Summary Of The Film Charade

1665 Words 7 Pages
America gained independence through bloodshed, gory battles, and a plethora of heated debates among the founding fathers of our country. The Continental Congress-who in the end signed the Declaration of Independence- was ironically initially not unanimously united in the idea of creating an independent nation: The United States of America. It was transparent that the liberation could only occur effectively if the delegates were able to make decisions on issues that they had with cutting off ties with the mother country. This was what transpired in the feature film 1776 in Philadelphia among the delegates of thirteen colonies. Despite the small inaccuracies that some may consider the film to have, the film mainly portrays historically accurate …show more content…
The screenplay was written by Peter Stone and the events of history was kept intact and maintained its integrity. Since the movie derives many information from actual letters and memoirs, it shows different dimensions of the founding fathers which would be difficult to find in a textbook. Stone was an established screenwriter finding success with his film Charade and won an Oscar in 1965 for another film as well. His high credentials enable the film to become a reality through the use of entertaining, but also factual dialogue. The dialogue was potent and used the type of formal language that would be heard back then. The screenplay maintained a level of entertainment without making it the focal point unlike movies such as America. America is a movie about the events during the American Revolutionary War, but focuses primarily on the romance of individuals like many films. In 1776, romance was included between John Adams and Abagail as well as Thomas Jefferson and his wife, but made a point to stick to the serious topic of signing the Declaration. Compared with America, the scenes in the movie also transitioned better and did not create choppiness or confusion. The screenplay of 1776 was mainly historical, but it did have a few discrepancies which usually aided in interest. The depiction of Richard Henry Lee as a silly man can be considered …show more content…
Actors such as Howard Da Silva who played Benjamin Franklin, helped the film maintain its historical accuracy because he was able to encompass the personality of Franklin so well. In fact, his most notable works have been his portrayals of historical figures. His actions in the film, his look, and his deep yet dignified voice help advance the film. The successful portrayal of John Adams by William Daniels as a strong and powerful person who pushes toward independence, shows how important the topic of freedom is. He is well respected and not as mocked publicly by the congress as it imprecisely shows in the film, but the mockery of his abrasive efforts show how dedicated our forefathers were to gaining separation from Britain. Daniels success in establishing the role well can be the effect of his experience from the live play as well as his experience in other pictures. The role of Thomas Jefferson by Ken Howard was also successful partly because of his experience in other work such as Child’s Play, which he gained a Tony for. He represented the character as a congressman, but also as a man with passion for his love life and personal hobbies. His wife was actually not brought to town like the movie suggests and in reality was grieving over a miscarriage. Regardless of that minute inaccuracy, the representation of Thomas

Related Documents