1776 Reviews- Page 3

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 10/24/22 at 10:33am

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?"

But that's exactly the point.  The show is not meant to be taken 100% straightforward and the original production certainly did not play it that way.  1776 was written as a protest piece specifically against Vietnam but also in general about the absurdities of how Congress operates.  So the dialogue is supposed to be somewhat exaggerated and when played that way, it's highly effective.  The problem is that this show became incredibly popular in community theatres and high schools where, with all due respect to those performers, for the most part the folks playing the roles were incapable of conveying that heightened comedy that is required.  Which stretched it into the 3-hour dirge that a lot of people associate this show with.  But the original is meant to be a fast-paced, 2 hr. 10 min. commentary on a lot of problems with the government and the way it operates (while telling a historical story of course--but using that story as a way to demonstrate a lot of issues with our country both then and now).

Which is why I feel the whole conceit of this production is an issue--it's trying to make commentary on something that was already trying to make commentary on something.  It makes me think the creators of this production felt that 1776 is supposed to be interpreted entirely literal and dramatically, which is simply not the case at all.  It's almost the same concept of doing a satire of a satire.

Updated On: 10/24/22 at 10:33 AM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 10/24/22 at 11:03am

bk said: "My problem here is everyone blaming the musical itself rather than the misbegotten and ill-directed production and its gimmick. As to it being bland with a "bunch of white dudes" performing it - your offensive BS aside, if it had been bland and boring with a bunch of white dudes performing it, it wouldn't have played for three years, toured, been made into a film, and had countless productions over the years. If this is all you've seen, I hate to tell you you haven't seen the show the author's actually created, nor have you heard the score with its original orchestrations rather than the cheese in this production. It's like seeing a bad revival of any classic - bad is bad and to blame the show having not ever seen it is, IMO, ludicrous."

 

I don’t care if something has had commercial success—it can still be bland AF. I think Phantom of the Opera is bland but it’s the longest running show in history on Broadway. Sometimes things are just bland enough to be massively popular and that’s the impression I get from this musical. It’s so weird to me that you can’t accept that someone has a different opinion than you…the book and music is what dragged this down for me. 

 

Updated On: 10/24/22 at 11:03 AM

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/24/22 at 11:55am

BroadwayGirl107 said: "bk said: "My problem here is everyone blaming the musical itself rather than the misbegotten and ill-directed production and its gimmick. As to it being bland with a "bunch of white dudes" performing it - your offensive BS aside, if it had been bland and boring with a bunch of white dudes performing it, it wouldn't have played for three years, toured, been made into a film, and had countless productions over the years. If this is all you've seen, I hate to tell you you haven't seen the show the author's actually created, nor have you heard the score with its original orchestrations rather than the cheese in this production. It's like seeing a bad revival of any classic - bad is bad and to blame the show having not ever seen it is, IMO, ludicrous."



I don’t care if something has had commercial success—it can still be bland AF. I think Phantom of the Opera is bland but it’s the longest running show in history on Broadway. Sometimes things are just bland enough to be massively popular and that’s the impression I get from this musical. It’s so weird to me that you can’t accept that someone has a different opinion than you…the book and music is what dragged this down for me.

"

I don't think the show as written is bland in the least, it's funny, moving, suspenseful. Not only does it have a strong score, but the traditional orchestrations are among the best I've ever heard--ingeniously wedding an 18th century sound to a modern musical theater score, no easy feat. It's a classic up there with shows like Carousel and My Fair Lady.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 10/24/22 at 1:47pm

joevitus said: 
"

I don't think the show as written is bland in the least, it's funny, moving, suspenseful. Not only does it have a strong score, but the traditional orchestrations are among the best I've ever heard--ingeniously wedding an 18th century sound to a modern musical theater score, no easy feat. It's a classic up there with shows like Carousel and My Fair Lady."

And that’s totally fine you feel that way and I disagree, lol. 

[hearthemsing22]

Posted: 10/25/22 at 10:59am

Was this common knowledge or was this just announced this morning?

 

https://playbill.com/article/kristolyn-lloyd-joins-broadway-revival-of-1776-october-25

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 10/25/22 at 11:03am

hearthemsing22 said: "Was this common knowledge or was this just announced this morning?



https://playbill.com/article/kristolyn-lloyd-joins-broadway-revival-of-1776-october-25"

No, they announced this maybe a month ago or so. Crystal Lucas Perry is in Ain't No Mo so she was only scheduled to be with the show through this past Sunday.

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 10/25/22 at 4:43pm

Is anyone going to see Kristolyn as John Adams tonight?

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 10/25/22 at 8:54pm

Broadway61004 said: "hearthemsing22 said: "Was this common knowledge or was this just announced this morning?



https://playbill.com/article/kristolyn-lloyd-joins-broadway-revival-of-1776-october-25"

No, they announced this maybe a month ago or so. Crystal Lucas Perry is in Ain't No Mo so she was only scheduled to be with the show through this past Sunday."

It was announced a while ago but it still doesnt make any sense-- or, maybe more accurate to say, speaks to how highly this production team views Crystal Lucas Perry to allow her to open the show, stay for a month, and then go open another. 

[George in DC]

Posted: 10/25/22 at 9:22pm

BroadwayGirl107 said: "joevitus said:
"

I don't think the show as written is bland in the least, it's funny, moving, suspenseful. Not only does it have a strong score, but the traditional orchestrations are among the best I've ever heard--ingeniously wedding an 18th century sound to a modern musical theater score, no easy feat. It's a classic up there with shows like Carousel and My Fair Lady."

And that’s totally fine you feel that way and I disagree, lol."

Don't take this the wrong way, but since you have never seen 1776 as it was written, then your opinion on it is meaningless. Watch the movie and then make a comment about the validity of its book.

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 10/25/22 at 9:28pm

George in DC said: "

Don't take this the wrong way, but since you have never seen 1776 as it was written, then your opinion on it is meaningless. Watch the movie and then make a comment about the validity of its book."

Ill happily take it the wrong way: what an asinine statement. I never saw the original productions of almost every single classic musical, from Fiddler to Oklahoma to WSS. So my love or distaste for those shows are meaningless? Have YOU seen the original production of every show you've also seen revived? 

The refusal to accept that some of us think the dialogue in this play is just plain awkward/bad is mind boggling--and its certainly possible to suggest that this production makes it worse, totally possible! But I'm WRONG for thinking those Ben Franklin jokes were corny as f? Get outta here. I make no apologies for not thinking the stuff that mighta been sharp/witty in 1970 ain't anymore. 

[JanMaxwellsBag]

Posted: 10/25/22 at 9:28pm

George in DC said: "BroadwayGirl107 said: "joevitus said:
"

I don't think the show as written is bland in the least, it's funny, moving, suspenseful. Not only does it have a strong score, but the traditional orchestrations are among the best I've ever heard--ingeniously wedding an 18th century sound to a modern musical theater score, no easy feat. It's a classic up there with shows like Carousel and My Fair Lady."

And that’s totally fine you feel that way and I disagree, lol."

Don't take this the wrong way, but since you have never seen 1776 as it was written, then your opinion on it is meaningless. Watch the movie and then make a comment about the validity of its book."

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 10/25/22 at 9:40pm

George in DC said: "BroadwayGirl107 said: "joevitus said:
"

I don't think the show as written is bland in the least, it's funny, moving, suspenseful. Not only does it have a strong score, but the traditional orchestrations are among the best I've ever heard--ingeniously wedding an 18th century sound to a modern musical theater score, no easy feat. It's a classic up there with shows like Carousel and My Fair Lady."

And that’s totally fine you feel that way and I disagree, lol."

Don't take this the wrong way, but since you have never seen 1776 as it was written, then your opinion on it is meaningless. Watch the movie and then make a comment about the validity of its book."

We’re there major changes to the book and score in this production? If so, no one has commented on them so far, so I’d say I can judge them pretty fairly. I’ve worked in theater for over a decade and can separate words on the page from the directorial/acting choices being made with them…in fact, it’s my job, lol. 
 

So the only way I’m really taking your comment is you’re showing your own unwillingness to accept opinions that differ from yours! 

[bk]

Posted: 10/25/22 at 11:08pm

BroadwayGirl107 said: "George in DC said: "BroadwayGirl107 said: "joevitus said:
"

I don't think the show as written is bland in the least, it's funny, moving, suspenseful. Not only does it have a strong score, but the traditional orchestrations are among the best I've ever heard--ingeniously wedding an 18th century sound to a modern musical theater score, no easy feat. It's a classic up there with shows like Carousel and My Fair Lady."

And that’s totally fine you feel that way and I disagree, lol."

Don't take this the wrong way, but since you have never seen 1776 as it was written, then your opinion on it is meaningless. Watch the movie and then make a comment about the validity of its book."

We’re there major changes to the book and score in this production? If so, no one has commented on them so far, so I’d say I can judge them pretty fairly. I’ve worked in theater for over a decade and can separate words on the page from the directorial/acting choices being made with them…in fact, it’s my job, lol.


So the only way I’m really taking your comment is you’re showing your own unwillingness to accept opinions that differ from yours!"

For starters, the music has totally new arrangements and orchestrations that are terrible. As to the book, changes or not, if it's being played by over-the-top performances directed to be sledge-hammered home, no, you cannot judge a book that way. And that goes for any classic musical that has a terrible production with actors directed to do it an injustice. It's fine for you to have an opinion on THIS production but as others have pointed out, you've not seen the show played as it should be played. It's that simple, really. 

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 10/26/22 at 1:49am

I'm perfectly willing to accept that this production only exacerbates, or manages to play up, the flaws in the book, the boring and predictable dialogue, the corny one-liner yuk-yuk barbs tossed between the delegates. Im not defending this production by any means. But the defensiveness here, the refusal to accept that someone might just find the underlying dialogue dull and eye-roll-worthy, is a bad look.

Again and again this book has Franklin semi-mock Adams about talking too much--and its YIKES CRINGEWORTHY. If you enjoy it, great! I'd bet there's lots of this type of humor you enjoy, which is great. But seems strange, and this point just plain uncomfortably obnoxious, to INSIST that I am wrong and would enjoy it too if only I had been alive in 1969. 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/26/22 at 7:27am

You are.  You don't have to like the show  --- this or any other production - but it's hard to take your reasoning in any serious matter.

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/26/22 at 10:19am

PipingHotPiccolo said: "I'm perfectly willing to accept that this production only exacerbates, or manages to play up, the flaws in the book, the boring and predictable dialogue, the corny one-liner yuk-yuk barbs tossed between the delegates. Im not defending this production by any means. But the defensiveness here, the refusal to accept that someone might just find the underlying dialogue dull and eye-roll-worthy, is a bad look.

Again and again this book has Franklin semi-mock Adams about talking too much--and its YIKES CRINGEWORTHY. If you enjoy it, great! I'd bet there's lots of this type of humor you enjoy, which is great. But seems strange, and this point just plain uncomfortably obnoxious, to INSIST that I am wrong and would enjoy it too if only I had been alive in 1969."

No one is insisting anything except that we like the show as written. No insistence that all are compelled to agree. 

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 10/26/22 at 10:51am

bk said: "
For starters, the music has totally new arrangements and orchestrations that are terrible. As to the book, changes or not, if it's being played by over-the-top performances directed to be sledge-hammered home, no, you cannot judge a book that way. And that goes for any classic musical that has a terrible production with actors directed to do it an injustice. It's fine for you to have an opinion on THIS production but as others have pointed out, you've not seen the show played as it should be played. It's that simple, really."

 

Again, it’s totally fine that you have difficulty understanding a scores essence through its arrangements (the score to me is fine but not very exciting), or that you find it difficult to differentiate between the words of the book in contrast to how the performance and direction are informing them. But I feel pretty confident I can do that—again, it’s literally my job! But I do think some folks are still able to do that pretty easily even if it’s not. I don’t really like this musical very much! Again it’s just so bizarre to me that some folks here won’t let that be. 

 

 

[kdogg36]

Posted: 10/26/22 at 11:13am

dramamama611 said: "You are. You don't have to like the show --- this or any other production - but it's hard to take your reasoning in any serious matter."

This is a full, professional production of 1776 that does not make major changes to its book. Anyone who's seen it is fully qualified to judge its quality.

For the record, I enjoyed the humor and thought most jokes landed quite well.

[smokeline2]

Posted: 10/26/22 at 11:55am

Chiming in as someone who has seen two previous productions of this show, was bored out of my mind, and only went to see this production because I was curious about the concept.

I agree with much of the criticism of the production, but I will say it's the first time I was actually engaged for the duration of the show. I appreciate that they tried to do something different and fresh with it.

Maybe in a perfect production the jokes don't come across as corny and the score doesn't come across as bland, but I haven't seen one yet.

Updated On: 10/26/22 at 11:55 AM

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 10/27/22 at 8:37am

dramamama611 said: "You don't have to like the show --- this or any other production - but it's hard to take your reasoning in any serious matter."

Man the illiberal and intolerant thinking here runs deep. 

"I really didn't care for the dialogue."

"You're wrong. It's great. Everyone says so."

"OK. But I really found it unfunny and awkward and repetitive."

"That's the fault of these actors and thus production. If you had seen other people perform it, you'd love it."

"Well maybe, but I don't really see how such painfully corny jokey language could ever appeal to me. Glad you like it though."

"You're free not to like it, of course, but then I can't possibly take anything you say seriously."

 

And this latest clowning comes from dramamama (whose posts i usually enjoy!), whose got "Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts" plastered across the bottom of her profile. 

 

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 12/4/22 at 8:18pm

Has anyone managed to see Sara Porkalob in this show recently? Both times I've tried she's been out and from it seems like she's been out quite a bit since the vulture article. I follow her private Instagram and she seems to be fine health-wise.

[james1m2]

Posted: 12/4/22 at 8:40pm

Saw the Sunday, Nov 13 performance and Sara was in as Rutledge. She was great.

[buffalospeedway]

Posted: 12/5/22 at 2:38am

The idea that 1776 is somehow sacred when artists have been reinterpreting Shakespeare and the Greeks forever is funny.

[South Florida]

Posted: 12/5/22 at 2:23pm

I didn't see this.  However, I thought the new Company was fine  but I like the old ones better.  I thought the gender switching weakened the show.  Company was written for a time and with a male lead.  I can't imagine liking this show better than the original.  

[joevitus]

Posted: 12/5/22 at 3:46pm

South Florida said: "I didn't see this. However, I thought the new Company was fine but I like the old ones better. I thought the gender switching weakened the show. Company was written for a time and with a male lead. I can't imagine liking this show better than the original."

I'm a bit surprised Sondheim went for it.  He famously refused the rights for a production that would have made the characters gay men--which actually I think would be more in synch with the material that giving it to a heterosexual woman. I agree the concept just doesn't fully click with a female lead (because gender difference exist, which disrupt the basic concept of a skirt chaser who won't settle down), but the Broadway transfer seems to have been an amazing production, and it's a shame rights issues prevented a cast recording. I'm glad it was filmed, and that some part of that shot is (as I understand it) going to be released commercially.