The 1970s showed the once-invincible comic book super-heroes to be losers, in attitude and sales. Watergate had disillusioned the super-patriot Captain America with a storyline implying Nixon was the head of a terrorist group. The Captain trashes his outfit and becomes Nomad, The Man without a Country. My 11-year-old mind thought this was ridiculous, as Cap was originally a Depression-era 98-pound weakling until given a Super Soldier serum to bulk up and fight Nazis. It was unlikely that one of the “Greatest Generation” would bail on his country so readily. Even then I realized that this development merely mirrored a hippie writer’s attitude more than staying true to a character’s origins. 

Super-heroes became bleaker and even homicidal in the 1980s. The Punisher, a murderous vigilante, has become a top Marvel character. The Dark Knight Returns, a re-imagining of Batman, introduced an elderly caped crusader fighting the corrupt U.S. government represented by a stoogish Superman. Watchmen was set in a dystopic alternate reality where Nixon is still president and the super-group is made up of, among other miscreants, a rapist and mass murderer. It was a transmutation of established super-heroes from the 60s with Steve Ditko’s Objectivist hero The Question recast as the psychotic Rorschach. 

Ironically, while super-heroes have become leaders in the Hollywood box office, these films don’t help comics’ diminishing sales. In the 1940s, if a comic didn’t sell over a million copies it was cancelled. By the 80s, the cut-off point was 100,000 copies. Now companies are extremely happy selling 10,000 copies. The only time sales increase is when the publishers appeal to diehard collectors by releasing a title with multiple variant covers, and they gotta have ‘em all, or a new first issue of a popular character. Comic sales are at an all-time low and basically kept alive as merchandise-generators for film and other products. Time-Warner recently moved DC Comics from their publishing stable to the film division. Disney has bought Marvel Comics and it wasn’t for the stellar sales of their publications. 

One reason comic sales in general have dropped is because it is a one-genre medium (though there’s still Archie!). It’s as if the movie industry only made westerns and not comedies, science fiction, romance or other types of films. The industry has also ghettoized itself with the advent of the direct sales system. As sales withered on the newsstand (along with newsstands themselves), comic stores popped up with a new distribution paradigm. Copies that weren’t sold on the newsstand were sent back to the distributor for credit. With direct sales the books are non-returnable. They sell a lot less but they’re guaranteed sales. At first a supplement to newsstand distribution, like subscriptions, they are now the main source of revenue. 

Lower print runs have been blamed on the usual suspects; television, video games and the Internet. In fact publishers are marketing to the hard-core fanboy, an increasingly shrinking demographic. Stan Lee had introduced on-going storylines and continuity throughout his books. Earlier stories rarely continued and various super-heroes almost never interacted. Anyone could pick up a comic and read a self-contained story with a beginning and end. Now Stan’s continuity has mutated into ridiculous proportions with plot lines crossing over multiple issues and titles. The casual reader cannot pick up a singular issue and enjoy it, let alone understand it. One has to know the convoluted backgrounds of hundreds of characters or it won’t make any sense. There are obviously more people who might want to read comics than just comic geeks, but they can’t begin to unravel the catechism of modern super-heroes. Still more can’t find comics outside of comic book specialty shops and may not dare enter a place festooned with images of veiny, muscled goons lugging weapons and dripping blood. 

Super hero movies are popular for the same reason comics used to be attractive. They take you to a world of stunning visuals, exciting situations and heroic characters… unfortunately, the films are now beginning to fall in the same trap as comics. The most recent Batman and Spider-Man films featured the characters as darker, borderline evil, individuals and Marvel plans to introduce continuity to their movies. They will release new films with Captain America, Thor, Ant Man and others and then mush them all together with Iron Man and Hulk in an Avengers film. People who may have missed an earlier episode may not bother to see a later one where you’re expected to know all the characters’ baggage. 

Most disappointing in the superhero film trend was Superman Returns. The quintessential American super-hero becomes a metrosexual who ditches his baby mama Lois Lane for an outer space road trip to find himself and it tanked at the box office. The film pointedly refers to him fighting for truth and justice, but it’s not cool to mention the American way. Even the fabled Justice League of America is now termed the Justice League in a nod to one-worldness. 

It’s nearly impossible to find a comic that doesn’t star an angst-ridden anti-hero. The end of exceptional American super-heroes is here.

The characters we now recognize as super-heroes crystallized with the debut of Superman in 1938. Representative of the American experience, Superman was the ultimate immigrant. Not merely from another country, the Man of Steel came from a whole different planet! With his success, publishers released a myriad of titles featuring crime-fighting patriotic adventurers who all fought for “truth, justice and the American way.” That included those who were born on an all-female island (the star-spangled Wonder Woman), from Atlantis (the Sub-Mariner), robots (the Human Torch) or even dead people (the Spectre and Kid Eternity)! Gaining super powers even reformed criminals as in Plastic Man’s case. 

America hadn’t yet entered World War II and super-heroes were already bashing Nazis. There were no isolationists in comics and when the Japanese attacked America the characters leapt into the fray, punishing Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini on seemingly endless covers. Individual comic titles sold in the millions and were read by all demographics. This era of comics was rightly dubbed the Golden Age. 

Super-heroes were the epitome of American Exceptionalism; there wasn’t anything they couldn’t do. In contrast, European fiction was rife with super-criminals, from Fantômas and Dr. Mabuse, on to comics with killer protagonists, most notably Diabolik. Murderers like Kriminal, Satanik, Killing and Fatalik followed. This could be due to the fact that after centuries of strife, as well as being on the losing end of two world wars, their culture was not as optimistic as the United States. 

Sales of super hero comics peaked after the war and many publishers transitioned to other genres like teen humor, funny animals and most ominously, crime and horror. 

Psychologists and social critics looking to explain the rise of juvenile delinquency latched onto the lurid content of comic books. Fredric Wertham, a psychiatrist who had defended cannibals and child rapists in court, wrote the book Seduction of the Innocent, which posited that comics, especially of the crime and horror ilk, caused kids to go bad. He accused super-heroes of sado-masochism and defined the innocuous relationship of Batman and Robin as homosexual. 

This lead to the infamous United States Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency in 1954, ultimately chaired by the coonskin cap wearing Senator Estes Kefauver (D-TN). The bad publicity led to the formation of the Comics Code Authority by a cadre of comic publishers to self-censor their titles, similar to what the Hays Code did with films earlier in Hollywood. 

The net result was that comic book content was lobotomized and the medium limited to children and adults with arrested development. Super-heroes had mostly left the scene except for the triumvirate of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman… and their adventures were rendered mundane under the Code. 

The genre was revitalized in the late 1950s when DC Comics revamped its older characters for a new generation. Neoteric versions of the Flash, Green Lantern and more were introduced and, noting their popularity, Marvel Comics launched a new batch of characters in the early 1960s. They had the significant characteristic of “heroes with problems…” Spider-Man couldn’t get a date, Iron Man had heart problems and the Fantastic Four were bickering with each other. 

This appealed to eggheads and college students who preferred Marvel to the staid and conservative (read “square”) heroes at DC and Marvel started receiving positive press in magazines from Esquire to Rolling Stone. Marvel writer/editor Stan Lee got a lot of credit for the success, but it can’t be denied that the innovative and dynamic artwork of Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby is what primarily dragged readers into the “Marvel Universe.” 

Comic sales were atrophying in the 1960s with the Batman comic almost cancelled until the premiere of his groundbreaking TV series. Batmania hit the world and comic sales rose to 1940s levels with every publisher doing super-heroes again though sales soon dropped off again. 

The first generation of comic fans soon became professionals, aping Stan Lee’s work without his context and adding their own political and psychological attitudes. “Social relevance” was the rage, and while award winning and noted in The New York Times, these new themes did not translate to new sales. During this period, Green Arrow’s sidekick was revealed to be a heroin addict, vigilante heroes became killers and Iron Man was ultimately revealed to be an alcoholic.

Next: The Fall of the Super-Hero

“We will write our own future, and the future will be what we want it to be.” – Barack Obama

In a quiet and seemingly innocuous gesture, President Obama has designated 9/11 as “The National Day of Service and Remembrance.” Personally, I liked the ring of “Patriot Day,” and what does “service and remembrance” mean, precisely ? The idea is to get Americans to “engage in meaningful service to create change…in four key areas”: education, health, energy/environment and community renewal. None of these seems to have anything to do with honoring 9/11, but that seems to be the point: in the Huffington Post, Muslim-American playwright Wajahat Ali wrote, “In the US, we are trying to move away from focusing on 9/11 as a day of horror, and instead make it a day to recommit ourselves to national service.” An excellent Spectator article provides a blunter translation: “Nihilistic liberals are planning to drain 9/11 of all meaning.” Why? ”They think it needs to be taken back from the right.”

In other words, they resent the surge of patriotism and righteous outrage stirred up by the attacks, sentiments that empower the political Right. In order to advance the leftist agenda of dismantling American exceptionalism and recasting ourselves as the villain in our history books, they need Americans to put 9/11 behind us, forget the victims, forget that our enemy danced in the streets in celebration, forget that Islamic terror plots on our very shores continue to be disrupted, and forget that our rights and freedoms are under assault by a subversive civilizational jihad.

It seems impossible to believe that that morning could be forgotten – just as it was once impossible to believe that our government could erase “jihad” and “Islamic” and “terrorism” from our national lexicon, preventing us from even naming the enemy, or that an American President could proclaim us no longer a Christian nation, but rather one of the world’s largest Muslim countries. There was a time when screenwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh’s extraordinary 2006 ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11 was going to be shown in schools across this country and be aired every 9/11 anniversary – until the Clinton administration, wanting you to forget their flaccid response to the growing threat of Islamic extremism, and fearing the show would tarnish their political legacy, pulled out all the stops to suppress it; it very nearly wasn’t aired, and today you can’t even obtain it on DVD.  (This whole story has been related fascinatingly in John Ziegler’s must-see documentary Blocking the Path to 9/11). It’s impossible to forget that morning only if we fight to keep its memory alive.

Americans can commit themselves to public service any or every other day of the year; 9/11 should be reserved for solemn remembrance and renewed commitment to preserving American security, values and sovereignty. A day of greening your neighborhood? I’m all for planting trees, but what does “green” have to do with 9/11?  Only that it’s the color of Islam. But if the President insists, allow me to suggest some service appropriate to the day: 

Education? How about this: educate yourself and your children about 9/11 and about the continuing Islamist threat – not only of overt acts of terrorism, but the insidious dangers of “stealth jihad” and “creeping sharia.”

Environment and community renewal? Okay, beautify your block by flying the Stars and Stripes. It sends a simple but unmistakable message to the enemy and their useful idiots that, unlike our post-American President and his fawning media, you are proud to be American; you believe in American exceptionalism; you believe that making this day about installing fluorescent light bulbs trivializes the memory of 9/11’s victims; and you will never let their deaths be in vain or erased from history.

Eight years ago, nineteen fanatical Muslims turned hijacked aircraft carrying hundreds of terrified passengers into missiles targeting symbols of American might. Nearly 3000 innocents died horribly that day, including hundreds of courageous, selfless first responders making a superhuman effort to rescue their fellow citizens. The hijackers are regarded by their fellow Islamists as heroes and martyrs in the cosmic war against the Great Satan America. That war is by no means over, and thus, in the Faulknerian sense, neither is 9/11. We owe it to the victims to keep this day alive in our hearts and national consciousness - and not allow the Left to bury it.

Bill Maher, never one to miss an opportunity to express his contempt for anything not Bill Maher, wrote: “Yes, our so-called President wrote that people in other countries might like their countries better… I was so shocked I nearly dropped the Bible I was using to help me masturbate into my gun.”  

[click image to play video]

People like Maher use this kind of snark to cover the fact that either they have serious issues in comprehension, or, more likely, that they do not care for the lay of the intellectual battlefield and so want to move it to another, slimier, filthier one. 

The question to the President was not whether or not he believed in American Patriotism – that is, the love of one’s country. Of course other people love their countries. But the idea of American Exceptionalism is a specific political construct, much like British Colonialism. I suppose I should have cut both of them more slack, unfamiliar as both hearts are with the feel of patriotism and faced with the clear evidence of lack of intellectual exceptionalism on both their parts. 

Anyway, this has to be responded to: and never were there bigger fish in a smaller barrel. Many of the elements I used to make the case for American Exceptionalism I first used here at Big Hollywood in a piece called The Workshops of Identity. I opened those arguments up considerably, and the great thing about video [click image above to play] is the ability to include a lot of statistics and graphic elements to hammer home the point. (The list of American inventive genius in particular is a great deal of fun.) 

At 15 minutes it’s a little long for the web – I know, you are shocked… Shocked! – but that’s how much data is in there. And you really can’t end a piece like this without pining for the days when a common citizen didn’t have to explain the idea of American Exceptionalism to the President of the United States, but rather the other way around.  Hearing those words from a President who loved his country as much – if not more – than the rest of us certainly highlights just how far we have fallen and how much work remains for all of us to do.

Andy Warhol also spoke that jewel of wisdom, presumably demonstrating a sense of humor in referring to his most famous quote.  Or was it, perhaps, prescient, albeit unintended foreknowledge?  Pity he’s not around to toy with Twitter.

Bridge as visual metaphor, Media as bridge, Pittsburgh.

Looking back at Part 1, we considered a couple of insights into Andy’s Pop Life with the aim of solving some problems surrounding Mr. Breitbart’s incisive assertion that conservatives must come to terms with popular culture, and more, use it to advantage, or fail catastrophically in countering the negative effects of said culture and restoring public confidence in fundamental ideals.  Narcissism, amorality, and an attitude of entitlement, as examples, speak poorly to the future of democracy, while the virtues of valuing others, the practice of ethical discernment and choice, and the elevating ideas of individual liberty and self-reliance are greatly to be desired in the body politic, and traditionally set America apart from typical “statist” governments around the world.  Evidence abounds of the former set of attitudes in common currency as reflected in pop culture; the latter set, highly prized by conservatives, goes sorely wanting for attention in movies, TV, music, etc.

The critical problem is that even people who are taught virtuous ideals and behaviors as kids get practically no reinforcement in the entertainment media for knowing, doing, and desiring what is generally called, in classical terms, The Good, which is determined in the greater part by the transmission of culture, conscience and common sense.  The rewards of such attitudes being as self-evident as the consequences for failure to acquire them, how may they be elevated in the popular culture?

As a visionary master of the Culture of Pop, Warhol’s work invites analysis, and previously the essentials of (1) commercial appeal for profitable outcomes and (2) elimination of distinctions between “highbrow” and “lowbrow” art were mentioned.  If it’s not hip and it does not sell, even to a niche market, it’s pointless and wasteful; since the rarefied sensibilities of cultural elites are of such little consequence outside their ivory towers and cocktail parties, crank up the heavy metal and unleash the moronic slapstick teen comedies, if that’s what it takes to deal with the issues and get the points across, specifically through thematic content.

In our next look at the Warhol canon, consider the obvious:

“It’s the movies that have really been running things in America ever since they were invented. They show you what to do, how to do it, when to do it, how to feel about it, and how to look how you feel about it. Everybody has their own America, and then they have the pieces of a fantasy America that they think is out there but they can’t see.”  —Andy Warhol

It takes actors and actresses, musicians and filmmakers, media mavens and individuals of charismatic character to thrust themselves and their ideas into the forefront of pop cultural awareness.  Jerks, nitwits, dirtbags and phonies do it every day, as Big Hollywood attests daily, because the template is cut for them and the infrastructure is in place to launch their downhill course.  Warhol, credited with coining the term “Superstar” which he applied—ironically, perhaps—to the loose troupe of lunatics, drag queens, and hangers-on who appeared in his films, parodied Hollywood culture with his Factory’s unstable stable of “sex symbols” and “celebrities,” growing all the while into a true media icon in his own right, ultimately hobnobbing with the genuine idols of stage and screen as a superstar himself.

Filmmaker John Waters followed much the same path, unfazed, as was Warhol, by the lack of blockbuster budgets, and has written and directed numerous crossover and mainstream movies in addition to his early, “underground” flicks.  For underground, read unsavory, demented, filthy, what you will, (and particularly offensive to conservative sensibilities) in both Waters’ and Warhol’s oeuvres.  The point, however, is about realized potential, not content, and about the degree to which anybody can do it.

Content which reflects The Good is the desired outcome in delivering a product for widespread Pop consumption; in its creation, contemporary technology goes a long way to minimize budget obstacles which would have been insurmountable in even the recent past.  “The Blair Witch Project” was made a decade ago for about thirty-five grand.  “Fireproof” was made for around a half-million.  Somewhere between those two budgets there is enough money, in the right hands, to build the beginnings of an alternate Pop universe, as Warhol did in a wide range of media.  Conservative hands, libertarian and independent hands, any like-minded people who want to get together—and get a grip—can, and should, give it a shot.  (Perhaps needless to say, in promotion and manipulation of image, such works should never be promoted as “conservative,” etc., any more than the others are promoted as “progressive.”  Let the critics and the Democratic Media Complex complain about that.)

The more such alternate worlds, the better, because audiences embrace the pleasures of participating, however briefly, in fully realized, well-defined imaginative realities, such as the “Star Wars” films, the “Mad Max” and “Lord of the Rings” trilogies, the “Seinfeld” and “X-Files” TV productions, and, for that matter, the entirety of the imaginary ”country” American society and landscape created by country music artists.  Rock and pop music create similar imaginary worlds, though the music industry as a whole continues in decline.

For a time it was said, “The Rolling Stones are not a band.  They are a way of life.”  That way of life is a continuum in the world of rock and roll, which is blasted all night followed by partying every day, to paraphrase KISS.  For party, read “indulge.”  Anyone can play.  Especially with karaoke or the Guitar Hero game, which provides just the imaginary setting for your rock and roll fantasy.

The degree to which anyone can do it: low-budget media-generated alternate universe by your correspondent. In Warhol's day, such an image would have involved considerable time, expertise and expense. Note subtle product placement of the famous Marshall Amplifier.

Video games—which currently surpass the movie industry in sales—put the players in such worlds, contending with or even surpassing the experiences of “real life” activities.  Individuals create such worlds with shameless self-promoting personal websites, Facebook, MySpace, and other social networking sites.  You can take high school kids on a field trip to Mount Rushmore or Auschwitz, but if you don’t keep them away from their phones or iPods, they might miss the whole thing.  That is the power of immersive digital media, which now means everyone can play.

Erstwhile film student Jim Morrison may have had no idea of what was coming when he expanded on Marshall McLuhan’s statement:  “Everyone should say, the media is the message, and the message is me,” but that is what is possible now, and that’s the message, in every form imaginable.  Camera held at arm’s length, snapping self.

The fifteen minutes Warhol mentioned have elapsed—everyone is famous.

Now what?  Pop culture demands glamour.  But it needs The Good.  It needs character, courage, and vision.

Tomorrow: Do The Warhol— Part 3 of 4: The Velvet (Underground) Revolution ]]> http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/sgraves/2009/07/24/do-the-warhol%e2%80%94-part-2-the-culture-of-personality/feed/ 21 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mdanziger/2009/07/04/july-4-2009what-are-we-celebrating-today-exactly/ http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mdanziger/2009/07/04/july-4-2009what-are-we-celebrating-today-exactly/#comments Sun, 05 Jul 2009 00:27:16 +0000 Marc Danziger http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=176802 I’m one of the last liberal believers in American Exceptionalism, and as I look around the political and media landscapes around me, I’m damn lonely. Not just liberals, but conservatives – like Andrew Bacevitch – seem to be shedding any idea that America is more than just another country with bigger shopping malls than most.

I don’t agree, and I think it matters that I be right and they be wrong.

It matters because in a world where the power of images and ideas is becoming stronger every day – where people defend themselves against men with guns by using cellphone cameras – we seem to be fresh out of ideas.

There’s a physical war going on out in the world with us on one side – and on the other a group allied in large part by their rejection of our beliefs as much as their rejection of our power. They are fighting us with bullets and bombs – and with YouTube videos, discussion forums, and impassioned manifestos. They believe, alright. If you ask them, they will clearly tell you that they do and tell you in what.

So as a counterbalance, what do we believe in? On this 4th of July, it’s worth asking – is it just baseball, hot dogs, and light beer?

It’s not, you say – it’s much more than our prosperity – it’s…our freedom. It’s…and then the words run out. Why can’t we say it? Why is it that the people who shape our culture can’t talk about whatever it is that culture is defined by, and instead talk endlessly and with pleasure about those whose only joy is transgressing the culture they can’t express?

Expressing our culture matters. Look, at the end of the day, this war won’t just be won killing those who would kill us. It will be won by converting those who would join them to join us instead. But what do we offer to make it worth joining us, exactly? What makes our side worth joining? Who are we, and what are we trying to do in the world? Why can’t we talk about that?

That’s not a new question. I read a lot – my wife would roll her eyes and say “only a lot?” – and in the course of reading, I tripped over an interesting and little-known book…a political think piece commissioned by Time Magazine founder Henry Luce in 1959 called Beyond Survival. In the first chapter, author Max Ways (a Time political correspondent) talks about the inability of the United States to formulate policies that were not responses to crises from the outside, and what that would mean as the Cold War drifted to deadlock. What would happen to America as its foreign policy drifted into a dead end?

That, precisely, is the question. For if the fault in our national policy-making process is not to be found in the government itself nor in the public itself, it must be in the way these two are connected. Are the people being asked the right questions by their leaders? Is it possible under present circumstances for leaders to ask the right questions or for the people to answer? Can the great public issues that affect our destiny be framed in a way that allows helpful public participation?

Every citizen feels free and easy in expressing his opinion about specifics of what the government does or proposes to do; but we have become timid about discussing the ends and the fundamental beliefs that condition political action. This reticence shuts off the public from that part of political life with which it is most capable of dealing, the moral part. What can the citizen be expected to contribute to a discussion of how many aircraft carriers we should build or how we should handle the technical diplomatic problems of the Berlin crisis? Topics such as these are unprofitably kicked around in public argument while a near silence prevails upon the larger questions of what we are trying to do and the moral relations between our goals and the means we choose.

The only people breaking that near silence today are those on the left who seem to believe that our national goal should be to provide redress to the masses of the world who have been wronged by the power relationships in the past century, and those on the right who simply seem to believe that national power – in and of itself – ought to be our goal. And that, having kicked down opposing powers and established our primacy, that the people of the world would simply stand with us.

Both of these dangerous delusions seem to be based on the postmodern interpretation that power relationships are all, and that highlighting them, and where possible inverting them, is man’s noblest goal (note that I think there’s more to postmodernism than this – but not a lot more to postmodern politics).

The people who matter in this are, more than anything, the mythmakers – the Hollywood folks who this site is supposedly about. Because what we have misplaced somehow are the American myths that matter. I can’t lay them out here – I can’t even find my car keys, much less missing myths. But I think I know just a bit what they look like and can set out a post office sketch in case you happen to trip over them and care to bring them back to our attention.

But if instinctive patriotism and the patriotism of the city cannot be ours, what can be? Is there a type of patriotism peculiarly American: if so, is it anything more than patriotism’s violent relative nationalism? Abraham Lincoln, the supreme authority on this subject, thought there was a patriotism unique to America. Americans, a motley gathering of various races and cultures, were bonded together not by blood or religion, not by tradition or territory, not by the calls and traditions of a city, but by a political idea. We are a nation formed by a covenant, by dedication to a set of principles, and by an exchange of promises to uphold and advance certain commitments among ourselves and throughout the world. Those principles and commitments are the core of American identity, the soul of the body politic. They make the American nation unique, and uniquely valuable among and to the other nations. But the other side of this conception contains a warning very like the warnings spoken by the prophets to Israel: if we fail in our promises to each other, and lose the principles of the covenant, then we lose everything, for they are we.”[emphasis added]

That’s leftist professor John Schaar, from his essay on patriotism – ‘The Case For Patriotism.’ Schaar was one of my professors in college – sadly, on that I didn’t pay enough attention to back then – and one thing about his teaching was that it was largely based not only in texts – the Federalist Papers and Mill and Locke – but in novels that he felt encapsulated a greater truth about America and American politics – novels like Moby Dick and The Great Gatsby.

Because he understood that what it takes to understand America is to understand myths.

And I’ve got to tell you that everywhere I look in popular culture – movies, television, books, music – the only myths I see are ones that define themselves in opposition to this unstated myth, and leave it to be defined as a negative – defined by where it isn’t.

Where are our American myths today? How can we prevail in this conflict, except by brute power, without them? How can we refashion them, with proper reverence to the myths that brought us to this place and with relevance to a wider world that suddenly connects us to cultures far outside our own? What American myth can a young Palestinian child find to compete with the hateful death-embracing myths that he is being force-fed today?

March 16 will mark the 40th anniversary of the Broadway opening of “1776.”  Written by Sherman Edwards and Peter Stone, it went on to run for 1,217 performances.  It’s hard to believe that forty years ago it was still popular to write an unabashedly patriotic musical that openly celebrated American Exceptionalism and painted the founding fathers not just as humans but as the intellectual and moral giants that they were.  Because the 1972 film version is tantamount to a filmed version of the play rather than a Hollywood re-interpretation, its original intent and form is easily accessible to today’s audience.  It deserves a good look and therefore, is this week’s Sunday Matineé. 

“1776″ uses the character of John Adams as the main protagonist in telling the story of his legendary fight to convince the continental congress to adopt a resolution calling for independence from King George.  The show follows the journey of Adams’ victories in convincing congress to form a committee to draft the Declaration of Independence, the ensuing debate over the contents of the declaration, the conflict between the Northern states and the Southern states over slavery and finally, the climactic scene depicting the signing of the declaration.

The brilliance of the drama in this show is not “will they do it?” since everyone in the audience knows they will… the drama lies in “how are they gonna pull this off?”  The show uses a simple but very theatrical and dramatic device by showing a giant day calendar on the wall above John Hancock’s desk.  Each new scene shows the calendar page ripped away revealing what day we are witnessing.  Everyone with at least a 1st Grade education knows that we are all counting down to July 4th and the tension genuinely builds as we see the day coming closer and yet it doesn’t seem like Adams and his coalition will get all of the states to favor a declaration in time.

“1776″ is unique in many ways.  Most striking is the fact that the stage is populated by many, many men and there are only two women in the show: Abigail Adams and Martha Jefferson.  And Abigail only appears through her letters with John–she does not actually interact with the rest of the cast.  Martha only appears for one scene, a somewhat apocryphal moment when Franklin and Adams send for her to provide Jefferson a much needed conjugal visit so he can re-focus on the writing of the declaration.

So, other than that, it’s a 2 1/2 hour long musical with a bunch of wig-wearing guys sitting around debating in 18th century aristocratic costumes.  No chorus, no dancers, no special effects, no leggy dancers… not really the recipe for musical theatre success.

Because the film was such a faithful replica of the stage production including using most of the same principal actors, clips from the film should provide you with a great taste of what it was like to witness this show live at the 46th Street Theatre (now the Richard Rodgers) 40 years ago.  Here is the great opening number, “Sit Down John!”:

How great is that?  “One useless man is called a disgrace, two are called a law firm, and three or more become a congress!”  That’s the great William Daniels playing John Adams, a role he will always be associated with.  And what brilliant writing as the congress is in a great debate over the pros and cons of opening a window?  They all agree it is too hot, half want the window open, the other half don’t want to let in any flies, Thomas Jefferson forms a coalition trying to strike a compromise… it seems the only thing the entire congress can agree on is their hatred of Adams.  In one opening number, Sherman Edwards defines the character of Adams and his single-minded focus on pushing the issue of independence plus he illustrates the ineffectiveness of congress and their antagonism to Adams.  All put to song… I’ve said it before:  Great musicals are often defined by their opening number.

Another thing to note as these clips keep coming:  One of the most thrilling things to hear on stage is a full male ensemble singing robust songs in multiple parts.  There is something about hearing great male singers in full voice with close layers of harmony.  “Guys and Dolls,” “Les Miserables,” “The Music Man” and “1776″ all feature songs like this and it never fails to please the audience.

One of the great surprises of “1776″ is how much humor there is in it.  At first glance, it’s pretty dry stuff, but Edwards and Stone take great liberties in using some facts about the characters of these men and then expand upon those traits drawing them out and making the comedic elements of their personalities as broad as possible.

Here’s an example… it’s no secret that the Lee family of Virginia was historically prominent and influential.  Dating their origin to the Jamestown colony in 1639, they became established in the colonies through tobacco farming and politics… they were the Kennedys of their time–rich and political and not a little pompous.

History tells us that one of the strategies Benjamin Franklin and John Adams used to move the Declaration of Independence along was to get Richard Henry Lee to make the motion in congress.  He was so respected and carried so much weight that he would be accepted as the sponsor of the resolution (where as Adams was hated by all).  It was up to Lee to ride to Virginia to get the approval of the House of Burgesses to make the motion.  Here’s how “1776″ portrays the man and the moment:

I’m glad the scene is included before the song as well.  You can see how brilliantly Stone uses actual quotes from giant men like Franklin and incorporates them seamlessly into the dialogue.  Also, Stone clearly has a reverence and love for these men and what they did.  Make no mistake, this is ”American Triumphalism, the musical” and there are no apologies made.  You see this show and you learn one thing:  America is great.  Period.

OK… gotta show a little more of the humor and then we’ll move on to the meatier stuff.  Here’s a brilliant song depicting the debate within the committee over who should write the Declaration of Independence.  Again, pay attention to the clever lyrics.

Franklin:
Mr. Adams, but, Mr. Adams
The things I write are only light extemporania
I won’t put politics on paper; it’s a mania
So I refuse to use the pen in Pennsylvania

Sherman:
Mr. Adams, but, Mr. Adams
I cannot write with any style or proper etiquette
I don’t know a participle from a predicate
I am just a simple cobbler from Connecticut

By the way, yes, that’s Ken (The White Shadow) Howard as Thomas Jefferson.

So, the aforementioned conjugal visit between Jefferson and Martha occurs and Franklin and Adams wait for him to emerge from his chamber.  A wonderful scene between the two of them speculating about how history will (or will not) view them, and then comes Martha to sing the praises of Tom.  On Broadway, it was a young Betty Buckley wowing Broadway audiences for the first time.  Here on film, it’s the sumptuous and aptly named Blythe Danner… oh how I miss seeing her on stage and how superior she is on film to her daughter.

And, there you have it.  All Jefferson needed was one night with Martha and the next morning he cranks out the Declaration of Independence!  Who knew?  If I had one night with a young Blythe Danner, who knows what great writing I’d be capable of?

So, now things get a little tricky.  You see, the block of voters who oppose the declaration and wish to keep their allegiance  with the King are labeled in the show as “Conservatives.”  This was a real sticking point in 1969 when the show came out and in 1972 with the film.  In fact, the Nixon Administration complained at the characterization of those against the creation of our country as being the forefathers of the modern conservative movement.  Frankly, knowing that the vast majority of millionaires in the Senate are Democrats, and knowing that the ideals Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and Washington represented fit perfectly with the values of the modern conservative movement, I don’t see the problem.  But if you think in shallow terms and watch this scene thinking that these guys represent the “Republicans,” then yeah, I think you can see the problem:

The purpose of this series of articles (Sunday Matineé) is to highlight great shows from Broadway’s past.  Not just shows written by conservatives or for that matter shows which always take a “conservative” world view.  I have no idea about Stone and Edwards’ politics, but I do know that as a conservative thinker, I can watch this show and love all that is great about America.  I feel pride with my spiritual connection to the forefathers and celebrate their courage and brilliance.  I am not forced to defend my modern-day political perspective and I can objectively feel a kinship with these men and respect for the revolution they spawned.  That is not only great writing, it’s what is now lacking on Broadway in so many of our shows.  And I maintain there is a vast audience for it.  So, please don’t send e-mails or post comments telling me that the writers of this show hated conservatives… if they did, it doesn’t matter.  Their work stands up to any objective scrutiny despite the inclusion of the above song.  If a modern-day conservative sees themselves in that number, it’s more a problem with their own perspective and self-analysis, not a problem with the writing.

So the original draft of Jefferson’s declaration is read and debated, almost line by line.  And slowly, Adams wins his votes and Jefferson loses large chunks of his original draft… until the issue of slavery is approached.  As we know, Jefferson’s original draft had language decrying the ownership of slaves (modern revisionists overlook this and ignorantly paint Jefferson as nothing more than a racist, slave owner).  The Southern states refuse to sign on until the language is removed and Adams and Jefferson dig in.  Notice the brilliant staging in the way Franklin is positioned, observing:

Franklin convinces Adams to let it go; the issue of independence was too important and they agree to let future generations work out the problem of slavery (four score and seven years in the future, to be exact).  The final scene depicts, of course, the signing.  When staged properly, it brings chills and cheers:

The good humor and joshing regarding the consequences of their treasonous act is immediately shifted to the weight and reality of the situation upon the reading of the dispatch from General Washington.  And with bells tolling and the orchestra swelling, our country is born.

Here’s a bit of trivia about this play: In the first act, scene three, during the initial debate over independence, there is a twenty two minute stretch of unending dialogue without any music to interrupt it.  This is the record for the longest duration of time in a musical without a single note of music.  In this day of rock opera and endless, banal recitative, it’s so refreshing to see a musical not be afraid to talk to the audience rather than sing at them.

One more bit of trivia… Years later, William Daniels starred in the great and under-appreciated NBC drama “St. Elsewhere.”  In the final season, they had a storyline that took his character to Philadelphia.  In one scene, he is walking around the grounds of Independence Hall and says, “I don’t know what it is about this place but it makes me want to get up and sing.”  Few got the inside joke…(Good Lord, I really am a geek, aren’t I?)

For our finale, I want to take you back to the opening number.  This time, the Broadway cast of the recent revival as seen on the Tony Awards.  Pay close attention to those magnificent male harmonies as they are even more evident in this version versus the film version seen above.