1776 Reviews — Page 3

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 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.

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

 

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

Is anyone going to see Kristolyn as John Adams tonight?

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.

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 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. 

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.

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. 

 

 

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

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.

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

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.