Posted: 7/15/15 at 2:13pm
Posted: 7/15/15 at 2:26pm
Clickable:
Posted: 7/15/15 at 3:05pm
Good stuff. Also true but not really articulated in this article is that the effect is to make the history more resonant in contemporary terms-it makes the characters not just antique stick figures but relatable characters on our own terms. We do this with Shakespeare's history plays when we stage them in contemporary settings all the time, but up until now we have not had an American history play that attempts this. (Cf. 1776)
Posted: 7/15/15 at 3:20pm
Interesting read, and an aspect of theatre always to be commended.
But it's hardly new. Even 48 years ago in Hair, an African American actor portrayed Abraham Lincoln, albeit briefly. Personally, I've seen productions of plays and musicals over the past 30 years in which actors of color played such historically white personalities as Louisa May Alcott, Pope Clement VI, Martin Luther, Queen Victoria, Amerigo Vespucci, Mark Twain, Rose Hovick, and many more (including God, who is technically without race, but try telling that to white folk).
Posted: 7/15/15 at 3:30pm
And Tootie played Eleanor Roosevelt!
Posted: 7/15/15 at 3:31pm
While having actors of color play white historical figures isn't new, such a deliberately diverse take on history that permeates beyond just the cast but into the fabric of the music and word on such a high-profile scale is certainly unprecedented.
Updated On: 7/15/15 at 03:31 PM
Posted: 7/15/15 at 4:01pm
I think a lot of the "rock" and pop musicals of the late 60s and 70s, although mostly financial failures, were trying to do pretty much what you describe (like Vinnette Carroll's But Never Jam Today).
Although we love to think we're always moving forward like a shark, there really is nothing entirely new. And there's nothing wrong with that. Applaud things for being good; "new" isn't really a badge or medal in and of itself.
Posted: 7/15/15 at 5:01pm
newintown,
while I agree that good is far more important than new, I think you misapprehend what distinguishes Hamilton from the other shows you reference. First, it is not color-blind; it is color-intentional. Second, the racial juxtaposition is not ironic. I can't think of a show that has actually done what this one does in that respect. I'm certainly open to examples, however. To me (and it seems to you), however, the importance of being first pales in comparison to being best.
Posted: 7/15/15 at 5:09pm
The one example I gave above, Hogan, Vinnette Carroll's But Never Jam Today, although it doesn't use historical figures, still presents Alice (always seen as white and based upon Alice Liddell Hargreaves, a white woman) and other Wonderland denizens as being of color and intentionally so, unironically. The same can easily be said for The Wiz; in addition, I've seen a musical adaptation of the Cinderella tale using a cast of color and a gospel/r&b-inspired score (that, needless to say, never achieved great national attention).
I imagine that some casual but more dedicated research could find more. And this in no way reduces the accomplishments of Hamilton, which don't (in any case) need to rely on the dubious merits of being called "new."
Updated On: 7/15/15 at 05:09 PM
Posted: 7/15/15 at 5:40pm
I (obviously) don't know But Never Jam Today (and therefore it is irrelevant [j/k]) and I take your word for it although I assume you will agree it is not a property that has had a great deal of traffic. I actually don't think The Wiz (or, from the sound of it, that Cinderella) is entirely the same thing but I get the comparison. To me the big difference is that Hamilton is a far more layered and intellectually grounded work, but since that just gets us back to the point that it is a "better" piece of work, beating our heads against the wall on the question of utter newness is really just a diversion.
