Blind "Hamilton' casting

LMM said today that the roles in Hamilton could be played by either gender. Well, the male roles at least. Imagine the possibilities that are now available when it comes to future casting.

Updated On: 11/13/15 at 01:31 PM

I feel quite confident that Renee Elise Goldsberry could play any role in Hamilton.

madbrian said: "I feel quite confident that Renee Elise Goldsberry could play any role in Hamilton.

I'm quite confident that Renee could plat any role...ANY ROLE.

If you actually read the quote he says that it won't happen on Broadway because changing keys is too difficult (as if he'd have to do it himself) but that he looks forward to high school productions casting either gender in the founding father roles.

Thats true. Still interesting though.

it's not an excuse, it's a euphemism.

So many gay boys will be in their glory playing the Schuyler Sisters... Werk!

I think Peggy/Maria Reynolds would be fascinating if played by a man. The Reynolds Affair is one of the hardest parts of Chernow to dramatize, Hamilton's decisions (or lack there of) gnarly and complicated, and Miranda found fascinating ways into it. I happen to love "Say No to This," its Sam Cook soulfulness is just a great hook, and think it could be really fun to watch a great male divo/diva take on the Maria part.

Updated On: 11/13/15 at 08:33 PM

Yeah, go back, look at "Chorus Line"'s original production. Joe Papp and Bennett certainly kept the casting the same til the end. No black Sheila. No black Cassie. Morales wasn't even consistently played by a Latina, certainly on the road (I saw two National companies, Italians as Morales; Paul was also cast with white Anglo boys over the years). When the cash flowed, the casting at the Public stayed very traditional. The absence of African-Americans in roles other than the designated one -- Richie -- now seems startling. Has there ever been an African-American Cassie in a major production? We finally got a black Sheila, a role that almost invites such casting too easily.

In theory, I wouldn't mind seeing some gender-blind casting in a production of this show some day. A female Hamilton would be interesting; a lot of women could relate to being told to "talk less, smile more" and feeling they "gotta holler just to be heard". However there would also be a risk of over-egging the show with too many Relevant Issues and New Insights.

Although LMM was just referring to future school productions with his comment, if I were to gender-blind cast on Broadway, I think Janelle Monae (who was mentioned in the celebrity replacements thread for Angelica IIRC) would make a great Jefferson.

Another thought for school productions in 20 years' time - it would be fun for a teacher to cameo as King George, for laughs and to emphasise the young, rebellious America vs old Britain theme. Although it would be nice for a high schooler to get to play the role too.

I actually think it's a great idea. The first time I saw the show, I didn't love it... As you may or may not recall... Ahem. For all of its diversity in casting, I still find the women's roles somewhat lacking. Charlie Rose made a comment in his piece that "women get equal time in Hamilton" or something along those lines, and I thought, no they don't. Also interesting that his piece and the additional material spent very little time on the female characters. (Not just the original piece about LMM but also piece on the making of the album). LMM has said he wants the founding fathers played by what America looks like today. Why not include women in those roles. I just think it's a cool idea.

haterobics said: "Glittergrrl said: "Charlie Rose made a comment in his piece that "women get equal time in Hamilton" or something along those lines, and I thought, no they don't."

A lot of that time is spent swooning. I'd like something more substantial. If we have blind casting for race, why not gender. I like the idea.

Compared to actual history texts, they get a ton of time.

"

Ultimately the treatment of women is the main reason why i found Hamilton unsatisfying when i saw it in April. If the premise of the casting decisions was to present the story of america 'then' told by america 'now', then they missed the mark by over 50%! They still cast the women as people whose only job was to f&ck the menz, while the menz did all the significant things and made all of the significant decisions. LMM seems capable of correctly recognizing that while white men were making those historical decisions, america has moved on since then and that people of non-beige color now make many important decisions and do many important things, and he admirably wanted to portray that progress through his casting choices. It's a shame he did not recognize and/or want to portray the similar progress that has been made by women of all colors, who now also do significant things and make important decisions, and instead of also portraying that progress in his casting choices, he decided to stage the show as if that fact is either non-existent or unimportant, rendering the 'progress points' nearly moot that he gets for advancing non-beige men beyond the point where they were in the historical narrative in the way that he portrays them onstage.