Skip to content

9/16 Post, Alex DiMedio


I find the dynamic of watching a live action play to be very impactful on picturing history.  Anyone that watches the play 1776 or Hamilton is given a picture of what history looked like.  People use these plays as a way to put the words they learn in history books into images.  I believe the playwrights have a crucial role in upholding the true values of the past, and not sugar coating it to make the founding fathers look like heroes, but rather for the men they actually were.  Live stream media revolves around television and many of the falsehoods that people believe today can be attributed to the glorified aspects of Hollywood.  


I find it interesting how the play writers of 1776 make John Adams, and a few of the other founding fathers seem very intelligent and very hard working.  In reality these were average people that happened to grow up in a social status that provided them the opportunity to pursue independence and speak on the behalf of the thousands of people living as a British colony.  I wonder about the truth of many scenes of the play 1776.  Jefferson adamantly opposes the institution of slavery in front of congress, and I fear the play is glorifying America’s founding fathers.  However, I am glad that both of the plays, especially Hamilton, acknowledge some of the faults of these men.  I am glad to see the more recent play is more concerned with performing a play that does greater justice to the past.  Hamilton is a play that broke color barriers, and did a great job of bringing out some more truth about the founding fathers, and I think this is what made the play so successful.  

Published inUncategorized


  1. Tess Keating Tess Keating

    I like the point you made about “sugar coating”. While having Alexander Hamilton be the main focus of the play I would have thought that only good things would be said about him, however there was a whole part of the play about how he was unfaithful to his wife.

  2. William Coben William Coben

    I agree with Tess, and what you mentioned about the sugar coating, but what i would note is that there must be a purpose. I believe that the world has a brutal past. Every nation at some point fought and killed for the area that they reside in, and other factors have led the world to what it is today. Despite the brutal past, histroy books dont tell the full story becasue there is no reason to. It is often safer for everyone to leave out some details and while to historians that ma ybe problematic, it is better for the general well being of the public, so i beleive that is why the same thing takes place in Hamilton and 1776.

  3. Julia Leonardi Julia Leonardi

    Yes!! I totally agree!! They were just people who happened to grow up with social status and lots and lots of money. You don’t ever really see a founding father who was poor and worked really hard and became rich and smart. They were already groomed to be who they ended being as kids. This is what allowed them to become the people who could speak out because we all know all the common people would’ve never gotten this type of traction.

  4. Christina Glynn Christina Glynn

    Yes, I agree especially with putting the textbooks into images. I feel that these playwrights gave a different look into the history of our country compared to what I learned throughout schooling and textbooks.

  5. Julia Borger Julia Borger

    I think your fear of the play glorifying the founding fathers is very accurate, as I feel the same way. I couldn’t help but make the connection to our discussions on how history is told by the victors and exaggerated to make them look good while watching. I agree with your second point as well, that Hamilton did a much better job highlighting more truth, and I am satisfied with the whole production as well, as I know the whole making of the musical was centralized on telling the history in a creative way, but without leaving out/exaggerating details, which adds a more natural and pure element to the production.

Leave a Reply