1776 Reviews — Page 3

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 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 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.

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 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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 said: "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."

This has gotten pretty off topic, but from what I understand, I think he didn't want it to be a gay man because he didn't want the experience of dealing with sexuality/struggling to come out to be part of the narrative, which could've taken away from the struggle to just be open and vulnerable. Which is why he was also adamant that Bobby was not gay, even with the scene with Harry.