 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watched the Blu-Ray/LD edit and "Ben Franklin-Portrait Of A Family". The two go so well together (the manner in which "1776" deals with Franklin's estrangement from his son William allows it achieve a greater depth when one gets to see Da Silva as Franklin in a more intimate production that touches more directly on that estrangement).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 12, 2018 - 11:09 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Howard L
(Member)
|
from today's (print) NY Times:
To the Editor:
Dave Eggers did not mention President Richard Nixon’s invitation to the cast of “1776,” the first full-length Broadway musical to have played in the White House.
I was in the company, playing John Dickinson from Pennsylvania. There was much discussion by the cast in the basement of the old 46th Street Theatre (now the Richard Rodgers, where “Hamilton” is playing), as Nixon was fairly unpopular at the time among our ranks.
Of course, Howard da Silva, who played Benjamin Franklin, had been summoned to appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee two decades earlier, and Nixon had been a member of that committee.
Eventually we all decided to go, to honor the presidency and to get some unbeatable publicity.
I remember excited interns poking their noses into the green room where we sat in our wigs and costumes, and I got to sing “Cool, Cool, Considerate Men,” an uncomplimentary song about conservatives, to President Nixon, sitting unsmilingly in the front row.
Altogether, a thrilling day.
PAUL HECHT, BROOKLYN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remember excited interns poking their noses into the green room where we sat in our wigs and costumes, and I got to sing “Cool, Cool, Considerate Men,” an uncomplimentary song about conservatives, to President Nixon, sitting unsmilingly in the front row.
I've never understood this. Dickinson and the other "cool considerate men" were the British loyalists opposed to Adams who remains a great hero to conservatives/Republicans to this day. (Not implying that Adams doesn't have any fans in the left-leaning spectrum as well.)
In any case, it's cool to know about Hecht's experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At least the school in BMW was named John Adams High in honor of Daniels.
Awesome!
I hope he's okay.
I still haven't gotten to read his memoir, but this is a good reminder to pick it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 4, 2018 - 12:08 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Eric Paddon
(Member)
|
I've never understood this. Dickinson and the other "cool considerate men" were the British loyalists opposed to Adams who remains a great hero to conservatives/Republicans to this day. (Not implying that Adams doesn't have any fans in the left-leaning spectrum as well.)
Fan as I am of "1776" this point does require some clearing up. Dickinson was never a "British loyalist". The musical exaggerated this point for dramatic effect to present a more clear-cut adversary for Adams. The real John Dickinson in fact, had been one of the earliest critics of British policy in the 1760s like the Stamp Act as illegal and counterproductive. He had even been greatly admired by John Adams during this period.
What Dickinson feared in Independence was the loss of the one thing that had provided any kind of unity among the thirteen colonies, which was British identity. For 150 years starting with Jamestown, there had *never* been a case of the American colonies banding together for any reason at all. They had been 13 separate entities that saw themselves as independent British subjects living in America. The events of the 1770s marked the very first time the thirteen were doing any kind of coordination and Dickinson felt that past history indicated it would be unworkable. Independence, he feared, would result not in a unified American nation but thirteen separate republics fighting with each other over lands to the west. There had already been border clashes between different colonies over who was going to control the lands won from France. So the opposition to Independence was not rooted in any in any knee-jerk defense of British policy (on that Dickinson was in agreement with Adams) but rather in the fear that Independence would bring about more chaotic conflicts in the future.
Adams and the proponents of Independence were themselves by the standards that we judge revolutionaries, quite "conservative" in the sense that what they were seeking was a situation that would restore the sense of "independence" that had already existed in pre-1765 America, where the colonies believed they were independent English subjects enjoying the full protection of English common law while living in America. The British, as this controlling central authority exercising power without the consent of the Colonies, were in effect disrupting the happy status quo with their illegal taxes and thus in the eyes of Adams and company were violating the principles England had achieved in their own "Glorious Revolution" a century earlier when the monarchy had been permanently limited and the rise of Parliamentary supremacy became complete. They in short, saw England violating the principles of English law and tradition and that American resistance and Independence was the truer declaration of fidelity to those principles.
Thomas Paine represented the more radical streak in American independence. Ultimately what emerged was a synthesized blend of the more conservative oriented thinkers for Independence combined with the more radical elements that allowed for the emerging America to do away with traditions not needed like a monarchy etc. and chart a pure republic form of government. "1776" in the end, while it does not do justice to the record regarding what Dickinson felt, at least still showed that the ideas behind Independence represented this blended view. (I think in the end, Stone at least was willing to show fairness to Dickinson by making it clear that once Independence was declared he would fight for his country, which he did heroically and he later was part of the Constitutional Convention and signed that document, as did another "villain" in "1776", George Read of Delaware).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the clarification, Eric.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm surprised 1776 was included on this poll at all, but it was!
Go vote and stuff? It's Sony deciding what to put out next year.
https://secure.sonypictures.com/movies/sweepstakes/ui/sphe/polls/4k/?hs308=4KU003D
Looking at that poll (I haven’t upgraded to 4K yet, so I’m not voting), the only thing I find more surprising than the presence of 1776 is the complete absence of Lawrence of Arabia, unless that one’s already in the works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at that poll (I haven’t upgraded to 4K yet, so I’m not voting), the only thing I find more surprising than the presence of 1776 is the complete absence of Lawrence of Arabia, unless that one’s already in the works.
Tack, that has to be it. They leapt out of the gate with Bridge on the River Kwai, which was well reviewed (as a disc, I mean) pretty much everywhere.
As for voting, do anyway? If you do go 4K, which may eventually be as automatic as buying a TV, maybe your preferences will be around rather than not being around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
