1776 Reviews

David Gordon of Theatermania is Negative:

"Progress isn't casting Sherman Edwards and Peter Stone's Tony-winning musical 1776 with a BIPOC or gender-expansive company. It's casting 1776 with people who don't look like the Founding Fathers and not drawing attention to it. In that regard, Jeffrey L. Page and Diane Paulus's Roundabout Theatre Company revival at the American Airlines Theatre takes a door left ajar by Hamilton and runs right through it. But this new Broadway mounting (which originated last summer at American Repertory Theatre and will embark on a national tour next spring) wants to have it both ways — they're simultaneously hoping we notice how progressive it's trying to be, but also not really, while emphasizing the wrong things along the way. The result, while enjoyable, shows a fundamental lack of trust and understanding in material that they would see already does the work for them, if they just stopped to listen."

https://www.theatermania.com/broadway/reviews/review-1776-broadway-2022_94387.html

Updated On: 10/6/22 at 08:16 PM

Matt Windman of AMNY: "‘1776’ is reconceived for 2022 with extremely mixed results"

https://www.amny.com/entertainment/theater/review-1776-is-reconceived-for-2022-with-extremely-mixed-results/

Steven Suskin gives it 3 out of 5 stars.
https://nystagereview.com/2022/10/06/1776-founding-fathers-declare-independence-deconstructed/

VintageSnarker said: "Given the conceit, is any publication going to send a non-cis male reviewer?"

 

No and no one is going to dare say anything about this because they will be accused of all sorts of things. But to me, especially watching the recent clips released, is terminally woke.



 

Updated On: 10/6/22 at 10:21 PM

Jesse Green’s review is fair & intelligently written, and pretty much matched my own feelings about the show: an admirable effort not successfully executed.

But give me this over the type of stuffy living room drama that Roundabout has prioritized for so long. 

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Jesse Green’s review is fair & intelligently written, and pretty much matched my own feelings about the show: an admirable effort not successfully executed.

But give me this over the type of stuffy living room drama that Roundabout has prioritized for so long."


It is really quite the pan though. Green is basically saying in the most polite way possible that it’s terrible. I feel bad for the cast.

Updated On: 10/6/22 at 11:06 PM

dougs9797 said: "About nine times out of ten I dislike productions where the director 'reimagines' the show. Too often they rewrite them instead of direct them. 1776 by its very nature does not lend itself to this stunt like casting. It cheapens both the show ant the need for diverse casting when. diverse casting is called for. The whole venture was too problematic."

No way! Fresh and new approaches to stagings have given us some of the best Broadway revivals. I certainly don't want to see a traditional approach over and over. Boring.

I would love to have seen what Elizabeth Vincentelli thought of the show. I always enjoyed her thoughts on Theatre Talk, and in the Post.

Peter Marks of the Washington Post, gave a postitive review as well. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/theater-dance/2022/10/06/1776-broadway-female-transgender-nonbinary/

HogansHero said: "dougs9797 said: "About nine times out of ten I dislike productions where the director 'reimagines' the show. Too often they rewrite them instead of direct them. 1776 by its very nature does not lend itself to this stunt like casting. It cheapens both the show ant the need for diverse casting when. diverse casting is called for. The whole venture was too problematic."

What is to be eschewed is laziness. We should be celebrating (and elevating) (re)imagination."

I'll tell you what's lazy. Taking a wonderful show and bending it to your whims rather than writing your own. That's lazy.  I'm tired of directors trying to mangle other people's work. 

dougs9797 said: "HogansHero said: "dougs9797 said: "About nine times out of ten I dislike productions where the director 'reimagines' the show. Too often they rewrite them instead of direct them. 1776 by its very nature does not lend itself to this stunt like casting. It cheapens both the show ant the need for diverse casting when. diverse casting is called for. The whole venture was too problematic."

What is to be eschewed is laziness. We should be celebrating (and elevating) (re)imagination."

I'll tell you what's lazy. Taking a wonderful show and bending it to your whims rather than writing your own. That's lazy. I'm tired of directors trying to mangle other people's work."

That's literally what a director does. They incorporate their own artistry into the writer's work.

BorisTomashevsky said: "blaxx said: "dougs9797 said: "HogansHero said: "dougs9797 said: "About nine times out of ten I dislike productions where the director 'reimagines' the show. Too often they rewrite them instead of direct them. 1776 by its very nature does not lend itself to this stunt like casting. It cheapens both the show ant the need for diverse casting when. diverse casting is called for. The whole venture was too problematic."

What is to be eschewed is laziness. We should be celebrating (and elevating) (re)imagination."

I'll tell you what's lazy. Taking a wonderful show and bending it to your whims rather than writing your own. That's lazy. I'm tired of directors trying to mangle other people's work."

That's literally what a director does. They incorporate their own artistry into the writer's work."

That isn’t how they came about. In Shakespeare’s days, directors were members of the acting company - literally one of the actors in the piece - who would stage it how it was intended to be, fulfilling the writer’s intention as best as possible.

Now directors really do seem to co-opt someone else’s work for their own devices.


I wonder if the estates get more of a cut when the work is not only being used, but essentially treated as source material for something new."

I guess we're not in Shakespeare's days anymore?

BorisTomashevsky said: "blaxx said: "dougs9797 said: "HogansHero said: "dougs9797 said: "About nine times out of ten I dislike productions where the director 'reimagines' the show. Too often they rewrite them instead of direct them. 1776 by its very nature does not lend itself to this stunt like casting. It cheapens both the show ant the need for diverse casting when. diverse casting is called for. The whole venture was too problematic."

What is to be eschewed is laziness. We should be celebrating (and elevating) (re)imagination."

I'll tell you what's lazy. Taking a wonderful show and bending it to your whims rather than writing your own. That's lazy. I'm tired of directors trying to mangle other people's work."

That's literally what a director does. They incorporate their own artistry into the writer's work."

That isn’t how they came about. In Shakespeare’s days, directors were members of the acting company - literally one of the actors in the piece - who would stage it how it was intended to be, fulfilling the writer’s intention as best as possible."

*laughs in Colley Cibber*

 

BorisTomashevsky said: "That isn’t how they came about. In Shakespeare’s days, directors were members of the acting company - literally one of the actors in the piece - who would stage it how it was intended to be, fulfilling the writer’s intention as best as possible.

Now directors really do seem to co-opt someone else’s work for their own devices.


I wonder if the estates get more of a cut when the work is not only being used, but essentially treated as source material for something new."

1. What you say about Shakespeare is a preposterous over-generalization but it is also irrelevant so let's move on from that.

2. No, estates do not get "more of a cut" because your premise is faulty. In this show (or any other I can think of) no one has licensed the source material. The existing play has been licensed and any alterations that a director wants to make have been proposed to, and approved by, the authors or the authors' estate(s). What is clear from your subsequent post is that you are not interested in what authors want but only what you want. [N.B. Any "deviation" has been "okay[ed]" by the author or their chosen delegate, so if you have a gripe, it is not with the director. And as should be evident to you from this thread, some of us would far prefer a re-imagination than the museum piece you prefer.