Is Hamilton Over-Directed?

I bow to no one in my admiration for Hamilton. I think what Lin-Manuel did is mind-bogglingly amazing. A history lesson that is fun, exciting, inspirational, incredibly moving. Just amazing.

I recently saw it for only the second time, and from better seats then I saw it from the first time, dead center vs. extreme side close to the stage. While I absolutely loved the writing, all of the performances (by the current cast), and was thrilled to be in the theatre where it happened, I also felt that there was too much stage busyness at times ...it has to have the hardest working company ever, to the point of occasional overkill. They NEVER STOP. When the performance was over, I shared this view with my wife, who thought I was saying sacrilege (I am pretty sure she could sing the score backwards if pressed); but a friend we were with thought the same thing...she didn't love the production as much the second time because she also felt the busyness of the staging was sometimes distracting.

Now, I watched the documentary last night. As I watched the interpolated scenes from the show, I had the same reaction a few times, i.e., 'why do they have the whole cast participating in this scene'.

Bottom line: I think the live performance would be even better if the Blankenmeuler (sic) and Kail had occasionally taken a 'less i more' approach with the staging.

Thoughts?

Updated On: 10/22/16 at 11:40 AM

to me what they do is thrilling but you of course don't have to find it so. I would note that "non-stop' is kinda a theme; it even gets its own song.

I agree. The movements are not random, movement for the sake of movement. Yes, there's a lot going on at any given time, but to me it's meaningful. I think in the hands of a lesser director and choreographer, it would be visual noise.

Uh no.

I'm as big a fan of the material, and certainly a fan of the production as well, as anyone. Was besotted with the recording and then, within weeks of its release, the show itself (October 2015). And yet I have reservations about the level of -- what words nail the reaction -- busyness of some sequences. When I raised this about 6 months ago at the other board, I was shouted down by every other post, schooled as to what I (supposedly) didn't understand about the thematic and theatrical motif-driven reason(s) for the power-driven choreography. I am loathe to even mention this (though I did with a friend over drinks earlier this very week), because reservations about this production are so readily met with disgust.

But since you dare to bring it up: I find the use of the ensemble repetitive at times, and wish there was simply less of it. When I see clips out of context, they sometimes remind me of those a glitzy thematic episode of 60s variety specials. The sleeveless costumes, the waving of the rifles, the on-the-floor-then-up-again movements. It is certainly active and fluid and (appropriately) stylized. But -- to me -- the visual shorthand is not always as fresh as the show itself. Maybe the sequences that are stunningly brilliant and original, i.e. "Satisfied" (breathtaking, unlike anything I've ever seen) and the final duel (heart-stopping, as time literally halts), are such interpretive tent poles, some of the merely good musical theater moments in between pale in contrast. I don't have the answer, but I do believe we should not feel shamed for simply pointing out subjective responses.

HAMILTON is a masterwork, period. If we have reservations about its staging, it's not because we're too dumb to appreciate either vision or execution; it's because we see a slight gap between text and how it is rendered. Oh, and it's not "backlash," (another criticism I was slapped with) it's just another response.

Updated On: 10/22/16 at 01:48 PM

I don't disagree with Jarethan or Auggie27. I also found the direction in "Hamilton" too busy.

Hyperactivity on Hamilton's stage during certain (I'll credit you, many) moments serves a purpose. Ensemble members aren't just running around and moving things for the sake of doing so. There is meaning behind it. Layers. You can't absorb it all in one sitting, and that's what makes it so special.

I agree with the OP. I understand it's a stylistic choice, and I think it's mostly very well excecuted. But in my opinion, it's too much. I think it works for many/most of the numbers, but there were several points in the show at which I remember thinking "really? Even here?"

As with all things in theatre, however, it's a matter of taste.