1776 Revival (Broadway P/reviews) - News & Discussion Thread — Page 5

I attended tonight. Along the lines of what dramamama has said, this production is looking for depth in the material that doesn’t exist, and the self-importance of the direction becomes frustrating when the ideas put forth by the book feel so much thinner in comparison. The latter of the two issues is what I would pinpoint as the primary reason I couldn’t get invested. It was a slog to sit through.

Can the moderator replace the "General Broadway" with "1776" so this thread is more conspicuous?

Was thinking of seeing this July 4th weekend. (Though based on these initial reviews...) We were looking at Row A Orchestra on the aisle, but right next to those, it says Partial View. Never been in that theatre, any know what that means? d

dramamama611 said: "Row a is simply on the exact same level as the one in front of it...with an aisle between. Unless you are particularly short, it shouldn't be concerning at all."

Thanks! Now to decide if it's actually worth seeing...

I really enjoyed it. I found the ART version to be a fresh take. The talent was all wonderful. I highly recommend!

Lots of purple. I hate purple.



EDITED: I hit send to soon... the logo looks like this:

Updated On: 5/31/22 at 11:22 AM

I went in thinking why the gender switch? I'm going to love it or I am going to hate it. Ironically, I didn't love it and I didn't hate. it.

The way it was staged is definitely geared toward our present time and the singing of "Is anybody there.. does anybody care.? " took on a whole new meaning of a woman's right to chose and politicians not agreeing on gun control or just about anything or that matter. The production really makes us look at today's problems. Not the patriotic intent of the original authors of this musical but certainly the intent of Diane Paulus and her co-director.

The original simply showed how difficult it was to get the Declaration written; it was very patriotic and made you feel warm and pride about our countries' history. This production makes us feel that the problems we are facing now as a multicultural society and nation are just as difficult as the revolution.

It is staged as contemporary women putting on a show. The women come out in modern dress and put on their revolutionary costumes right in front of the audiences. While this is an interesting conceit it helps and hurts the show. We rarely forget for one moment that this is a bunch of women putting on a play. It's kind of like an old fashioned minstrel drag show with chintzy curtains being pulled to open and conceal the action.

Some of the sexual innuendos are lost by it being played by women but it still works. At the end, the women go back to their modern dress again reminding us yet again that these are women putting on a play.

In traditional productions of this musical, we believe that we are witnessing history. The men on stage are the ones signing the document and living it.

The problem with this version is that we never fully believe the people on stage are the men that signed the declaration of Independence. Having them change from street clothes to Revolutionary clothes in front of us makes it Brechtian and alienates the audience from then proceedings.

What it does on a positive note is that we are witnessing women of today relating to the declaration with regards to a woman's right to chose and gun control. The cast is very good.

I have to admit that I prefer the traditional staging but this was certainly an interesting experiment that works on many levels. I just miss the patriotism of the traditional staging.

dramamama611 said: "Wee Thomas2 said: "I was surprised how misogynistic the script is."

Misogynistic? Where is there any hatred towards women? I'm seriously asking....because I just don't see it. They make some crass sex jokes....but that doesn't make it misogynistic. What am I not seeing?"

Not hatred, but not respect of women.,The script does not stress a society where women are close to being equals of men

When are they disrespectful? Women didn't have the vote, weren't allowed to own property, couldn't have a voice in government and a billion other things -you can't change history, and it would be foolish to try to portray things differently.

When they joke around about sex with their wives ("refresh the Missus" it's no worse than what a group of men or a gaggle ofwomen might sway to their friends in present day.

And yes, Uncle Charlie's words above ring so true in great detail.

Its only slated about a 4 month run at Roundabout....it'll be well attended, but unless a lot changes, the critics won't be kind.

It’ll be cushioned by Roundabout’s subscriber base, for sure, but I suspect that the target audience- young people- will find the attempts to make it current cringey.

I saw this last week, on a whim. I'll preface my comments by saying 1776 is one of my favorite musicals of all time. That said, before this, I saw only one local production, and most of my first impressions were shaped by the film version, with the excellent William Daniels playing John Adams. I was fascinated by the idea of an all woman/non-binary cast.

Overall, I have mixed feelings about this production, and lean towards disliking it over liking it. Just a few off-the-cuff reactions:

* The "modernization" of the score is uneven - some of the improvements work (e.g., I like this production's interpretation of Momma Look Sharp, because it plays effectively on a maternal angle). Some don't, and make the score sound like Pasek and Paul present 1776.

* The cast looked to the audience too often for a laugh. You can invite audience reaction effectively -- here, it was overkill.

* I felt like this show couldn't make up its mind about whether it wanted to be a more tongue-in-cheek production of 1776, or a faithful reproduction of it. Some of the actors delivered lines as if they were trying to present themselves as colonial-era citizens; others had more modern mannerisms. (Contrast: Becca Ayers' McKean and Allison Briner Dardenne's Hopkins, who were played closer to their film characters, versus Sushma Saha's Wilson and Gisela Adisa's Livingston, who were played in a more contemporary manner.) As a result, you ended up getting a sort of community theatre feel, with Broadway-caliber moments. Not saying a modern take is bad, it's just that they didn't fully commit with all the characters. The inconsistency detracts from the production, IMO.

* I cannot say enough about Joanna Glushak's Dickinson. She played the role of honorable villain effectively, and was incredible during Cool, Considerate Men. I had no trouble believing that she was John Dickinson.

* I have mixed feelings about Crystal Lucas-Perry as John Adams, but lean towards the positive. At first, she felt incredibly one note - portraying Adams as obnoxious and disliked (which she very well should!), but without the cerebral moments that you saw from William Daniels' Adams. Her Adams got more complex in Act II, but I couldn't shake the feeling that she played Adams a little too one-dimensionally.

* Patrena Murray got a lot of laughs as Franklin, but lost some of the comedic energy built into Franklin's lines. I also don't think Murray conveys the gravitas that the Franklin character needs, although I may be too biased by the da Silva portrayal in the film.

* Tiffani Barbour's McNair did a lot with the small moments she had.

* Shawna Hamic was appropriately hammy as Richard Henry Lee.

* Brooke Simpson has an incredible singing voice (obviously given her background). Really enjoyed her lines in "But, Mr. Adams."

* Eryn LeCroy performed marvelously as Martha Jefferson, although I'm not sure the end of He Plays the Violin made a whole lot of sense, just given the context. Not as effective as Dr. Lyman Hall; I didn't get the sense that Hall really wrestled with his conscience and was torn about his duty as representative. (The Edmund Burke line sticks out to me.) Felt like she was going through the motions on Hall -- but two significant tracks are not easy!!

* Rutledge came off a little cartoonish for me. This is more of a directorial comment than a comment on Sara Porkalob's performance: her Molasses to Rum was well-delivered, and my sense is that she was directed to portray Rutledge that way. The evil has to feel real and familiar in order for it to feel slimy, and I didn't get that from this Rutledge.

Updated On: 6/22/22 at 01:22 PM

I saw this on Thursday with friends who had never seen it. The next night, we all watched the movie, so they could see the differences and discuss what they liked in each.

A couple of points upfront IMO:

— The movie is excellent, really underappreciated.

— The original book is outstanding in addressing its intended scope.

— William Daniels gave an iconic performance in the original production.

— The end of the original production, which had no music, was thrilling, a great ending.

My key points re this show, in some cases contrasted against the original production:

PLUSSES:

— the cast was overall outstanding, with every character well defined. This was aided by the type of casting… not every character was another old white man indistinguishable from others. There were some really wonderful interpretations. There were no playbills, so I don’t know any of the performers’ names (There was an on-line site you could go to, but I gave up). Standouts for me were the actors playing John Dickinson, Ben Franklin, Edward Rutledge, the rep from Georgia / Martha Jefferson, and Thomas Jefferson.

—They opened up two solos from the original production: Molasses to Rum and Momma Look Sharp. Both to me were very well thought out and I enjoyed them; I am not sure, however, that they really improved upon the solos.

— He Plays the Violin was better than the original, mainly because the actor had a much better voice than Blythe Danner; it was also funnier that I remembered.

— I enjoyed the performance and was happy that I attended.

NEGATIVES:

— Is Anybody There just didn’t work, for an interesting reason. It is best sung straight, but the actor added a lot of notes that were not there, and the song lost its urgency. This has always been a highlight of any production I have seen. Here it was not.

— I have already said that the original staging of the last scene was for me iconic. In order to go back to the subject of slavery, the directors took a different approach, using part to f the set of Molasses to Rum, and just had everyone walk out as they flashed the signature overhead. It was a total dud ending to an enjoyable performance. They must change the ending to honor the signing of the declaration, it reminding us again that slavery was left out.

— The actor who played Adams was fine, it not good enough as the lead for a show heading to Broadway.

— I found some of the times when the actors faced the audience worthy of a high school production a terrible mistake.

Bottom line:

I enjoyed the show but felt the last 10 - 15 minutes let it down severely. If you had not seen it before, they could have worked, because my friends liked them; (however, when they saw the movie, they thought the last 15 minutes were far superior. But a lot of people who see it in NYC will have seen it before, and I believe they will also be let down by the unthrilling ending.

but I do believe that several performances would warrant Tony jods.