tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3649594811552139256.post779816705751934660..comments2024-03-11T02:35:53.846-07:00Comments on Roger Ebert's Worst Reviews: 42. 1776 (1772)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3649594811552139256.post-70637405930001099882015-04-28T21:49:11.310-07:002015-04-28T21:49:11.310-07:00I would suggest that - to paraphrase Bob Dylan - y...I would suggest that - to paraphrase Bob Dylan - you're right from your side and Roger's right from his.<br /><br />1776 is a delightful entertainment - I watched it recently, for the first time since the '70s, and was surprised by how well it held up as such. <br /><br />But as history, it's nearly a washout. The authors took so many crucial liberties with the historical record that one wonders why they even bothered writing it. Wikipedia has a pretty good summation of these inaccuracies - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776_(musical)#Historical_accuracy - perhaps the greatest of which is that the vote for independence actually took place before Jefferson's Declaration was drafted, rather than being contingent upon it as in the musical. Also, John Adams was not "obnoxious and disliked" as per the musical, but generally well-respected and admired. On the other hand, he did not get along very well with Benjamin Franklin, who is portrayed in the musical as his buddy and confidant!<br /><br />So, three and a half stars for entertainment value, one and a half stars for history.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com