We sent critics to the long-running shows they've never seen. Do they still stand up?
Posted: 4/24/26 at 11:22pm
I thought this was fascinating, enough that I begrudgingly downloaded the substack app just to keep reading it. I thought it was lovely how people still enjoyed Les Mis and Phantom despite them feeling like a different era of musicals (which of course they are), but I did end up bristling a bit at the review for Hamilton. I wonder how much of it is cultural differences with a British cast/audience, but while I could see how Hamilton feels dated in a way (overly optimistic about the US, reverence for government, less of a revelation with colorblind casting), I was a little shocked they found the writing itself bad (though they did also flub when saying Hamilton had a daughter rather than a son). I thought they completely missed the point around Room Where It Happened and in general didn't seem to "get" the show and how smartly plotted the structure was.
Posted: 4/24/26 at 11:51pm
Yeah, you kind of have to talk about Hamilton the way music fans talk about Boston's self-titled album, for lack of a better example. You can acknowledge that it's dated, no longer as cutting-edge, stylish or relevant as it once was. You can even say it's a bit corny... but for all that, it's MASTERFULLY constructed for what it is, in a way few have equalled.
Posted: 4/25/26 at 12:59am
The feature was interesting. As for the Hamilton review, there are plenty of reasons for people not to like the musical. Like all art, it’s not for everyone, especially a decade on. But yeah, it’s always embarrassing when a critic misses the entire point of one of the major songs in the musical. Then again, she was having trouble following the lyrics.
But I saw the proshot in theaters last September, fearing that the show’s inherent optimism would leave me sad or cold. And I was reminded that Lin-Manuel Miranda’s construction of the show is not just genius, but genius that hasn’t really been replicated in the years since. (The performances of the original cast don’t hurt, of course.)
Posted: 4/25/26 at 4:41am
"Then again, she was having trouble following the lyrics. "
This is why I always found it so fascinating how successful Hamilton became. In my opinion it's an extremely dense, complicated piece of art not a kind of mass-audience common dominator type event. Drafts of the show were reviewed and feedback provided by Sondheim. I was completely shocked that it made it so big and I remember even writing on this very board that while it's all very well they can sell out the small Public, good luck trying to do that on Broadway every night.
I'm still not convinced that the masses who saw it/see it/liked it/like it really even fully appreciate its writing (perhaps clear from this review as an example). Can anyone really take in all of those lyrics the first time? It requires a little bit of study.
Part of me wonders if there is "Hamilton" the cultural event and phenomena and "Hamilton" as a musical text that is written on the page. I can't help but feel the public was often swept up in the cultural event more so than the material. Maybe I should have more faith in audiences.
Posted: 4/25/26 at 6:08am
darquegk said: "but for all that, it's MASTERFULLY constructed for what it is, in a way few have equalled."
I have nothing to add, or rebutt. I just wanted to see it in print, again.
Posted: 4/25/26 at 12:18pm
Glad to help, Lin.
