Posted: 12/18/19 at 10:38am
https://www.vulture.com/2019/12/re-reviewing-the-book-of-mormon-and-hamilton-in-2019.html
And not one person in the comments section defends either show.
Updated On: 12/18/19 at 10:38 AM
Posted: 12/18/19 at 11:40am
I cherish my memory of the OBC of HAMILTON and fear that for those of us who saw that cast, no replacement cast could match it, competent as they may be. Lightning-in-a-bottle.
Posted: 12/18/19 at 11:46am
Posted: 12/18/19 at 11:52am
Posted: 12/18/19 at 12:00pm
She can dislike them, but... a take down is rather ambitious.
Posted: 12/18/19 at 12:16pm
I saw BOM at the invited dress rehearsal, then again last summer -- and with few exceptions, the current cast comes nowhere close to the magic of the originals. Now that they know they're THE comedy to see on Broadway, they're overplaying most of the jokes and missing all of the subtleness.
Posted: 12/18/19 at 12:23pm
Could the arguement not be made for every show? Everything is a snapshot of the time that the piece was created. That's why we have to "adapt" or "rework" older pieces (My Fair Lady and Kiss Me Kate come to mind). But also, the production value stays in that time. When I see Wicked, it seems very early and mid 2000's today. The designs don't change. A lot of the Cameron Macintosh shows are dimly light, and that screams 1980's to me. They aren't refreshing the visual of the show with passing years.
Think what Beauty and the Beast could be today, opposed to the design in 1994. (Side note: I loved the costume and set design of the orignal production).
Updated On: 12/18/19 at 12:23 PM
Posted: 12/18/19 at 12:24pm
I think some (all?) of you are missing the point of the article entirely. It is less about original cast vs. new cast and more about the sustainability of the show itself as a piece of theatre, its themes and how it holds up today.
Then again, it’s not a good article because there’s so much filler about casting agents and training programs churning out performers to replace and fill the roles in these juggernauts that will keep running no matter what someone at Vulture thinks of them... so it’s all a waste of time, really.
Updated On: 12/18/19 at 12:24 PM
Posted: 12/18/19 at 12:27pm
Posted: 12/18/19 at 12:33pm
Posted: 12/18/19 at 12:42pm
I think Shaw's critique of Hamilton's audience make is spot on though, and how it truly will effects and hurts a performance of the show. I have a friend who is a teacher has been desperate to see the show since opening and just could never afford tickets. I saw online that a new block was going on sale a few months ago and mentioned it to her and said "If memory served me correctly the rear mezzanine was priced at only $69, at least that was true back when the show opened." She was very concerned she would forget to purchase them at on sale and asked me if I could help her out, so I was able to get an early access code for the new block, and decided I might buy her a ticket for a birthday/Christmas gift. That was until I went online when my code was activated and saw that the price of the last row of the mezzanine was set at $199!!! This honestly infuriated me as I know its a business, but the show has been running for 4+ years to SRO crowds and would think at this point they could afford to keep the last row of the theater "affordable". I reached out my friend to tell her I could't in good conscious let get her a ticket for that price, let alone let her pay that much for a seat in the last row. After chatting she called her father, a well to do NYC lawyer, who in the end literally did what the article stated, used his corporate expense account to purchase 4 tickets, 2 for him and my friend and 2 for "possible clients".
I get the show is a must see zietgiest musical, and they offer the lottery, but when "fighting the oppression of the elites" is significant theme and the fact that the show is purposely colorblind cast among actors of color playing white men and women, to emphasize the "immigrants we get the job done" aspect of the history, it hurts the message when those you are portraying can't afford to see it. Its somewhat reminiscent of the days that black and other minority performers would be in a show at a theater and yet couldn't afford tickets to see the show due to racial pay discrepancy.
At least Book of Mormon even in its you had to wait 2 years to get tickets heyday, still offered and still sell its rear two mezzanine rows for $69.
Posted: 12/18/19 at 1:14pm
Posted: 12/18/19 at 1:20pm
Not for nothing...and this isn't "in defense of" per se...the stuff that Parker and Stone get away with on South Park speaks volumes. They literally go for EVERY demographic in terms of offensiveness. Is it really a shock to anyone that Book of Mormon's "humor" works the way it does?
And is the popularity really that surprising? South Park has been on television for over 20 years. Clearly America enjoys the skewering of other groups as long as it's even across the board.
Posted: 12/18/19 at 1:21pm
It's a very intellectually shaky essay. Not a very auspicious beginning for someone I thought more of than this. But oh well, Sara was gonna be missed anyway.
Posted: 12/18/19 at 1:24pm
I can't comment on the current audience of Hamilton, but Book of Mormon is an abominable show written by two of the worst people in popular media in the last couple decades (who haven't a: worked for Fox or b: raped anyone, to my knowledge) and it blows my mind that it's still pummeling along.
Posted: 12/18/19 at 1:52pm
bdn223 said: "I think Shaw's critique of Hamilton's audience make is spot on though, and how it truly will effects and hurts a performance of the show. I have a friend who is a teacher has been desperate to see the show since opening and just could never afford tickets. I saw online that anew block was going on sale a few months ago and mentioned it to her and said "If memory served me correctly the rear mezzanine was priced at only $69, at least that was true back when the show opened."She was very concerned she would forget to purchase them at on sale and asked me if I could help her out, so I was able to get an early access code for the new block, and decided I might buy her a ticketfor a birthday/Christmas gift. That was until I went online when my code was activated and saw that the price of the last row of the mezzanine was set at $199!!! This honestly infuriated me as I know its a business, but the show has been running for 4+ years to SRO crowds and would think at this point they could afford to keep the last row of the theater "affordable". Ireached out my friend to tell her I could't in good conscious let get her a ticket for that price, let alone let her pay that much for a seat in the last row. After chatting she called her father, a well to do NYC lawyer, who in the end literally did what the article stated, used his corporate expense account to purchase 4 tickets, 2 for him and my friend and 2 for "possible clients".
I get the show is a must see zietgiest musical, and they offer the lottery, but when "fighting the oppression of the elites" is significant theme and the fact that the show is purposely colorblind cast among actors of color playing white men and women, to emphasize the "immigrants we get the job done" aspect of the history, it hurts the message when those you are portraying can't afford to see it. Its somewhat reminiscent of the days that black and other minority performers would be in a show at a theater and yet couldn't afford tickets to see the show due to racial pay discrepancy.
At leastBook of Mormoneven in its you had to wait 2 years to get tickets heyday, still offered and still sell its rear two mezzanine rows for $69."
Well said. My favorite line in the piece was "The mainstream’s best trick is that it commodifies even the things that critique it." The producers should be ashamed that the essentially unwinnable lottery is the only way to see the show for under $200.
Posted: 12/18/19 at 2:03pm
Pashacar said: "bdn223 said: "I think Shaw's critique of Hamilton's audience make is spot on though, and how it truly will effects and hurts a performance of the show. I have a friend who is a teacher has been desperate to see the show since opening and just could never afford tickets. I saw online that anew block was going on sale a few months ago and mentioned it to her and said "If memory served me correctly the rear mezzanine was priced at only $69, at least that was true back when the show opened."She was very concerned she would forget to purchase them at on sale and asked me if I could help her out, so I was able to get an early access code for the new block, and decided I might buy her a ticketfor a birthday/Christmas gift. That was until I went online when my code was activated and saw that the price of the last row of the mezzanine was set at $199!!! This honestly infuriated me as I know its a business, but the show has been running for 4+ years to SRO crowds and would think at this point they could afford to keep the last row of the theater "affordable". Ireached out my friend to tell her I could't in good conscious let get her a ticket for that price, let alone let her pay that much for a seat in the last row. After chatting she called her father, a well to do NYC lawyer, who in the end literally did what the article stated, used his corporate expense account to purchase 4 tickets, 2 for him and my friend and 2 for "possible clients".
I get the show is a must see zietgiest musical, and they offer the lottery, but when "fighting the oppression of the elites" is significant theme and the fact that the show is purposely colorblind cast among actors of color playing white men and women, to emphasize the "immigrants we get the job done" aspect of the history, it hurts the message when those you are portraying can't afford to see it. Its somewhat reminiscent of the days that black and other minority performers would be in a show at a theater and yet couldn't afford tickets to see the show due to racial pay discrepancy.
At leastBook of Mormoneven in its you had to wait 2 years to get tickets heyday, still offered and still sell its rear two mezzanine rows for $69."
Well said. My favorite line in the piece was "The mainstream’s best trick is that it commodifies even the things that critique it."The producers should beashamed that the essentially unwinnable lottery is the only way to see the show for under $200."
These days, tickets for Hamilton in San Francisco are frequently on Goldstar, with some as low as $49. I get that's still not pocket change for a lot of people, and I'm sure the producers aren't thrilled. At the same time, I'm really glad that more of my friends and colleagues (who don't typically drop $200+ on a Broadway show) are able to go see it. It's been really fun reading their Facebook posts.
It sounds like Hamilton in New York is still quite the tough ticket. My mom visited from the east coast last week, and we got tickets in center orchestra Row K for about $130ish.
Posted: 12/18/19 at 2:30pm
Posted: 12/18/19 at 2:39pm
Please tell me how a woman with a BA, MFA, and a job TEACHING at a university is a college student? How gross and condescending.
Posted: 12/18/19 at 2:39pm
I wonder how much of this is due to the lack of involvement from the original creative team.
The creative teams for both shows are off doing other projects and I wouldn’t blame them if they had trouble find the time to return to their respective shows. Casey Nicholaw has like what seems like a million other shows in the pipeline, plus he has 2 other shows currently running on broadway, it was 3 just recently. Robert Lopez has frozen stuff to work on, and well Matt and Trey have South Park. The same goes for the Hamilton creative, who have a billion other projects.
To compare with a show like Wicked, where Joe Mantello barely has any other work. When he does it’s almost always a play and it’s only a limited engagement. He’s able to make more time for Wicked, because that’s his only show he has to worry about.
Resident Directors and associates are great and all, but then again they don’t have the same mind or thought process as the original creatives.
Updated On: 12/18/19 at 02:39 PM
Posted: 12/18/19 at 2:42pm
Charley Kringas Inc said: "I can't comment on the current audience of Hamilton, but Book of Mormon is an abominable show written by two of the worst people in popular media in the last couple decades (who haven't a: worked for Fox or b: raped anyone, to my knowledge) and it blows my mind that it's still pummeling along."
You gotta get some TEGRIDY
Posted: 12/18/19 at 3:07pm
East Village said: "So New York Magazine now sends a college student out to write theater reviews. Not interested "
Helen Shaw has two degrees from Harvard. Where did you go to school?
Posted: 12/18/19 at 3:31pm
Posted: 12/18/19 at 3:54pm
I didn't read that article as a take down. She said she really enjoyed them first time out and still recognizes several good things about both. They haven't aged particularly well, especially BOM, because times continue to change, as do sensibilities. I saw RENT when it first opened and thought it was terrific. I went back 9 years later and was surprised by how passe it seemed. What was contemporary in 1996 was cliche by 2005. It happens.
Posted: 12/18/19 at 4:00pm
Call_me_jorge said: "I’d rather get a review from a college student than a boomer..."
If that comment was meant to be funny, it wasn't. If it was meant to be ignorant, you hit the jackpot.
