Anyone OVER 'Hamilton' without even seeing it?- Page 6

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 8:52am

Dave19 said: "Destiny's child karaoke show"

 

I might actually vomit. Have you no recognition of artistry?

[Comden Green]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 9:43am

You are tired of hearing about it so you start a new thread about it. 

 

The thread gets 11,000 views and 125 posts in two days.   People are interested.  They want to talk about it.   That's not such a bad thing is it?  If you really are over it you can at a minimum skip the threads. But you aren't, yet. 

[JM226]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 9:48am

artistry is subjective

[Sam2]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 9:53am

Why do people get so upset by the opinion of a single troll that isn't stated with a single argument? After Eight is a pure joke and so are his lousy and worthless posts. It's okay to have a different opinion, but when you decide to bash something only to get attention, please use do it somewhere else and troll somewhere else.

[Sam2]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 9:53am

Why do people get so upset by the opinion of a single troll that isn't stated with a single argument? After Eight is a pure joke and so are his lousy and worthless posts. It's okay to have a different opinion, but when you decide to bash something only to get attention, please use do it somewhere else and troll somewhere else.

[Comden Green]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 10:09am

newintown said: "I find it interesting that some comments in this thread link to the earlier discussion about creative license - that is, those who are calling Hamilton "educational," despite the fact that there's no reliable history being presented in the show, based as it is on a pop-bio that was heralded in the Times by a far-right non-historian who loves capitalism, credit, debt, and a small central government that does nothing to impede banks and large corporations, the poor be damned. However, Willard Sterne Randall (an actual [gasp!] historian), writing for the Boston Globe, pointed out the "bad history" used by Chernow, who, in his defense, was probably writing for a larger, less-intellectual audience, one more interested in hot storytelling than accuracy.

"

Very interesting points. Some that I have wondered about as I have waded through the book.  I have to disagree that this is a pop bio.  (As I would define it). I would think a pop bio would be, at a minumum, shorter and easier to read. The masses are not going enjoy this book. Too much detail.   

Also, it is clear that chernow has done incredible amounts of research.  (Amazing to me that he seems to have slogged through each of the federalist papers) so I don't think he can be dismissed as easily as you do. 

but he sure does have an opinion.  I have had the same reaction as you about his views of the financial system that Hamilton created.   That's where the discussion needs to be.  

 

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 10:10am

 

Wait--has After Eight weighed in on Hamilton? How could I have missed that?

 

 

[gypsy101]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 10:18am

Dave19 said: "The only thing they recognize is cheap rap. That might be why this "Destiny's child karaoke show" hits a spot of recognition for them?"

 

if you actually knew anything at all you would know that Destiny's Child was a group of singers and they didn't rap at all.

[newintown]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 10:22am

"I have had the same reaction as you about his views of the financial system that Hamilton created.   That's where the discussion needs to be."

 

It's true that most people (particularly in the arts) are not interested in delving deeply into conversations about financial/political systems. But I'm glad that you raise this question - isn't there something a bit off about a work that uses actors of color to champion a man who helped foster a financial system that keeps most people of color powerless and poor in this country? And doing that in a sincere, rather than non-accusatory or satiric manner? It's not important whether anyone agrees with the idea, but the conversation isn't even really happening, almost as if asking any questions about the depth of thought in the show verges on mortal sin.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 10:26am

 

Ah, yes...now I see. He quoted Happy Hunting. LOL.

 

 

[Comden Green]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 10:29am

^^

Absolutely agree newintown.  

I wonder how Miranda, himself deals with those issues.  

[After Eight]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 11:38am

"please use do it somewhere else and troll somewhere else."

 

Actually, Sam, you would do well to follow your own advice (repeated twice, ugh). It is you who have added absolutely nothing of substance or value to this thread. Besmirching another poster is all you've "contributed" to the discussion.

 

Moreover, one wonders what you and a good many others are even doing in this thread. If you --- and they  --- had bothered to read the title of the thread, you would see it was meant for people who are OVER Hamilton, not for its various idolaters, fanboys/girls, etc., who are not only not over it, but who can't seem to get their fill of it (though quite a few of them are full of it).

 

There are countless threads devoted to singing the praises of this show. There Hamilton fans can go to gush to their hearts' content, without fear of anyone challenging their certitudes.

 

So why come to a thread that expressly seeks the input of those who are fed up to here with it?

 

Why?

 

Oh, but we know all too well why.

[newintown]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 11:42am

"I wonder how Miranda, himself deals with those issues."

 

I suspect, Comden Green, that Miranda isn't interested in that kind of discussion or dialectic; he seems to me to be more of a sentimentalist (that may sound pejorative, but I mean it merely descriptively). That is, personality and feelings are what interest him more than social/political/financial theory (I suspect, based on his work).

Updated On: 1/20/16 at 11:42 AM

[Tom5]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 11:48am

Me. I'll be seeing Hello Dolly with Bette Midler. I like music in my musicals.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 12:02pm

 

I think Miranda is making a deeper statement about race and class in this country by NOT making the kind of "accusatory" or "satiric" statement you suggest, which would only have preachy, prosaic and drearily conventional.

 

What he does with performers of color simply BEING the Founding Fathers is much more challenging and liberating than what you suggest.

 

[JM226]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 12:17pm

he also changes and rewrites history. don't like that and it not good for young students attending the show.

[newintown]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 12:46pm

"What he does with performers of color simply BEING the Founding Fathers is much more challenging and liberating than what you suggest."

 

I think it's truly terrific that it works for you. I don't think, though, that Comden Green and I were discussing "challenging" or "liberating" (in fact, I have no idea how "liberating" applies to what we wrote). I believe we're talking about stringent social/political thoughts concerning a man who many find to be one of history's truly awful people, who (to re-state the idea) "helped foster a financial system that keeps most people of color powerless and poor in this country." That is what I find absent from the show. Does it need to be there? That's merely a matter of opinion. I'd admire the work more if it were, but that's just me.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 12:47pm

If there's one thing I've learned after being on this board for 12 years, it's that many people here do not respect others' opinions. They can't stand  it if someone doesn't agree with them. The longest threads have grown from that issue.

[haterobics]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 12:51pm

After Eight said: "Moreover, one wonders what you and a good many others are even doing in this thread. If you --- and they  --- had bothered to read the title of the thread, you would see it was meant for people who are OVER Hamilton, not for its various idolaters, fanboys/girls, etc., who are not only not over it, but who can't seem to get their fill of it (though quite a few of them are full of it)."

 

Actually, the thread is a question as to whether anyone else is over it without seeing it, which with your interpretation would also open the discussion to people whose answer to that question would be NO. If you really try to narrow the question to suit your tastes, though, you would also be shut out since that path would also exclude anyone who has been to Hamilton, leaving it to Mr. Roxy (and a few others) to weigh in strongly about how he was over it as soon as he saw the ticket price, before any other element of the show needed to be considered.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 12:54pm

newintown said: ""I have had the same reaction as you about his views of the financial system that Hamilton created.   That's where the discussion needs to be."

It's true that most people (particularly in the arts) are not interested in delving deeply into conversations about financial/political systems. But I'm glad that you raise this question - isn't there something a bit off about a work that uses actors of color to champion a man who helped foster a financial system that keeps most people of color powerless and poor in this country? And doing that in a sincere, rather than non-accusatory or satiric manner? It's not important whether anyone agrees with the idea, but the conversation isn't even really happening, almost as if asking any questions about the depth of thought in the show verges on mortal sin."

You are really truly misapprehending just about everything, and offering facile objections to things that make no sense. 

First, all of our founding fathers did good and bad things. jefferson gave us our freedoms, but also gave us a slave-sanctioned version of them, and also gave us states rights, something that has done more bad for poor and minority folks that we have ever been able to overcome. Hamilton gave us the banks-the sine qua non of America's emergence on the world stage, but yes that system was corrupted in such a way that it hurts poor people and POC. But that sidebar does not alter the fact that Hamilton gave us federalism, which is the ONLY reason we have civil rights, Obamacare and the myriad of benefits provied to those in need etc. Without Jefferson et al we have no religious liberty or freedom of speech, association etc. Without Hamilton we have Mississippi. I encourage the discussion you are having here, but seriously don't let yourself get bogged down in some jejune platitudes that remind me of a republican debate circa 2016. You're better than that.

[newintown]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 1:07pm

Hogan, I always appreciate your posts, but I think it's very possible to disagree with a person without resorting to nasty statements like "You are really truly misapprehending just about everything, and offering facile objections to things that make no sense." That sort of personal snark certainly doesn't encourage me to read further.

[Tom5]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 1:14pm

To learn and appreciate history Broadway Musicals are not the way to go. First reading (Not the internet, although it might serve as a good index of books) Second, many good teachers. Third: Documentaries (Ken Burns class)  Four: Motion pictures and theater.

[haterobics]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 1:29pm

Tom5 said: "To learn and appreciate history Broadway Musicals are not the way to go. First reading (Not the internet, although it might serve as a good index of books) Second, many good teachers. Third: Documentaries (Ken Burns class)  Four: Motion pictures and theater."

 

You're skipping the spark to get on this path to begin with, which Hamilton could provide for some people.

[Comden Green]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 1:31pm

JM226 said: "he also changes and rewrites history. don't like that and it not good for young students attending the show.

 

"

I wonder if you could elaborate.  I haven't been able to find any inaccuracies in the cast recording.   

[Kad]

Posted: 1/20/16 at 1:42pm

Given that it's a 2.5 hour musical of a complicated man's entire public life, there is a great deal that is glossed over or condensed for time. Depending on your views, some of the things glossed over (Hamilton's precise political theory, his more unsavory mechanications) are major and their omission is to the piece's detriment. I don't think there are major inaccuracies other than conflation of dates or combining personages into composite characters- there are, however, undeniably omissions that give a larger perspective.

But it's a piece of entertainment, ultimately, and not a scholarly article, so I don't really dock it for minor historical inaccuracy or lack of nuance and complexity. I think to expect that level of historical analysis is to expect an entirely different work than what was intended.