Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 1776 film | |
| Posted by: Circlevet 11:23 pm EDT 07/04/17 | |
|
|
|
| Is there a better example of a badly directed, edited and filmed adaptation of a musical? I remember being less than enthused when I saw it in it's original release and seeing tonight on TCM I realize exactly how bad this film is. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 10:46 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: 1776 film - Circlevet 11:23 pm EDT 07/04/17 | |
|
|
|
| Mame is a really bad film version of a Broadway musical. While not perfect, 1776 is very watchable and IMO enjoyable. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:47 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - BroadwayTonyJ 10:46 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Oh, and there's Man Of La Mancha, and the awful look of South Pacific, and there's Nine, and much of Sweeney Todd, and there's A Little Night Music, and the dissing of Bernstein's score in the film of On The Town, and many, many other film adaptations of stage musicals that are truly letdowns in one way or another. I don't consider 1776 to be one of those by any means. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 10:30 am EDT 07/06/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - Chromolume 12:47 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I forgot about the Man of La Mancha film, which is truly awful. I've never been able to get past the first 20 minutes or so because it's so bad -- it definitely belongs in the Mame category. My parents took me to see the South Pacific film in '58 -- I was only 10 and it blew me away. The color filters didn't bother me then. I still get a lot of enjoyment watching it today although I'm aware of its many weaknesses. Regarding Nine and Sweeney Todd, I was shocked that movie versions of these two excellent stage musicals even got made and ultimately I'm glad that it did happen. I kind of accept what each of their director's particular vision was and pretty much appreciate them for what they are. A Little Night Music is a guilty pleasure for me. Resetting it in Vienna totally destroys the story's key metaphor. Nevertheless, I love Rigg's performance, Cariou and Gingold are fine, and I even think Taylor is pretty good later on in the film. I'm not exactly sure but I believe I was introduced to the On the Town movie before I became familiar with Bernstein's complete score. The movie on its own is quite good -- I enjoy it, but because the original score is one of my favorites, it's not a film I want to see over and over again. I've never purchased the DVD of it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 03:33 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - Chromolume 12:47 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I'd add A Chorus Line as well, although I'm not the first to bring it up in this thread. Also, I find Finian's Rainbow pretty much a mess (even though it has more charming and effective moments than some of these others). I think Hello, Dolly! is a distinctly lesser film than 1776, and can we even bring up something like On Your Toes? Not to mention Fifty Million Frenchmen, mentioned by Michael_212 a bit further down. And I think both Carousel and Kiss Me, Kate are mostly pretty bad, though the latter does have moments. Carousel may be the biggest letdown of all. Rarely has such a great stage musical made such a bad movie. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| A better example? | |
| Posted by: Vectorbabe 08:19 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: 1776 film - Circlevet 11:23 pm EDT 07/04/17 | |
|
|
|
| A Chorus Line. A much better backstage, audition movie is "Every Little Step", the documentary made of auditions for the revival of the stage show. In all fairness to 1776, I never saw the original and so it's nice to have something, especially Howard Da Silva. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: A better example? | |
| Posted by: SidL 11:28 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: A better example? - Vectorbabe 08:19 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| re ACL the movie and Fosse captured a Broadway audition perfectly in the opening sequence of ALL THAT JAZZ wonder if he was offered A CHORUS LINE considering it was produced by the same team that brought CABARET to the big screen |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 06:57 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: 1776 film - Circlevet 11:23 pm EDT 07/04/17 | |
|
|
|
| William Daniels did not care for the film, either. In his autobiography, he said he felt it needed to begin as an on-screen stage play, a la Olivier's Henry V, and that it should not have gone into realistic filmed locations until after Sit Down, John. We will never know, will we? Having seen the play on Broadway early enough in its run for Clifford David to be the only original cast member to have been replaced (by David Cryer), I can agree that the film has little of the show's dynamic energy. That said, however, nearly everyone I knew who had not seen it on stage loved it on film, and it has been embraced as an Independence Day perennial for years now. And I can appreciate it as a preservation of much of the original production, if not as a cinematic masterpiece. I believe Ben Mankiewicz said that Blythe Danner had been a replacement Martha Jefferson on stage, but if so it was not on Broadway. I might have misheard him, however. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Last Edit: AlanScott 03:12 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 03:10 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - TheOtherOne 06:57 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Was Ken Howard still in it when you saw it? Best Plays listed both Ken Howard and Clifford David as having been replaced on May 30, 1969 (Howard having left to film Tell Me That You Love Me, Junie Moon). But Best Plays wasn't always exactly right, and it may be that Howard left a little later. I saw it on July 3, 1969, and they were both already gone. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 03:49 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - AlanScott 03:10 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| You are right, Alan. Ken Howard is still listed in the program I purchased, which includes an insert for David Cryer, but I checked my Playbill and John Fink was by then playing Jefferson. I had somehow forgotten that, though I vividly remembered Cryer. I also remember a blue-haired, seemingly drunk though clearly intelligent woman carrying on a personal conversation from her seat with John Adams. She referred to him as John and seemed to be debating points of history with him. People were shushing her, but I was too young to be easily bothered and got a laugh out of her. I do to this day. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| David Cryer | |
| Posted by: LynnO 04:25 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - TheOtherOne 03:49 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I wish I could have seen David Cryer in 1776! Molasses to Rum is my favorite song, too. I became aware of Cryer when he was Fermin in the PHANTOM tour that I followed for a while in the late 90's. I've since seen dozens of Fermin(s), and he is by far the standard! He added so much to that minor-ish role, but didn't overdo it, if you know what I mean. Cryer ended up in the Broadway production of POTO, and I was able to enjoy his performance as Fermin one last time. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 04:04 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - TheOtherOne 03:49 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| LOL. That is hysterical (about the woman). Yes, I always remember Cryer. 1776 was my fourth Broadway show, and I'd never seen a number get the kind of response that Cryer got for "Molasses to Rum." The audience went crazy when it was over. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Clarifying | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 07:15 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - TheOtherOne 06:57 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I just reread Daniels' comments on the film. He does not specify Sit Down, John or any other moment as the last to be filmed on stage, but he did propose after seeing it screened that they reshoot the opening along the lines of Olivier's Henry V. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| What Daniels told Miranda about the film of '1776' (in 2016) | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 01:56 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 01:50 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: Clarifying - TheOtherOne 07:15 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Lin-Manuel Miranda:''' I came pretty late to 1776—probably college. I fell in love with the movie, and it’s a singular movie because it has that incredible original cast doing their thing. That’s very rare. Can you talk a little bit about that opportunity?'' William Daniels: ''That was Jack Warner. He saw the show and said, 'I want the whole cast.' I think it was a cheap way to go. Also, he felt he had made a mistake using Audrey Hepburn in 'My Fair Lady,' instead of sticking with Julie Andrews. He didn't want to make that mistake again, so, he hired the entire cast—and Peter Hunt. the director. ''I was disappointed in the film, because on a proscenium stage, the play had a certain style—and film is very realistic. And yet it worked, and people watch it. Every year on July 4th, I get all these letters saying, 'You’ve made us look at history in a different way.' Doing the show got me interested in history. I think that may be the connection with your show, Lin-Manuel. I can’t think of a musical about American history coming before '1776.''' Lin-Manuel Miranda: ''I’ll tell you, I think you’re absolutely right. '1776' certainly paved the way for 'Hamilton' —not just in that it’s about our founders, but also in that it engages fully with their humanity. I think it makes them accessible to us in a very real way. To begin an opening number with everyone telling another guy to shut up—what better way to pull these people that we see on statues and on our currency off of the pedestal?'' |
|
| Link | The legacy of '1776': A conversation with William Daniels & Lin-Manuel Miranda |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Thanks for posting that, Wayman! n/m | |
| Posted by: LynnO 03:01 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: What Daniels told Miranda about the film of '1776' (in 2016) - WaymanWong 01:50 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Love it! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Thanks for posting that, Wayman! n/m | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 03:34 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: Thanks for posting that, Wayman! n/m - LynnO 03:01 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, thank you, Wayman. I had read that interview somewhere before, but it is such a fitting contribution to this discussion. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 01:44 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: 1776 film - Circlevet 11:23 pm EDT 07/04/17 | |
|
|
|
| There are some badly directed sections, yes. But personally I think that much more of it is good than is not good. Once you get past "The Lees of Old Virginia," I find it fairly smooth sailing, at least most of the time. I think some of it is quite well filmed. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 02:23 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - AlanScott 01:44 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| To me, the filming of ''Molasses to Rum'' is a disaster. But I agree: Other parts are well-filmed. Interestingly, ''1776's'' solo Oscar nomination was for Harry Stradling Jr.'s cinematography. Yet the fact that ''1776'' got made as a movie, thanks to Jack Warner, is a minor miracle (tho' it bombed at the box office). I'm so glad that William Daniels, Howard DaSilva, etc., had their priceless performances preserved for posterity. The movie uses much of the Broadway cast, but does anyone know why Betty Buckley didn't get to play Martha? Similarly, Paul Hecht didn't get to reprise his role as Dickinson. (I was so glad to see ''Cool, Cool Considerate Men'' restored.) I once knew Ed Lyndeck, who told me about the New Brunswick section of ''1776'' that got cut out of town. Alas, I didn't get to ask Ed, who played Rev. Witherspoon on Broadway, why he didn't get to do the movie. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 03:42 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - WaymanWong 02:23 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I'm OK with the way the "Molasses to Rum" was filmed. Lyndeck moved on to Dr. Lyman Hall during the Broadway run, and then he took over as John Dickinson on tour, replacing Patrick Hines who had replaced George Hearn when Hearn moved to the Broadway production to replace David Ford (who had replaced Paul Hecht) when Ford left to make the movie in his original role of Hancock. I know that's a lot to pack into one sentence. :) On Broadway, he also understudied Jefferson, Dr. Lyman Hall (natch), Charles Thomson and Stephen Hopkins! I don't know how many of those roles he ever went on in, but decades later he played Hopkins at the Pittsburgh CLO. I like Danner in the film, even though she obviously doesn't sing the song in anything like the way Buckley did. She was a Tony winner and a bigger name than Buckley. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: bearcat 04:09 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - AlanScott 03:42 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| was Betty Bucklye nominated for a Tony, I know I could look this up if so, it's interesting that Marian Mercer won that year for a (also) basically one scene performance |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 04:17 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - bearcat 04:09 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Virginia Vestoff was nominated but not Buckley, along with Sandy Duncan for Canterbury Tales (she'd gotten raves) and Lorraine Serabian for Zorbá. Of course, Serabian had also gotten raves. So it was a very competitive category. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: castdiva 01:51 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - WaymanWong 02:23 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Jack Warner was fine with using most of the original cast if they agreed to re-cast the two women. Tammy Grimes was cast as Abigail and Blythe Danner was cast as Martha. Tammy Grimes turned out to be such a problem during pre-production that they fired her and gave the role to Virginia Vestoff. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 02:17 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 02:15 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - castdiva 01:51 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Fascinating. Did Warner ever mention why he wanted the roles of Abigail and Martha recast? ... Never heard that about Tammy Grimes. I Googled and found one source that says that Blythe was a good friend of Peter Hunt's. And that would turn out to be a blessing for both of them ... and Ken Howard. Ken and Blythe became good friends, co-starring in the 1973 TV comedy series, ''Adam's Rib'' (based on the 1949 Hepburn-Tracy movie). And Hunt directed 10 episodes of that. ... Plus, Blythe's husband, Bruce Paltrow, cast Howard in ''The White Shadow'' (1978-81). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: castdiva 03:26 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - WaymanWong 02:15 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| It was something about wanting up and comers and not unknowns in the roles. I was actually friends with Virginia at the time and went thru her disappointment and elation during the casting process. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: bearcat 04:14 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - castdiva 03:26 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I know that you had a friendship with Virginia Vestoff and don't expect you to reply, I sense and have read here and there that she was truly beloved by those who knew her as a working actress what was she like in Via Galactica (and thru it) and what other roles of her's were particularly noteworthy? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: castdiva 06:16 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - bearcat 04:14 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Virginia was indeed loved by her friends and colleagues. She knew that Via Galactica was a bomb but actually had a great time bouncing around on the trampolines. And it was the first time that she was asked to belt. She's really good in a Robert Altman film called "A Wedding" |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: WWriter 05:01 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - bearcat 04:14 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I was an usher at the Public when Virginia Vestoff did an absolutely dreadful musical of the Misanthrope. It was so bad that the only way to improve it was to get a completely new score--which they did! And it too was pretty darn bad. The poor performers were doing the new version in rehearsals during the day and the old one at night. Vestoff was clearly well-loved and very sweet. Her voice is lovely in Man With a Load of Mischief--I never saw her in it. She was wonderful in Getting My Act Together, which I did see. At the final performance at Circle in the Square (Gretchen Cryer had returned), Vestoff was in the audience. She was visibly ill. My friends and I went over to talk to her, to tell her how much we admired her work and how glad we were to see her out and about. She was very friendly and sweet. She was gone not long afterward. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: bearcat 06:00 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - WWriter 05:01 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| thank you for sharing all this - I value your impressions | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 03:41 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - castdiva 03:26 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| And yet the movie cast was full of ''unknowns.'' ... I was sad to read that Virginia passed away so young at age 42. Meantime, a friend of Scott Jarvis, who played the Courier on Broadway, says Jarvis didn't get to do the film because he read too old on-screen. He was replaced by Stephen Nathan, who played Jesus in ''Godspell'' in 1971, and nowadays is an executive producer of ''Bones.'' |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| And who were those other cool, considerate men?? | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 03:51 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - WaymanWong 03:41 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Seeing it on the big screen last week for the first time in decades, I was marveling at how I could see details on those guys who never get named, in particular, Neddie's pals--the one with gold braid and the one with the blue ribbons. But then, in the big finale to "CCM," I counted sixteen marching down the stairs. Sixteen! And I spent the rest of the film counting southern gentlemen in spiffy duds in the Congress, never reaching more than twelve (maybe thirteen). Who were those three or four guys? And how sad were they when the film came out without their number? Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| In the 'Cool, Cool' of the movie | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 04:44 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 04:40 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: And who were those other cool, considerate men?? - showtunetrivia 03:51 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Laura, if you check out the IMDB listing for ''1776,'' they list about 15 actors who played the uncredited delegates. By the way, I read that the decision to cut ''Cool, Cool, Considerate Men'' played havoc with the movie's promotion. The film's trailer featured that number as its centerpiece, and it had already gone out, so they needed to recall and re-cut it. I forget where I read it, but producer Stuart Ostrow was concerned that the song title ''Cool, Cool, Conservative Men'' might turn off conservatives in the audience, so it became ''Cool, Cool, Considerate Men.'' Finally, Wikipedia says the song ''is anachronistic because the terms "right" and "left" in politics were not in use until the French Revolution of 1789.'' |
|
| Link | IMDB.com: '1776' - Full cast list |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: In the 'Cool, Cool' of the movie | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 05:45 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: In the 'Cool, Cool' of the movie - WaymanWong 04:40 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Hey, that's cool that they're in IMDB, and that's considerate of you! I have Ostrow's memoirs and have read, uh, a bit about this show, but I've never run into that claim. I do have the demo with the first songs Edwards wrote, and it's "considerate," not "conservative." Though I don't know at what stage the demo was made, and it's possible Ostrow told him to change it before the demo got made, But it's such an 18th century phrase and so many of Edwards' lyrics are lifted from the sources, I went looking for it. "cool considerate men" is from a letter of Cesar Rodney's, commenting that even they are acknowledging the Declaration of Independence. So the demo and Edwards' love of the real words of the era make me think it was considerate all the way. Though they do sing "conservative men" in part of the song. :) Laura, who should get back to 1936, not 1776 |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: In the 'Cool, Cool' of the movie | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 09:56 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: In the 'Cool, Cool' of the movie - showtunetrivia 05:45 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Laura, you're probably right: It probably was ''Considerate'' all along. But here's one musical-theater columnist who cites that story about Ostrow, but maybe he's just repeating some misinformation. |
|
| Link | 'Musings on Musicals' by Noel Katz: '1776' |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: In the 'Cool, Cool' of the movie | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 10:41 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: In the 'Cool, Cool' of the movie - WaymanWong 09:56 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Ostrow, in his book PRESENT AT THE CREATION, misidentified the song as "Cool, Cool Conservative Men" when discussing the White House request to cut the number. He also calls it that in both some contemporary pieces on the incident and in later interviews. I think that's what he thought the title really was. For that matter, at the Q&A with Peter Hunt, misspoke and said "conservative," but corrected himself. If anyone out there has access to Sherman Edwards' wife's diaries, I bet they would say when made thae demo. And it's "considerate" on the demo, for sure. Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: In the 'Cool, Cool' of the movie | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 11:45 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: In the 'Cool, Cool' of the movie - showtunetrivia 10:41 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Too bad you didn't get to ask Hunt about this. ;) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 03:48 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - WaymanWong 03:41 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Linking a photo of Jarvis in 1971, at the age of 30, in the Off-Broadway Whitman musical-song cycle Leaves of Grass. Even in 1969 photos of him as the Courier, he looks a bit old for the character. I'm awfully glad that he got to do "Momma, Look Sharp" on the Tonys. | |
| Link | Scott Jarvis in Leaves of Grass |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 12:08 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - WaymanWong 02:23 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Regarding Buckley, was the film being made while she was already committed to PROMISES PROMISES in London? Or was it after that? If that was the conflict, I wonder if Warner didn't want to pay to get her out of her London contract for whatever time it took to shoot that onescene or if she perhaps chose to stay in London and be a leading lady, rather than take time off to shoot a single scene in a film? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Hunt said Friday... | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 01:09 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - JereNYC 12:08 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| ...that "most" of the OC were invited for the film, but many declined because of other commitments, though he didn't specifically name BB. Also said Warner definitely had the Julie Andrews--Audrey Hepburn situation on his mind. Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hunt said Friday... | |
| Posted by: Greg_M 04:35 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: Hunt said Friday... - showtunetrivia 01:09 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Hunt said at a prior "1776" screening a few years back that Buckley didn't photograph well and added she was difficult so she wasn't cast | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: showbuzz 12:17 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: 1776 film - Circlevet 11:23 pm EDT 07/04/17 | |
|
|
|
| I love it and watch it yearly on TCM.....I still laugh at the jokes and witty banter, Still quote memorable passages and revel in performances like Wm Daniels/Howard DaSilva/Ken Howard and Donald Madden...not to leave out the underappreciated Virginia Vestoff. Filmed at a time when film musicals popularity was waning....we get to see most of the original Broadway cast repeat their roles on film!....and it was 45 years ago! Tastes change, I will remind my younger friends here that we were in the middle of the VietNam war and the nation was in utter turmoil. On Broadway MAMA LOOK SHARP was extremely poignant....a little less effective 5 years later in the film but an important connection to it's time of production. Also that the entire show script was filmed and only completely available on laserdisc......and that COOL CONSIDERATE MEN was filmed 3 different times (at least as available in different releases) and that even Richard Nixon wasn't able to have the number removed.....also a great connection to it's film adaptation....and it's era. I love it and although it's not everyone's cup of tea...I'll take mine ..hot w/o milk and 2 lumps in a fine china cup New York abstains....courteously! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:14 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: 1776 film - Circlevet 11:23 pm EDT 07/04/17 | |
|
|
|
| I think you'd better duck for cover.... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: Michael_212 12:08 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: 1776 film - Circlevet 11:23 pm EDT 07/04/17 | |
|
|
|
| Try the film version of Fifty Million Frenchmen. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 01:31 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - Michael_212 12:08 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| LOL. That movie has one of the weirdest scenes I've ever seen in anything. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: Greg_M 11:27 pm EDT 07/04/17 | |
| In reply to: 1776 film - Circlevet 11:23 pm EDT 07/04/17 | |
|
|
|
| I love it!!!! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 11:42 pm EDT 07/04/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - Greg_M 11:27 pm EDT 07/04/17 | |
|
|
|
| I love it, too, Greg. Sure, it's got flaws galore--chief among them the direction. At the screening I attended Friday ( and discussed further in a thread below) Peter Hunt admitted he learned how to use the camera during the screentests. Jack Warner just laughed and said so did Mike Nichols (and Orson Welles, Hunt added). But it's one of the most faithful transfers of stage to screen of any musical ever, with the Broadway cast returning in huge numbers to presevre their portrayals. And I wouldn't trade it for any slicked up, polished version for the world. Laura Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Watching as I type this; and I saw the original en route to B'way at the National in DC | |
| Posted by: Delvino 12:23 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - showtunetrivia 11:42 pm EDT 07/04/17 | |
|
|
|
| I was 17. The numbers int he Playbill didn't match. It was an overwhelming experience. It's in my DNA at this point. I'm unable to judge it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:17 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - showtunetrivia 11:42 pm EDT 07/04/17 | |
|
|
|
| Laura, what do you consider wrong with the direction? Other than that weirdness during "Cool, Considerate Men," I think the film is very well directed by any standard, but especially considering it was the director's first movie. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 10:52 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - Michael_Portantiere 12:17 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I think the scenes in the Hall play just fine--which is good, since (duh) that's most of the show. And yes,,it's a fine job for a rookie. But the exterior scenes (especially poor Richard Henry), his odd choices of dissolves and cuts during some songs, and other niggly things (that dog) don't exactly work for me. But, as someone here said, it's in my DNA, and I've produced three daughters with the same condition! (Cordelia is only four, so we'll give her a little time.) And if stuck on that desert island, it would be one of the movies I'd take, too. Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:24 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - showtunetrivia 10:52 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, come to think of it, there are some odd choices in the "Lees of Old Virginia" scene and elsewhere. I also wish there wasn't that very long shot of Virginia Vestoff running far away from the camera in "Compliments." And I still don't understand why the opening section of the film apparently takes place after sundown, even though Congress is in session. But I do think the movie is very well directed overall. I mean, even the some of the best movie musicals -- THE SOUND OF MUSIC, WEST SIDE STORY, THE MUSIC MAN -- have a few directorial decisions I don't agree with :-) This may be heresy, but I actually think some of the less fortunate directorial moments in 1776 were excised for the edited version that was originally released. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: Greg_M 04:29 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - Michael_Portantiere 12:24 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I believe the Congress often met in secret and at night as they were planning a rebellion | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: bearcat 04:26 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - Michael_Portantiere 12:24 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| briefly, can you note the wrong "directorial choices" in SoM and WSS |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:22 am EDT 07/07/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - bearcat 04:26 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| "Briefly, can you note the wrong 'directorial choices' in SoM and WSS." Nothing major, I was mostly trying to make the point that even the greatest movie, show, etc. is going to have SOME choices that each of us may personally disagree with. I do think some of the direction of the actors in both SoM and WSS is a little broad for my taste, and there are some other very minor issues. But please don't get me wrong, I think both movies are brilliant. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 01:17 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - Michael_Portantiere 12:24 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, the Braintree scenes could have been so much better. And I'm not even factoring in my inner LA resident growling "That's so not Massachusetts, it's twenty minutes from my house!" or the annoying attempt to film night scenes during the day--there are enough other movies filmed here pretending to be elsewhere and day pretending to be night that I can shove that aside. But Hunt missed a real opportunity there. And the fire wagon?? Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 1776 film | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 02:22 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - showtunetrivia 01:17 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| "And the fire wagon??" Right. Like I said, I think several of the poor directorial choices/moments were excised in the severely edited original release version of the movie. Do you have a theory as to why the first couple of scenes in the movie are supposed to be taking place at night, even though Congress is in session? I have never understood that choice. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 11:39 pm EDT 07/04/17 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 11:38 pm EDT 07/04/17 | |
| In reply to: re: 1776 film - Greg_M 11:27 pm EDT 07/04/17 | |
|
|
|
| Vincent Canby of the New York Times: "The music is resolutely unmemorable. The lyrics sound as if they'd been written by someone high on root beer, and the book is familiar history—compressed here, stretched there—that has been gagged up and paced to Broadway's not inspiring standards. Yet Peter H. Hunt's screen version of 1776 ... insists on being so entertaining and, at times, even moving, that you might as well stop resisting it. This reaction, I suspect, represents a clear triumph of emotional associations over material ... [It] is far from being a landmark of musical cinema, but it is the first film in my memory that comes close to treating seriously a magnificent chapter in the American history.'' Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times (who gave it 2 stars out of 4): "This is an insult to the real men who were Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and the rest. ... The performances trapped inside these roles, as you might expect, are fairly dreadful. There are good actors in the movie (especially William Daniels as Adams and Donald Madden as John Dickinson), but they're forced to strut and posture so much that you wonder if they ever scratched or spit or anything. ... I can hardly bear to remember the songs, much less discuss them. Perhaps I shouldn't.'' |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? | |
| Posted by: ilw 11:23 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? - WaymanWong 11:38 pm EDT 07/04/17 | |
|
|
|
| ...and Pauline Kael: "A Broadway operetta featuring those lovable old codgers, the Founding Fathers...It's shameless: first it exploits them as clodhopping fools, and then it turns pious and reverential...Yocks and uplift - that's the formula. We get toilet jokes, frisky anachronisms, double-entendres, and the signing of the Declaration of Independence; the insulting dumb, crusty jocularity may have you shrinking in your seat." I never saw the movie, but Kael exactly describes my feelings about the 1997 Broadway revival. The combination of cutesiness (many of the first act songs) and unearned solemnity (e.g., "Momma Look Sharp") made me cringe. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Momma Look Sharp and Molasses To Rum | |
| Posted by: showbuzz 05:30 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? - ilw 11:23 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| In 1969 we were entrenched in a wildly contentious war and Anti War sentiment ran very high which allowed Momma Look Sharp to have a connecting importance tio "current" political rebellion. It was a tear jerker LIVE and very powerful...it ended Act 1. Also in the late 60's we were still in the early days of Civil Rights and there was still a lot of dissention and protest (just look at the recent resistance to remove Confederate statues in the South).....so Molasses To Rum also touched "current" political nerves. Both numbers on stage were extraordinary.....Besides the fact that Cullum was way to old for "Neddie" and the odd stagey film performance,it is still powerful,even today. By 1972/73....moods and social issues were different! Films sometimes are more a product of their era than we give them credit for. Someone also mentioned the 'New Brunswick" scene....and originally in Momma Look Sharp there was a woman who sang a portion of the song as "Jimmy's" Mother! I've even seen the music in print. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Momma Look Sharp and Molasses To Rum | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:01 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: Momma Look Sharp and Molasses To Rum - showbuzz 05:30 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I think that Jimmy's Mother was dropped before rehearsals. Jimmy's Mother is not in an undated pre-rehearsal draft I have. In that draft, "Momma Look Sharp" is sung by the Drummer Boy, played by Scott Jarvis in New Haven, and the Continentalers (all of whom doubled in New Haven as members of Congress and the Congressional staff). The list of musical numbers in the New Haven program has the song being sung by the Drummer Boy and the Continentalers. At that time, B. J. Slater was the Courier, clearly a much less important role, perhaps with no lines. So when New Brunswick was cut, Jarvis was switched to the Courier, and they found a way to get "Momma Look Sharp" in there, while Slater got a whole new role. Slater was needed as an understudy so they probably wanted to find a way to keep him in the cast, and adding the third voice of the Leather Apron for "Momma Look Sharp" was a perfect solution. The only New Haven cast member who did not make it to New York was Carole Prandis, as Prudence, the "doxy." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| the whoring and the drinking | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 11:04 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Momma Look Sharp and Molasses To Rum - AlanScott 06:01 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| It's interesting that in the notes by Stone and Edwards at the end of the published libretto, they mention the cutting of the New Brunswick scene, but add that they expected the scene to be restored for the movie. Having heard "Increase and Multiply" (aka "Doozy Lamb") on the demo, I am truly grateful it was not restored. But I am glad they found an effective way to work "Momma, Look Sharp" in there--it provides a counterpoint to the representatives' role in the rebellion (cue MCNair's quip), and along with the dispatches, the news about Morris' estate and his older boys' enlisting, and the report of the War Committee, it reminds the audience of the true cost of the war. And that makes Dickinson's final scene all the more moving, as well. To say nothing of how it fits with the cultural atmosphere of 1969! Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the whoring and the drinking | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 12:18 am EDT 07/06/17 | |
| In reply to: the whoring and the drinking - showtunetrivia 11:04 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Laura, you probably know the answer to this, but there's the scene after all the delegates have left. It's just Thomson, the congressional secretary, and Leather Apron and Courier. Leather Apron says he wants to join the Army, and Thomson says something like: Do you think the members of the Congress would get send themselves to war? Of course not. ... That seemed like such a knock at our modern-day Congress during the Vietnam War. ... Was it based on anything our Founding Fathers said? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the whoring and the drinking | |
| Posted by: StageDoorJohnny 10:48 pm EDT 07/09/17 | |
| In reply to: re: the whoring and the drinking - WaymanWong 12:18 am EDT 07/06/17 | |
|
|
|
| not Thomson, it's McNair | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the whoring and the drinking | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 10:27 am EDT 07/06/17 | |
| In reply to: re: the whoring and the drinking - WaymanWong 12:18 am EDT 07/06/17 | |
|
|
|
| No source that I know about. And yes, it sounds very much like a jab at the modern-day Congress. I doubt any political leaders of the period would ever have said anything remotely like that. And the views of people who were custodians weren't likely to be preserved for posterity. So, yeah, that's Stone and Edwards talking. The other thing we in 2017 often forget is that democracy to Adams and Company and democracy to us aren't the same thing. Universal suffrage and the direct election of senators were a long, long ways away. It's one reason I inwardly flinch when Adams and Rutledge go at it, and John intones, "The people." Well, okay, John, some of the people. More than were running things before,,so it's progress. And we did get there eventually. Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? | |
| Posted by: Greg_M 04:39 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? - ilw 11:23 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| This is the problem with many film adaptions of Broadway musicals - the reviewer hates the material on stage - so of course they will hate the film. "Man of La Mancha" was criticized by most critics - but the criticism was about the material and not so much the way it was filmed, so was "1776" and both films were released in late 1972. The other 1972 musical was "Cabaret" which hardly resembles the stage show in story and structure | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:04 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? - Greg_M 04:39 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| What you describe sometimes (perhaps often) happens, but I think that many people who love Man of La Mancha onstage think the movie is a disaster. Probably a lot of movie critics at the time just didn't like the material, but even those who did like the show may well have not liked the movie. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:41 am EDT 07/06/17 | |
| In reply to: re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? - AlanScott 06:04 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| "What you describe sometimes (perhaps often) happens, but I think that many people who love Man of La Mancha onstage think the movie is a disaster. " Alan, you took the words right out of my fingers ;-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? | |
| Posted by: Greg_M 06:07 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? - AlanScott 06:04 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I always cringe when a review starts off with "This is why I hate musicals...." if that is true why is that critic reviewing it in the first place????? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:28 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? - Greg_M 06:07 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| One perhaps surprising thing is that Pauline Kael liked the film version of Fiddler, but wrote in her review that she had never seen it onstage. Which caused Hal Prince to later write that she should have seen it onstage. She had seven years to see it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:30 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? - ilw 11:23 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I don't find any of the first act songs "cutesy," and other than Richard Henry Lee, none of the characters is displayed as "clodhopping fools." Also, I strongly disagree with you that the solemnity of "Momma Look Sharp" is unearned, but I'd be interested to hear why you feel that way. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? | |
| Posted by: ilw 04:08 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? - Michael_Portantiere 12:30 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for asking. It's been quite a while, so I don't remember exactly what made me find the solemnity of "Momma Look Sharp" unearned. I just remember that the change in tone seemed jarring, and I didn't feel the strong emotion that the song was trying to evoke. Of course, it didn't help that I hadn't enjoyed the show up to that point. I don't know if I have a different reaction to this material than most, or if the revival didn't capture the spirit of the original Broadway production. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 03:35 pm EDT 07/06/17 | |
| In reply to: re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? - ilw 04:08 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| "It's been quite a while, so I don't remember exactly what made me find the solemnity of 'Momma Look Sharp' unearned. I just remember that the change in tone seemed jarring, and I didn't feel the strong emotion that the song was trying to evoke. Of course, it didn't help that I hadn't enjoyed the show up to that point." Thanks for explaining. Whether it works for you or not, the huge change in tone for that scene is entirely intentional, I'm sure, to suddenly bring home to the audience the cost of war in terms of the loss of lives among those who are fighting. And although I believe that's the first time this point is really made in the show, it's not the last. There's also the very moving dispatch from General Washington that the secretary reads towards the end of the show, where Washington writes something like "dear God, what brave men I shall lose before this business is done." I think the Broadway revival of 1776 was good overall, but not great. I urge you to watch the movie in an uninterrupted viewing sometime if you have the opportunity. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 01:01 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? - Michael_Portantiere 12:30 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I don't even think Richard Henry Lee is portrayed as a fool, clodhopping or not. Lee is young and enthusiastic and has an energy and connections that neither Adams nor Franklin possess. I think they respect him, and know that he can come through for them (which he does), even if he may not be their own personal cup of tea. Nothing that Adams or Franklin say at any point indicates that they think he's a fool or don't like him. They're just different kinds of people and Lee's natural exuberance makes them at little uncomfortable. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:05 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? - JereNYC 01:01 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Well, Adams does call Lee an "idiot" at one point :-) Obviously, I think the degree to which Lee comes across as a fool (or not) depends largely on the performance. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 09:33 am EDT 07/06/17 | |
| In reply to: re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? - Michael_Portantiere 01:05 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| As MikeR points out below, I've always thought that Adams referring to Lee as an idiot was more a reflection of Adams' short temper and dissatisfaction than his actual feelings about Lee. There's a reason Adams is considered "obnoxious and disliked" and it's not because he's a charming guy with a good word for everyone all the time. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? | |
| Posted by: MikeR 01:02 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: '1776' film reviews: Historically applauded or panned? - JereNYC 01:01 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Adams refers to him as "that idiot Lee" at least once. But of course Adams was obnoxious and disliked. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.439219 seconds.