1776 Revival (Broadway P/reviews) - News & Discussion Thread- Page 8

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 9/11/22 at 7:54pm

“If you ran a company and hired a key project leader for a 3 months project and despite committing to you and agreeing to the pay you offered, she continued to look for another job that paid better and quit after one month, would you be cool with it? Maybe she's just "doing what she's gotta do" but I don't think she should get a free pass.”

 

she doesn’t owe her employer anything. She did her job (quite well actually!) and gave more than appropriate notice. Wish her the best! But by all means, continue your nonsense. 

[Huss417]

Posted: 9/11/22 at 8:13pm

Have tickets for this weekend as well but really if friends I'm going with doesn't want to go I won't lose any sleep if I miss this altogether.

[UncleCharlie]

Posted: 9/11/22 at 9:43pm

BroadwayNYC2 said: "she doesn’t owe her employer anything. She did her job (quite well actually!) and gave more than appropriate notice. Wish her the best! But by all means, continue your nonsense."

My nonsense? It's simply a point of view that differs from yours, Einstein. You can simply say, "no, I see her side of it here and have no problem with it" without being a condescending twit.

[TheatreMonkey]

Posted: 9/11/22 at 10:55pm

trpguyy said: "UncleCharlie said: "trpguyy said: "UncleCharlie said: "EDSOSLO858 said: "Crystal Lucas-Perry will play her final performance on October 23, departing for another project that has not been announced yet.

Kristolyn Lloyd will replace her as John Adams beginning on the 25th."



Call me old fashioned but whatever happened to "Sorry, I'm not available until mid-January. I'm committed to my current project until then."?

Maybe I could at least understand it if she's currently in a very small supporting role and this is an opportunity to headline a show, but she's already headlining the show she's in."
 

"

Sorry all, but let's keep in mind *all* of this is pure speculation -- only a few posters on here said, with no evidence or first hand knowledge, that the reason she left might be X or Y or Z. No one here, at least that's posted, truly knows the reason she's leaving the production early, and so much of what has been said in reaction to these "reasons" casts an unnecessary shadow on her and the production. It's one thing to hypothetically debate the pros and cons for leaving a production (seemingly) earlier; but when we start saying "she doesn't (this)" or "she didn't (that)", without actual knowledge, it's not fair to performer or production.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/11/22 at 11:36pm

Also wasn't this announced pre-pandemic? Or am I making that up? But that said, working in non-profits is not lucrative. I think the ensemble gets like $800 a week or something. I guess it might have gone up since a few years ago, but still, they are by no means making bank. 

It seems like they expect this to do semi-well? I mean, a short run on Broadway, sure, but seems like they intend to just use that as a launching point for a tour.

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 9/12/22 at 1:25am

“ My nonsense? It's simply a point of view that differs from yours, Einstein. You can simply say, "no, I see her side of it here and have no problem with it" without being a condescending twit.”

 

You we’re making some pretty pointed insulations about somebody’s work ethic and didn’t even use the word woke correctly, so the only one who comes out looking like a twit here is you. 

[UncleCharlie]

Posted: 9/13/22 at 2:42am

BroadwayNYC2 said: "“ My nonsense? It's simply a point of view that differs from yours, Einstein. You can simply say, "no, I see her side of it here and have no problem with it" without being a condescending twit.”



You we’re making some pretty pointed insulations about somebody’s work ethic and didn’t even use the word woke correctly, so the only one who comes out looking like a twit here is you."

 

I'm asking the question cause it seems unusual to me that the headliner of a Broadway show's departure 2 1/2 weeks after opening is being announced before previews have even started. I'm obviously not privy to what was discussed but if that was the agreement between her and Roundabout from the beginning and there was always an out clause, then fine, all parties were on board and knew what to expect. If not, then yeah, I have a question about it. Regardless, I wish both her and the show well.

And for someone who apparently doesn't know how to use we're and were correctly, you're probably not the one to lecture others on correct word usage and certainly not to call anyone else a twit.

[theaterdarling]

Posted: 9/13/22 at 1:13pm

Saw this at A.R.T. and for those sitting on the fence about whether to go, IMHO, save your money.

Saw the show 10 days after the Dobbs decision and thought, o.k. this will have some super special resonance given Alito's belief that if a woman did not have a right in the 18th century, the Constitution should not give it to her now (and better yet, take it away from her), but that "resonance" never materialized. Without the benefit of seeing an original or touring production it seems, at best, to be a meh musical and it is still a meh musical. No matter who sings "He Plays The Violin," it is still a cringe-y song. There was a lot of talent in the company, but as others have noted, Lucas-Perry was not compelling in the least - a very high school musical lead performance. Perhaps Kristolyn Lloyd will leave a more lasting impression. Good luck to her.

My familiarity with the show was limited to songs heard over the years on WERS show "Standing Room Only." I watched the movie just before I went to see the A.R.T production just to have some base knowledge for comparison - I struggled through the movie - it was borderline unwatchable. 

Prior to seeing the show, I also attended a Zoom event with Paulus and Page which was profoundly devoid of any expression of any semblance of a creative vision and how the casting decisions served the reframe (other than the obvious). The talk consisted mostly of Page and Paulus describing the personal consciousness-raising they went through during the Covid lockdown while the show was shut down and how they then had the time to take a second look at the staging (well, then how did the "second look" compare to the "first look" after having the time to do all the research you wanted?)  It was a very off-putting presentation and was a harbinger of the production itself. I did not want them to explain everything to me but some elucidation of the "whys" of this revival, would have been nice.

As with all shows in New York trying to bring NY theater and Broadway back, I wish "1776" well but wish the reason for its being was more well-considered.

 

[jacobsnchz14]

Posted: 9/15/22 at 9:00pm

First Preview is tomorrow!

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 9/16/22 at 8:53am

TheatreMonkey said: 
Sorry all, but let's keep in mind *all* of this is pure speculation -- only a few posters on here said, with no evidence or first hand knowledge, that the reason she left might be X or Y or Z. No one here, at least that's posted, truly knows the reason she's leaving the production early, and so much of what has been said in reaction to these "reasons" casts an unnecessary shadow on her and the production. It's one thing to hypothetically debate the pros and cons for leaving a production (seemingly) earlier; but when we start saying "she doesn't (this)" or "she didn't (that)", without actual knowledge, it's not fair to performer or production."

But its perfectly legitimate to wonder out loud why someone would open a pretty high profile Broadway show, and then stay for less than a month before being replaced by someone else for the remainder of the run. Its not a dig at anyone to ask how/why that makes any sense--for the production, for either of the actresses, etc. Truly bizarre. 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 9/16/22 at 11:12am

BCfitasafiddle said: "Is this worth seeing? I have never seen 1776 onstage. Only the movie. And I remember being bored out of my mind. Does this production have any excitement in it that would make it more appealing to someone who's not a super-fan?

The casting is, of course, the reason to see it.. but it's not calling my name."

I saw the original production three times and several other productions during the years.  I thought this was better than all of the non-Broadway versions I saw, mainly because of the performances.  Naturally, I thought Joanna Glushak was the best one by far.  It is entertaining, tells an important story, and is generally well directed.  Two issues, one minor, one major.  Minor: a little heavy-handed at times…same script, but a little sledgehammer at times.  Made me internally groan occasionally, not so much that I did not like it.  
 

The major issuewas the ending…hoping to put maximum focus on the decision to exclude slavery as an issue, it was more about that than the actual signing.  The original ending, with no music other than bells ringing was truly exciting and had a real emotional payoff.  The cast ended up posed as in the famous painting.

The ending that I saw just brought no reaction…it was a really bad ending to a pretty entertaining evening in the theatre.  I felt cheated; if you haven’t seen it, you might not feel that way.

A final point: ironically, the woman you played John Adams was fine in the role, but did not come across as heroic, unlike other actors, in particular William Daniels.  Maybe her replacement will be better.  Overall, however, the show was really well-acted.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 9/16/22 at 1:12pm

Is Hiptix available yet? It will apply the Hiptix code but the seat map shows no seats available for any date which seems impossible. Even if I take off the code, the only seats available are a couple side orchestra. The show can't be that popular. Is there something going on with the website?

[hollebolle]

Posted: 9/16/22 at 1:18pm

I bought HipTix months ago.

[kwoc91]

Posted: 9/16/22 at 2:17pm

VintageSnarker said: "Is Hiptix available yet? It will apply the Hiptix code but the seat map shows no seats available for any date which seems impossible. Even if I take off the code, the only seats available are a couple side orchestra. The show can't be that popular. Is there something going on with the website?"

I purchased Hiptix tickets this week and the Hiptix seats were side orchestra.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 4:12am

kwoc91 said: "VintageSnarker said: "Is Hiptix available yet? It will apply the Hiptix code but the seat map shows no seats available for any date which seems impossible. Even if I take off the code, the only seats available are a couple side orchestra. The show can't be that popular. Is there something going on with the website?"

I purchased Hiptix tickets this week and the Hiptix seats were side orchestra."

Ah, thanks. I realized it wasn't removing the code to show me the regular seats. 

[jacobsnchz14]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 9:51am

Curtain Call

 

 

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 12:11pm

I kind of assumed this was going to be a cheap community theatre production and that curtain call certainly just confirmed it.

[Georgeanddot2]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 12:26pm

Performative neo-liberal bull****.  Casting queer people and PoC and women in the roles of capitalist, imperialist, slave owners is LAME.

[hork]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 4:11pm

Georgeanddot2 said: "Performative neo-liberal bull****. Casting queer people and PoC and women in the roles of capitalist, imperialist, slave owners is LAME."

How so? How does being queer or female conflict with portraying a capitalist or a slave owner? And how is that neo-liberal?

[JBroadway]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 4:42pm

Looks like I posted last night in the less thread, so I’m going to copy/paste my post here. One thing I’ll add is that this production did not read to me like a community theatre production at all; say what you will about the concept and execution, but the production caliber struck me as roughly on par with what Roundabout usually does. Anyway, here’s what I said last night after the 1st preview:




I guess you could say I fit nicely in the target audience for this production, in the sense that I’m (a) a fan of the material, but also (b) the opposite of a purist. I genuinely love to see artists take massive liberties with an existing text.

I have mixed feelings about the end result, but overall I dug it. Sometimes a bit heavy-handed, to be sure, but even some of those moments worked for me, because the text is already written with such a sense of self-awareness. They just changed who who was aware of what.

When all was said and done, I actually don’t think this production feels like it’s fighting the text. Working in dialogue with it, yes, and occasionally embellishing it where it could’ve spoken for itself. But I think the things that already work well about the text were still present in this production.

Some of the more “frivolous” numbers didn’t quite gel with the flow of the production, but in general I thought most of the musical numbers were excellent, and loved a lot of the stylistic changes they made to the score.

As I said, I do have a number of criticisms. But since this production already seems to have been pretty poorly received, I feel more inclined to focus on the positives in the post. Because overall I definitely enjoyed it, and respect its ambition (Also it’s late, and I don’t feel like doing a play-by-play tonight). 

Regarding Mamma Look Sharp: I do love the original version, but I also thought this re-imagined version was exquisite in its own way, and was actually the highlight of the evening for me. 

For anyone curious, it ran close to 3 hours tonight - got out at like 10:50 or something.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 6:16pm

Oh i didn’t know there was already a thread for this when i posted last night. I thought a bit about it today and agree that it doesn’t look cheap at all. I think it’s about how the show *should* look. But I still don’t think the concept works. It’s like someone said “I have a great idea” (and in theory it IS a great idea) but when given the chance to see it in motion, there’s more that doesn’t work than what does work. I still think telling this story in this way is interesting but tell it in a new way, not with this particular book and score that just don’t lend itself to the concept. 
 

As for “Momma Look Sharp”, I’m even more upset about what they did with it today than I was last night. I absolutely detested it. Glad some people liked it, but it took one of the most beautiful and emotional songs ever and just BEATS YOU OVER THE HEAD with it screaming “LISTEN TO THE MESSAGE OF THIS SONG THAT I DONT TRUST YOU TO GET WITHOUT IT BEING SCREAMED AT YOU!” 

[WldKingdomHM]

Posted: 9/17/22 at 6:25pm

I have a headache after watching that curtain call

[jkcohen626]

Posted: 9/18/22 at 10:50am

hork said: "Georgeanddot2 said: "Performative neo-liberal bull****. Casting queer people and PoC and women in the roles of capitalist, imperialist, slave owners is LAME."

How so? How does being queer or female conflict with portraying a capitalist or a slave owner? And how is that neo-liberal?"

"Neoliberal is when I don't like something and the more I don't like it, the more it's Neoliberal!"

Ronald Reagan was a Neoliberal. Putting women and queer people in a 50-year-old musical that used to star all White men is not Neoliberal.

However, it seems like there is not really something that the directors are trying to say with these changes. LMM was saying something when he cast non-white actors as founding fathers. It served the story he was trying to tell. Marianne Elliot was saying something when she did her gender bending in Company and when her and Miranda Cromwell did their race changes in Death of a Salesman. Those changes were integral to the respective productions.

It seems like Paulas and Page are doing this just to do it.

[femcelfreedomfighter]

Posted: 9/18/22 at 11:26pm

Jordan Catalano said: "All very talented people but I just don’t “get” the concept here and what’s to be gained for the show by having an all female cast."

Please, everyone is begging to see what Thomas Jefferson would look like if he got hired by BuzzFeed and took a shot of estrogen.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/19/22 at 12:51am

jkcohen626 said: "hork said: "Georgeanddot2 said: "Performative neo-liberal bull****. Casting queer people and PoC and women in the roles of capitalist, imperialist, slave owners is LAME."

How so? How does being queer or female conflict with portraying a capitalist or a slave owner? And how is that neo-liberal?"

"Neoliberal is when I don't like something and the more I don't like it, the more it's Neoliberal!"

Ronald Reagan was a Neoliberal. Putting women and queer people in a 50-year-old musical that used to star all White men is not Neoliberal.

However, it seems like there is not really something that the directors are trying to say with these changes. LMM was saying something when he cast non-white actors as founding fathers. It served the story he was trying to tell. Marianne Elliot was saying something when she did her gender bending in Company and when her and Miranda Cromwell did their race changes in Death of a Salesman. Those changes were integral to the respective productions.

It seems like Paulas and Page are doing this just to do it.
"

It does seem to be riding the coattails of Hamilton for sure.