Thoughts on ART tryout

[mambobean]

Posted: 5/29/22 at 6:15pm

First off, the cast really is incredible — with truly charismatic performers in lead roles (like Adams and Franklin), a superbly acted villain (the congressman from PA), several great comedians, and an array of killer voices. 

 

Highlights for me: The harmony on the act one “Yours, Yours, Yours” and the two big showstoppers of act two (“Mama look sharp” and the “Molasses/Rum song&rdquo are worth the price of admission by themselves. 

 

The all-female, trans, and non-binary cast was a big draw for me, but I didn’t see much being done with how any of this spoke to gender or how this casting reinvented the characters. There was an addition of text from an Abigail Adams letter to her husband, but the actual women of the piece were limited to a helpmeet and a besotted lover. If you’ve seen the show or work on it, I’d love to know your take on what I missed here.

 

The show is better at showing how racism was in thick of the debate and how our country’s founding literally hinged on it. That is a potent idea and it really gives the last 1/3 of the play a momentum. It seems strange though that the revival keeps the falsity that Jefferson was personally planning to turn a new leaf. (If they can add Abigail’s letter, surely they can cut that?)

 

 I think the final tableau (which calls back one of the play’s best moments) is on the way to sticking the landing but keeping the corny jokes in the scene between the slavery-protecting vote and that final vision mutes how sharp it feels to me.

 

A lot of the music in act one just feels musty and the vaudeville-meets-Poconos jokes often feel ever mustier. There are several numbers that you just have to kind to wait through. Act two is such a vast leap forward in potency. (Though there’s a song that involved documentary footage and a kind of 70s metal arrangement that struck me as a blunt object and a misfire).

 

The show leaves the audience with a much needed reminder about the imperfection of our union, at a moment it seems truer than ever, and when students are literally being kept from knowing any of this, so 1776 feels more vaulable than the catch-all plot grab-bag of Jagged Little Pill, the last ART transfer I saw, but I’m not entirely convinced this production has total command of what its conceits and devices are doing yet. Hopefully this run will help hone that.

 

And obviously this is one person’s subjective take on a preview, so…

[JasonC3]

Posted: 5/29/22 at 7:33pm

there's already an extensive thread on this:

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1122148&page=5

[bk]

Posted: 5/29/22 at 7:41pm

I'll just say that doing 1776 in two acts is dopey. It was written to play in one act and if any directors today actually knew how to pace a show like this, it could easily still play in one act. The original production, like Follies, ran two hours and ten minutes. People sit for a lot longer for movies so I'm ever so sure they could control themselves for 130 minutes and perhaps leave their sippy cups and water for later.

[Valentina3]

Posted: 5/30/22 at 12:43am

bk said: "I'll just say that doing 1776 in two acts is dopey. It was written to play in one act and if any directors today actually knew how to pace a show like this, it could easily still play in one act. The original production, like Follies, ran two hours and ten minutes. People sit for a lot longer for movies so I'm ever so sure they could control themselves for 130 minutes and perhaps leave their sippy cups and water for later."

Why I agree with you, the average age of bladders watching Doctor Strange is in the 20-40 range, whereas 1776 audience is more in the 50-70 range. So it's much easier said than done.

[willep]

Posted: 5/30/22 at 6:30am

While I appreciate your point, I will point out that Doctor Strange is actually under two hours (and the second one just over two hours).

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 5/31/22 at 4:12pm

JasonC3 said: "there's already an extensive thread on this:

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1122148&page=5"

Why haven't the moderators changed the tag on that thread from General Broadway? Would make things so much easier to find. 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/31/22 at 5:03pm

bk said: "I'll just say that doing 1776 in two acts is dopey. It was written to play in one act and if any directors today actually knew how to pace a show like this, it could easily still play in one act. The original production, like Follies, ran two hours and ten minutes. People sit for a lot longer for movies so I'm ever so sure they could control themselves for 130 minutes and perhaps leave their sippy cups and water for later."

From a producing standpoint or a theater owner standpoint, it's better to have the intermission to sell the drinks/merch. 

[bk]

Posted: 5/31/22 at 6:03pm

Well, from the standpoint of the show, it plays better without the intermission it was never meant to have.  As does A Chorus Line, Follies, and other shows in one act. I don't think A Chorus Line in its decades on B'way ever hurt for selling merchandise, nor did they give a crap.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/1/22 at 1:23pm

Ha!

[CCB5]

Posted: 6/6/22 at 10:22am

Valentina3 said: "[While] I agree with you, the average age of bladders watching Doctor Strange is in the 20-40 range, whereas 1776 audience is more in the 50-70 range. So it's much easier said than done."

Haha!  As the owner of a 50-70 year.old bladder, thank you.

There are reviews at https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Review-Roundup-Broadway-Bound-1776-at-ART-What-Did-the-Critics-Think-20220606 now.  Arts Fuse says ...Violin "leaves a sour taste that undercuts what’s to come in the next act." so maybe it would help if they changed where the acts break?

Anyone have a take on whether this is improving as the tryout goes on?  Perhaps see it near the end of the Boston run.

[ATerrifyingAndImposingFigure]

Posted: 6/6/22 at 12:25pm

Ending Act 1 with He Plays the Violin is a really weird choice, especially since productions that split the show into two acts always to my knowledge did the cut right after Mama Look Sharp. With that song, you’re at least leaving the audience with a somber reminder of the conflict that’s going on elsewhere. Violin is such a light number, even if they’ve tried to change it up as the review states, there’s not enough substance there to close off the act.

[Valentina3]

Posted: 6/6/22 at 1:01pm

I don't have an opinion about where the act break should have been, but Violin is staged really weirdly. I kinda hated it. They tried to go comedic with it, but they don't commit to it because it changes from comedy to serious to crass to comedy to serious to comedy over and over again. I don't get it at all.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/6/22 at 3:54pm

I HATED Violin.   A woman of that time would never have had that conversation (with the crass sexual overtones) with her best friend yet alone with two men she just meant and revered.

[CCB5]

Posted: 6/9/22 at 12:56pm

ATerrifyingAndImposingFigure said: "Ending Act 1 with He Plays the Violin is a really weird choice, especially since productions that split the show into two acts always to my knowledge did the cut right after Mama Look Sharp. With that song, you’re at least leaving the audience with a somber reminder of the conflict that’s going on elsewhere."

That sounds great, since the reviews say "Mama Look Sharp" is the best song in the show!

 

 

[Valentina3]

Posted: 6/9/22 at 1:01pm

CCB5 said: "ATerrifyingAndImposingFigure said: "Ending Act 1 with He Plays the Violin is a really weird choice, especially since productions that split the show into two acts always to my knowledge did the cut right after Mama Look Sharp. With that song, you’re at least leaving the audience with a somber reminder of the conflict that’s going on elsewhere."

That sounds great, since the reviews say "Mama Look Sharp" is the best song in the show!"

I saw the show a couple days after Uvalde and holy damn that song cut deep. But I think the way the placement of the song would make it a strange act break, because it will make the 2nd act completely void of any real meat and make it less than 20 mins long. I think an act break right before Violin would make more sense. You know, pretend they were fooling around during the intermission, start the act kinda light and then change the whole mood up. Not sure if outfit changes required by the performer playing double roles would make it harder.

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 6/9/22 at 4:14pm

Valentina3 said: "But I think the way the placement of the song would make it a strange act break, because it will make the 2nd act completely void of any real meat and make it less than 20 mins long."

Please tell me there is still more than 20 minutes after Mama Look Sharp in this production. There should easily be another 50 minutes to an hour after it (the Rutledge scene alone is probably 20 minutes) unless they have really, really butchered this text.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 6/10/22 at 12:02am

 

I  went in thinking why the gender switch? I'm going to love it or I am going to hate it. Ironically, I didn't love it and I didn't hate. it. 

The way it was staged is definitely geared toward our present time and the singing of "Is anybody there.. does anybody care.? " took on a whole new meaning of a woman's right to chose and politicians not agreeing on gun control or just about anything or that matter. The production really  makes us look at today's problems. Not the patriotic intent of the original authors of this musical but certainly the intent of Diane Paulus and her co-director.

The original simply showed how difficult it was to get the Declaration written; it was  very patriotic and made you feel warm and pride  about our countries' history.  This production makes us feel that the problems we are facing now as a multicultural society  and nation are just as difficult as the revolution. 

It is staged as contemporary women putting on a show. The women come out in modern dress and put on their costumes right in front of the audiences. 

While this is an interesting conceit it helps and hurts the show.

We rarely forget for one moment that this is a bunch of women putting on a play. It's kind of like an old fashioned minstrel drag show with chintzy curtains being pulled to open and conceal the action. Some of the sexual innuendos are lost by it being played by women but it still works.  At the end, the women go back to their modern dress again reminding us  yet again that these are women putting on a play. 

In traditional productions of this musical, we believe that we are witnessing history.  The men on stage are the ones signing the document and living it.  The problem with this is that we never fully believe the people on stage are the men that signed the declaration of Independence. Having them change from street clothes to Revolutionary clothes in front of us makes it Brechtian and alienates the audience from then proceedings. 

What it does on a positive note is that we are witnessing women of today relating to the declaration with regards to a woman's right to chose and gun control. The cast is very good. 

I have to admit that I prefer the traditional  staging but this was certainly an interesting experiment that works on many levels. I just miss the patriotism of the traditional staging.