Historical Review of "A Great Awakening"

 "George Whitefield was the Revolution." -Benjamin Franklin, as portrayed in A Great Awakening.

Yes, but of which Revolution are we referring?  

A Great Awakening, the newest film from Sight and Sound Theaters, endeavors to answer this very question by introducing American audiences to the history and legacy of the one and only George Whitefield, an English preacher whose Christian revivals served to shape the heritage of the Great Awakening more than any other preacher of that era.  And as the advertisement for this film makes crystal clear, the minds behind this project pulled no punches in their quest to connect the preaching of Whitefield with both the American Revolution and the Constitutional Convention that eventually followed.  

As a fan and student of the Great Awakening in general, and of Whitefield specifically, I was thrilled to see the creation of a movie that would shine more light on the life and legacy of this incredibly important preacher.  Unfortunately, far too few today recognize Whitefield's name and know even less about the man.  This is unfortunate, since one could easily make the case that George Whitefield had the greatest impact of the religious trajectory of the United States, making him the single most important religious figure in our nation's history.  

But just how accurate is their portrayal of Whitefield and The Great Awakening? Let's begin with the film's trailer:

A Brief Overview

The film opens with Benjamin Franklin, portrayed as an aging yet still consequential participant in the Constitutional Convention. Wearied by the rancor and persistent disagreement among the delegates, Franklin listens as the assembly descends into contention over the shape of the proposed Constitution. Returning home after a long day of fruitless deliberation, he is met by an unexpected visitor: the great George Washington. In a moment of quiet urgency, Washington implores Franklin to lend his voice to the following day’s debates, expressing a growing fear that continued deadlock may doom the fragile experiment in nationhood before it has the chance to take root.

Following Washington’s departure, Franklin, now in the company of his grandson, turns to his personal effects and rediscovers a collection of journals belonging to a once-close friend: the Reverend George Whitefield.  Prompted by his grandson’s curiosity, the narrative shifts into a retrospective account of Whitefield’s life.  After a brief portrayal of his early years, the film situates Whitefield at University of Oxford, where he encounters John and Charles Wesley. These scenes, though concise, effectively establish both the personal bonds among these figures and the theological trajectories that would come to define their ministries. The film’s depiction of the tensions between the “Old Lights” and “New Lights” --- a central feature of the First Great Awakening --- foreshadows Whitefield’s eventual commitment to itinerant preaching throughout the American colonies.

Whitefield’s evangelistic endeavors, as the film emphasizes, were extraordinary in both scope and impact. Historians estimate that his sermons reached as much as 80 percent of the colonial population between 1739 and 1770. Benjamin Franklin himself famously remarked that Whitefield spent more time on horseback than on foot, a testament to the relentless pace of his ministry. Traveling to each of the thirteen colonies, Whitefield achieved an unprecedented level of fame for a religious figure, becoming one of the first truly transatlantic celebrities. The film captures this phenomenon with particular effectiveness, highlighting his dramatic preaching style, resonant voice, and commanding presence --- qualities that, according to Franklin, allowed him to address crowds of up to 30,000 people. In this regard, Jonathan Blair’s portrayal of Whitefield is especially compelling, rendering him with a vitality and charisma that feel both historically grounded and dramatically engaging.  Simply put, Blair knocked the role of Whitefield right out of the park!

What I Liked About the Film

I won't lie, when I first saw the preview for this film I had major reservations.  I worried that it would simply hijack Whitefield, Franklin and the legacy of the Great Awakening and make them hostages of yet another "Christian Nation" propaganda scheme.  I expected to be spoon-fed generous helpings of uber-patriotic spare ribs, smothered in zesty "In God We Trust" BBQ sauce, served with a side of Yankee Doodle mac and cheese and star-spangled potato salad awesomeness.  To my surprise, what I was actually served was something much better.  

1. The Film Brings the Great Awakening to Life  

Instead of just reading about the history of the Great Awakening, this film gives the movement its real sense of "meat and potatoes."  What people experienced when they heard men like Whitefield preach was something visceral and extraordinary.  The concept of a "new birth" in Jesus --- a message central to all preachers of the Great Awakening and certainly a component to Whitefield's sermons --- is something this film delivers on in abundance.  You can see and feel the power of the Awakening as you are transported back to those moments when people's lives and hearts were changed by this one-of-a-kind preacher.  This film does much more than just discuss the Great Awakening.  It gives the movement its arms and legs.  

2.  The George Whitefield/Benjamin Franklin Friendship

The bulk of this film's plot centers on the collaboration and friendship of Benjamin Franklin and George Whitefield, a relationship that is not without its irony.  Franklin, though never hostile to religion, was certainly never a devout Christian.  Ever the pragmatist, Franklin understood the value that religion had for society, particularly a for a Republic that he helped to establish.  On numerous occasions, Franklin spoke of the value of America's "public religion," or the shared, collective belief the religion, when practiced by the masses, elevated virtue, a necessary ingredient for the newly established American republic.  On the other hand, Whitefield was a passionate and fervent an evangelical Christian as has ever walked the planet.  In fact, one could argue that it was Whitefield who turned Protestants into Evangelicals.  This unlikely friendship between the scientific skeptic and the passionate preacher is the secret sauce of the film.  For those who may have an interest in learning more about the Franklin/Whitefield collaboration and friendship, I would refer them to Randy Peterson's excellent book, The Printer and The Preacher: Ben Franklin, George Whitefield and the Surprising Friendship That Invented America.  

3. The Film Illustrates the Complexity of Revolutionary America

The American Revolution was not some event that formed out of a vacuum.  The influences that shaped American thought at this time were many and varied.  This most certainly includes the Great Awakening.  One would be hard pressed to assert that Whitefield, after having preached to roughly 80% of all American colonists, had zero impact in shaping their world view.  Quite the contrary.  Whitefield's preaching gave the colonists a shared American sense of self.  Of course, not everyone embraced Whitefield's teachings, just as not everyone jumped on the Great Awakening train.  But Whitefield's impact is certainly sufficient enough for historians to to track this growing wave of American unity.  As Franklin noted when he first heard Whitefield preach, "The multitudes of all the sects and denominations that attended his sermons were enormous and it was [a] matter of speculation to me...to observe the extraordinary influence of his oratory on the hearers."  Simply put, Whitefield's preaching was a force of nature that legitimately transformed the American mindset in ways we have not fully appreciated.  

4. Jonathan Blair's Portrayal of George Whitefield

Simply put, it was masterful.  I was worried about who would dare have the bravery to portray such a flamboyant and powerful preacher like Whitefield, but Blair knocked it out of the park.  He was masterful in this role, which is no small achievement.  All I can say is, BRAVO! [cue the standing ovation].

5. It's Just a Good Movie

Good story, good costumes, good reenactment, good cinematography, good directing, good story.  My wife, who I usually drag to movies like this only to watch her take a nap, paid this movie its highest praise when she said, "I liked it a lot more than I expected."  I completely agree.  This film was surprisingly better than I expected.  It wasn't Casablanca or Citizen Kane, but it wasn't a flop either.  Just a good, solid, enjoyable movie.  

Things That Could Have Been Better

Of course, no movie, particularly one focused on historical events, is not without its blemishes.  Here are a few that caught my eye.

1. The Awakening Was Not The Revolution

Though the First Great Awakening and the American Revolution unfolded within a few decades of one another, it would be a mistake to collapse them into a single movement or to suggest that one inevitably produced the other. One of my biggest concerns with A Great Awakening is that audiences may leave with the impression that these events share the same roots and aims. They do not. The revivalism associated with figures like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield was primarily concerned with personal conversion, the authority of scripture, and the experiential reality of salvation and other spiritual matters. Its language was emotional, theological, and focused on spiritual renewal rather than political change. Even as revivalists criticized religious complacency and hierarchical church structures, their core message remained fundamentally religious rather than political.

By contrast, the Revolution was rooted in a different set of concerns and intellectual currents. Revolutionary leaders were shaped more decisively by the political philosophy of the Enlightenment, which emphasized natural rights, consent of the governed, and resistance to tyranny.  The grievances that fueled resistance --- taxation without representation, imperial overreach, and violations of colonial charters --- were legal and political in nature rather than spiritual.  Pamphlets like Thoms Paine's Common Sense did not call readers to repentance or spiritual awakening but instead to political independence.  The language of the revolution was not the language of revival but the language of rights, sovereignty, and civic identity.

This is not to say there was no overlap between the two.  The Awakening did help shape a culture of questioning authority and placed greater emphasis on individual conscience --- impulses that later proved useful in challenging imperial power.  It also created networks of communication and print culture that could be repurposed for political ends.  However, to suggest that the Revolution was simply an extension of the Awakening risks flattening both movements.  The revival was aimed at reforming souls; the Revolution was aimed at restructuring political authority.  Their timelines intersected, and some participants moved between both worlds, but their goals, methods, and ideological foundations were distinct.

2. The Constitutional Convention DID NOT PRAY TOGETHER!!!

One of the crowning assertions of A Great Awakening comes at the end of the film when Benjamin Franklin stands to deliver a powerful message to his fellow convention members on the merits and importance of prayer.  One gets the feel that without prayer, the Convention is doomed to failure, and Franklin, despite his aversion to organized religion, knows it.  The historical record, however, tells a different story. 

While Benjamin Franklin did famously suggest that the convention open its sessions with prayer during a particularly tense period of debate in June 1787, his motion was not adopted.  In his remarks, Franklin argued that if “a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice,” surely the delegates needed divine assistance in framing a new government.  Yet despite the emotional appeal of his words, the proposal quietly stalled.  According to the notes of James Madison --- the most detailed record we possess of the convention’s proceedings --- no vote was taken and no chaplain was appointed.  The convention never instituted daily prayers.  In fact, delegates such as Alexander Hamilton and others staunchly rejected Franklin's suggestion.

The reasons for this were practical and political rather than anti-religious. The delegates represented a wide range of religious traditions, and no consensus existed on which clergy or denominational authority would lead such prayers.  Some also worried that a formal call for prayer might signal desperation or division to the public.  Additionally, many delegates held Enlightenment-influenced views that favored keeping religious practice distinct from the mechanics of government. This reflected the broader intellectual climate of the era, shaped in part by the American Enlightenment, which encouraged a separation between private faith and public governance.  The absence of official prayer at the convention therefore does not indicate hostility toward religion, but rather the delegates’ sensitivity to religious diversity and their commitment to keeping the proceedings focused on political, not ecclesiastical, solutions.

This distinction matters because it complicates modern assumptions about the role of religion in the founding.  While many of the delegates were personally religious, and while religious rhetoric certainly shaped public life in the new nation, the framing of the Constitution itself was not conducted as a collective act of devotional practice.  The image of the convention pausing in prayer is powerful, but it is not supported by the historical record.  Recognizing this nuance does not diminish the role of religion in early American culture; it simply clarifies that the creation of the nation’s founding document was driven by political negotiation rather than shared liturgical practice.  A Great Awakening would have its audience believe that it was only after fervent prayer that the Constitutional Convention was able to succeed in its mission of establishing a new government.  This is simply not true.  

3. Benjamin Franklin Was Not Benjamin Franklin

This is not a critique of actor John Paul Sneed, who portrayed Franklin, but rather a criticism of the way in which Franklin, as a historical character, was portrayed in the movie.  

The film’s portrayal of Benjamin Franklin leans too heavily on a stylized, almost mythologized version of the man, relying extensively on aphoristic dialogue drawn from Poor Richard’s Almanack, which at times is almost painful to watch.  While those maxims are certainly part of Franklin’s public persona, their overuse in the script flattens him into a kind of walking proverb rather than a dynamic, intellectually complex figure.  Historically, Franklin was as much a shrewd political operator and experimental thinker as he was a dispenser of homespun wisdom.  By foregrounding clever sayings at the expense of substantive engagement with his ideas, the film risks reducing him to caricature.  Franklin feels more like a statue than a real person.

Moreover, the tone and delivery of Franklin’s character feel slightly misaligned with the historical record.  The performance often lacks the subtle irony, pragmatism, and occasional self-critique that marked the real Franklin’s writings and correspondence.  Instead, he is presented with a kind of steady moral evolution that crescendos in his eventual acceptance of the Christian faith.  This interpretation ultimately diminishes the richness of Franklin’s intellectual and spiritual life, offering viewers a figure who feels curated for inspiration rather than grounded in the tensions and contradictions that made him such a compelling participant in the era of the Great Awakening.

Final Verdict

In the end, despite a handful of historical missteps and some interpretive choices that don’t always land, A Great Awakening remains an earnest and compelling film.  Its strengths lie in its clear admiration for the transformative spirit of the Great Awakening and its effort to make complex religious and cultural shifts accessible to a broad audience.  The production succeeds in capturing the sense that this was a moment of profound change, one that stirred both the hearts and minds of ordinary people. While historians may wish for greater nuance in certain areas, the film’s passion, clarity of purpose, and commitment to storytelling ultimately outweigh its shortcomings.  It is a thoughtful and engaging work that invites reflection, sheds light on an important but forgotten moment in American history and is a joy to watch.  I for one plan to watch it many more times once it is released.  Well done!

Final Grade: B+

"Arise oh sleeper! AWAKEN!!!"