Art exists to be critiqued. If we can't discuss the themes and messages inherent in a work of art, then we are truly lost.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Hamilton is the highest rated movie of the year on Metacritic right now.
- Thread starter Deleted member 45614
- Start date
Art exists to be critiqued. If we can't discuss the themes and messages inherent in a work of art, then we are truly lost.
I agree with you in principle but I think art needs to be seen first to be critiqued don't you agree?
I've seen the show in Chicago and in New York last year (not the original cast obviously), and her shoes are some of the biggest to fill. I don't think the actresses I saw can top her performance.
Dude this fucking ruled. My daughter was sooooo hyped and it delivered plus some.
Best thing on streaming all year.
Best thing on streaming all year.
All of her parts are some of my favorites if not the best parts of the whole show and she kills it. Seeing her live was a treat.
Art can be critiqued, but it's so exhausting for every single thread to turn into a "lets shit on this" thread around here. We don't always have to be so negative and and meaningful discussions can be had without it involving critiquing things.
But the Era way is to just be overly negative and pop into every thread thread just to throw in your 2 cents to derail it.
Edit: Not directed towards you, it's just so over whelming common for there to be a thread on here praising something just for all the "I DON'T LIKE THING" people to come storming in and force their opinions down everyones throats. Just keep moving. We need to try not being so negative about everything all the time.
The world is so fucking shitty. We need to have a little temporary happiness.
Honestly, I don't see how anyone comes out of the show not having most of the founding fathers taken down a peg. Just as when you read a history book, seeing their antics after the war is won reminds you many of them were still assholes.
The only two who escape the show looking just as good or better than history typically portrayed them are Lafayette and Washington.
If nothing else, the show made me really like Lafayette. Both as a character AND as a historical figure.
I think their opinion sucks and you are right, more negative than I would prefer, but the best way to deal with that is to NOT ENGAGE. They said their piece, and unless a discussion is made of it, nothing will come of it.
The alternative in suggesting--even implicitly--that they not post is not better. Not matter how your couch it.
As was mentioned earlier, no one wanted to go back to a monarchy. They had just escaped from it. Many felt Hamilton was simply a Royalist who wanted to go back to the Jolly Old Days, a proto-Trumpian who wanted to Make America British Again, if you will. So while there was contentious debate -- and we were very close to never having a strong Federal system due to the Southern states -- anything resembling a monarchy was off the table for everyone assembled at the Convention. Moreover, it seemed that Hamilton was contemptuous of the common people and believed they had no ability to self-govern. Perhaps, given his rags-to-riches story, he felt shamed by his modest upbringing in the West Indies and projected this onto his political views.
But Hamilton was also clever, smart, and adaptable, a trait shared by many successful immigrants, and he saw the way the wind was blowing. He probably knew that a strong Federalist government was the best he could hope for, and certainly a better alternative than the states rejecting the Convention's proposal (which many states including New York were leaning towards) and remaining a ragtag band of mini-countries. And I suspect he wanted to secure himself a place in national affairs after he had been snubbed during the Convention for his antidemocratic, monarchist views.
Last edited:
I watched it this morning. I hadn't seen it or listened to the songs before, other than what would seep throughout pop culture stuff, so I'm a fresh viewer. Anthony Ramos is electric.
Formally, it is well-presented and it dramatizes the rotating stage a few times in nice ways. For the most part, the varying song styles are implemented very nicely. The use of motifs creates rich linking points between scenes. But I find its narrative and storytelling to make it a very complicated work of art.
Formally, it is well-presented and it dramatizes the rotating stage a few times in nice ways. For the most part, the varying song styles are implemented very nicely. The use of motifs creates rich linking points between scenes. But I find its narrative and storytelling to make it a very complicated work of art.
Loved a lot of the music in Hamilton, but Ja ja Ding Dong is still stuck in my brain.
Yeah this was awesome and it blew Lin-Manuel away because he's a big Weird Al fan. But then again who isn't?
Hey now everyone who is watching and enjoying this... check out Central Park on Apple TV+! Starring Leslie Odom Jr. and Daveed Diggs! Christopher Jackson even guest stars!
It's wild that anyone could claim that Hamilton negativity is somehow isolated to this little corner of the internet.
I really liked Hamilton but in terms of memorable songs it's not even close to Les Mis.
Although the lyrics are FAR superior. (Les Mis songs can be fairly cheesy, though I think that has more to do with the translation).
Although the lyrics are FAR superior. (Les Mis songs can be fairly cheesy, though I think that has more to do with the translation).
Watched Hamilton last night and while I did enjoy it I felt it wasn't nearly as good as it was hyped up to be. The story is very good but I think that's just due to the source material so the adaptation definitely deserves a nod and the skill of the choreography was pretty solid. The rap motif just felt to me like every mid 80s rap song's cadence. Solid B+ I'd say.
Schuyler Sisters has been stuck in my head since I saw it in 2018
WORK
I would still want to go see it live, but Hamilton is maybe one of the most expensive base price shows on Broadway, tickets at a base price are $230, that's honestly crazy, and this is considering that:
- you know when they're releasing new tickets,
- you're willing to wait to see the show since they release tickets 4-6 months in advance or
- you're ready to sit in front of the theatre from 6am for about 8-12h to grab a cancellation line ticket.
Yes, absolutely. I tried convincing my GF to raise the audio volume a bit more so that it at least "felt" like we were there a bit more, but it still obviously wasn't enough; would definitely go if I planned on travelling to NY.
Jefferson is a slave owning asshole. Aaron Burr is an opportunistic career politician. Hamilton is an adulterer who becomes full of himself and arrogant while Washington is in office. The only one whom I see isn't ostensibly torn a new hole is Washington. It isn't trying to lionize or apologize for Hamilton's mistakes. It's telling his role in the formation of the country. Whatever LMM stands for in real life, it didn't seem apparent to me at least that his personal views were bleeding through in this. I'm not gonna tell someone they aren't allowed to criticize him or the work, but attacking the musical based on his personal politics without having seen the whole thing to be able to critique and back it up as an extension of his views seems vacant. Yes, the founding fathers were all assholes in different and similar ways, but for better or worse that is the origin story of the US and if this gets people interested in learning the nation's history to better understand why we're where we are at now, then to me that's a net positive, whether or not you hold such hatred for it that you believe nobody should know or care.
I got that stuck in my head all the time BEFORE watching.
Which I am off to do right now. Stopped listening to the album about two weeks ago so it'll be more fresh.
Same here. I wish I took more of an interest in American history growing up as I did in Greek, Roman, and British history, but I've been looking into Lafayette more and what a fella. That said, history in America stinks in the classroom. I only got into Greek history as a result of my old man sending me a book on their mythology back in middle school, then I moved on to their actual history and it just grew from there.
been struggling with these two most of the morning. Les Mis is edging it out, but fuck that Satisfied song is beautiful.
I would say, I can understand not releasing a filmed version of the cast while the cast is still doing live shows but once the cast moves on there's no reason not to release it. Because at that point the magic of that cast together may not ever come together quite the same again. And of course, any 1-night affairs should always be released on film (10th Anniversary, 25th Anniversary Les Mis for example).
I don't think this will remove anyone's desire to see the live show and only helps to preserve some aspect of each cast that does any particular show along with making more money as recordings have a further reach. The differences in performances of these shows depending on different actors and full casts is notable and typically appreciated by fans and the fact is the nature of live shows means that even with touring taken into account many people just won't be able to ever see those shows live. So having various casts recordings would go so far, in my opinion, in letting those people have some version of the experience.
I don't think it's "attacking" the play to talk about the politics and historicity of it. I personally like to explore those things, but it's not usually what dictate whether or not I like a piece of entertainment.
I will say this, I don't think it's good to learn history from a play like Hamilton, and it's not only that the medium prevent you from going deem, it's the framing of the story.
I think if you want to make an existing story, writing it as a fight for freedom and justice against a evil tyrannical government makes sense, but I think if we want to understand why we're where we are at now, we need to start moving away from that narrative.
Never seen it live. I get the hype now and why people are obsessed with the songs.
Aww man...that video is such good vibes.
Aww man...that video is such good vibes.
This is hilarious, but damn if Peggy gets even less respect in this version. 😄
The point of it isn't to tell a textbook accurate account so much as to get people interested. And to be sure, I agree that the musical isn't immune or absolved of criticism, but using LMM's personal politics as a criticism raises a question mark with me as I didn't immediately get the impression that the musical is full of his views. How is the story framed that you disagree with?
I loved the film version and it surpassed even my high expectations. Watching it just made me want to see Broadway versions of plays even more. But as long as the hurdle for doing so is so high, it doesnt matter how much I want.
Not being able to see the original cast on stage is a bigger problem than folks losing interest. I'm glad the film version is available for the rest of us.
Yes, but not until his death. As I understand it, there were issues with how to do it without bankrupting himself, plus a lot of the slaves were Martha's.
Not that he couldn't have just done something drastic, but wasn't willing to.
Honestly, my argument kinda got away from me.
I was trying to say that I don't think such analysis is the deciding factor for me whether I like a piece of entertainment, and then I went and did a half assed one lol.
Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy to talk about those things, but I'm not sure this thread is the place for this. This discussion will get away from the play real quick, and I'm kinda suspect most of the people here don't want that talk.
If there ever be a thread about the politics of Hamilton or whatever I promise to bore you with a wall text about it.
I enjoy filmed performances like those from the National Theatre or wherever, so watching this version of Hamilton fits in well among them--though I better enjoy those with sets (Singin' in the Rain is the best ever). Perhaps that taste is derived from never having been able to afford to see live performances, and so the film format is what I'm more accustomed to. I don't think I would have preferred a proper film adaptation of Hamilton to this stage performance though.
The mutual themes of time and ambition are finely juxtaposed between Hamilton and Burr. As representatives of the themes, they are each other's foils--that's a great concept around which the narrative is constructed.
It also means that the first few songs immediately heroicize Hamilton.The first sentence of the first number, "Alexander Hamilton," plainly establishes Hamilton as "a hero and a scholar." As the play's avatar of ambition, bootstrapping, and overcoming odds, the audience is meant to admire that character more than the other who opts for cleverness or passivity, as represented in Burr.
As a historical play, it is difficult to avoid the questions of accuracy and moralization. I mentioned earlier that I find the play very complicated, but it's not because I demand accuracy. I don't approach art valuing one more highly than the other. Generally, if a narrative pursues accuracy, it will often lean away from moralization (unless it is built into the accuracy); if it elects morality, accuracy is less important. But in Hamilton the two are closely intertwined in a way that sabotages its meaning. The "inaccuracies" of the play, from broad, purposeful ones like casting and musical styles to loose characterizations like that of King George, are confronted by its appeals to accuracy elsewhere. Its satire and critique, obviously playful, are obstructed when Miranda/Hamilton pipes in during "A Winter's Ball" to say "That's true!," which implies veracity to the rest of the story even while those other components move away from it. The subtitle of the play, "An American Musical," functions similarly. In "The World Was Wide Enough," Burr states, "They won't teach you this in your classes / But look it up / He was wearing his glasses." Again, its claims to truthfulness are framed pedagogically--that this is a history lesson, and a fun one at that--but with a strange sense of selectivity that is elsewhere set aside. In terms of characterization, the resolute use of satire in its portrayal of King George is split from the attempted satire of Americans, particularly Jefferson and Madison, who are later allowed to speak with sincerity of their admiration for Hamilton. These elements don't fit together very neatly and make for a very shaky relationship between history and story.
The consequence of this relationship is that its ultimate question of legacy is obstructed. Some have suggested that Hamilton remains with that question, allowing it to be left open. But it doesn't; the play answers this question in several ways. While it sometimes enjoys the gray areas of moralization, it is ultimately focused on this question of legacy and provides it with a clear answer. Incorrectly, it suggests that legacies are immovably derived from the truths of history. In "The World Was Wide Enough," Burr, after shooting Hamilton, states that "Now I'm the villain in your history," his legacy cemented. The final number lyrics, "Who lives / Who dies / Who tells your story?" are fulfilled by other characters, with Eliza given the most space to detail the formulation of Hamilton's legacy. And the play does lionize Hamilton because Eliza lionizes him, and she is given the last word: she establishes an orphanage, sees Hamilton in the children's eyes, interviews his soldiers, collects his writings, and campaigns against slavery as if on his behalf. These good and admirable things are presented in a way that casts Hamilton as their inspiration, as if Eliza has the time that Hamilton doesn't and uses her time the way that Hamilton might have. The good actions of Eliza are meant to solidify the goodness of Hamilton.
And because the play ends this way, it ultimately confronts and competes against itself. It overrides the gray areas of historical figures by giving weight to "legacy" as a finality. The existence of Hamilton as a play participates in the construction of legacy--"Who tells your story?" is answered by the play itself. Hamilton is therefore not about interrogating legacy but subscribing to it, even if the play inspires people's interest in history. As a result, the question of accuracy is minimized, not for the sake of innovative casting or musical styles, but because "legacy" is materialized by those who come after, and because the play is telling us how to think of Hamilton and the other characters. By asking it, the play sounds as though it is embracing the question of legacy, but is stating and maintaining an established answer.
As I said before, though, Anthony Ramos is wonderful.
The mutual themes of time and ambition are finely juxtaposed between Hamilton and Burr. As representatives of the themes, they are each other's foils--that's a great concept around which the narrative is constructed.
It also means that the first few songs immediately heroicize Hamilton.The first sentence of the first number, "Alexander Hamilton," plainly establishes Hamilton as "a hero and a scholar." As the play's avatar of ambition, bootstrapping, and overcoming odds, the audience is meant to admire that character more than the other who opts for cleverness or passivity, as represented in Burr.
As a historical play, it is difficult to avoid the questions of accuracy and moralization. I mentioned earlier that I find the play very complicated, but it's not because I demand accuracy. I don't approach art valuing one more highly than the other. Generally, if a narrative pursues accuracy, it will often lean away from moralization (unless it is built into the accuracy); if it elects morality, accuracy is less important. But in Hamilton the two are closely intertwined in a way that sabotages its meaning. The "inaccuracies" of the play, from broad, purposeful ones like casting and musical styles to loose characterizations like that of King George, are confronted by its appeals to accuracy elsewhere. Its satire and critique, obviously playful, are obstructed when Miranda/Hamilton pipes in during "A Winter's Ball" to say "That's true!," which implies veracity to the rest of the story even while those other components move away from it. The subtitle of the play, "An American Musical," functions similarly. In "The World Was Wide Enough," Burr states, "They won't teach you this in your classes / But look it up / He was wearing his glasses." Again, its claims to truthfulness are framed pedagogically--that this is a history lesson, and a fun one at that--but with a strange sense of selectivity that is elsewhere set aside. In terms of characterization, the resolute use of satire in its portrayal of King George is split from the attempted satire of Americans, particularly Jefferson and Madison, who are later allowed to speak with sincerity of their admiration for Hamilton. These elements don't fit together very neatly and make for a very shaky relationship between history and story.
The consequence of this relationship is that its ultimate question of legacy is obstructed. Some have suggested that Hamilton remains with that question, allowing it to be left open. But it doesn't; the play answers this question in several ways. While it sometimes enjoys the gray areas of moralization, it is ultimately focused on this question of legacy and provides it with a clear answer. Incorrectly, it suggests that legacies are immovably derived from the truths of history. In "The World Was Wide Enough," Burr, after shooting Hamilton, states that "Now I'm the villain in your history," his legacy cemented. The final number lyrics, "Who lives / Who dies / Who tells your story?" are fulfilled by other characters, with Eliza given the most space to detail the formulation of Hamilton's legacy. And the play does lionize Hamilton because Eliza lionizes him, and she is given the last word: she establishes an orphanage, sees Hamilton in the children's eyes, interviews his soldiers, collects his writings, and campaigns against slavery as if on his behalf. These good and admirable things are presented in a way that casts Hamilton as their inspiration, as if Eliza has the time that Hamilton doesn't and uses her time the way that Hamilton might have. The good actions of Eliza are meant to solidify the goodness of Hamilton.
And because the play ends this way, it ultimately confronts and competes against itself. It overrides the gray areas of historical figures by giving weight to "legacy" as a finality. The existence of Hamilton as a play participates in the construction of legacy--"Who tells your story?" is answered by the play itself. Hamilton is therefore not about interrogating legacy but subscribing to it, even if the play inspires people's interest in history. As a result, the question of accuracy is minimized, not for the sake of innovative casting or musical styles, but because "legacy" is materialized by those who come after, and because the play is telling us how to think of Hamilton and the other characters. By asking it, the play sounds as though it is embracing the question of legacy, but is stating and maintaining an established answer.
As I said before, though, Anthony Ramos is wonderful.
Yup. I just watched this for the first time today, and I really liked it, but I definitely thought she was the stand out while watching.
I've been pulling up Wikipedia pages of Lafayette to Paine all day. I love reading about this stuff. Much of the soundtrack is stuck in my head too.
This thread is making me wonder who people think was the best founding father.
Maybe I should start a thread on it.
Maybe I should start a thread on it.
