1776 Revival (Broadway P/reviews) - News & Discussion Thread — Page 4

I just picked up a couple of the $25 seats - A 4&5 - for next Sunday's matinee, and they're listed as partial view. There are seats in front of that selling for full price. I've sat just about everywhere a person can sit in the Loeb Drama Center (including the stage and literally the floor) and never had a bad seat, so I'm curious what makes these partial view. I'd love to hear from anyone who's seen the show or is otherwise familiar with this production.

Does anyone know when Roundabout Access tickets go on sale?

just purchased my HipTix for this fall!

dramamama611 said: "gibsons2 said: "Does anyone know when Roundabout Access tickets go on sale?"

I got an email giving me early access stating tix go on sale for regular access TOMORROW (Friday)"

Regular tickets went on sale today. They're talking about the Access10 $10 seats.

“ just picked up a couple of the $25 seats - A 4&5 - for next Sunday's matinee, and they're listed as partial view. There are seats in front of that selling for full price. I've sat just about everywhere a person can sit in the Loeb Drama Center (including the stage and literally the floor) and never had a bad seat, so I'm curious what makes these partial view. I'd love to hear from anyone who's seen the show or is otherwise familiar with this production.”

From what I’ve seen in the past, those are seats that are the front row of the rear section and are at the same level as the seats in the rear row of the front section and are often designated as partial view. Also, I’m pretty sure those seats aren’t the “screwed into the ground” type, but are free-standing and sort of placed in front of the usual front row - I could be wrong about that.

Anyway, I wouldn’t sweat the partial view designation. As long as you and the people in the row in front of you don’t have a large height differential, you should be fine. (I tend to sit in row C or D on the aisle in that section because my wife likes to make a quick getaway at intermission out the exit door that’s right there.)

Please let me know if I was even close to being right!

Updated On: 5/20/22 at 04:13 PM

Well. That was something.

It's not awful, and I didn't hate it, but I didn't like it very much (but a little) . Basic problem - not that the cast was female and/or binary...but (not unlike Jagged LIttle Pill) it tried to hard to BE meaningful, instead of just telling the story. The cast were terrific vocalists, but not nearly as strong in their acting. I also felt the direction and staging was a huge misfire.

There were changes made to the music - some worked, some didn't. There were moments that shined, but far too few. The choreo was hit or miss as well, it's not a dance show and they tried to make it so for a few numbers - which was just weird.



PJCi - Unless you are particularly short, your seats should be fine. The only thing I could see is (as someone mentioned above) your row is the same level as the row in front of you.

Sure, sorry I didn't include it.

A combination of 3 things. The use of curtains, projections and plain tables and chairs - except for Hancock'schair, which was red, upholstered and on a wooden pedestal of sorts. Scenes either took place in the congressional hall, or in front of the "house" curtain (which resembled a quit of symbols from American flags.

I LIKED the use of projections, they added appropriate visual interest without being distracting or showing you how clever they were.

And since I avoided all tech in my previous post, I add some more:

Sound: overall nicely done, but my son felt like everyone was screaming - but I think mic volumes were off - as character's TONE didn't sound like screaming, just the volume.

Costumes: interesting and mostly effective. Colonial coats/jackets over an interesting mix of contemporary clothes. Sometimes the look felt finished and appropriate, but a few of the shirts worn by the cast, looked uncomfortable and hung really oddly with the jackets placed over them, making a few look downright slovenly. I've put in a spoiler a couple of things that I think were terrific reveals - so skip if planning to see:

Hairstyles, too, were contemporary, and most worked well, but a few were just distracting, and one REALLY bad wig.



NOTE to those wondering why MEN were not cast as Abigail and Martha: those actor's double their roles as both the wives, AND a member of Congreff. (Not a typo - I hope most of you will see my attempt at historical humor.)

Speaking of the wives, Abigail was VERY strong AND had a stunning voice. (Costuming note for this: dressed in the gown CUT of the time period, with a very Jamaican type pattern of material, and a head wrap - this was distracting, at first. However, Martha was directed VERY oddly - they totally sexualized "He Plays the Violin" where it fell just short of a scene from When Harry Met Sally, and she still sings it to Adams and Franklin. I also hated the demeanor chose for the character, aloof, brusque, unlikeable.



If there's anything else anyone wants to ask, happy to oblige.

Hasn’t Paulus been cancelled yet? That’s disappointing.



This production sounds hideous and nothing I’ve seen so far is encouraging.

Saw this last night and put me in the positive camp. Given that the cast is all women, trans, non-binary, you should walk in understanding what the director is going for and I didn't feel like anything was too forced (unlike Jagged Little Pill). It was a pleasure discovering all these talented women of whom I was mostly unfamiliar with. Instant standing ovation from the audience.

barcelona20 said: "Saw this last night and put me in the positive camp. Given that the cast is all women, trans, non-binary, you should walk in understanding what the director is going for and I didn't feel like anything was too forced (unlike Jagged Little Pill). It was a pleasure discovering all these talented women of whom I was mostly unfamiliar with. Instant standing ovation from the audience."

Not suggesting your opinion isn't valid but I have a question: what did you take from all the "audience" takes that seem to belabor so many points? Drove me NUTS,



To Ermengarde's point: I DID wonder how much of my disappointment came from the co-direction - I usually love Paulus.

There were so many instances that the actors were directed to acknowledge the audience (a take) during specific moments. (The most egregious one being after Franklin says the line about future generations blaming them for how things went down.) It always felt like the production was making sure we knew whatever they had just said was important.



In general, I hated that they so often had speakers in the hall face us to talk to each other - but not quite in the same vane as above.

dramamama611 said: "There were so many instances that the actors were directed to acknowledge the audience (a take) during specific moments. (The most egregious one being after Franklin says the line about future generations blaming them for how things went down.) It always felt like the production was making sure we knew whatever they had just said was important.

In general, I hated that they so often had speakers in the hall face us to talk to each other - but not quite in the same vane as above."

I hear what you're saying, but I guess it just didn't bother me as much. I'm not sure what else will be up for a Best Tony Revival next year, but I'd put decent odds on this one winning. I admit, I could be way off on this one, but we shall see!

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "The co-directing structure is odd. Paulus is a singular talent, and I've found Jeffrey L. Page's work as a choreographer on other productions to be positively dreadful –– so I didn't necessarily expect great things from him here."

Paulus shows have always been directed-by-committee, so it’s refreshing that the title is being shared for once.