Press Release SPHE Press Release: 1776 (1972) (4k UHD) (1 Viewer)

[roxy1927]

This is true of the 4K as well? The sound doesn't compare to the Pioneer laser disc?

 

[Ethan Riley]

Wanted to share with you that I did get Williams Daniels to sign my copy today, at the Hollywood Show. I asked if it was the first one he'd signed...he said it was the first one anyone had brought to him. I'm not sure if he meant it was the first one anyone had brought to him at the Hollywood Show, or in general. You'll note that he started the signature in silver sharpie but he felt it was running out of ink so he started over in black. His signature did stick to the slick slipcover but it took forever to dry. I'm still afraid to touch it. Mr. Adams is getting up there; he's a little frail and hard of hearing but he was very alert, and in good spirits, signing autographs alongside his wife, Bonnie Bartlett.

 

[Jack P]

Not true, Peter very much wanted Betty in the film. There were certain reasons why a few people didn’t make the jump from the stage cast, and essentially they kept a few more out so the ones they actually blackballed didn’t appear so obviously excluded.

I won't ask for any confidences to be broken, but now that I have listened to the later two commentaries for the first time, I am getting something of a vibe that Paul Hecht the Broadway Dickinson was on the "blackball" list given how he was the most prominent cast member not to do the film (even more so than Betty).

 

[roxy1927]

As Warner was the producer in these commentaries do they discuss why he came to these final decisions?
If I were Warner as a movie producer I would have chosen Danner over Buckley and I would have chosen Hepburn over Andrews.

 

[Jack P]

They really don't attribute individual casting decisions to Warner. Warner clearly wanted as many members of the Broadway production as possible since after the experiences of "My Fair Lady" and "Camelot" he was determined to make the film as close to the play as possible. The tone is that Hunt had control over individual choices since he implies that when it wasn't a given da Silva would do the movie, da Silva was coming to him begging for it.

I personally would not have chosen Danner over Buckley.

 

[roxy1927]

Well that's very interesting Da Silva wasn't a given. Who else would have been a possibility? Robert Preston who would have been great? I would have sprinkled a couple of Hollywood names in myself while keeping Daniels.

There was no way Warner was getting Burton and Andrews for Camelot. As Redgrave said at the time of the film's premiere if Andrews wanted to be doing the role she would have been doing the role.

 

[Jack P]

Preston played Franklin in a musical in 1964 "Ben Franklin in Paris.". It lasted six months.

The reason why da Silva wasn't a given was because he had caused a lot of trouble during the Broadway production. He'd threatened to quit in New Haven when his big song "Encrease and Multiply" was cut. For the film, he promised he'd behave.

Warner tried to get Burton for Camelot and he unfortunately said no. Once he said no, that meant Julie was a no since I read once she didn't want to work with Harris again after "Hawaii."

 

[roxy1927]

You would have thought they would have found an Arthur Andrews would have agreed to or else she said she wouldn't do it without Burton. I wonder why Burton refused.

 

[Ethan Riley]

I dunno...he was asked but said no. Harris frankly begged for the role. Burton may not have wanted to do a long shoot without Elizabeth Taylor. She was also actually considered for the role at one point. Would have been funny--those two going up against Roddy McDowell as Mordred. Like a weird sequel to Cleopatra.

 

[usrunnr]

Taylor couldn't sing. Take a look at the film of "A Little Night Music" for an example.

 

[Jimbo.B]

1776 suffers from a real lack of star power. Most of the cast was unknown to the general public at the time.
You can criticize Jack Warner all you like for not casting Andrews instead of Hepburn in MFL but he understood something most don’t—that a big movie like MFL needs star charisma to carry it. As wonderful as Andrews was in the roll on stage as well as in Mary Poppins and subsequent film rolls, in my opinion, she simply never had the screen presence of Hepburn and certainly not the elegance that Beaton and Cukor were aiming for. It makes a difference.
1776 is proof that screen charisma is an absolute necessity to make a big movie memorable, and 1776 the movie just doesn’t have it.

 

[Jack P]

Regarding Camelot, I think Burton was too besotted with La Liz at that point and just didn't want to bother with anything she wasn't going to be in as well. I have never cared for Harris's performance because to me, Burton (just by judging the 20 minutes of extant footage we have from the Sullivan Show and the 62 Lerner-Loewe special) was the only actor who really knew how to capture the part in all its dimensions.

I don't fault Warner on My Fair Lady for the reasons outlined. The only way we would have seen Julie there would have been if Harrison had been ditched for a bigger name (much like how in Pajama Game the question of whether John Raitt or Janis Paige got to do the film depended on whether a male or female film star could be cast; if Sinatra said yes, then Paige would have gotten the film, but he said no, so they got Day which meant Raitt got to do the film). With Camelot, the fact that *no one* from the stage version made the film made its flaws stand out more.

"1776" may not have succeeded as a film at the time because of the lack of "star" power, but I'm glad they did it this way and preserved the integrity of the stage work this way. The long-term value was more important in that case.

 

[roxy1927]

I think Daniels is the only irreplaceable one. Some experienced Hollywood veterans would have been welcome to give the film more energy. One is trapped in the congressional chamber for much too long for a film. I found it becomes as oppressive for the audience as for the members of Congress.

 

[John Maher_289910]

Warner underestimated the star of MY FAIR LADY, which was MY FAIR LADY. It was so well known that no matter who he put in the roles, it would have been a hit. The biggest selling LP up to that time was enough to secure its success. He claimed it would be the biggest film success in motion picture history, and while being a hit in every sense of the word, it wasn't even the biggest film released in 1964, which was MARY POPPINS, nor in 1965 where it played most of its theatrical run. That was THE SOUND OF MUSIC. No matter the success of MFL on film, Warner regretted his decision to not cast Andrews, and tried, desperately, to fix it with CAMELOT, which didn't work out for him, either, because Burton and Andrews both declined. Even though he offered her both co-star and director approval, not to mention an enormous salary, she had no interest in doing the film without Burton.

 

[Charles Smith]

My apologies if this has already been posted or discussed. I was just directed to it from a Broadway site. It's an excerpt from actor/author Ron Fassler's interview(s) with Peter Hunt in the last years of Hunt's life, regarding the casting of the 1776 film.

1776: DANIELS, DA SILVA & HUNT

Can't let July 4th go by without my annual tribute to the musical 1776, a brilliant piece of theatre (IMHO) that managed to make a subject with little to no suspense as tense as a thriller. It was pulled off partly by way of a calendar placed on the wall of Independence Hall, the invention of...

ronfassler.stck.me

 

[roxy1927]

While I always felt that Warner probably regretted his decision not casting Andrews did he ever express it in any way? Daniels did say that was probably why most of the original cast did the film of 1776 which certainly contributed to its box office failure as already noted.

 

[Thomas T]

1776 suffers from a real lack of star power. Most of the cast was unknown to the general public at the time.
You can criticize Jack Warner all you like for not casting Andrews instead of Hepburn in MFL but he understood something most don’t—that a big movie like MFL needs star charisma to carry it. As wonderful as Andrews was in the roll on stage as well as in Mary Poppins and subsequent film rolls, in my opinion, she simply never had the screen presence of Hepburn and certainly not the elegance that Beaton and Cukor were aiming for. It makes a difference.
1776 is proof that screen charisma is an absolute necessity to make a big movie memorable, and 1776 the movie just doesn’t have it.

While it's a pity that Andrews didn't do MFL so there would be a record of her performance (no filmed version of the play exists, just excerpts), Andrews herself realized that in a way her not getting the film version allowed her to move on to a major film career she might not have had if she had done MFL. The attitude might have been, "Of course, she was wonderful in MFL, why shouldn't she be. She played it for years on both Broadway and London. But can she do anything else?". In 1964, with the one two punch of Mary Poppins and a non singing straight role in The Americanization Of Emily she proved she was a viable screen presence and cinched it the following year with The Sound Of Music. Harrison on the other hand had a long successful film career prior to MFL (including Cleopatra the year before) so he didn't have to prove anything. While I adore both actresses, I'm more of an Audrey Hepburn fan than a Julie Andrews fan. However, while she's dazzling as the transformed Eliza (why wouldn't she be?), she's not very convincing as the guttersnipe Eliza. We all know she's the elegant Audrey under that disguise and when she emerges from her cockney cocoon, she's the Audrey we know and love.

 

[roxy1927]

Audrey is hilarious in the tea scene. Not even Hiller comes close. Also the scene where she first comes to Higgins home. Cukor directed them beautifully. I've never understood the complaints about her cockney scenes.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Audrey is hilarious in the tea scene. Not even Hiller comes close. Also the scene where she first comes to Higgins home. Cukor directed them beautifully. I've never understood the complaints about her cockney scenes.

As a son of Cockney parents, I would say the issue is one of being overly precise: there's no comfortability with the dialect. It becomes clear in the scenes with Stanley Holloway, who was Cockney through and through [or rather, "froo and froo"]. There's nothing technically wrong with it, but some readings come off as stiff. Keep in mind that I also say this as someone who loves and appreciates the film for what it is.

 

[Jimbo.B]

Please don’t misunderstand my comparison of 1776 to MFL. My point was basically that I felt that the film 1776 was missing that little something extra, as Norman Maine would say, that makes a good film an exceptional one.
I totally love Julie Andrews but Audrey’s casting made an excellent film translation an extraordinary one. With Audrey, MFL became a gorgeous cinematic fairy tale, raising it, in my opinion, to a level far above the excellent stage presentation. Julie, as wonderful as she was in the role, simply couldn’t have done that. She did it in Mary Poppins but she didn’t have what it takes for MFL which had a very different agenda. 1776 could have used some of that supercharged energy.
1776 on stage was terrific, I loved it, but I don’t think the film adaptation carried that stage energy to the screen. Maybe it was the director or maybe it was the casting. I don’t know.