The Colorado Mesa University Theater Department’s production of 1776 has created buzz due to their decision to have an all female cast, totaling to 26 women.

I initially thought that their decision to have a completely female cast could be a form of forceful inclusion into the traditionally full male cast. I believe Director Jill Van Brussel used this to introduce an interesting concept, especially based on the director’s note in the program: “What does it mean to have these women saying these words?”

Also, in the Theatre Department statement about the production, it said, “Casting women in the iconic roles of our ‘founding fathers’ allows us to explore the link between what America is and what it aspires to be in our continued efforts to become the nation of ideals that the Declaration of Independence set forth.”

The musical is the story of Sherman Edwards and Peter Stone and the creation of the Declaration of Independence. It focuses on the struggle the continental congress faced to come to a unanimous decision and to get the Declaration signed.

This was a monumentally historic moment defined entirely by men. Placing females in their place raised the question – why? Was it to combat sexist practices? After seeing this production this really appears to be the case. The cast was excellent, and they were able to portray the exact same ideologies, thoughts, dedication and struggles that their forefathers went through. Being female didn’t undermine the message whatsoever. I still witnessed a story of the resilience and the sacrifice that led to the Declaration of Independence.

An interesting concept challenged by the production was hypocrisy. Hypocrisy was built into the Declaration of Independence. A hypocrisy that I’m sure many know of from being in a history class is that our country was built on the practice of slavery but our Declaration states that all men are equal and have inalienable rights.

Having this reenactment portrayed by women creates an interesting new context. It points out this hypocrisy and serves as a reminder of our country’s founding principles and ideology and how they should apply to everyone, regardless of race or gender. Once again, I believe this was the director’s intention because the description of the play emphasized, “our heroes grapple with defining what it means to be an American.”

Is the play actually fun to sit through, though? For the most part, I would say yes. The production did absolutely everything right. The music was sung by talented individuals, the choruses are memorable – which is something not often found in musicals in my opinion. The cast utilized the stage and kept the songs interesting and lively. The cast portrayed their characters with nuance and depth. There were no set stereotypical heroes or antagonists. The traditional “antagonists” weren’t really villains, they were just acting in their own interest.

[media-credit id=52 align=”alignleft” width=”300″][/media-credit]

Overall, the stage was very lively. Something that really stood out to me was the scene where everyone slowly entered the congressional chamber and the focus jumped between multiple different conversations. Everyone entered at different times, were doing different things, talking to different people and every member of the cast seemed to be active instead of just waiting for their turn to interact with the main character. That really caught me off guard.

The production excellently shifted the audience’s focus between these different conversations, each equally important, and before I knew it, most of the cast had already entered the room and were getting down to business. It is immersive and really makes you feel like you’re sitting in the room watching history in action, which is impressive.

Of course, there were parts that I wasn’t a fan of. One such aspect was the script itself. The songs are good, don’t get me wrong, but they get to being repetitive. It sometimes felt like one line was repeated over and over with only slight word variances. Certain scenes also try to make the audience sympathize with characters who haven’t really even built a strong connection with the audience yet. Also, on occasion I felt like there wasn’t steady pacing. Sometimes the play would just grind to a halt and certain character arcs and stories seem to be left undeveloped.

Overall, I would definitely recommend seeing the Theater Department’s production of 1776. Although it didn’t keep me at the edge of my seat the entire time, I still think seeing it is worthwhile. It was authentic, like you are really there in the same room as opposed to watching it through a TV screen. Also, the statement that the all female cast makes has a lot of interesting applications which I won’t mention to avoid spoilers.

I believe that it is important for students to show the Theater Department their support, especially when they are exploring different ideas and provocative challenges for our entertainment. If anything, I highly encourage you to see 1776 to support the play so we can see more thoughtful content like this in the future.