Creative license. How much is too much?

The simple fact is it doesn't really matter. Americans don't study Hamilton in school at all, really. He might be mentioned a few times in passing but that's really it. This is a case where I don't think the alteration of real life matters when it comes to the drama of the show. It works better dramatically if she's single and chooses to sacrifice that opportunity for her sister (and for societal pressures).

It's not the first or the most severe amending of history done for a musical.

Practically all of THE SOUND OF MUSIC is fake.

It is sort of a problem in that audiences really want to believe that any show "based on" real events is a factual history lesson. No dramatic narrative (play, musical, movie, TV show) is a documentary; they must play loose with facts in order to be entertaining. 1776, Funny Girl, Gypsy, Hamilton, The Sound of Music, The King and I - these shows are all entertaining, and all only vaguely/tenuously connected to any facts.

However, we all know people who see these shows and then discuss the characters and events therein as though something real and new has been learned about history. It's unavoidable - the human urge to feel easily informed.

LizzieCurry said: "If you think about it in terms of who lives/who dies/who tells your story... and tells it on Broadway, this is another lesson in how a story can change depending who tells it.

"

Very interesting observation, and correct. 

There is fidelity to history (or other source material).  And then there is the fact that each play or libretto (or novel or screenplay) has its own particular needs defined by plot, theme, form, tone, conflict, character, etc.   These particular needs define the work's artistic truth.

What would be too much change?  Change which serves neither historical (or other source material) fidelity nor artistic truth.   
And, in addition, change which is so notoriously inaccurate that it might backfire by alienating the audience (by offending the audience's own fidelity to the historical or source record) from appreciation of the work.

Caveat: sometimes notorious inaccuracy, though potentially jarring to the audience, is all the more in harmony with a work's artistic truth precisely because it is so jarring.  Rather than offending the audience through revisionism, that revisionism defines the work for the audience.  For instance, departure from even very well known fact can highlight absurdity, irreverence and or comic dimension which might be an important part of what makes the work work.    

Updated On: 1/13/16 at 03:04 PM

Kad said: "Jefferson also wasn't one of those who confronted Hamilton about Reynolds- James Munroe was (Munroe actually was as sizable of a rival to Hamilton as Madison and Jefferson- part of the Virginian contingent- but Miranda combines elements of Munroe's contributions with that of Jefferson, Madison, and Burr). That's more "substantial" than altering Angelica Schuyler's history, as she is an extremely minor part of history. She and Hamilton did have a very close and intellectual relationship, which is the important aspect that Miranda conveys.

The fact is: real life makes for lousy storytelling. "

Another adding to that, was Hamilton resigned from the Treasury Department in 1795 to make more money in private practice, while Washington was still President. John Adams never fired Hamilton. 

Updated On: 1/13/16 at 03:28 PM

dave13 - you're just touching on the most obvious major lies and changes. LMM actrually changed a lot more and compressed the timelines. Another fun fact, for example: Laurens was in prison during Hamilton's wedding. He couldn't have actually been there in real life.  Hate when people change history to suit their show

"Hate when people change history to suit their show."


Wow.  

These are the kind of people who are all, "Ohhh, I don't read fiction, I just don't have enough time.  I read business books and historical biographies."

Which are 1000% accurate you know because they are non-fiction.

He would have been her conscience if only she would have listened.

Also, Jesus received 40 lashes from a microphone cord, just like in the original production of Jesus Cripes Superstar!

Updated On: 1/13/16 at 06:11 PM

hork said: "There's never been a dramatized movie or a piece of theater (except The Laramie Project, I guess, and maybe others I don't know about) that's completely historically and factually accurate. Why should Hamilton be any different, or have different expectations placed on it?

"

You're right. It shouldn't.

But Namo is right that even "non-fiction" presents no more than one view of history and must necessarily select and delete the facts in order to create a comprehensible account. Playwrights such as Anna Deveare Smith and Emily Mann who use nothing but direct quotes from the public record would still agree that they too "alter" history in the very act of editing. The same may be said of THE LARAMIE PROJECT, and I imagine its creators would agree.

PalJoey said: " 

It's only too much when the person applying for the creative license can't drive.

"

LOL. Funny and also true.

IMO only, if one is going to complain about artistic license, then one should also make a case that some essential truth has been lost or distorted in the taking of that license. I don't know HAMILTON well enough to say.

I also don't know whether Thomas Jefferson played the violin, but in my view, by humanizing the Founding Fathers and dramatizing the compromises made to form the Union, 1776 tells a more important truth than any it may distort.