New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
#1New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 12:42am
I've been very clear about my love of this musical and I respect thoughts to the contrary. That said...
I found this review intentionally contrarian, and (I don't use these words lightly) mildly racist and sexist. Additionally, I feel the reviewer misses the mark, but prides himself on finding the "real" story behind Hamilton. To wit, the last paragraph of the review: Hilton believes he (alone...) has isolated the central relationship of the musical, and pretends he was the first to figure it out. Thus, his review is relevant.
I personally felt it rather obvious that the Hamilton/Burr relationship trumped any of the other relationships depicted. I could expound (on this and other points), but I was curious what others thought here. I appreciate disagreement, and am open to it, but I felt this article deserved conversation.
New Yorker Review
#2New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 1:05amI really don't understand how he so thoroughly misunderstood the second act.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Buddy Plummer2
Understudy Joined: 5/4/12
#2New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 2:15am
^and he called Phillipa Soo dull... And how he said the female characters were paper thin...
... Yeah I'm pretty sure he didn't watch the second act
MyLife
Broadway Star Joined: 12/2/06
#3New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 8:55amHe wasn't paying attention from the start, as evidenced by saying Thomas Jefferson appears first entrance alongside George Washington and John Laurens. If he watched Act I and the punchline of the Act 2 opener makes it pretty clear that Thomas Jefferson isn't in the beginning of the show at all.
#4New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 10:17am
Whereas the first act is about a man clawing his way to power through sheer force of will, the second act is about the inevitable loss of that power and the psychic toll it takes on Hamilton and his family. We need the bravado and punch of Act I to feel the despair and desperation of Act II.
There is so much more at play in Act II than a mere love story, yet it bothers me how he characterizes the show's love story as if love stories in general are trite and frivolous in and of themselves. There is something insidious about how he casually devalues the show's love story in one grand sweeping gesture, as if we are all supposed to stroke our mustaches, take the pipes out of our mouths, and mutter "Enough of these girly trifles like love and feelings. We want more war and guns and blood!"
TodayTix Code: XGAXA
#5New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 10:21amWell, there's also the issue that the second act *isn't* a romantic love story. To characterize it as such is false or at worst willfully obtuse.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
vitamins
Understudy Joined: 6/15/06
#6New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 10:22am
I agree, and I was particularly appalled by the line "Miranda’s men aren’t doing the usual “gay” work of the musical, which is to say singing about their feelings (at least, not at first); they’re guys in a circle jerk, and the lube is ambition, chicks, and power."
Gross. Not just wrong, disgusting.
#7New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 10:31am
'Well, there's also the issue that the second act *isn't* a romantic love story. To characterize it as such is false or at worst willfully obtuse.'
Well...exactly. (SPOILERS) What makes the last 30 minutes so affecting is that it's not, in any way, a traditional romance or love story. It's the story of reconciliation and forgiveness and grief, and it is entirely overwhelming. The last 30 minutes are what take brilliant musical theater and turn it into something completely transcendent.
July 20th cannot come fast enough. Oh my poor 15 year old niece...she's gonna have to deal with some ugly crying that evening.
#8New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 10:39am
Kad: Totally agree.
This feels like an author realizing he can maximize the readership for his review if he frames it as being the one dissenting voice of reason among a sea of near-universal blind praise for the show. It's condescending posturing--"People who like the show are just swept away by its masculinity. Bro stuff, man!"
Barf.
TodayTix Code: XGAXA
#9New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 10:40amWhat a weird, agenda-driven review.
neonlightsxo
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/29/08
#10New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 10:55amI'm not going to read the review judging by the comments here, but I'm wondering about why and how a publication like the New Yorker even publishes a view that's that off base and agenda driven. It is literally the only review like that, did his editor not think that was weird? Do they want to be wrong?
#11New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 11:16am
Because Hilton Als is utterly full of himself and believes that his pan "should only add to the production’s gold-star success, since nothing succeeds like controversy."
...ya dude, the success of Hamilton will be enhanced because of you. Nothing sells tickets better than reviews containing the phrase "circle jerk."
#12New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 11:18amHis harping about the female characters is also strange. The treatment of Eliza and Angelica was really smart- and Miranda was able to offer bold female prospectives in a very, very masculine story. But all this guy is into is the depiction of Maria Reynolds- essentially an ensemble role?
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#13New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 11:19am
"People who like the show are just swept away by its masculinity. Bro stuff, man!"
Yes...that's EXACTLY what I responded to...the bro factor.
I will say the only thing that could have been somewhat interesting is if they played around with gender a little more. Like a male Sally Hemmings or some such thing. But that is a MINOR thought about a major work.
#14New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 11:26am
Hilton Als is a distinguished African-American writer on cultural issues. He admits at the beginning that he's going to seem "rather like Debbie Downer at a buoyant fête."
I would have thought he would have loved it.
Pootie2
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/1/14
#15New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 11:27amMaybe he's like that WSJ woman Joanne Kaufman, the Broadway bolter...
#BoycottTrumplikePattiMurin
neonlightsxo
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/29/08
#16New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 11:44amI don't think he should get a pass just because he's "distinguished African-American writer on cultural issues." It's an absurd piece. The things he says just aren't true.
#17New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 11:47amAnd...as a proud, non-prude, sex-positive slut, that 'circle jerk' comment was ridiculous and unnecessary.
#18New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 12:20pmI haven't seen Hamilton, so I can't comment on most of the review, but add me to the chorus of people who found the circle jerk comment totally unwarranted.
I am a firm believer in serendipity- all the random pieces coming together in one wonderful moment, when suddenly you see what their purpose was all along.
#19New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 12:21pmYes. Not very distinguished.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#20New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 12:22pmAnd...how is a circle jerk not at least a *little* bit gay?
A Director
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/18/07
#21New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 3:10pmHilton Als is gay. His Hamilton review tells us more about him than the show.
#22New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 5:18pmThis review was truly perplexing. Hamilton isn't everyone's taste, but reading this, I wondered if Als had seen the entire show or was basing his review on what he heard, saw as b-roll, etc. His article, as others have said, felt very agenda driven. It's like he saw the show with his eyes closed.
#23New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 5:23pm
Hilton Als is a longtime out-and-fierce black gay queen. His 1996 memoir was a pioneering book about race, sex and gender called "The Women." In it, he described himself as a "negress" and talked about the "culture of what he dubbed the black gay elite as the "gay nigerati."
He published a book of essays in 2013 called "White Girls," which the New York Times said "blends the cultivated and the vulgar with interpretive sophistication and unbridled verve. Als’s prose is sterling precision, his head a disaster area, a wretched, beautiful self-exhibition you can’t wrest your eyes from."
NEW YORK TIMES: SUNDAY BOOK REVIEW Shades of Influence: ‘White Girls,’ by Hilton Als
Borstalboy
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/9/04
#24New Yorker's Hilton Als Review of Hamilton
Posted: 3/10/15 at 6:55pmWHITE GIRLS is a truly fantastic collection of essays. I haven't seen HAMILTON, so I can't really speak to his review here.
"Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.”
~ Muhammad Ali
Videos