Peter Stone's script is superb. One walked into the theater knowing how the show would end, but five minutes into the film--and play--one began to wonder how--and if--Independence would be achieved. Brilliant!
It's one of my favorite movie lines of all the movies I've seen. Every time I have set a long-term, meaningful goal and accomplished it, I find myself referring to this line.
Absolutely agree. One of the finest historical films ever made- it seems secondary that it's a musical- although a wonderful open at that. All American conservatives should be forced to watch this, until they finally realize that conservativism was and always has been supremely un-American. We are a nation forged by radical, erudite, well-spoken, and highly educated LIBTARDS. Those were the days...
Nonsense. These were not 'libtards' like today. These were classical Liberals in the European sense. Freedom, liberty, and dignity for the entrepreneur, small farmer and average man (however imperfectly implemented for years) was what they believed. Today's "libtards" as you call Leftists believe in none of those things and only their ridiculous bigger and bigger governments.
Every man had their flaws, but they all had qualities to be admired too. John was believing in the values that would keep a society happy and healthy, he valued respect.
And Dickinson acknowledging in his own way how he cared for America and it's well being bas much as Adams. So a mutual respect at the very end. And Dickinson was right . England and America would be reconciled and be the most important of allies in the coming centuries especially with world war 1 and 2
Dickinson was also a key instigator of the rebellion, actually. Hos "Letters from a Farmer" made clear what the colonists' issues were. He's presented here as a sort of Tory, but actually everyone in Congress was in rebellion against the Crown.
The New Hampshire delegate, who voted first for independence, was Dr. Josiah Bartlett, an ancestor of mine. He was also the second signer of the Declaration of Independence (after John Hancock).
I always say this film should be watched by anyone complaining about today's congress. It shows how hard it was to get anything done with only THIS amount of men and just the congress (only one "house" if you will).
Such brave men putting all they had on the line. I'm amazed at their tenacity and bravery to this day. It isn't the perfect system but it is the best we've got unfortunately.
I'm a handicapped person, a son of man fought in Vietnam as a Marine. Lead the way for the Tanks in Desert Storm as a US Army Combat Engineer. If i had to i die on the line to keep country free. We have issues now, But this country still has promise.
My husband and I have watched this every 4th of July since 1984. We pretty much know all the words and lyrics and say them. We also know that our Congress really hasn’t changed since 1776 except maybe more juvenile and mean.
I love the sort of stunned silence when the deed is finally done. It's more powerful, I think, than any sort of jubilant celebration would have been... especially given the 7 years of bitter conflict that would follow.
There was never a moment,” wrote John Jay Chapman, “when the slavery issue was not a sleeping serpent. That issue lay coiled up under the table during the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention in 1787.”
there were fine men working hard to eradicate it before our country was even a country. but always a few fought it; and thus in the end came the civil war
Another 4th to celebrate the birth of our country, these men put so much on the line for the chance that we experience freedom and liberty. It crushes me how too many have forgotten the risks they all took.
And now, not only are we on the verge of throwing it all away, but we're also potentially embracing something even worse than what they declared independence from.
I used to watch this picture when I was in middle school around 2001-2003, when I was in band class when we would have a substitute. I had seen it probably fifteen times throughout those years. I watched it the first few times and after that I just screwed around. I’ve seen it a few times since I’ve been an adult and I’m so grateful that I was introduced to this movie. It’s such a fantastic piece of film, history and art. This movie makes me glad to be an American.
When I was in Middle School this movie had just about come out. Our teacher got us out of school for the morning to go to the local theater to watch it for class. It was an awesome experience (and not just because we got out of school for the morning).
My band teacher (was probably in his mid-70s) showed us this movie in my 8th grade year of middle school, 2014-2015. Sadly he retired at the end of that year but I had a tremendous amount of respect for him and he taught me and others a lot of valuable life lessons.
I love that line Ben Gates delivered in "National Treasure:" "Had we lost the war, they would have been hanged, beheaded, drawn and quartered, and-Oh! Oh, my personal favorite-and had their entrails cut out and burned!!" It had to be in the back of their mind as they signed...Franklin brought that up.
How it would have worked is that they would have all been simply trundled onto a British military ship and shipped off to England never to be seen again
1776 best movie to me, seen this movie every year, on 7/4/. Actors very good who they represent of history and facts. I'm a history nut about presidents. Very historic movie. I'm crazy about it. Mrs. Allen. 💕 It.
Dickenson wasn't the DB as portrayed in the film. While not for Independence, he did do what he stated at the end and joined the fight. This confrontation never happened. During private deliberations, they came to an agreement that Dickenson would be absent that day. So while against Independence at that point and in good conscience could not vote for it, he would be conveniently absent and not stand in the way, so it was sort of a combination of what you see here, both Dickenson and Wilson, but only Dickenson actually doing it. It is a great scene. Saw the play years ago in revival with Brent Spiner as Adams, just wonderful.
True. Also, the confrontation with Rutledge did not take place during the vote. Adams and Rutledge were close friends but at odds over slavery. It took political wrangling between Rutledge, Adams, Franklin and Jefferson to secure the vote, along the lines of, as Franklin says here, “first things first”. Unfortunately.
In 1975/1976 during the Bicentennial, I was in the 5th grade in Weaver Alabama and our teachers arranged for us to go on a field trip (remember those) to see this movie at the theater. We were very excited and having a great time and then we noticed the teachers being shocked at some of the language used in the movie. All of us students thought it was funny. "Too late now" one teacher said, and we enjoyed the movie so much. If you were to show this movie today to students in school, I wonder what their reaction would be. Hard to believe we went from this great struggle for independence, to what is happening today. So sad. May the Lord Jesus save us soon!!
My kids love it and I watched it in 6th grade in 84. I own it digitally, dvd, and vhs. My friend, it's not yr Jesus but our active participation that will keep the inheritance. Everyone forgets "Of the People". Disagree with something? Get involved. Not violently. Active civic participation. It's not what they can do for us as our government, it's what we are doing for this legacy and responsibility.
It just makes me laugh with North and South Carolina, and the issue of slavery, like we would have the issues later if South Carolina's delegates kept their mouth shut. lol. I honest will always love this movie and musical was more then Hamilton
Apparently Adam's said, "There will be trouble a hundred years hence. Posterity will never forgive us." The writers decided that no one would believe he really said this, so they shortened the line.
The 1973 film starred just about the entire original Broadway cast (the only exception I think was the part of Martha Jefferson, playing onstage by Betty Buckley and on screen by Blythe Danner), so if you watch that it's pretty close to being a filmed version of the stage show. The stage version isn't produced often because the cast has about 26 male parts but only 2 female parts, so it's difficult for community theaters to put on.
@@SarahB1863 Two very important replacements are Donald Madden as Dickenson (instead of Broadway's Paul Hecht) and John Cullum as Rutledge (instead of Broadway's original Clifford David). Cullum, however, had been the third replacement Rutledge on Broadway and actually played it longer on Broadway in the original production than any other actor. I've always thought the problem of the show having an overwhelmingly male cast could be solved (or at least mitigated) by presenting "1776* in repertory with *Nine" (which is all women with only one male role). Gender blind casting offers another strategy, and as you may know there was a recent revival that featured an all-female cast.
Question: did anyone else come here after watching last Sunday's Game of Thrones episode, after the meeting with Tyrion & the slavers? For some reason, his diplomatic approach with them reminded me of this scene where Adams, Jefferson & Franklin had to choose between having a nation that (for the time being) tolerated slavery, and not having a nation at all.
I still say this flim should be played in schools now sure is probably everything in it legit probably not. But think it would show people just how hard it was, and why slaverly still happened after it. People seem to forget it wasn't like how it is now, where you don't need every vote. And something like this they needed every vote.
@@UnderseaPumaKing Yup and event hey admitted not all of it is correct, most of it they went off of letters, and stuff like that the these people wrote. But also there a lot they don't know what happened between the start and the vote so they just added some fun stuff in.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="358">5:58</a> and here we see the tragedy that is "cropped TV." When I first saw this on TV in 1975 I wondered why the heck Wilson was so low in the frame. It was another couple of decades before I saw the movie in its original aspect ratio and discovered Adams is standing to his left!
Yes. Because most scenes take place in a Congressional chamber packed with delegates, the original theatrical widescreen version of this movie is stunningly different from the 4:3 "pan and scan" version shown on TV for decades.
I would love to go back in time to 1776 and love to hear their stories and map makers from 1776 to now. Plus, I wonder if any of them had any idea or predict how America was made and completed
This can no longer be affirmed. This rangtaggled, regardless of the King's, men who sought freedom from England. Sought to bring this country to bear. God bless them
The representative that did not wish to be remembered James Wilson,from Pennsylvania did some voice work in the Star Trek the original series, and Reverend Lymon Hall was in Amadeus.
Also of note: James Noble (Rev. John Witherspoon, the lead delegate from NJ) starred on _Benson,_ and John Cullum (Edward Rutledge, the SC delegate) was on _Northern Exposure._
Historical error, both John Dickenson and James Wison were staunch supporters of independence. They both served on key committees regarding independence. Dickenson served on the second "committee of 5" charged with drafting proposed treaties to foreign powers after the declaration was made public. Wilson, who authored some of the first legal documents challenging the authority of Parliament (in the 1760s) over the colonies sans parliamentary representation was considered a legal scholar on a par with Adams and Jefferson. He was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Washington. Both of these men should be respected as leaders and founders of our nation, and certainly did not act as portrayed here.
John Dickinson served his country, but he was not a staunch supporter of independence. The day before the vote was rendered, he discoursed on the dangers of independence and democracy, that those who support it "are the promoters of slavery," that "so necessary is monarchy to cement human society together" that all democracy is doomed to end in "a state of confusion and ruin," and lead to conditions which will "annihilate liberty forever." In his last paragraph, he actually predicted the French Revolution quite accurately, give him that.
Philio Phrog & Allenjpl are essentially correct, I don't want to pile on but let us recognize that this musical has it's own creative license. Ultimately what happens here as in any historical piece, is that the authors turn up the volume on characterizations. Hamilton being timely here is a perfect example. These depictions are less rock solid historic accuracy and more along accurate interpretation. And one thing you would have to recognize that at any volume, Dickenson was immediately after and over time viewed as being on the wrong side of the coin from the American perspective. And what you describe is more a counterpoint that this film tries to address with his whole bit about going into service. A good proof of Dickenson being willfully discarded from the national narrative is the fact that there is a perfectly legit case to be made that the congress doesn't even come together without Dickenson's advocacy.
With that the United States of America was born, <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="251">4:11</a> but the fate of 618,222 future American lives is seal in the American Civil War.
John Dickinson didn't oppose Independence because he loved England. He opposed it because there was no actual government. Congress was just a committee, not a government and America suffered badly because all they had to lead them towards victory was a toothless committee. A unified central government over the 13 colonies could have shortened the war by 3 years, even with all the inherent mistakes of a young nation factored in.
While Dickinson has been assigned the role of villain in this musical in real history he was a hero. He was one of the architects of the Articles of Confederation that laid the foundation for our eventual Constitution. His objection to the Declaration of Independence was not so much because he harbored loyalty to the Crown but his fear that such a declaration was meaningless without a plan for follow up. Ultimately history proved him partially right as there was over a decade of uncertainty just to start off our government and as we know from history an incomplete and imperfect Constitution that came back to haunt us for the rest of American history.
Sometimes unlikely people have to rise to the occasion. Read about Edmund G Ross the senator who voted not to impeach Andrew Johnon and was the reason the vote was 35 to impeach Johnson 19 not to. He was listed by John Kennedy in profiles in courage
"If I go with them, I'll just be just one among dozens, no one will remember the name of James Wilson". He had hoped to preserve his anonymity, however when I googled his name, he stands out as being "the only person who signed the Declaration of Independence"!
Rutledge, in an earlier scene, was letting Jefferson have it for his oblique reference to slavery, both defending the practice as a "peculiar Southern tradition" and calling out both Jefferson and the Northerners as hypocrites (Jefferson as a slave owner, Adams' Massachusetts as a slave-trading hub). Adams tried to belittle Rutledge on the issue, prompting Rutledge to rub it in their faces (the "Molasses to Rum to Slaves" song) before leading the Carolinas and Georgia to walk out. Franklin subsequently reminded Adams that, for all their disagreements, the other delegates were still deserving of respect, and that Adams should start showing it to them.
The actor was named Howard Da Silva. He was blacklisted from movies in the late 40’s for being a dirty red. Ben Franklin would have been appalled having such a despicable character playing him .
The election of new representatives to the continental congress occurred soon after the vote on the declaration and the new additional representatives also signed realizing the significance
In all fairness, a clause accusing George III of carrying people off into slavery in another hemisphere should have been scratched out just for being untrue. Slavery as a system was in place before his grandfather was born and many men in Congress that day were a part of it a lot deeper than King George, especially including the man who wrote it
I guess a motion this important had to come from.Virginia. if Florida had sent delegates they wouldve probably sank the vote. Or probably just gone along with SC and NC and GA
Actually, there was a little dramatic license here. Caesar Rodney, the lead delegate from Delaware, would go on to die of cancer, but at the time of the Second Continental Congress he wa 37 and in good health.
It was the next day, Johnny tore the calendar page and everything. Not his name here but I will never not see him as Johnny the shoeshine guy from Police Squad. “Word on the street is that they’ll strike the slavery passage so the Carolinas will vote in favor.” :hands over $20:
Good question but I don't think Franklin or Dickinson would have agreed to doing that. Franklin wanted it to pass and Dickinspon was just as determined to take it down. I also don't think they could if the resolution required a unanimous vote, i think that means every colony had to support it.
No every colony didn't have to support it. New York (according to the movie) originally abstained. But I think abstaining has to be a consensus itself within the colony. Since there were 3 of them there would be a majority. It had to be Judge Wilson's decision, one way or the other.
@@InAHearbeat it's a running joke thru the play and the film: the delegate from New York could not get any instructions from the NY Legislature. So he abstained, courteously. At the time of the signing, he has a line: "To Hell with New York!" , and signs...
Yes, at the time of signing. Not at the time of voting. The point was it didn't have to have all yay votes. It only couldn't have any nays because originally NY abstained and it still passed.
No, and nor did Salieri poison Mozart. But if Shakespeare taught us anything, it's not to let historical accuracy stand in the way of writing a good play.
I don’t think the film presents him as that at all. While not exactly historically accurate, it presents him as a man of conviction who supports what he believes is best, and when he is overruled he lends himself to the fight. Pretty noble imho
You can also see a much younger Howard DaSilva in the great 1940 film Abe Lincoln in Illinois (he was Lincoln's early rival in Salem who wrestled with Lincoln). He was great in that supporting role also.
@@davidahlstrom7533 And he played Ben Marino, the political wheeler-dealer, in "Fiorello!" on Broadway. Here he is, re-creating one of the signature songs from that musical, in which with his fellow cardplayers he acts out the testimony in the Tammany Hall trials in NYC. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XrJMnONes2w.htmlsi=RhwvK1w9qu1ncm8z
