I watched an hour of it last night. It took a little bit to grab me and I had a hard time understanding what the words were.
I got into it after the first couple songs though, and I believe it was 'Satisfied' where I first realized that I had been drawn in and could actively recognize what emotions my brain was processing and the best translation I can think of would be "holy fucking shit".
Also the "like you could have beer with him" is from the Bush II election.
+24
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
It's an interesting interpretation, but I don't buy it.
Indeed, the "you can have a beer with him" thing is the biggest tell against it. That was from 2004 election, so it's clear he was taking inspiration from all over. And while it's fair to remain suspect of a self-reported origin, Miranda says that it was Ron Chernow's biography of Hamilton that was the primary inspiration. He tells the story of going on vacation after In The Heights won its Tonies in 2008, buying a random book about American history in the airport book shop, reading the first chapter, his mind making the connection between Hamilton's backstory, love of writing, and hip-hop, and by the time the plane landed he had made the decision.
It was largely coincidence that the creation and production of the show echoed Obama's term. Parts were doubtless inspired, but I imagine it would have been difficult to write a story in part about what presidential politics were like in the early days of the US and not have it reflect whoever was in office while it was being written.
The tweets are also ridiculously inaccurate with regard to Shakespeare, who generally wrote for the commons. He wrote carefully so that he could make criticism and the aristocracy couldn't arrest him, but that's not the same as writing entire plays to flatter the monarch.
More likely Miranda and Obama just share similar worldviews and that's why it resonated for him.
+15
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
edited July 2020
Many of the histories were specifically written in a way that extols Elizabeth's family while slandering her enemies - Shakespeare's depiction of Richard III is almost assuredly politically motivated. And then of course the Scottish play, written and performed shortly after James VI became James I, as he is considered to be the descendant of Banquo (plus some more granular stuff with stances on witchcraft and connections to the gunpowder plot).
Straightzi on
+5
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
personally I think the main thing that signifies the obama era is how desperate it is to cast all the villains as either secretly good or likable
I think that's a weirdly narrow interpretation of that tweet chain, to assume that Hamilton can only be speaking to Obama era politics if it wasn't inspired by anything else
More likely Miranda and Obama just share similar worldviews and that's why it resonated for him.
Yeah, and that's explicitly not a coincidence. There's an episode of west wing weekly which I'd forgotten about, because the last year has taken about a century, where they bring Miranda on to talk about the conscious and unconscious references to WW in Hamilton. I would say that both those pieces of media, and the Obama presidency itself, are effectively in conversation with each other, and in fact that conversation represents one facet of a political movement or ideology that stretches back at least into the nineties. Miranda might have started writing the show in 2008, but even the book it was based on grew out of the same liberal grounding that gave rise to the Obama campaign. Moreover the show was actively being developed during the Obama administration, and Miranda has always been politically active, I don't think it's remotely a stretch to say he was, in some ways, speaking to the establishment and reaffirming their self view in the same way that Shakespeare was.
A lot of Trumpism is not refuting only Obama, but his political and pop cultural antecedents. They see Hamilton as part of the enemy in the culture war, because they recognize these ties.
Edit: wasn't the first public performance of any part of Hamilton at some event involving Obama, where they asked him to do something from In The Heights and instead he said he'd rather do a bit from his new project? It's not only all part of the same zeitgeist, there are direct personal links between a lot of the people.
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
After a fair bit of thought, I think beyond the idea that a musical might not be historically accurate, a fact that should practically be taken for granted
It's the aggrandization of our "founding fathers" that, at this point, makes me immediately sick to my stomach
0
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
It also isn't that crazy for works of literature to reflect the times in which they were created.
Absolutely.
I mean, I don't consider that thread an indictment? It's okay for Miranda to write a play that aligns with the politics of the time, that either knowingly or unknowingly implies some nice things about the percent who he, by all accounts, is a fan of.
Like, maybe dig into all that, also, that's absolutely a thing that you can inspect more closely if you do desire.
+2
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
he even says it's good!
and it is! hamilton is very good! it's exhausting that any criticism of it, however small, has to be prefaced with that!
+17
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Which is not the same as "I wrote this specifically to please Obama."
Well, again, I think that's an overly literal interpretation of the phrasing of that tweet.
No, those are the exact words in the first tweet. "Hamilton was written to flatter the monarch (Obama)", and who wrote it? Lin-Manuel Miranda. He's literally saying LMM wrote the show in such a way that it would make Obama happy, first and foremost.
The funny thing is, as has been mentioned, it's not even really criticism, it's a largely toothless backhanded compliment by someone too cowardly to actually criticize the show's real flaws. "It's still good, but LMM is a fawning courtier, you know, like Shakespare." It's illiterate in its analysis of drama, politics, and history. That's the problem I have with it.
Actual criticism of Hamilton might look like, "Miranda wished to tell a story about America as it was, told by America as it is. However, he also wanted the show to ultimately be a feel-good, hopeful romp through a little-known part of American history. This resulted in him ultimately deleting the planned third cabinet rap battle, which would have had Hamilton attempting to push abolition only for Washington to slap him down, for bringing too much negative energy.
By removing the number about Hamilton having to confront the revered Washington's slave-holding, by making all references to Washington's own plantation into oblique mentions of Virginia, and by sending Washington out of the show with a gospel choir that literally sings him to his rest, the show is not about America as it was, but America as we wish it to have been--or, for that matter, to be. The show condemns slavery while burnishing the reputation of a slave-owner--played by a black man no less--to a blinding sheen and further implies that he went to Heaven.
Who lives, who dies, who tells your story, indeed."
Or he could have excoriated the complete omission of First Nations performers and characters and plotlines. Or that Hamilton's own flaws, even the ones brought up in the show, are played down or not brought up at all (e.g. despite his background he was insufferably elitist). Or yes, he could have brought up the very real historical inaccuracies, from the minor (Angelica was already married when she met Hamilton and she had five brothers who would have inherited before her so she needn't have worired) to the major (again, the Washington hagiography).
Instead he goes for "Oh, I like the show but, you know...Obama" and rose Twitter titters knowingly.
Hamilton was absolutely written for Obama though? Like, obviously it's not an audience of one, but the the work is so obviously tuned to that specific kind of feel good liberalism that I didn't even think that tweet would be a controversial statement.
Edit: I think the disconnect is that you're reading "flatter" as "to suck up" whereas I see it more as "reinforces existing beliefs"
Like I don't think LMM went into writing Hamilton to get in Obama's good graces or anything, but I bet if you asked him "who is the target audience for this" the answer would be Obama and people who share that world view.
ph blake on
+12
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
On another note
I really like how much shade the show throws at Madison
Just constant, constant shade
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I am somewhat surprised when I hear that people feel the show is overly positive in its portrayal of the Founding Fathers. Outside of Washington which is indeed extremely, perhaps unjustifiably, kind all the founding fathers appear to me to be messy people with terrible blind spots at the best of times. Looking back at the show now I find Hamilton’s choice not to support the French Revolution being depicted as a terrible hypocrisy filled with an implied classism from him and Washington.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I am somewhat surprised when I hear that people feel the show is overly positive in its portrayal of the Founding Fathers. Outside of Washington which is indeed extremely, perhaps unjustifiably, kind all the founding fathers appear to me to be messy people with terrible blind spots at the best of times. Looking back at the show now I find Hamilton’s choice not to support the French Revolution being depicted as a terrible hypocrisy filled with an implied classism from him and Washington.
I am somewhat surprised when I hear that people feel the show is overly positive in its portrayal of the Founding Fathers. Outside of Washington which is indeed extremely, perhaps unjustifiably, kind all the founding fathers appear to me to be messy people with terrible blind spots at the best of times. Looking back at the show now I find Hamilton’s choice not to support the French Revolution being depicted as a terrible hypocrisy filled with an implied classism from him and Washington.
I mean, would you make a deal with Robespierre?
I don’t know! I’m just very interested to hear people elaborate upon who got off easy in the show and why.
If I’m being honest I don’t know enough about the revolution to say whether it would have been the right choice. I’m speaking more to how it’s portrayed in the show and I’d say that the intent of that scene is that Hamilton is betraying his revolutionary ideals as well as his friendship with Lafayette in that moment and that both he and Washington are ultimately unsupportive of any sort of real freedom ultimately.
In brief, she brings up Augusto Boal's argument that "the dominant art is the art of the dominant class, who control the means to disseminate art."
Specifically citing Hamilton as proof of this argument, she points out that, despite Hamilton's lottery system and its meteoric rise, the only people who are guaranteed an opportunity to see it are those who are affluent enough to spend the money for tickets outside of that lottery. And the only way that a show like Hamilton can guarantee a rise from off-Broadway and continued success is by playing to the affluent and privileged theater-going public, and by not placing them outside of their comfort zone.
So it makes sense that, when the show was finished, it ended up positively reinforcing the American experiment, without delving too deeply into the straight up abhorrent aspects of the personal histories of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and - to an extent - Hamilton, especially how their democratic and republican ideals were somewhat hypocritical when juxtaposed with their personal involvement and failure to act against the slave trade in the United States.
How do you convince a bunch of rich, Broadway-loving liberals that your show is worth their time and financial backing? Easy, you tell them the story that they want to hear.
For the record: I think the show is excellent, I don't think it's intentionally trying to suck up to anyone, and I think there's value in how unapologetic it is in its pro-immigrant rhetoric.
But it definitely is not intended to encourage the audience to call the Founding Fathers out on their bullshit, and that's by design.
Oh, yeah, also: I picked up a Disney+ subscription just for this, and just finished watching it for the first time.
I know Daveed Diggs and Renée Elise Goldsberry already got their Tonys for this show, but I think they should give them a separate Tony, every year, for the rest of time.
I think the show does call out the Founding Fathers to some extent, but it clearly does not want to do much more than surface-level analysis.
That's why I do think the show is helpful as a gateway for people to do more research. It does at least portray the Founding Fathers as not being infallible, which hasn't been the case for the vast majority of US history.
I think the show does call out the Founding Fathers to some extent, but it clearly does not want to do much more than surface-level analysis.
That's why I do think the show is helpful as a gateway for people to do more research. It does at least portray the Founding Fathers as not being infallible, which hasn't been the case for the vast majority of US history.
This is fair, and I do think the show deserves credit for giving Hamilton, Madison, and (noted odorous fuckwad) Jefferson a more honest portrayal than other period pieces from the Revolutionary era.
Though the fact that Washington manages to get through the show more-or-less unscathed is... not great, IMO.
I am somewhat surprised when I hear that people feel the show is overly positive in its portrayal of the Founding Fathers. Outside of Washington which is indeed extremely, perhaps unjustifiably, kind all the founding fathers appear to me to be messy people with terrible blind spots at the best of times. Looking back at the show now I find Hamilton’s choice not to support the French Revolution being depicted as a terrible hypocrisy filled with an implied classism from him and Washington.
I mean, would you make a deal with Robespierre?
I don’t know! I’m just very interested to hear people elaborate upon who got off easy in the show and why.
If I’m being honest I don’t know enough about the revolution to say whether it would have been the right choice. I’m speaking more to how it’s portrayed in the show and I’d say that the intent of that scene is that Hamilton is betraying his revolutionary ideals as well as his friendship with Lafayette in that moment and that both he and Washington are ultimately unsupportive of any sort of real freedom ultimately.
The final number of the show is every one of Hamilton's friends and enemies coming on stage to talk about how great he was
The show's opinion of its title character is very clearly "he wasn't perfect but, y'know, who is, and I mean WOW what a guy"
And even like, Jefferson, who the show arguably villainizes the most, gets off with a couple of sick burns about slavery made against him. He's still a fun, electric personality who gets lots of fun numbers and is ultimately not really portrayed as a villain so much as a rival that Hamilton butted heads with but respected
These people were mostly rich slave owners, and the play is not interested in examining the inherent vicious evil that goes part and parcel with that. Jefferson was a slaveowner AND a rapist, but Miranda doesn't let that stop him from writing him as a fun and funny stage personality
Oh, hey, also, if anyone from Disney is ego-searching and finds these posts:
Y'all fuckers need to get Hadestown next, or you best believe I'm letting that shit lapse.
[IMG][/img]
+2
Options
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
I also take some degree of offense with the basic premise of the show being that Hamilton is an immigrant when he was a white dude from a British colony, and by framing him as an immigrant who came and worked super hard to get where he got it reinforces a bullshit bootstraps narrative.
I also take some degree of offense with the basic premise of the show being that Hamilton is an immigrant when he was a white dude from a British colony, and by framing him as an immigrant who came and worked super hard to get where he got it reinforces a bullshit bootstraps narrative.
To be fair, Nevis was a dirt-poor colony, and Hamilton was basically a live-in apprentice with a few local businessmen until the town took up a collection to send him to New York so that he could be educated.
It can definitely be read as a bootstraps narrative - especially since the show kind of glosses over the fact that Hamilton had a cousin living in the colonies who supported him off and on when he was at school - but it's pretty unambiguous in its argument that America has been at its best whenever its given immigrants a chance to actively participate in the experiment and succeed.
Your mileage may vary on how effective you find the argument, especially considering that Hamilton did have a significant degree of privilege in Colonial America as a well-educated white dude with some influential friends.
[IMG][/img]
+3
Options
pyromaniac221this just might bean interestin YTRegistered Userregular
Never had much experience with this show outside of hearing a song or two removed from context. Got through to intermission and put it down. Everything about the production and performance (except for Miranda) is impeccable, but it's all in service of nothing. I wonder if casting anyone in the lead role of the restless creative grappling with his own insecurities about his circumstances and his anxiety about whether he'll ever be able to realize his inner genius other than the author of the show would have made it more palatable.
Never had much experience with this show outside of hearing a song or two removed from context. Got through to intermission and put it down. Everything about the production and performance (except for Miranda) is impeccable, but it's all in service of nothing. I wonder if casting anyone in the lead role of the restless creative grappling with his own insecurities about his circumstances and his anxiety about whether he'll ever be able to realize his inner genius other than the author of the show would have made it more palatable.
You should really at least go watch Burn at 2:01:00.
I also take some degree of offense with the basic premise of the show being that Hamilton is an immigrant when he was a white dude from a British colony, and by framing him as an immigrant who came and worked super hard to get where he got it reinforces a bullshit bootstraps narrative.
“‘My opinion is that the mass [of aliens] ought to be obliged to leave the country’ - a disappointing stance from America’s most famous foreign-born citizen and once an influential voice for immigration…
He predicted that “the influx of foreigners” would “change and corrupt the national spirit.”
Doesn't make for as good of lyrics as "Immigrants we get the job done"
Never had much experience with this show outside of hearing a song or two removed from context. Got through to intermission and put it down. Everything about the production and performance (except for Miranda) is impeccable, but it's all in service of nothing. I wonder if casting anyone in the lead role of the restless creative grappling with his own insecurities about his circumstances and his anxiety about whether he'll ever be able to realize his inner genius other than the author of the show would have made it more palatable.
You should really at least go watch Burn at 2:01:00.
ehh that's a great song and all but if the story/characters haven't connected up till then, seeing it out of context probably isn't gonna do much to change anyone's mind
+3
Options
pyromaniac221this just might bean interestin YTRegistered Userregular
edited July 2020
I'll probably go back in tomorrow and finish it enough because I at least got plenty of enjoyment out of the production and songwriting quality (that sequence of Helpless into Satisfied is nuclear heat), and I'd like to have a complete experience of the thing, it's just that anything beyond that surface level is leaving me cold.
Never had much experience with this show outside of hearing a song or two removed from context. Got through to intermission and put it down. Everything about the production and performance (except for Miranda) is impeccable, but it's all in service of nothing. I wonder if casting anyone in the lead role of the restless creative grappling with his own insecurities about his circumstances and his anxiety about whether he'll ever be able to realize his inner genius other than the author of the show would have made it more palatable.
You should really at least go watch Burn at 2:01:00.
ehh that's a great song and all but if the story/characters haven't connected up till then, seeing it out of context probably isn't gonna do much to change anyone's mind
Yeah I mean, I love both halves but if the first half leaves you cold i dunno if the second is gonna bring you back in
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
i'm constahtly amazed at just the sheer physicallity of the acting/dancing.
there's a point in the beginning few numbers, one of the ensemble *throws a stool* across the stage and Hercules Mulligan catches it. Single-handed.
this little bit of action is not part of the central activity of the song, but the amount of times that it needed to be practiced, done again, perfected.
The start of "What did I miss" with Jefferson actually acknowledging the audience as if he were acknowledging a crowd at a dock and it *fits perfectly* and isn't really breaking a 4th wall at all, but it is.... Mulligan does the same thing during Yorktown as well.
Honestly, Okieriete Onaodowan (the actor for Mulligan/Madison+ is just so very *good* to watch. I could watch him and Daveed Diggs in a show like..... all the time.
And the physical closeness and long looks between Hamilton and Laurens....
I'll probably go back in tomorrow and finish it enough because I at least got plenty of enjoyment out of the production and songwriting quality (that sequence of Helpless into Satisfied is nuclear heat), and I'd like to have a complete experience of the thing, it's just that anything beyond that surface level is leaving me cold.
that's totally fair. i fell in love with the soundtrack from the moment i first heard it way back when it was new, but it's completely based on the sheer musicality and lyrical quality and can't really argue with any of the deeper critiques that have come up. it's definitely one of those things that has become a kind of cultural "must enjoy" for a lot of people ('omg you didn't like Hamilton? how coooome!?') but I don't really blame anyone who just bounces off what it's doing.
Posts
Yes, he is very similitudy.
I got into it after the first couple songs though, and I believe it was 'Satisfied' where I first realized that I had been drawn in and could actively recognize what emotions my brain was processing and the best translation I can think of would be "holy fucking shit".
Also the "like you could have beer with him" is from the Bush II election.
Indeed, the "you can have a beer with him" thing is the biggest tell against it. That was from 2004 election, so it's clear he was taking inspiration from all over. And while it's fair to remain suspect of a self-reported origin, Miranda says that it was Ron Chernow's biography of Hamilton that was the primary inspiration. He tells the story of going on vacation after In The Heights won its Tonies in 2008, buying a random book about American history in the airport book shop, reading the first chapter, his mind making the connection between Hamilton's backstory, love of writing, and hip-hop, and by the time the plane landed he had made the decision.
It was largely coincidence that the creation and production of the show echoed Obama's term. Parts were doubtless inspired, but I imagine it would have been difficult to write a story in part about what presidential politics were like in the early days of the US and not have it reflect whoever was in office while it was being written.
The tweets are also ridiculously inaccurate with regard to Shakespeare, who generally wrote for the commons. He wrote carefully so that he could make criticism and the aristocracy couldn't arrest him, but that's not the same as writing entire plays to flatter the monarch.
More likely Miranda and Obama just share similar worldviews and that's why it resonated for him.
Yeah, and that's explicitly not a coincidence. There's an episode of west wing weekly which I'd forgotten about, because the last year has taken about a century, where they bring Miranda on to talk about the conscious and unconscious references to WW in Hamilton. I would say that both those pieces of media, and the Obama presidency itself, are effectively in conversation with each other, and in fact that conversation represents one facet of a political movement or ideology that stretches back at least into the nineties. Miranda might have started writing the show in 2008, but even the book it was based on grew out of the same liberal grounding that gave rise to the Obama campaign. Moreover the show was actively being developed during the Obama administration, and Miranda has always been politically active, I don't think it's remotely a stretch to say he was, in some ways, speaking to the establishment and reaffirming their self view in the same way that Shakespeare was.
A lot of Trumpism is not refuting only Obama, but his political and pop cultural antecedents. They see Hamilton as part of the enemy in the culture war, because they recognize these ties.
Edit: wasn't the first public performance of any part of Hamilton at some event involving Obama, where they asked him to do something from In The Heights and instead he said he'd rather do a bit from his new project? It's not only all part of the same zeitgeist, there are direct personal links between a lot of the people.
Which is not the same as "Miranda/Shakespeare wrote this specifically to please Obama/Elizabeth I because he is/was a fawning courtier."
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
3DS: 2981-5304-3227
Well, again, I think that's an overly literal interpretation of the phrasing of that tweet.
It's the aggrandization of our "founding fathers" that, at this point, makes me immediately sick to my stomach
Absolutely.
I mean, I don't consider that thread an indictment? It's okay for Miranda to write a play that aligns with the politics of the time, that either knowingly or unknowingly implies some nice things about the percent who he, by all accounts, is a fan of.
Like, maybe dig into all that, also, that's absolutely a thing that you can inspect more closely if you do desire.
and it is! hamilton is very good! it's exhausting that any criticism of it, however small, has to be prefaced with that!
No, those are the exact words in the first tweet. "Hamilton was written to flatter the monarch (Obama)", and who wrote it? Lin-Manuel Miranda. He's literally saying LMM wrote the show in such a way that it would make Obama happy, first and foremost.
The funny thing is, as has been mentioned, it's not even really criticism, it's a largely toothless backhanded compliment by someone too cowardly to actually criticize the show's real flaws. "It's still good, but LMM is a fawning courtier, you know, like Shakespare." It's illiterate in its analysis of drama, politics, and history. That's the problem I have with it.
Actual criticism of Hamilton might look like, "Miranda wished to tell a story about America as it was, told by America as it is. However, he also wanted the show to ultimately be a feel-good, hopeful romp through a little-known part of American history. This resulted in him ultimately deleting the planned third cabinet rap battle, which would have had Hamilton attempting to push abolition only for Washington to slap him down, for bringing too much negative energy.
By removing the number about Hamilton having to confront the revered Washington's slave-holding, by making all references to Washington's own plantation into oblique mentions of Virginia, and by sending Washington out of the show with a gospel choir that literally sings him to his rest, the show is not about America as it was, but America as we wish it to have been--or, for that matter, to be. The show condemns slavery while burnishing the reputation of a slave-owner--played by a black man no less--to a blinding sheen and further implies that he went to Heaven.
Who lives, who dies, who tells your story, indeed."
Or he could have excoriated the complete omission of First Nations performers and characters and plotlines. Or that Hamilton's own flaws, even the ones brought up in the show, are played down or not brought up at all (e.g. despite his background he was insufferably elitist). Or yes, he could have brought up the very real historical inaccuracies, from the minor (Angelica was already married when she met Hamilton and she had five brothers who would have inherited before her so she needn't have worired) to the major (again, the Washington hagiography).
Instead he goes for "Oh, I like the show but, you know...Obama" and rose Twitter titters knowingly.
Edit: I think the disconnect is that you're reading "flatter" as "to suck up" whereas I see it more as "reinforces existing beliefs"
Like I don't think LMM went into writing Hamilton to get in Obama's good graces or anything, but I bet if you asked him "who is the target audience for this" the answer would be Obama and people who share that world view.
I really like how much shade the show throws at Madison
Just constant, constant shade
I mean, would you make a deal with Robespierre?
I don’t know! I’m just very interested to hear people elaborate upon who got off easy in the show and why.
If I’m being honest I don’t know enough about the revolution to say whether it would have been the right choice. I’m speaking more to how it’s portrayed in the show and I’d say that the intent of that scene is that Hamilton is betraying his revolutionary ideals as well as his friendship with Lafayette in that moment and that both he and Washington are ultimately unsupportive of any sort of real freedom ultimately.
In brief, she brings up Augusto Boal's argument that "the dominant art is the art of the dominant class, who control the means to disseminate art."
Specifically citing Hamilton as proof of this argument, she points out that, despite Hamilton's lottery system and its meteoric rise, the only people who are guaranteed an opportunity to see it are those who are affluent enough to spend the money for tickets outside of that lottery. And the only way that a show like Hamilton can guarantee a rise from off-Broadway and continued success is by playing to the affluent and privileged theater-going public, and by not placing them outside of their comfort zone.
So it makes sense that, when the show was finished, it ended up positively reinforcing the American experiment, without delving too deeply into the straight up abhorrent aspects of the personal histories of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and - to an extent - Hamilton, especially how their democratic and republican ideals were somewhat hypocritical when juxtaposed with their personal involvement and failure to act against the slave trade in the United States.
How do you convince a bunch of rich, Broadway-loving liberals that your show is worth their time and financial backing? Easy, you tell them the story that they want to hear.
For the record: I think the show is excellent, I don't think it's intentionally trying to suck up to anyone, and I think there's value in how unapologetic it is in its pro-immigrant rhetoric.
But it definitely is not intended to encourage the audience to call the Founding Fathers out on their bullshit, and that's by design.
I know Daveed Diggs and Renée Elise Goldsberry already got their Tonys for this show, but I think they should give them a separate Tony, every year, for the rest of time.
That's why I do think the show is helpful as a gateway for people to do more research. It does at least portray the Founding Fathers as not being infallible, which hasn't been the case for the vast majority of US history.
3DS: 2981-5304-3227
This is fair, and I do think the show deserves credit for giving Hamilton, Madison, and (noted odorous fuckwad) Jefferson a more honest portrayal than other period pieces from the Revolutionary era.
Though the fact that Washington manages to get through the show more-or-less unscathed is... not great, IMO.
The final number of the show is every one of Hamilton's friends and enemies coming on stage to talk about how great he was
The show's opinion of its title character is very clearly "he wasn't perfect but, y'know, who is, and I mean WOW what a guy"
And even like, Jefferson, who the show arguably villainizes the most, gets off with a couple of sick burns about slavery made against him. He's still a fun, electric personality who gets lots of fun numbers and is ultimately not really portrayed as a villain so much as a rival that Hamilton butted heads with but respected
These people were mostly rich slave owners, and the play is not interested in examining the inherent vicious evil that goes part and parcel with that. Jefferson was a slaveowner AND a rapist, but Miranda doesn't let that stop him from writing him as a fun and funny stage personality
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Y'all fuckers need to get Hadestown next, or you best believe I'm letting that shit lapse.
To be fair, Nevis was a dirt-poor colony, and Hamilton was basically a live-in apprentice with a few local businessmen until the town took up a collection to send him to New York so that he could be educated.
It can definitely be read as a bootstraps narrative - especially since the show kind of glosses over the fact that Hamilton had a cousin living in the colonies who supported him off and on when he was at school - but it's pretty unambiguous in its argument that America has been at its best whenever its given immigrants a chance to actively participate in the experiment and succeed.
Your mileage may vary on how effective you find the argument, especially considering that Hamilton did have a significant degree of privilege in Colonial America as a well-educated white dude with some influential friends.
You should really at least go watch Burn at 2:01:00.
https://workingoutloud.com/blog/what-hamilton-an-immigrant-thought-of-immigration
“‘My opinion is that the mass [of aliens] ought to be obliged to leave the country’ - a disappointing stance from America’s most famous foreign-born citizen and once an influential voice for immigration…
He predicted that “the influx of foreigners” would “change and corrupt the national spirit.”
Doesn't make for as good of lyrics as "Immigrants we get the job done"
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
ehh that's a great song and all but if the story/characters haven't connected up till then, seeing it out of context probably isn't gonna do much to change anyone's mind
Yeah I mean, I love both halves but if the first half leaves you cold i dunno if the second is gonna bring you back in
there's a point in the beginning few numbers, one of the ensemble *throws a stool* across the stage and Hercules Mulligan catches it. Single-handed.
this little bit of action is not part of the central activity of the song, but the amount of times that it needed to be practiced, done again, perfected.
The start of "What did I miss" with Jefferson actually acknowledging the audience as if he were acknowledging a crowd at a dock and it *fits perfectly* and isn't really breaking a 4th wall at all, but it is.... Mulligan does the same thing during Yorktown as well.
Honestly, Okieriete Onaodowan (the actor for Mulligan/Madison+ is just so very *good* to watch. I could watch him and Daveed Diggs in a show like..... all the time.
And the physical closeness and long looks between Hamilton and Laurens....
Argh the acting is just so fucking specatcular
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
that's totally fair. i fell in love with the soundtrack from the moment i first heard it way back when it was new, but it's completely based on the sheer musicality and lyrical quality and can't really argue with any of the deeper critiques that have come up. it's definitely one of those things that has become a kind of cultural "must enjoy" for a lot of people ('omg you didn't like Hamilton? how coooome!?') but I don't really blame anyone who just bounces off what it's doing.