The New York Times: On the morning of May 12, 2020, Lin-Manuel woke up with a jolt. His wife Vanessa noticed his energy (“More than usual,” she commented.) He couldn’t sit still until he’d tweeted the news: “Our Hamilton film. THIS July 3rd. On Disney+.”
Stuck at home during the pandemic, he felt giddy at the prospect of watching the show at the same time as his millions of Twitter followers.
3 comments:
No matter the show, there will always be the critics and the people who don't like the art being performed. As someone who has seen this show multiple times, I have never seen it in the way that people in the article are addressing it. I've only seen it as art and theatre. I never realized how much hate the show and Lin himself were receiving. The article states how "he’d wanted to show them not as monuments, but as flawed humans". This makes absolute sense because they were humans who made mistakes and had flaws, but made history because of their stories. I also never realized how Puerto Rico felt and the controversy about the show in a time of distress. Due to the political state of the world, I understand how the university would have felt and why moving the show was such a big issue for the student and the community. Artists will always have hate and distaste towards them, but that shouldn't stop them from putting up the art they have created.
When it comes to the impact of Hamilton, along with its many controversies, I feel it’s more important to view the musical as a piece of art for its time, not necessarily a political commentary. I say this because, in my opinion, Hamilton’s impact was felt much more significantly in terms of how it defined what a Broadway musical could be. Hip Hop mixed with history and diverse representation, a world which had much been foreign before Hamilton arrived on stage. It truly changed the industry in terms of what was seen as popular and marketable, expanding the audience. On the flip side however, Hamilton’s (as the article supports) politics are almost fantastical in how it idealizes the founding fathers without much acknowledgement to how problematic that representation was. As someone who chooses to see things from a more positive perspective, while also acknowledging the importance of criticism, Hamilton’s (and thus Lin-Manuel Miranda’s) legacy is effective through an artistic lens, rather than a political one. I believe Lin-Manuel Miranda himself recognizes this as he invites criticism from different perspectives on his work.
This article provides a lot of insight into an aspect of the reality of show business: the immense pressure and controversy that can come with it. Hamilton is largely seen as an overwhelming success stateside, a show notorious for how groundbreaking it seemed in 2016. As I’ve more or less observed the show’s evolution over the past decade, its reputation as an American show first and foremost has always preceded it. I was often unaware of the controversy it had generated from across the political spectrum. The Puerto Rico controversy was particularly noteworthy, as I had never heard about it in any history of Hamilton’s run. All of that’s sure to compound, and the article describes this, and had a profound effect on Lin-Manuel Miranda. To grapple with the backlash of a place one calls home certainly cannot be easy.
Post a Comment