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

[roxy1927]

I would have liked to have seen people like Howard Keel, Harve Presnell and Ray Walson in it to give it a very much needed kick in the breeches. And yes I know 1776 is not PYW.

 

[Jack P]

I don't think "1776" as a film could have opened itself up unless for the cinema you were going to restore the whole trip to New Brunswick sequence that the musical cut in New Haven because they realized it dragged the show down and which I think would have taken us out of what the film is about, which is the debate and how removed things are from what is happening on the battlefield. We certainly did not need Franklin's deleted solo "Encrease and Multiply" put back in, because having heard the demo of it, it is a really awful song. It's one thing to poke at Franklin by offering us subtle hints of his lechery with a wink but an actual scene of him with a hooker would have been way too much.

I think Audrey did acquit herself well in the film, but the real mistake was not letting her own vocals stay in for "Loverly." Her own singing voice was actually just right for Eliza the untrained Cockney and is much more appropriate than Nixon's version, and if she'd been allowed to just have one complete number without dubbing (save the last line) she might have at least not been snubbed of an Oscar nomination.

 

[Jack P]

I would have liked to have seen people like Howard Keel, Harve Presnell and Ray Walson in it to give it a very much needed kick in the breeches. And yes I know 1776 is not PYW.

Yeah, but in fairness those names aren't any bigger in terms of 1972 box office than Daniels, Da Silva and Howard. Robert Preston as Franklin *maybe*. Dean Jones who at least had some more recent box office even if it was all Disney movies by then did play Adams at the Westbury Music Fair so maybe I could see him getting considered (brief as his time in "Company" was on Broadway, no one faulted his performance).

Before we think that having a box office name is really much of a help though in 1972, just take a look at what happened that same year with the big screen version of "Man Of La Mancha". Maybe the powers that be would have been better advised to just stick with Richard Kiley instead of forcing us to hear a dubbed Peter O'Toole and a should-have-been-dubbed Sophia Loren! (they sure couldn't have done any worse than they did in the box office there and unlike "1776", no one really wants to revisit the film version of "Man Of La Mancha")

 

[roxy1927]

I guess I just like recasting this film to see if it could have worked better. That full orchestra at the Music Hall was very restless.

 

[Will Krupp]

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.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

[Rob W]

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.

Given the poise, class and sophistication Julie Andrews has demonstrated over the years it's inconceivable to me she wouldn't have triumphed in the film as Eliza. If anything, as a relative unknown at the time her transformation would have been much more of a surprise than seeing Audrey Hepburn transformed into Audrey Hepburn.

 

[KPmusmag]

I think Julie would have been just as glorious in MFL as she was in Mary Poppins. Having seen and loved the Broadway production of 1776, I am thrilled that so many of the original cast were in the film.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think 1776 is actually helped by not having big name movie stars in it - for me, that makes it easier to get into the world of the film and see these characters as real people existing rather than as actors performing. The characters are already larger than life - the actors don’t need to be.

 

[John Maher_289910]

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.

Not sure what MFL's agenda was, but it certainly was NOT to carry the stage energy to the screen, that's for sure. It couldn't have been more different from the energy Moss Hart directed for the stage. Like it is in an alternate universe, that completely lacks energy. If it weren't for Harrison's shouting every line, like he didn't know he was in a film, it wouldn't have any energy, at all. Every scene is staid and lifeless. Hepburn succeeds at being a beautiful mannequin, and nothing more. 1776 is a masterwork, by comparison. At least it understands what medium it is. Why are we comparing the two, I forget?

 

[Will Krupp]

Not sure what MFL's agenda was, but it certainly was NOT to carry the stage energy to the screen, that's for sure.

Hahah... I KNEW you'd b back around (and I've been waiting for it!) Lol

 

[John Maher_289910]

Hahah... I KNEW you'd b back around (and I've been waiting for it!) Lol

Who, me?

 

[Thomas T]

Not sure what MFL's agenda was, but it certainly was NOT to carry the stage energy to the screen, that's for sure. It couldn't have been more different from the energy Moss Hart directed for the stage. Like it is in an alternate universe, that completely lacks energy. If it weren't for Harrison's shouting every line, like he didn't know he was in a film, it wouldn't have any energy, at all. Every scene is staid and lifeless. Hepburn succeeds at being a beautiful mannequin, and nothing more. 1776 is a masterwork, by comparison. At least it understands what medium it is. Why are we comparing the two, I forget?

And I thought I was the only one who felt this way! Yes, it's as if Cukor thought he was making a holy thing and it would be sacrilegious to tamper with it! So rather than make a movie, he places a stagnant movie camera at the center as the actors dutifully go through their paces as the ghost of a proscenium arch hovers over the whole project. It's gorgeous to look at but I feel like I'm in a museum, not a cinema.

 

[Jack P]

I can understand if one saw MFL on stage that the film version in the end would be a disappointment. If you were born too late to experience it on-stage with its original cast, I think the film at least benefits from having *some* of what made it a success on stage when so many other movie musicals of the era are so far afield from their origins ("Man Of La Mancha" and "Camelot" topping the list) that they leave little to be impressed with.

 

[roxy1927]

I'll never forget when I saw an original 70 mm print of my fair lady at the Warner Cinerama in times square. It was one of the Great cinematic experiences of my life. The movie bored me as a boy as did 2001. Then I saw 2001 in my late teens at the rivoli and that was another overwhelming experience.
I did see My Fair Lady on stage on Broadway in the 1976 Herman Levin produced 20th anniversary revival.

As I said I saw 1776 when it played at radio City. The audience was very bored. And I believe the original cut was shorter than any of the subsequent cuts. And we're discussing both movies because they were both Hollywood adaptions of Broadway musicals produced by Jack Warner.

When my fair lady was restored by Mr Harris and played at the Ziegfeld I went three times. Each time was sold out and the audience was totally captivated. If you did not see the original Broadway production I think you can really enjoy the film on its own merits. I think it's very interesting the film won the New York Film Critics' Best Film Award. I would think many had seen it on Broadway. I feel the same way about fiddler on the roof. A glorious stage production that was turned into a very tedious leaden film.

 

[John Maher_289910]

I'll never forget when I saw an original 70 mm print of my fair lady at the Warner Cinerama in times square. It was one of the Great cinematic experiences of my life. The movie bored me as a boy as did 2001. Then I saw 2001 in my late teens at the rivoli and that was another overwhelming experience.
I did see My Fair Lady on stage on Broadway in the 1976 Herman Levin produced 20th anniversary revival.

As I said I saw 1776 when it played at radio City. The audience was very bored. And I believe the original cut was shorter than any of the subsequent cuts. And we're discussing both movies because they were both Hollywood adaptions of Broadway musicals produced by Jack Warner.

When my fair lady was restored by Mr Harris and played at the Ziegfeld I went three times. Each time was sold out and the audience was totally captivated. If you did not see the original Broadway production I think you can really enjoy the film on its own merits. I think it's very interesting the film won the New York Film Critics' Best Film Award. I would think many had seen it on Broadway. I feel the same way about fiddler on the roof. A glorious stage production that was turned into a very tedious leaden film.

I agree with you about FIDDLER

 

[Jimbo.B]

I saw MFL onstage during its first tour as a child. I was thoroughly entranced by it. Having grown up with the Original Broadway Cast Album played constantly around the house I had every note committed to memory. (Actually I still play it occasionally on my iPad.) When I saw the film during it’s first run, I was equally entranced by it even. Like many, I was initially horrified that Julie didn’t do the film, but I thought Audrey was just so wonderful I couldn’t imagine anyone else in the part thereafter. The memory of sitting in the audience with my pink souvenir book in hand awaiting the Overture still sticks with me.

I saw 1776 onstage after the film came out. I had not seen the film in the theatre but I left the theatre absolutely LOVING the stage show! I looked forward to seeing the film later on TV and was disappointed that the stage magic was gone for me. I have repeatedly tried to watch it whenever TCM plays it every July 4, but I always find myself changing the channel before it ends.

It’s really just a matter of taste how one initially responds to these things I guess. The stage and screen versions of MFL sing to me. The stage version of 1776 did as well, but not the film.

 

[roxy1927]

I listened to the original cast album of 1776 obsessively when it came out. Not seeing it on stage when I got a little older was one of those how could I have missed it regrets. If I listened to it again I could probably sing along with it. It is far back in my memory somewhere.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

 

[Mike Frezon]

I can never help myself when I see those two together.

Besides Daniels turning 96, he and Bartlett have been married 72 years! God bless them!

 

[Jack P]

I always thought that homage scene in "St. Elsewhere" should have played out with her suggesting they go back to their hotel, she then whispers in his ear, he reacts, "In the middle of the afternoon??" and she could then deliver the appropriate line, "Not everyone's from Boston!"

Had fun going through the film again this past 4th as well as a couple theatrical productions I have on DVD. I wonder if out there someone has an actual soundboard recording of the full 1969 production? Goodness knows there are plenty of lesser Broadway musicals of that era that exist in that format!