Threaded Order Chronological Order
| '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 |
| 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 |
| 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: 0.079526 seconds.