According to Sherman Edwards at least. Here's a very interesting and rare radio interview with the creator and composer.
Here's what he says about why "Cool, Cool" was cut: "It was cut out of the movie because A)it filmed badly, B) Time was pressing, and C) it just didn't work."
Interesting. I agree that it filmed badly. All the rest of the movie is naturalistic -- often in your face about it -- while this one number uses a surrealist esthetic.
I like "Cool, Cool Considerate Men" but would have axed it for the theater, too. The original cut was appropriate for the theater. I think very few films should be 3 hours. When I watch (the full version of) 1776 I also have to pause it in the middle for a break. Thank heaven, though, we have the deleted scenes.
I have both versions: the theatrical cut has too much cut out, and the director's cut has too much put back!
The scenes where Chase gets stuck in his chair, Franklin ridicules Judge Wilson to his face and out of the blue Hancock bellows "Christ it's HOT!" while Stephen Hopkins wrestles McNair for the rum can go!
"Cool Considerate Men" and the full "He pays the Violin" should never have left in the first place.
The scene where the congressmen are sitting discussing what kind of independence they would find acceptable was also very good.
There's a scene that I saw in the Broadway revival that was never filmed I relly like:
Adams: Mr Dickinson, I have to confess theres been a question I have been fairly burning to ask you....Why??? Dickinson: Why what, Mr. Adams? Adams: Why are you here?
It went nicely with Mr Dickinson's "Why independence?" question.
It's a shame that the second half of John Adam's "piddle twiddle and resolve" didn't make it back. It was filmed.
In last year's excellent production of 1776 at San Francisco's ACT Theatre--and the very first time I saw a professional production of the show -- the number was in there and performed EXCELLENTLY!!
According to Sherman Edwards at least. Here's a very interesting and rare radio interview with the creator and composer.
Here's what he says about why "Cool, Cool" was cut: "It was cut out of the movie because A)it filmed badly, B) Time was pressing, and C) it just didn't work."
Unfortunately the link to the radio interview in the original post is no longer live. It would be interesting to hear.
However, in this 1997 interview with librettist Peter Stone, he does state on camera that Richard Nixon asked Jack Warner to cut the number, and that Warner complied:
The big problem with the song is that it is anachronistic.
The right/left division in political views did not start until after the French Revolution when the "conservatives" of the parliament sat on the right and the "liberals" on the left. So it was not part of the political nomenclature of 1776.
This is not an obscure historical fact. I learned it in World History class. Nixon, if it made any difference, certainly would have known it. He could even have mentioned that to Jack Warner as a justification for cutting the song.
The big problem with the song is that it is anachronistic.
The right/left division in political views did not start until after the French Revolution when the "conservatives" of the parliament sat on the right and the "liberals" on the left. So it was not part of the political nomenclature of 1776.
This is not an obscure historical fact. I learned it in World History class. Nixon, if it made any difference, certainly would have known it. He could even have mentioned that to Jack Warner as a justification for cutting the song.
I don't think the song has any 'big problem'. The song may use terminology which had not yet come into use, but the ideas it expresses surely already existed.
Peter Stone, in the interview linked above, does not elaborate as to Mr. Nixon's reasons for asking Jack Warner to cut out the 'conservative' song. Personally, I would doubt a reason would have been for the anachronistic use of terminology -- more likely for the ideas and attitudes the song puts forth.
I would also point out that most of these men singing about "always to the right" and appearing to be hide-bound and doctrinaire wind up voting for independence. All, but one, sign the Declaration.
So I guess they are not that doctrinaire after all.
The other thing about the "right/left" thing that is anachronistic is that it obscures the fact that being an 18th century liberal meant you were espousing philosophical viewpoints that are quite in line with modern-day American conservatism! After all, what was the grievance about but the fact that the distant central authority was exercising unjust excess power over local authority and usurping the freedoms of individuals for the sake of the greater "collective" good of the British Empire as a whole?
I too remember that "Why are you here?" rejoinder of the Broadway revival. Stone wrote that expressly for the revival as a way of perhaps showing a little more fairness to Dickinson, who was anything but a knee-jerk defender of British policy (Dickinson in fact first came to national attention because of his denunciation of the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts. The reason he was against Independence had everything to do with his fear that 13 separate states without their common tie of being British subjects would inevitably become 13 separate nations at war with each other). Stone made one other change for the 97 revival. Whereas in the original Jefferson answers Rutledge by saying, "I have resolved to release my slaves" in the revival Jefferson meekly says nothing and slinks back in his chair since Stone had to acknowledge the reality that Jefferson did no such thing in real life.
Perhaps someone should look up Nixon's travel schedule and if he wasn't anywhere in the vicinity of Los Angeles, it'd be clear that he wouldn't have seen the movie before it's release.
As someone who has interviewed quite a few people who have worked on Broadway, memories sometimes favor either themselves or the more dramatic. People take credit for things that they weren't even present for, people amp up the drama to make themselves look good, etc. etc. And sometimes people play to the legend and make up stories on the spot. Just because Peter Stone says that this happened doesn't mean that it happened.
If Edwards says one thing and Stone says another, I think before making this into historical fact, someone who has access to the Nixon library or to Warner's correspondence should pay a visit to the archives and see what aligns. (I'm not anywhere near archives where these collections are held, so I can't. I would if I could.)
But this assertion that Nixon asked that it be cut needs more research before blindly taking Stone's word for it.