Who knows what future commentators will ruthlessly condemn? A few years ago, most critiques revolved around class (thousand dollar tickets) and layered on other issues. Now that it’s on disney plus, much of that economic critique has lost it’s power-- leaving the digressions into whether it’s racially problematic, whether the music pleases the critic, etc.
The idea that “the left” universally hates “Hamilton” sounds to me more like a shibboleth – “If you don’t do this, you’re not really leftist / progressive / woke!” – than truth. I know (online) several quite left-leaning people who also love the musical.
Oh, pish. No true lefty loves Hamilton.
“If you see something that is not right, not fair, not just, you have a moral obligation to do something about it”
– John Lewis (RIP)
I think you’re underestimating people’s ability to enjoy and criticize something at the same time. For example, historian Lyra Monteiro published this widely-read, no-holds-barred criticism of the play’s problems with race, but also said:
And so, for me, it was like What the fuck! I think I’m going to hate this, I think it’s going to be shitty. And of course I didn’t! I loved it, it was amazing. . . . Yeah! Oh yeah, as a theatrical production, it’s incredible. As a Broadway musical, it’s amazing and deserves all the credit it gets. But as anything that conveys information to people about the past, it’s highly problematic!
So, is she “ignor[ing] the stench of swept-away racist shit in order to feel entertained”? No! What a thing to say, as if people are so limited that they can’t enjoy something while also criticizing it.
Also, I suggest that it might be a good idea to actually see the play before completely writing it off and insulting anyone who enjoyed it.
I know you wrote that you’re not trying to shame progressives for enjoying “Hamilton” as a piece of art but it’s getting harder and harder to believe that when you post stuff to the effect of “John Lewis (RIP) said you had a duty to hate ‘Hamilton‘.”
What is it about social media that makes even a beautiful, agile brain like yours turn others into opponents so quickly, and to grossly exaggerate their positions?
I apologized above, and I’ll do it again. I’m sorry to the community that what I’ve written here came across as insulting.
Since you’re so focused on exposure of my motivations, I’ll basically repeat that I was hoping for thought-provoking input on why/how even people with beautiful, agile and progressive brains and such can enjoy a billion-dollar extravaganza that apparently glosses over a lot of ugly history. Which I’ve gotten, including from you, so my thanks to all who have been taking part in this thread.
But yet again, there is an (barely) implicit chiding/judging going on.
And I say this not as one of the potentially offended/scolded/judged, as I’ve scarcely seen a moment of Hamilton, and don’t really have any plans to.
To put on a performance of historical people and ignore what they thought, and instead have them agree with current sensibilities is really ignoring history. To be an accurate portrayal it has to show the people as they were. We interpret their actions and motives against our own ideas-which are also a product of their times. At any moment there could be a new interpretation of physics which changes how we see the universe. But someone writing a play about Galileo had better have the characters involved think the heliocentric universe is the true one.
Is A Merchant of Venice antisemetic? No more than the society as a whole was when it was written. I cannot expunge that idea from the play without damaging it.
Haven’t seen Hamilton, but am surprised Jefferson is the villain. In “John Adams”, both the mini series and book it was based on by David McCullough, Hamilton is clearly the villain. He warmongers, started political parties, sowed partisanship, and launched dirty campaigning. He is ridiculed for foppishly creating military uniforms for himself and Washington.
There is a tradition of taking an awful person’s life work and making them a musical star. Take Evita (Eva Peron), she’s was far from her depiction in that musical. Hamilton is probably similar. In 30-40 years, they’ll be a Trump or Trumpina musical.
Lin Manuel Miranda’s genius was portraying the founding father differently using a diverse cast, a different pov, and rap music. His work doesn’t change past and he certainly shouldn’t get crap for not pointing out everyone’s flaws.
At some point, we should tear down American myths, acknowledge that these people were often seriously flawed, and work on fixing the present / future.
For what it’s worth, Rep. John Lewis seemed not to have a big problem with the musical as he personally introduced LMM at an event that honoring him at the capital.
I was excited about watching it because I saw the performance by Lin Manuel Miranda in the white house, (a gazillion years ago, when there was still a somewhat sane person living there) and I thought that performance was amazing. The recording of the full musical performance (that what is reffered to as “the movie” right?) was a little disappointing for me because I felt part of the power of the songs was lost because of the many voices sharing the songs. Purely based on the performances, I wasn’t blown away. I’m also just not that much of a musical fan I guess?
Just before seeing the movie I watched this youtube video that has quite a few negative things to say about the founding fathers and Washington in specific:
Like how the fight for independence wasn’t really started with noble intentions but there were all kinds of other not so noble hidden motives, for example breaking the agreement not move west of the Appalachian mountains, fear that the coming abolishment of slavery by the British would also affect the slaves in the Americas.
I had also just read this piece about mental health, that mentions George III:
In Hamilton George is portrayed as crazy, even spitting while he talks (sings). That feels like it’s mocking someone for their mental issues and comes across as ableist. He is also put in the role of bad guy (at least in the first half).
Interestingly (unless I missed someone) George was also the only character played by a white person. This seems to me to be a inversion of the harmful trope where the only person of color in a movies cast is playing the role of bad guy. If that is what they did there, I appreciate that, but maybe I’m overanalysing here.
These things made me struggle with the message it’s sending.
Having said that I think FSogol points out what is the main redeeming feature to me:
I think taking America’s hero mythos (undeserved as it may be) and retelling it with a full cast of people of color is a powerful statement. I see it as saying: “This story of America, this is a story of immigrants, it’s a story of all of us”.
In the end, I’m afraid that America isn’t ready yet for a more critical look at their founding fathers, so while I would have appreciated (a lot) more critique I can understand why it’s not there. I’m afraid the show may have gotten cancelled if it had been too critical:
I think that a more critical look at (amongst other things) the US’s history is needed though. And I hope the current upheavals can push those conversations in the right direction.
It’s actually nearly impossible for Groff to sing his songs without spitting. It wasn’t a dig at King George.
“I spit a lot onstage,” Groff told Variety in 2019. “I’ve always been a spitter… I start sweating. I just get wet when I perform onstage. It is just what happens.”
I also didn’t see myself having the opportunity to see the play any time in the foreseeable future even before the pandemic. I’ll probably check out the movie at some point since it exists now, but it’s not particularly high on my priority list.
Lin-Manuel Miranda seems like a talented and passionate artist and decent person from his public persona. I understand why not everyone on the left agrees with his political stances, but for me his supporting the “wrong” relief bill for him home commonwealth certainly doesn’t rise to the level of hating him. YMMV.
As a white man I’m also not going to punch down on a PoC over it.
All that said, I appreciate you making this topic because, whether or not you had strong preconceptions, the thread has been informative and adds context for when I do watch it.
Speaking only for myself, while your framing of the question seems to somewhat prejudge the movie, I don’t personally feel that if I do enjoy it you’re judging me.
It ain’t going to stop me from vomiting.
Interesting! I’m not sure that means George wasn’t still portrayed as “crazy” but that does add a different perspective!
George became ill in 1788-89, 1801, and 1810-11-- well after the revolutionary war-- (battle of yorktown 1781, treaty of paris in 1783.)
That is interesting but doesn’t necessarily stop the creators of the musical from sneaking that in there.
But I don’t know enough about king George, or about mental health, to take a position. I just reported what I noticed and I think I will leave it at that.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
