Synopsis of the movie (Christopher Plummer)
1776 follows the life of John Adams during the great debate of whether or not the 13 colonies should become their own country, separate from the British Empire. We open on the 380th meeting of the second continental conference on June seventh, of 1776. The great debate begins on the occasion of Richard Henry Lee getting the written proposal to officially cut ties with the British monarchy. Although many congressmen wanted to vote, it was postponed by the proposal of Pennsylvania and the support of Rhode Island, to the beginning of July. John Dickinson, a delegate from Pennsylvania, deducted this issue was too important to have separation between the delegates, and called for an unanimous vote for action to take place. This action was seconded which aggravated many, especially Adams. The congress came to the agreement that a vote will only commence once a formal declaration is written. Many names were thrown out as to who the author should be, and it was decided it should be Thomas Jefferson. During the writing process, we see many relationships between the committee members and their female companions. John Adams speaks to his wife, Abigail, yet it is implied this communication occurred through letter writing. Jefferson is visited by his wife Martha (in person), who also shares an awkward dance with Adams and Franklin. The declaration was completed at the end of June; however, great debates were argued such as British relations, new names of the country, and slavery. Slavery, and the rights/citizenship of the slaves, was arguably the issue that separated the congress more than anything else. On July 2nd, the voting of the congress occurs. New York decides to abstain and South Carolina only agreed to vote “yea” when Adams agreed to their terms of slavery. The decision comes down to Pennsylvania, the home of Dickinson which contradicted Adams the most. Two of the three delegates agree to the terms of the document, which causes Dickinson to leave the community. The vote passed 12 to zero and independence was officially adopted on July fourth, 1776. The closing scene shows all the members of the second constitutional congress signing their names below The Declaration of Independence.
Genre (Christopher Plummer)
I believe the genre of the film 1776 to be a musical comedy, with aspects of a romance. Many times throughout the movie, the actors breakout into song and dance in order to express their internal emotions and conflicts. Because show tunes play multiple times during the same story, we have the ability to deem this movie a musical. Many characters, although this story occurs in the 1700’s, are defined by the means of their usage of modern humor. Some forms of comedy I noticed were satire, sarcasm, sexual implications, and parodies. There are also many scenes that create a romantic feeling between the congressmen and their wives; however, much of the story does not revolve around these connections, so the story cannot be deemed a romance. For example, John Adams speaks to his wife, Abby, through the implied use of letters; additionally, Thomas Jefferson is visited by his wife, Martha, to be motivated to finish the declaration. Combining musical numbers, repeated human, and brief scenes of passion, I can conclude the genre of 1776 to be a musical comedy with aspects of romance.
Narrative Approach (Christopher Plummer)
The story of the United States claiming its independence from the British being told through a musical comedy film, creates an unrealistic narrative. The story may have details that are historically accurate, yet the audience knows historical figures did not sing their emotions, communicate over 300 miles, nor use twentieth century humor. It was likely the writer and director of the production decided to include these aspects in order to make the film more appealing to audiences. If producers can make money, it is unlikely they concern themselves with everything being historically accurate. Because all these techniques make the story seem fictional, it may negatively affect the viewers. The spectators may perceive this movie as fictional to the point of not separating what actually happened in 1776 and what was invented for the purpose of 1776.
1776 vs. John Adams (Christopher Plummer)
Although the motion picture 1776 and the second episode of John Adams tell the same story of the second continental congress, the genres of the spectacles differ greatly. 1776 is a musical comedy, while John Adams is a historical drama. Because the story is told through different lenses, the plot points, characterizations and overall mood of the productions have some similarities, yet many differences. The similarities are found between the timelines of important, historical, events and the personalities of some main characters. Both stories begin with John Adams disagreeing with the productivity of the congress, and feeling as if nothing is getting accomplished. The date of the official vote on the issue is postponed, congress calls for a unanimous vote, New York abstains, South Carolina is persuaded by Adams agreeing to their terms of slavery, and the votes passes (twelve to zero) in early July. 1776 and John Adams both portray Adams as a persuasive public speaker, Dickinson as Adams’ rival and opposite, and Abigail as Adams’ loving wife. Besides these surface level observations, similarities are hard to locate. 1776 never shows John Adams as a caring father who works on the plantations to support his family, George Washington as a present figure for the debate, Abigail taking care of her house and family with other priorities besides her husband, nor Benjamin Franklin as a serious individual. The fact that John Adams is a drama allowed the director to add in scenes that would not be appropriate for a comedy. For example, viewers see the gory aftermath of a tragic disease sweeping across the colonies, as well as Adams’ family becoming “vaccinated” with a knife and injection of puss from a patient on the verge of death. We also see individuals have deep discussions about topics that may have been too serious for a light-hearted musical. For example, Abigail and John discuss women and slave representation in the constitution. Slavery was addressed in 1776; however, the issue was brushed over and was not given significant attention. Similarly, women’s suffrage was never discussed between the characters of 1776. Overall, the mood of these movies conflicted greatly and gave two different interpretations of the same story. The satire and humor of 1776 create a humorous and enjoyable experience for the viewer; however, many important historical details are not explored as they should have been. On the other hand, the dramatic nature of John Adams opens the audience to deeper issues the citizens of the colonies faced and, arguably, a more accurate representation of the second continental congress.
Critical Appraisal of 1776 (Maddie Maurais)
The overarching plot of the film 1776 involves showcases the events leading up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4th. Overall, the film does use quite a lot of historically accurate elements to showcase the events leading up to July 4th. However, the actual signing of the Declaration of Independence is not depicted accurately.
Most Americans were taught that the actual signing of the Declaration of Independence occurred on July 4th. However, according to many historians, the Declaration of Independence was not fully signed until August 2nd. The film 1776 also leads viewers to believe that the signing of the Declaration of Independence happened on July 4th. Instead, on July 2nd members of Congress voted to become independent from Great Britain then on July 4th is when the members of Congress approved the wording of the Declaration of Independence. However, all members of Congress did not sign the document until August 2nd. The film instead combined the events that actually occurred on July 4th and August 2nd. The film reiterates the “national myth” of the Declaration of Independence being signed on July 4th. The writer of the film Peter Stone probably decided to depict this event occurring on July 4th because this date is significant to Americans. Plus, the pacing of the film would have been elongated if they had all members of Congress sign the document by August 2nd.
In addition, to the inaccuracies depicting the actual signing of the Declaration of Independence, some other smaller events are historically inaccurate in the film. One is that members of Congress did not walk out in protest of the anti-slavery clause. Apparently, members of Congress from both the south and north were in favor of removing the anti-slavery clause from the draft of the Declaration of Independence. In the film, Martha Jefferson is heavily involved in the plots with Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. However, according to historians, Martha Jefferson was not present in Philadelphia during this time. Another small inaccuracy is that there were a lot more delegates present in Congress than shown in the film.
Despite the film having some major inaccuracies, there are still many historically accurate elements of the film. Firstly, some of the dialogue in the film was taken from actual letters sent by members of Congress. In addition, the debates regarding slavery, the role of government, independence from Great Britain and etc., were heavily debated amongst members of Congress during this time.
Even though the events that took place on July 4th are not shown entirely accurately in the film, the film still does a good job portraying the thoughts and feeling that the members dealt with when voting for independence and approving the final draft of the Declaration of Independence.
ROLLINS, P. (Ed.). (2003). The Columbia Companion to American History on Film: How the
Movies Have Portrayed the American Past. New York: Columbia University Press.
doi:10.7312/roll11222
Kauffmann, S. (1972). Stanley Kauffman on films. New Republic, 167(22), 22–35.
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f3h&AN=10240680&site=ehost-live
McGilligan, P. (1977). THOMAS JEFFERSON STILL SURVIVES or Will the Reel Revolution Please Stand Up?
Velvet Light Trap: A Critical Journal of Film & Television, 17, 57–64.
John Dickinson vs. John Adams (Lauren Broderick) (https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/985444.pdf?ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_solr_cloud%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A09211cf22a6cc9132cfc5b3dc8c921bd)
This article provides a background of John Dickinson and what John Adams’ opinion was of the Pennsylvania delegate before meeting him in Congress. Dickinson had built up a well-known reputation because of his Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania series that opposed taxes levied on the colonists. However through letters Adams wrote that are included in the piece, Adams’ opinion began to change and a rivalry quickly formed. In 1776, we saw Dickinson as the biggest opponent to Adams, but we do not get the full history. The film does make note of Dickinson being a proprietor – including a song about it – and that it fueled his opposition to voting for independence; however Dickinson was not totally against voting for independence in the future. As laid out in this reading, Dickinson’s major arguments for postponement were wanting to settle land disputes in Pennsylvania through the crown before cutting ties and confirming commitment from France for aid. Therefore, there is a discrepancy in the character Dickinson portrays in 1776 as a never-wavering Englishman and his true arguments for postponement. Nonetheless, as shown in the movie Dickinson did choose to fight for independence.
Extract of a Letter from Maryland, February 6 (Lauren Broderick)
This extract from a letter published in the Providence Gazette, shows the revere that people felt at the time for Thomas Paine’s famous pamphlet, Common Sense. The writer says that there are only three people in his county that do not approve of the piece! In the film, Adams speaks of how the feelings of the common people were different from the Congressional delegates because commoners were reading and agreeing with Common Sense. When comparing this primary source to the film, we can see that there was much excitement surrounding the idea of separation from England in regular American society as John Adams mentioned.
The Role of South Carolina in the First Continental Congress (Lauren Broderick)
While this analysis of South Carolina’s delegates is from the First Continental Congress, we are able to understand the background better for the Second Continental Congress setting of 1776 especially because all five of these delegates returned. In the piece, John Adams’ opinions of the delegates are given, including his distaste for Edward Rutledge. The film can only focus on a few delegates so we are unable to see the full five member South Carolina cohort. However as described in the piece, the Rutledge brothers were known for their conservatism and general agreement with Pennsylvania. As such, one of the harder aspects of the plot through point for me to follow was South Carolina as Edward Rutledge seemed to speak for the entire colony. After reading this source, it becomes more clear as the Rutledges represented the conservative mindset showcased in the film, while the other South Carolina delegates enjoyed working with the Massachusetts men. Another important note is that the South Carolinians staged a walkout in the First Continental Congress to force a compromise on nonexportation; we then see in 1776 that the Southerners walkout of Congress because of their stance on slavery. Moreover, throughout the film it is evident that South Carolina is the power player in the Southern colonies and this piece further emphasizes that proving how the Carolinians utilized this power to force compromises. The prominence most of the South Carolina delegates held during their time in Philadelphia is noted and sets us up for how they would return for the Second Continental Congress.
Signing of the Declaration of Independence (National Geographic) (William Johnson)
I found this article detailing the signing of the Declaration of Independence extremely relevant for assessing and analyzing 1776. The article does a fantastic job of detailing the true events of the signing, which shows that despite many of its inaccuracies, 1776 does a good job of educating its viewers on the historic moment. One key similarity I noticed was the article’s statement “The full Congress then began debating the declaration, making substantial editorial revisions but leaving mostly untouched the soaring rhetoric of Jefferson’s opening paragraphs” (NATGEO). 1776 does a phenomenal job of displaying how daunting the revision process was. Delegates from all the colonies are seen sparring with Jefferson about particular rhetoric or offensive sections. Eventually, a visually exasperated John Adams exclaims “How long is this piddling to go on? We have been here for three full days. We have endured by my count eighty-five separate changes and the removal of close to four-hundred words. Now would you whip it and beat it till you break its spirit? I tell you that document is a masterful expression of the American mind” (1776). Although historically such an outburst may not have taken place, the scene works to show the audience the cumbersome difficulties that the Second Continental Congress went through.
The article also includes a primary source that I felt was very important for analyzing 1776. Remembering the events many years later, Benjamin Rush recalled the “pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress,” to sign “what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants” (Rush). Due to its status as a comedy, 1776 utterly fails at capturing the mood of the signing. As Benjamin Rush describes it, the scene was quite austere and somber. The men recognized the gravitas and finality of the situation. They were also well aware of the danger that accompanied open conflict with the current world hegemon. In 1776, the men were cracking jokes and laughing prior to signing. They do not possess the same level of awareness that the founding fathers had. This inaccuracy does not detract from the film, as it is attempting to tell the story as a comedy, meaning artistic liberties had to be taken in order to remain consistent with the overall theme.
National Geographic Society. “Signing of the Declaration of Independence.” National Geographic Society, 30 Dec. 2019, www.nationalgeographic.org/article/signing-declaration-independence/.
Very strong post. I’d like to push you all a bit on comedy/musical form and whether it pulls people into history, and therefore has a place, or gets into the way. Hamilton, anyone? Good list of sources and further reading, careful analysis throughout.