Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, and the other demigods in Ford's 1776

I was momentarily surprised when Ford's Theatre announced its 2025-26 season and 1776 was on there--they had done the show in 2003 and 2012--and then I realized. Of course. America's 250th. An event I'd been excited about for years but just can't get excited about in reality.

And yet. 

I found myself in a theater full of people applauding the line "The count being twelve to none with one abstention, the resolution on independence—is adopted" and I choked up. I saw Ford's production five times this run, and in most of them, people applauded that moment. I saw the productions in 2003 and 2012. I saw it on Broadway in 1997 and the Encores production in 2016. I've never experienced audiences reacting that way. And it got to me. Even in 2026, the idea of the United States of America still has a hold on me.

The show does hit differently depending on what's going on in the world. This go-round, I was particularly hit by John Hancock (Thomas Adrian Simpson) voting that the resolution on independence would need to be unanimous, seemingly dooming the proposition: "Don't you see that any colony who opposes independence will be forced to fight on the side of England—that we'll be setting brother against brother, that our new nation will carry as its emblem the mark of Cain?" 

I generally think of the slavery debate in Act Two as what causes the United States to be carrying that mark of Cain (Adams: "Mark me, Franklin, if we give in on this issue, posterity will never forgive us"). But this time around, it's that idea of disunity. True, the colonies come together and unanimously vote for independence. And while John Dickinson's "Don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor. And that is why they will follow us to the right" always resonates, the concept of trying to keep the country from turning on itself is what stuck with me in this run.

Jonathan Atkinson as John Adams and the Ford's Theatre cast of 1776. Photo by Scott Suchman.

 

I've seen 1776, both the movie and the stage version, many many times. Many times. And listened to the Original Broadway Cast recording countless times. Those performances are ingrained in me in such a way that it's hard to try to evaluate other versions without just comparing them to the version that's in my head.

That said, Ford's did a great job. There are things about the production I didn't particularly like, but there were many things about it I absolutely loved. Above all, the acting. Jonathan Atkinson's take on John Adams somehow didn't have me comparing him to William Daniels the entire time (with an exception; see below). Particularly, his relationship with Abigail (Kanysha Williams, who was also a delight in Sister Act last year) was adorable; they played off each other beautifully.

One thing I really noticed was how much the characters themselves seemed to enjoy each other. I read a review of the production that referred to Edward Rutledge of South Carolina (Joe Mallon) as the antagonist to Adams's protagonist—that's likely because of Act Two slavery debate, but I feel like some of it is because Evan Casey's John Dickinson, though debating Adams throughout the entire show, also seemed amused by Benjamin Franklin (Derrick D. Truby, Jr.) and Adams. The movie's Dickinson comes across as more sneering than Casey, I think. In general, this group seemed to be the way we kind of wish all our politicians would act—disagree with each other, debate each other, but respect each other, too. And enjoy each other's company.

The production also used the ensemble in interesting ways, like bringing in various actors to be the Lees of Virginia, or having characters in the back of the set, clearly leading their own lives but providing vocal support during songs. And the choreography was neat! "Choreography" is something I don't necessarily think of regarding 1776, but the movement throughout the show was incredibly well thought-out, particularly in "Molasses to Rum," which frequently involves the ensemble just sitting as Rutledge sings. (The show was choreographed and directed by Luis Salgado.)

I also really liked the use of projections (designed by Clint Allen) throughout the show; they were mostly subtle, but did a good job setting the scene at the top of the show and, of course, with the signing at the end of the show. They really hit in one of the show's highlights, "Mama, Look Sharp," which is a song that I usually don't particularly enjoy. But the projections that evoked Lexington Green (which I just visited last year), plus the actors' movements, plus the show's orchestrations (more below) came together amazingly. Hunter Ringsmith's Courier and Ricky DeVon Hall's Leather Apron were just perfect. It's now forever the standard of that song for me.

Additional shout-outs to the costumes, designed by Ivania Stack; I kept feeling that Dickinson was dressed as King George III, which fit. Plus, the costume for Michael Perrie Jr.'s Richard Henry Lee was aces—as was Perrie's entire performance. It's a super fun role and he was an absolute joy.

That said, it wasn't a perfect production. The set, designed by Milagros Ponce de León, felt too small and cramped. The lighting, designed by Venus Gulbranson, could be incredibly powerful...but was also too much at times. Similarly, there were new orchestrations by Daniel Gutiérrez that worked just fantastically well at times (like in "Mama, Look Sharp"), but that at times pulled me out of the show. There was a lot of use of African-style drums that was very very cool.

Salgado seemed to want to somewhat modernize the show, and it's felt in some of that choreography and in some of the orchestrations. And most of the time it worked for me. But it didn't always. Disappointingly for me, one of the times where it really didn't click for me was in "Is Anybody There?", the climax of the show. Atkinson's voice is fantastic—I just didn't love the modern drums in there and it was the one time where I did want something more like William Daniels's performance; I missed some of the passion, I think. (To compare: Atkinson and Daniels.)

And it continued to be missing at the end, as the names of the signers are read. The appearance of the famous signatures on the stage is fantastic, but it still came across as a bit too low-key. The production has the (in my opinion) overused conceit of actors coming in wearing modern clothing and changing into the costumes of the characters, and it's just not necessary (though, again, there's a moment where Atkinson and Williams interact that is lovely). So at the end, you have the signers with some of the "modern audience" members on stage and the music isn't as overwhelming as I want it to be and it doesn't quite come together. The end just misses landing. For me, the show ultimately just felt a touch too stylized.

Do I think people who don't have the show memorized, who haven't listened to the recordings and seen the movie countless times, had the same reaction? I don't. Audiences absolutely adored this run and I am ecstatic at how it was received. I love that Salgado and Ford's tried something with this production; it wasn't the traditional staging of 1776, but it also wasn't so different as to be off-putting. They largely managed to hit a sweet spot of innovation and tradition.