1776 Reviews — Page 2

Trying SO HARD to be Hamilton.

I saw the matinee today, and absolutely loved it. I had only listened to a few songs prior and never seeing any version of this show, I had no expectations going in. Perhaps that helped? 

The music of this show is incredible and echo others who have requested a cast recording. There’s so much depth to the new orchestrations, I hope one is coming. 

Nothing else to add but add me to the impressed pile.

joevitus said: "blaxx said: "HogansHero said:"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."

Definitely, purists do nothing to advance the art form.

"

LOL decent casting and a production concept that makes sense for the material makes something "a museum piece.""

Don't worry granny, enough of those out there.

joevitus said: "blaxx said: "joevitus said: "blaxx said: "HogansHero said:"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."

Definitely, purists do nothing to advance the art form.

"

LOL decent casting and a production concept that makes sense for the material makes something "a museum piece.""

Don't worry granny, enough of those out there."

Kinda interesting that in support of a show that features trans persons, you thought misgendering me was an effective insult. Maybe you need the lesson of this revival more than I do.


1776 is all about how the men who sat in that Congress are not the bright, shining, all-aware titans history wants us to see them as. Their flaws, their shortcomings, their sins are right there on display. There is no need to have an all-female cast scowling at a painting the signing of the Declaration as the show begins or casting accusatory looks at the audience. The show makes it explicit that these are very privileged men who are behaving as if they speak for all people--and an entirely absent race whose fate they are determining--as it stands. There's no point to deconstructing the work to say...what the work was already saying. It's dumb attempt at relevancy that misses the relevancy of the actual text.

But if all you got is an insult because you can't have an actual conversation, I guess that's what you gotta go with."

I wasn't arguing about this specific show, if it didn't work, so be it.

The point some of us were making is that we rather see a failed risk in interpretation than the nth traditional staging of any musical.

 

blaxx said: "joevitus said: "blaxx said: "joevitus said: "blaxx said: "HogansHero said:"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."

Definitely, purists do nothing to advance the art form.

"

LOL decent casting and a production concept that makes sense for the material makes something "a museum piece.""

Don't worry granny, enough of those out there."

Kinda interesting that in support of a show that features trans persons, you thought misgendering me was an effective insult. Maybe you need the lesson of this revival more than I do.


1776 is all about how the men who sat in that Congress are not the bright, shining, all-aware titans history wants us to see them as. Their flaws, their shortcomings, their sins are right there on display. There is no need to have an all-female cast scowling at a painting the signing of the Declaration as the show begins or casting accusatory looks at the audience. The show makes it explicit that these are very privileged men who are behaving as if they speak for all people--and an entirely absent race whose fate they are determining--as it stands. There's no point to deconstructing the work to say...what the work was already saying. It's dumb attempt at relevancy that misses the relevancy of the actual text.

But if all you got is an insult because you can't have an actual conversation, I guess that's what you gotta go with."

I wasn't arguing about this specific show, if it didn't work, so be it.

The point some of us were making is that we rather see a failed risk in interpretation than the nth traditional staging of any musical.

"

I don't think a risky interpretation is worth it just for the sake of taking the risk. It's one thing if you do this with say, say, Medea or Hamlet. Likely no one's going to come away thinking that's what Euripides or Shakespeare intended. But it could easily happen with a comparatively recent show like 1776. And you can easily have people who are going to see this show to see a show they love, and then they get this production that is essentially hostile to the work it's utilizing, and they've wasted their evening and their money. Certainly the bit on Good Morning America, as bad as it is performance-wise, doesn't make clear how hostile the production is to the basic text.

Updated On: 10/14/22 at 05:12 PM

BorisTomashevsky said: "blaxx said: "HogansHero said:"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."

Definitely, purists do nothing to advance the art form.

"

The art form is being advanced by plenty of new writers. Do famous pieces of fine art get repainted and repainted and re-conceptualized? No, they hang on walls and people appreciate their brilliance in their original forms and the artists’ intentions are honored.

No need to take something from the past and alter it in order to advance the art form lol."

First of all, yes, painters draw influences from, reinterpret, etc. other famous painters all the time.

Second, a play is not a painting. It's a living, breathing thing that draws its energy from the people producing, performing, and watching it. Any play can stand up to reinterpretation, deconstruction, what have you.

You know why? Because the original script will always be there in the end, just like the original paintings that other artists reinterpret in their own styles will always still be on display.

chrishuyen said: "For those that have seen the show, is it definitely worth trying to see it before Crystal Lucas-Perry leaves? I haven't paid that much attention to reviews since I know I'd want to see the show regardless but from what I've heard it seems she's a good performer but doesn't have the unlikeability that John Adams tenss to have?"

It might not matter anymore since she only has three performances left, but I'd say no. I saw the show this past week - I had bought tickets specifically to see her before she left and was underwhelmed by her performance. 

Updated On: 10/22/22 at 11:51 AM

* Sara Porkalob delivered at 71.7%.

Oh sh*t! 

joevitus said: "blaxx said: "joevitus said: "blaxx said: "joevitus said: "blaxx said: "HogansHero said:"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."

Definitely, purists do nothing to advance the art form.

"

LOL decent casting and a production concept that makes sense for the material makes something "a museum piece.""

Don't worry granny, enough of those out there."

Kinda interesting that in support of a show that features trans persons, you thought misgendering me was an effective insult. Maybe you need the lesson of this revival more than I do.


1776 is all about how the men who sat in that Congress are not the bright, shining, all-aware titans history wants us to see them as. Their flaws, their shortcomings, their sins are right there on display. There is no need to have an all-female cast scowling at a painting the signing of the Declaration as the show begins or casting accusatory looks at the audience. The show makes it explicit that these are very privileged men who are behaving as if they speak for all people--and an entirely absent race whose fate they are determining--as it stands. There's no point to deconstructing the work to say...what the work was already saying. It's dumb attempt at relevancy that misses the relevancy of the actual text.

But if all you got is an insult because you can't have an actual conversation, I guess that's what you gotta go with."

I wasn't arguing about this specific show, if it didn't work, so be it.

The point some of us were making is that we rather see a failed risk in interpretation than the nth traditional staging of any musical.

"

I don't think a risky interpretation is worth it just for the sake of taking the risk. It's one thing if you do this with say, say, Medea or Hamlet. Likely no one's going to come away thinking that's what Euripides or Shakespeare intended. But it could easily happen with a comparatively recent show like 1776. And you can easily have people who are going to see this show to see a show they love, and then they get this production that is essentially hostile to the work it's utilizing, and they've wasted their evening and their money. Certainly the bit on Good Morning America, as bad as it is performance-wise, doesn't make clear how hostile the production is to the basic text."

Agree to disagree. You can easiee catch a staging true to the material than a brand new adaptation, as risqué as it may be. That's how artists evolve and find or maintain their voices. 

PipingHotPiccolo said: "Saw it tonight. Have never seen any iteration of this show so this was all new to me.

I rolled my eyes at the gimmick here when it was announced, but without it, I can't see any justification whatsoever for producing this show: its so CORNY, for lack of a better term. Just uncomfortable corny humor, and awkward exposition in between songs. So without this spin re casting non-male actors, how could this play ever get produced?

So I get the gimmick, and it works to the extent that the singing is exciting, and the performances are interesting/engaging. But I cant understand how this show ever worked without any suspense over the result; the book scenes drag forever. This production really does very little to make any of the moments pop; the only choice that moved me was the Egg song with the video projections.

Crystal Lucas Perry sounds good, but cant overcome the awkward book or painful lyrics. Carmello shines every second shes center stage, as does Allyson Kaye Daniel as Abigail and Shawna Hamic in her big number. Salome Smith's talent is undeniable, but I thought that whole number was poorly conceived.

Sara Porkalob was good, and contrary to her nonsense she is giving a totally committed and effort-ful performance. But she's doing absolutely nothing that many other, equally/more talented actors can't do.

Audience was mostly full, though our TDF tickets were Row H just off the aisle. Lotta walkouts during intermission."

So, you've never seen any iteration of 1776, but you blame the show after seeing a radically reconceived production. Here's a thought: Try seeing a production that's actually true to the author's intentions. There is nothing corny about 1776, there is no awkward exposition (the book of 1776 is one of the most lauded books of a musical ever), and the musical is produced all the time. Its original production ran for 1,217 performances (just one month shy of three YEARS), had a national tour, a film version featuring most of the original cast, a London production, and then hundreds upon hundreds of productions in stock, amateur, and regional.  Nominated for five Tony Awards, winning three, including Best Musical. 

PipingHotPiccolo said: "bk said: "PipingHotPiccolo said: "Saw it tonight. Have never seen any iteration of this show so this was all new to me.

I rolled my eyes at the gimmick here when it was announced, but without it, I can't see any justification whatsoever for producing this show: its so CORNY, for lack of a better term. Just uncomfortable corny humor, and awkward exposition in between songs. So without this spin re casting non-male actors, how could this play ever get produced?

So I get the gimmick, and it works to the extent that the singing is exciting, and the performances are interesting/engaging. But I cant understand how this show ever worked without any suspense over the result; the book scenes drag forever. This production really does very little to make any of the moments pop; the only choice that moved me was the Egg song with the video projections.

Crystal Lucas Perry sounds good, but cant overcome the awkward book or painful lyrics. Carmello shines every second shes center stage, as does Allyson Kaye Daniel as Abigail and Shawna Hamic in her big number. Salome Smith's talent is undeniable, but I thought that whole number was poorly conceived.

Sara Porkalob was good, and contrary to her nonsense she is giving a totally committed and effort-ful performance. But she's doing absolutely nothing that many other, equally/more talented actors can't do.

Audience was mostly full, though our TDF tickets were Row H just off the aisle. Lotta walkouts during intermission."

So, you've never seen any iteration of 1776, but you blame the show after seeing a radically reconceived production. Here's a thought: Try seeing a production that's actually true to the author's intentions. There is nothing corny about 1776, there is no awkward exposition (the book of 1776 is one of the most lauded books of a musical ever), and the musical is produced all the time. Its original production ran for 1,217 performances (just one month shy of three YEARS), had a national tour, a film version featuring most of the original cast, a London production, and then hundreds upon hundreds of productions in stock, amateur, and regional. Nominated for five Tony Awards, winning three, including Best Musical."

While I readily acknowledge that I've only seen this production of 1776, the lauded book and its initial success was in 1969. Lotsa work that once snapped crackled and popped don't anymore. Your declaring that it ISNT corny, and ISNT awkward, sorta doesnt do much for me because---and youre gonna wanna hold onto your hat for this one-- we disagree?

And its totally possible that a different production would yield a different result, but isnt that sorta baked into any review of any performance? Its theoretically possible that a different actor and different direction could make all those Ben Franklin barbs really land, I guess. Anythings possible. Seems odd to expect me to react to the show I saw by positing that it COULD have been better/funnier/sharper in some other universe.

It actually brings to mind Oklahoma, which may well work as a straight revival, but I think I'd have a hard time accepting its insane plot at face value; what made sense in the 1940s doesnt necessarily make sense now. And while the Fish revival managed to reinvent the show to make it feel relevant, brilliant, fresh, this revival failed to do anything of the sort."

I’d highly suggest watching the 1972 movie version which is almost identical to the stage version and features almost the entire original cast. You’ll see where the tension comes in and how well the lines and book scenes land.  One of the biggest successes of the book itself was that it gave suspense to a story where everyone already knows the ending. 
 

One of my biggest gripes about this new production was how callously and poorly directed/performed the book scenes were. Everyone was in different worlds (some were trying to act like it was 1776, others like 2022). 

BroadwayGirl107 said: "My friends and I kept saying the show must be excruciatingly boring with a bunch of white dudes performing it.
"

Well-put. Without the gimmick here (and I agree, they didnt even get much out of it) I can't fathom how this is watchable. And if I'm wrong, and the 1969/1972/1998 versions DID work as straightwd historical musical, great. Somehow this production drained the humor out of the dialogue, and managed to eliminate anything remotely deep/interesting/thoughtful whatsoever from the plot.