yet the loudest cheers at the end were directed at John Adams.
I've since seen it performed at a local college, and witnessed the same reaction from an older audience, 50 years removed.
For those who are interested in more about John and Abigail Adams I'd recommend the novel Those Who Love.
I think we know Cypher's favorite song from the musical.
Nah, it's gotta be "If I were a Rich Man"
@@CynicalHistorian but... but every where a-lee a-lee...
@@CynicalHistorian Wh-a-a-at‽ Not Tradition, tradition....! Hmmmm, no, that would probably be Woodrow's favorite or certainly W.J. Bryan's.
@@CynicalHistorian hey are you gonna review "The Outpost"?
@@williamt.sherman9841 halfway through editing it
Looking forward to your Hamilton review and I loved this video and this musical.
Wow--an excellent analysis! In school, I had to do a term-long research paper consulting the various primary source and secondary source documents (as well as the popular history) concerning the Second Continental Congress and the events surrounding the promotion of the Declaration of Independence. My major popular source was the script of the stage version of 1776 (I'd seen the play, but the film was still in production at the time). You cover the various inconsistencies of the play with the actual history so very well and take appropriate pains to demonstrate how inconsequential most of them are. The play was superior to the film, but the film is really worth seeing--more than once. You must know the story of how Richard Nixon told Jack L. Warner to cut the Cool Considerate Men sequence from the film for fear it would offend the southern conservatives he courted throughout his Presidency. I am grateful that it has been restored in the DVD release of the film. Thank you for the well-produced video.
I really like the ending of this movie/musical. The bell, and music adds like a sense of dread and tension as the founding fathers sign the declaration. Hinting at what's already transpired and what's to come, knowing full well at the fact that they have each committed treason against the crown by having their signatures on the document.
Easily one of my favorite movies. Was first introduced to it in sixth grade when my teacher showed us the song about the Triangle Trade. After that class I went to the library and checked out the VHS (Yes, I'm old. Get off my lawn!).
My family watches this musical on the 4th of July every year. It's a really fun tradition.
Your comments on Richard Henry Lee's portrayal put me in mind of a trip I took to Williamsburg, VA, some years ago. There was an actor playing Patrick Henry (who was a cousin of Richard's) giving little presentations about his time and those around him. He also mentioned "prophetic visions" he'd had of things that were to come. One of them was of the disservice done to his cousin in a "film, I believe they're called" named 1776. "They make him out to be some sort of mad peacock! Nothing could be further from the truth...my cousin was never anything but a modest gentleman." (Well, sure, Patrick, but modest gentlemen don't get showstoppers. I understand that Lee's song was so flamboyant and outrageous because the writers knew there wasn't going to be another song for some twenty-five minutes, so they gave us a bit of excess to tide us over.)
This is very much a guilty pleasure. I watch it at least once every two years. And in certain situations I'll respond to something by saying "never!" And think about Adams as he storms out of the room while shouting that.
I do believe one of the reasons they gave for adding Martha to add another female into the story. That and it prevented Batman from Killing Thomas Jefferson.
They should add Polly Norris Dickinson! She truly deserves a multi-medial portrait.
I love this movie and the stage musical. I think if they kept "Cool, Cool Considerate Men" in the original theatrical release it would have been a bit better recieved (it was removed by Jack Warner at the suggestion of Richard Nixon since he saw it as critical of the Republican party and Conservatism in general.)
Being an actor and a former historical interpreter (I worked at the Boston Tea Party Ships and Museums for 2 years) I can appreciate the theatrical side of constructing a story such as this but I also understand the complaints of those who wanted a more apt historicaly accurate piece.
When it comes to the story of getting the vote on Independence passed it always seems the creators want a villain for the piece. Since the main one's are 3000 miles away they usually settle on Dickinson (the John Adams miniseries is guilty of this as well but they don't make him nearly as nasty as this musical.) The addition of Martha Jefferson was likely the creators wanting another woman in the show for another number (I recommend hearing Betty Buckley's "He Plays the Violin" from the original Broadway cast album.)
I understand what many see as inexucable inaccuracies of the show by today's standards (and by the standard 50 years ago) but it doesn't take away any of my love for the show as well. If anything it made my love for history grow and pushed me to learn more about it.
One of these days I'd love to see you do an episode on the Richard Harris/Alec Guiness epic Cromwell.
(it was removed by Jack Warner at the suggestion of Richard Nixon since he saw it as critical of the Republican party and Conservatism in general.)
I saw 1776 in Middle School and afterwards the teacher gave a talk about how much better the USA was than the Soviet Union because for all our faults the government doesn't interfere in cultural expression. Oh the irony.
How about a more historically accurate version of this musical as a TV series? There's no reason why everything must be once done and finished. Neglected bits could be put in with new music and songs. Even George III could be shown singing Rule Britannia to Parliament, sort of like this
th-cam.com/video/Sgd9nYqVz2s/w-d-xo.html
@@stanleyrogouski The government didn't force anyone to do anything in terms of 1776. Nixon asked a personal favor of Jack Warner. Now you could find recent examples of the fed gov infringing on free speech.
As you said, the film is a musical; it's not supposed to be a serious portrayal of history, and so I am tolerant of its inaccuracies. I am impressed by how they made John Adams the central character and showed how important he was to the revolution.
A point for the "Wilson!" interjection :D
We were taken to see it as a fifth grade field trip when it first came out. I loved it. I wanted to play John Adams, but ended up singing Molasses to Rum to Slaves, He Plays the Violin, and Mama Look Sharp when I was in drama school.
I also saw it that way, but it was a parochial school. Even though they were MARRIED, every time there was a sexual joke about Thomas and Martha Jefferson, the students would laugh and the teachers would cringe!
@@Oppeldeldoc1 mama look sharp one was for me one of the better number is it captivating. Personally about the sexual jokes i always get a good chuckle when frankling bring up he meeting a friend but talking maker her nervous
The Triangle Trade song really freaked my wife out then she first saw it. She did not know about it and I got to put my historical nerd hat on to talk about it with her.
“Good” and “musical” rarely appear in any sentence of mine, but you did it justice.
Thank you Cynical.
I know at times I might have been a little impatient but I truly love this movie and I'm shocked that no one Not even Musical channels and fans have never heard of it.
It is what made me a history buff today and I look forward to watch it every 4th of July.
Thank you for your review and helping raising awareness to this Masterpiece that I think is way better than Hamilton.
Also on director's commentary the director said the lyrics left and right had nothing to do with political parties but the votes on the board when a colony voted yay the colony vote went to the left side of the board,
When a colony voted nay the colony vote went to the right side of the board and they're trying to to stay on the right side of the board and never to the left.
Love this musical. It was one of the things that got me into history as a kid. Despite it's inaccuracies, I think that's the benefit in movies/shows/musicals like this. Also, Wilson is just horrible.
I saw the show on Broadway and then, some time after that, the film, and loved them both. In spite of some of the inaccuracies, both transported the feeling that the "Founding Fathers" were real people: politicians, land-owners, very individual personalities, and some of them were genuine a-holes. Combined with the fantastic music, it was its own little perfection. Today, the polyester costume colors and the anachronistic hairstyles of the female characters plus the almost Disney squeaky-clean outdoor scenes are irritating, but the songs and the portrayals remain. Anybody thinking of maybe remaking the film with genuine period costumes and Philadelphia grit and grime? (PS I'll take back the "polyester". Looking again, the men's costumes are, indeed, the appropriate natural fibers.)
I love this movie and so did my 4 kids when they were growing up. It was an easy way to teach a little history.
My favorite musical of all time and one of my three favorite movies. My wife and I watch it every July 4th. Yes, there are a lot of problems with historical accuracy...artistic livense...this is entertainment. Great fun with at least a background of what went on we don't hear about in class. It's a must see for everyone. Absolute...Lee.
indubitab-lee!
I first saw this at the end of 5th grade when we had a field trip to a local movie theater when he was re-released in 1976 and have loved it ever since
As for the addition of Martha Jefferson, it is a decent "Hollywood" way to get a second female character on screen. She is historical, their romance is portrayed accurately, and it allows for diversity of characters without it being made up pandering
Count me in as one of the lovers of this show. Saw a stage production in Detroit - loved it. Bought a book of the songs for piano so very aware of "Cool, cool, considerate men ... ". I have a degree in hustory so i had done some research into accuracies. Found a few but still enjoyed the music. Loved Howard de Silva. My hubby not a history fan but he did learn to appreciate Ben Franklin. Biggest disappointment was finding out true character of James Wilson. Had loved the ending but said to myself - that's Hollywood! Try to watch the dvd on the 4th every year.
Gregg Edelman tore up the theater as Rutledge performing Molases to Rum in the 97 revival. And Brent Spiner's Adams was epic.
Growing up in the 80s, this movie was one of two dozen VHS that I watched a hundred times because that’s all I had.
I love this movie. It's up there with the Music Man in terms of musical comedies. I think they do history justice and one should not take it AS as history lesson, but a work of art.
Thanks CH, I was overseas and didn't see the whole thing, though I saw/heard a few parts. I thought it was silly and dismissed it, but you have showed me that there is some value. My method of waging Righteous Constitutional War is to use dry quotes of the founders in the original 18th Century English. Using one of these songs is probably more palatable to ears younger than mine.
Another excellent video, so do keep up the good work.
I love this musical!! Saw the Broadway touring co in ‘72 and make a point to watch the movie every 4th of July 😊
I read the musical's book in high school--three years before the film was made. And when it was released, I LOVED the casting of Howard Da Silva to play Franklin; Da Silva was one of the actors who were caught up in the Hollywood "blacklist" against liberal (meaning Communist) activists in the 50s. Vindication must have been sweet!
I get in touch with this musical due some tweet of yours. So I shall thank you for that. Great musical and great video
nice to hear. Maybe I should tweet more about good movies. Oh the Westerns I watch
I put 1776 and HBO's John Adams up there as the best on screen depictions of The political side of the American Revolution.
Turn was not a bad tv series either, was very interesting.
It should be recognized that the HBO series was a serious endeavor with critical backing from some noted historians. And 1776 was just a fun musical that took liberties with the story in order to make it fun to watch.
I love the movie too. It tells certain parts of history that doesn't get mentioned like the part about Jefferson's anti slave trade clause. And the part about the bell being rung as they signed the Declaration, I always thought it signified that they were signing their own death warrent, because the scene seems rather funeral like. Also just curious what editing software do you use?
Really enjoyed this review, I have appreciated this musical and wish I saw it sooner.
I've always loved this movie but I've never confused it with historical fact.
Honestly, the historical tweaks add drama to the story. It's more fun to sing about Jefferson having writer's block because he wants to see his wife than it is to just say he went back to his hotel and wrote up a really wordy declaration.
I also feel like part of the goal with movies like that is to make some sort of commentary on the period in which it's released. That could also be the reason for a lot of the fabrications.
Wow. I had no idea this movie existed! Watching this weekend. Thank you!
Turner Classic Movies runs it every July 4.
It's telling that several members of the Massachusetts delegation were also against the Slavery Clause in real life: it was contrary to their own economic interests.
It's also telling that I wouldn't either know or care about that fact if I didn't see 1776 as a teenager in the 1970s.
Not first, but glad to see another CH video.
I Forgot a saw this as a kid, til the Turkey/Eagle punchline, which I loved as a kid. It probably let me hold patriotic innocence a few more years. While seeing it later, with more history, timely commentary and subtext understanding, might explain my present position as a dirty Commie from American Cloth. Tom Paine for the win. Or loss, depending on who's asking, I reckon. Good Vid Cy, keep em coming.
I remember this, I had to do this musical for elementary school
Me too, I was Ben Franklin! I still sometimes sing his part at the start of "The Egg"
We did “Let George Do It” in 1976
When Franklin talked about the militia, I felt that the term rag-tag implied their lack of training and effectiveness, hence the glee that they were able to finally do something in unison and shoot effectively.
I now have a movie to watch!
Say what you will about accuracy but Lee's of old Virginia slaps
The HBO docuseries on John Adams is more accurate but compresses a lot of information
i was so worried that you were going to ruin a childhood favorite of mine. In middle school we put this musical on. I got to play Stephen Hopkins. But love your review. Thank you!
I always get him confused with the guy of the same name who was in Jamestown, went home to England, then was hired to go to Plymouth.
One of your better podcast
I fucking LOVE this movie and this musical.
Historical inaccuracies and exaggerations aside I think 1776 is an exceptionally good film. I am not the biggest fan of musicals and usually find the songs a dead point and bring the story a screeching halt. It does happen in this film, but for the most part the songs are catchy and add something of value to the story.
I got to see this as a kid when we were taken to the Roger Sherman theatre in New Have, Connecticut. I'm fuzzy on the time. It couldn't have been on its initial release in '72. I would have been 8 at the time. Perhaps it was a special screening in honor of the Bicentennial. I loved it and was very absorbed in this story of how the Declaration of Independence was created. Unfortunately it didn't spur any greater desire to learn more about this era of American history until many decades later.
But as I grew older I realised that films were seldom historically correct and oftentimes distorted the reality to more exciting and entertaining for a modern audience. I understand that going in and enjoy the film as nothing more than an entertainment. If I want the true history there is no shortage of books and documentaries on the subject. I personally don't take this films and their inaccuracies too seriously. I learned my lesson from the Oliver Stone film JFK not to take these films as gospel fact and that they all engage in varying degrees of distortion, exaggerations, and in many cases just outright lies. The historical records of 1776 are spotty and incomplete, but Hollywood is more than willing to fill in those gaps.
Howard Da Silva and William Daniels are outstanding.
After finishing the video, gotta say its great to have Cynical Historian make videoes covering stuff like this.
You made me smile at the end. Verilee.
I've loved this musical for years, and watch it every Independence Day. Come to find out recently that I am actually a cousin (many generations removed) of Richard Henry Lee and his brother, Francis Lightfoot Lee. I will never listen to the "Lees of Old Virginia" the same way ever again. (My husband STILL hasn't stopped making Lee puns.)
Always thought it was strange that this musical focused on John Adams, yet his cousin Sam was completely absent from the story. As a musical and feature film, you have to economize some characters and events to fit the format, but it alters the story. Not only was he important to the events leading up to 1776, but some say he had a certain psychological hold over his younger cousin--and a willingness to thereby manipulate him.
Also, the 2 were on opposite positions on the Boston Massacre 6 years earlier. Samuel was energized, thinking the sensational murders would spark the revolution he had been dying for, only for it to lead to...nothing, essentially. John, meanwhile, represented the British army officers in the subsequent trial. Which can be cited as a reason not every Massachusetts patriot and Tory would like him.
"The room where it happened" (allegedly)
Love the musical. Yes, there are errors.
Love Hamilton, too, in its very different way.
I actually tend to look at this musical as remarkable in how much it got _right._ Some modifications are inevitable when it comes to dramatizing history in a way that is both informative and entertaining. It presented the concerns and tensions of the time well, even if the characters are not completely true to life. Those concerned about accuracy will do their own research.
13:44 I've gotta challenge you on that point. "Lawyer" is, in fact, a grave insult within the legal profession. Why, no lawyer would dare introducing themselves as a lawyer in polite society without couching it in a lame lawyer joke.
I really liked this movie from the first time I saw it... I also appreciate how you worked in a note about Woodrow Wilson (may he rot in hell), not that I have anything personal against the guy!
'we've spawned a new race here, a new nationality'
lmao thats so accurate, americans are hispanic irish german africans
I saw this on tv numerous years ago and it was fascinating to see founding fathers quibble with eachother over independence and forming a union of states .Like politicians quibble today
I have owned this movie since vhs in every format available. It's our family movie. "Sit down John!"
According to David McCullough, Samuel Hopkins never drank during the day, unlike how his character is portrayed in the movie.