Clickbait garbage "think piece" on Hamilton

[dwwst12]

Posted: 7/25/16 at 10:36pm

I shouldn't even dignify this by sharing it, but I saw this ridiculously verbose and ill-informed piece about Hamilton making the rounds on social media today. Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere on the boards -- I did my best to look through the first few screens and didn't see it.

 

Even if the author makes a couple of nitpicky-but-acceptable political points here and there, I found it to be mostly ridiculous and infuriating.  My takeaway is that he hasn't even *seen* the show, and gives no indication he knows anything about musicals -- or perhaps theater -- at all.

 

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 12:00am

It is verbose, to be sure--- though certainly far less than the item in question. It could have used some pruning --- just like the opus it examines. As analysis, it's certainly no worse than the tons of worthless hype and praise heaped upon the thing.

 

"My takeaway is that he hasn't even *seen* the show, and gives no indication he knows anything about musicals -- or perhaps theater -- at all."

This made me laugh. As if the show's fawning admirers in the media and political arena know so much about musicals! I'd love to ask some of our esteemed arbiters of culture like talk-show hosts and elected officials what they think of Redhead and The Girl Who Came to Supper!

 

 


 

[elphaba.scares.me]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 12:06am

It's not garbage IMHO. It's a critique that reads like a thesis. Totally fair for this writer to call out some of the Hamilton incongruities.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 12:34am

I saw it on FB, and the person who wrote it is an asshole throughout the piece, but I completely agree with the message. 

Updated On: 7/26/16 at 12:34 AM

[macnyc]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 12:37am

I'm glad to see After Eight branching out and getting freelance writing gigs. 

[Roland von Berlin]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 12:48am

I think it's an excellent piece just in terms of its intelligence and sharp, tight writing. I suspect that posters here take issue with the author's utter lack of respect for the show itself, and his fearless airing of toxic subject matter--race, elitism, and so on.

(Although I question whether Thomas Jefferson actually "raped slaves." It's very popular now to assume the worst of everyone in power in the old days, and he certainly had at least one affair with one of his slaves, and this author refers to it. But do we know that he raped them?)

It's a long piece, to be sure, but then this writer doesn't want to rush in, land some criticism, then race out. He takes his time to marshal a considered argument against the way the show has been received. And he does raise a very valid point in that it has been an excusive item, a big expensive sellout.

 

But that's show business. It was impossible to get into My Fair Lady when it was first playing, yet it was unquestionably an event of the age. It's still the buzz term for "Big Hit Musical," and probably will remain so, because Hamilton has so many meanings for us now--the use of hiphop, the racial casting, and so on--that you won't be able to say "As big as Hamilton" without opening a can of worms.

Remember, you don't have to agree with anything whatsoever in an article to find it interesting.

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 12:58am

A lot of people consider it rape for someone to have had an affair with their slave as there is no real way a slave could say no. Plus Jefferson is supposed to have started the affair with one of his slaves when she was a teenager and he was in his 40s, making her too young to consent these days.

[rcwr]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 1:07am

(Although I question whether Thomas Jefferson actually "raped slaves." It's very popular now to assume the worst of everyone in power in the old days, and he certainly had at least one affair with one of his slaves, and this author refers to it. But do we know that he raped them?)

 

Yes. We do know. When one person is a slaveowner and one person is enslaved, it is always rape. 

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 1:24am

As for my views on the article itself, it raises some good points and some nonsensical ones. I think it's silly to suggest that journalism (political or otherwise) is what has solely made Hamilton popular. I've been watching Hamilton's journey from the start as I'm sure others on this board have. There were three defining moments in Hamilton's success (or hype) where it took a huge jump - 1. the release of the cast recording 2. the Grammys appearance 3. the Tonys appearance. People are connecting with this material that they can consume in their own homes and then choosing to buy tickets. To suggest that you have to pay $2000 to sit in the worst seat of the house is just plain untruthful. The cheapest Hamilton ticket (excluding the lottery) is affordable to many more people than just the 'government elite' as the writer claims. Yes, it's difficult to get a ticket because that is the way Broadway works with in demand shows.

The slavery issue is a conflicting one. This is a musical, it is a 2 and a half hour piece of entertainment, not a documentary. To include all the nuances of slavery and the views of the people that are depicted in the show would make it much longer and much less a piece of entertainment. I don't agree that Jefferson is portrayed to be likeable. He is - like King George III - the comedic villain of the piece. The audience may laugh along with them, but they're not agreeing with their views. I have seen people praising Daveed Diggs but I have not seen any Hamilton fans praising Thomas Jefferson himself. I do agree that Washington's views on slavery are largely washed over, except for two incredibly subtle moments that you probably wouldn't realise unless you read about the intentions of the actors and writers - the 'not yet' in Yorktown and Washington bowing his head in shame when Eliza mentions slavery at the end. Historians are conflicted about Hamilton's own opinions on slavery, with Ron Chernow writing in his biography (that the show is of course based on) that Hamilton was an ardent abolitionist. I can understand the point of view that there should be more focus on slavery, but then this is a musical about the life of Alexander Hamilton who whilst surely encountering slavery throughout his life, seemed to not let the issue impact his life too much one way or the other. If this musical was entitled 'Washington', I would understand their point further.

As for his comparison to the American's Got Talent thing, that's just completely stupid and not even worth talking about. The article also completely erases the fact that Hamilton means a lot to many people of color.
Updated On: 7/26/16 at 01:24 AM

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 1:41am

"But if nobody could criticize Hamilton without having seen it, then nobody could criticize Hamilton."

Is he assuming either a cast album doesn't exist or can't reach the general public, or the cast album for a sing-through musical can't speak much for the musical itself?

 

"Miranda found that by trying to write a song about his main characters’ attitudes toward slavery, he ran into the inconvenient fact that all of them willfully tolerated or participated in it. That made it difficult to square with the upbeat portrayals he was going for, and so slavery had to go. Besides, dwelling on it could “bring the show to a halt.” And as cast member Christopher Jackson, who plays George Washington,notes: ‘‘The Broadway audience doesn’t like to be preached to.” Who would want to spoil the fun?""

OMG. Can't believe he's saying this. When you put in a show a number where nothing happens, it does "bring the show to a halt." It's called tonal integrity. If the author is adequately versed in theater, he would probably know that in Miss Saigon they cut "Too Much for One Heart" because nothing really happens in that number despite somewhere Lea Salonga calling it the most beautiful song she's ever heard.

Updated On: 7/26/16 at 01:41 AM

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 1:53am

Also the bit where he says 'most of the African-American performers are just dancing in the background'...well yes ensembles do tend to form the majority of a cast.

[CindersGolightly]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 2:01am

It isn't garbage. I agree with the bulk of what the author said.

[gypsy101]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 2:11am

He's pointedly incorrect about that "most of the African-American performers" thing. Of the main original cast, Renee, Oak, Chris Jackson, Daveed and Leslie are all African-American (I believe Jasmine is mixed). In fact, I counted each member of that cast, and their ethnicities were as follows.

African-American: 12 (3), Hispanic: 5 (2), Caucasian: 4 (1), Asian: 1
(numbers in parentheses are swings / understudies).

Updated On: 7/26/16 at 02:11 AM

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 2:15am

Thanks for the clarification. He's pointedly incorrect about quite a few things in that article (which I guess is what happens when you write about something you haven't seen) which unfortunately diminishes the effect of his other points, some of which have substance.

[Consistency]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 2:33am

Huh. Well that was a frustrating article. In large part, it's actually an intelligent and compelling read that, I think, raises some incisive questions about racism and diversity in America. He's using "Hamilton" to make a much broader point, which is a perfectly valid rhetorical choice - the problem is that his criticisms of the show are really weak and thus undermine the rest of the arguments he's making. The "Hamilton" stuff ends up feeling shoehorned in as a way of adding "controversy" and thus garnering extra readers. (Hey look, it worked.) 

I mean, I could certainly do without the author's condescension. Are New York Times writers and aspirational 15-year old kids really the "worst people in America"? Even as hyperbole, that's a pretty stupid claim. Of course, by making it sound like "Hamilton" is only admired by the "elite," the show becomes easier to dismiss.

Unlike the author, however, I have heard people quoting "Hamilton" - and I don't exactly live among taste-makers and Buzzfeed writers; nor are my friends and family the type of people who have ever felt beholden to those types. To put it another way, I'm quite confident that my nieces and nephews aren't joyfully singing along to "Hamilton" because The New Yorker told them that that's the thing to do.

I also think he misjudges the artistic merits of the show, but that's of course a much more subjective argument. I have no problem with someone criticizing the show - I don't quite love it myself - but his attempts at criticism only seem to reveal his own ignorance of the conventions of musical theater and the realities of live theater in general. Yeah, $1200 tickets are expensive, and I've been critical of the skyrocketing ticket prices (even if I understand the economic forces that drive them) - but I, who am rather decidedly not a part of the elite, still managed to get my tickets for under $200 just a few months ago. He also ignores the producers' efforts to make the show more widely accessible - see, for example, the $10 lottery and the free tickets for schools.

Yeah, most people still won't get to see a production of the show for years - but "wider America" does, in fact, already have access to the show in the form of its perfectly affordable cast recording. And by most accounts, us "non-elites" are loving what we hear. 

Anyways... It's a thoughtful piece that invests too much in a weak takedown of a widely loved show - which is too bad, because otherwise it has some interesting things to say. Of course, without the "Hamilton" connection, it's unlikely that anyone here would be talking about it. So... Success?

Updated On: 7/26/16 at 02:33 AM

[dwwst12]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 8:20am

Anyways... It's a thoughtful piece that invests too much in a weak takedown of a widely loved show - which is too bad, because otherwise it has some interesting things to say. "

You all make good points, and I'm glad I posted this.  For me, though, the "weak takedown" is more than that.  It's unfair, uninformed, and bitter-sounding enough to actually stop me from caring about the rest of his argument.  Perhaps this type of clickbait piece -- all too common now when something becomes popular -- is just a pet peeve of mine.  And perhaps *I'm* the closed-minded one to put my hands over my ears when someone is this abrasive and obnoxious.  But it's not a style of debate that I respond well to.  (Sorry, After Eight -- I mean, "it's not a style of debate to which I respond well."

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 8:43am

"And perhaps *I'm* the closed-minded one to put my hands over my ears when someone is this abrasive and obnoxious."

Perhaps. I wonder, though: you used the expression, "clickbait garbage," as the title of your thread. Would you consider that to be "abrasive and obnoxious?"

[newintown]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 9:15am

After reading two other pieces linked on this site (the lazy and sloppily written piece on Ben Curtis, and the moronic Out Magazine essay about the nitwit with a crush on a Silence! cast member), this was refreshingly well-written and intelligent. You may not agree with the writer's points, but they are infinitely better considered, researched, and expressed than 99% of articles linked on this site, most of which border on illiterate. It certainly isn't "clickbait;" it's a legitimate piece of cultural critique from a legitimate publication - to insultingly dismiss it as unworthy of attention is a very Trump-ish tactic.

Two good quotes:

"...it contains hip-hop, an edgy, up-and-coming genre with only 37 years of mainstream exposure..." Much of the hype around Hamilton keeps repeating this trope, that the show reflects the music of now, of today, as though rap and hip-hop haven't been around for decades. It the equivalent of someone from 1980 saying "The Andrews Sisters are the music of today." Popular culture is currently in an odd phase of complacent stagnation; audiences seem to want more of what they've consumed for 40 years. Witness how the sound of popular music changed enormously in the 20 years between 1945-1965 - compare The Andrews Sisters to The Rolling Stones, who are still touring to packed arenas today and singing the same songs the were singing 51 years ago to hordes of screaming fans who think of the songs as contemporary, rather than loving them from a sense of nostalgia.

"Contemporary progressivism has come to mean papering over material inequality with representational diversity." It does seem that many people behave as though they believe that it's more important to show that they care about issues than to actually try to find a solution for them. The argument is "it's a start!" But when does one move beyond the start to the next step?

Updated On: 7/26/16 at 09:15 AM

[dwwst12]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 9:44am

After Eight said: "Perhaps. I wonder, though: you used the expression, "clickbait garbage," as the title of your thread. Would you consider that to be "abrasive and obnoxious?"

Yes, I probably would.  Sometimes I fall victim to the human tendency to fight fire with fire.

Updated On: 7/26/16 at 09:44 AM

[MinervaMoon]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 9:44am

gypsy101 said: He's pointedly incorrect about that "most of the African-American performers" thing. Of the main original cast, Renee, Oak, Chris Jackson, Daveed and Leslie are all African-American (I believe Jasmine is mixed). In fact, I counted each member of that cast, and their ethnicities were as follows.

African-American: 12 (3), Hispanic: 5 (2), Caucasian: 4 (1), Asian: 1
(numbers in parentheses are swings / understudies).

I didn't personally do a count, but wanted to add that Daveed and Chris Jackson (x) to my knowledge both have parents of different ethnicities. I also agree with your calling everyone by one name aside from Chris Jackson; somehow he's never just Chris.

 

[mariel9]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 10:41am

I actually didn't finish this piece the first time I saw it because I couldn't tell if it was an ignorant clickbait outrage piece or a satire of an ignorant clickbait outrage piece. I just now finished it because of it positive response here, and I have to say, the author does himself no favors by burying his real points after multiple paragraphs of ignorance and hyperbole. Such as:

1. Someone who can't tell the difference between "when I say ho, you say yo" and Hamilton shouldn't be writing about hip-hop, musical theatre, or possibly any music at all. It's also a common racist criticism of hip-hop that it's all the same and it's all stupid. It's unfortunate that his opening salvo mirrors a racist trope.

2. Only media elites have seen the show? According to a quick back of the envelope calculation, approximately 540,000 tickets were sold in Hamilton's first year. That doesn't include its run at the Public. So, really? Only media elites have seen the show? He also may be completely unaware of the cast album, given how much he carries on about how no one outside of the media elite could possibly be aware of the show.

3. He dismisses the possibility that people actually like the show. It's a favorite gambit of After Eight. It's tacky and insulting when he does it and it's tacky and insulting when Alex Collins does it. Mr. Collins spends many paragraphs speculating about why people like the show and never seems to consider the possibility that people like it because it's really good.

4. He's completely dismissive of the people of color who wrote the show, star in the show, and have enjoyed the show (except for the Obamas). Does he even acknowledge them as people with agency? His sneering dismissal of Hamilton without acknowledging how intensely many people of color have responded to it is pretty ugly.

5. He's been quietly told that most African-Americans in the show are nameless dancers. He has no idea what he's talking about.

On to his actual points:

"Blackwashing" is an interesting issue. I've hoped someone would write an intelligent, incisive article about that potential critique of Hamilton, but this is not that article. His other critiques seem to want Hamilton to be more of a history lesson that it is. I think it's worth discussing what Hamilton leaves out and why, even in a critical way. But this article does it really sloppily and misses so much of the point of the show that it undermines what he's trying to say. A show like Hamilton can serve as a gateway to deeper, more thoughtful reading or writing about Hamilton and the founding era without demanding or expecting that Hamilton itself will include a sophisticated analysis of economic protectionism.

One of Lin's goals was to make the founding era interesting, alive, accessible, as opposed to the dull dry education a lot of us got. He did that (for many of us). And it's up to the audience and teachers and writers to take that interest and channel it and build on it and critique it. I would love to see more critical  analysis of Hamilton, but ultimately I think this article is a complete failure.

 

[LYLS3637]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 11:59am

I actually quite enjoyed the author's take down of the media hype surrounding the show.  

My issue comes from the discussion of slavery. I was waiting for the author to at least acknowledge that whenever the Founding Fathers are discussed, whether in the classroom or in the media or in art, the issue of slavery goes away. Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Sean Hannity, and every single whack job on FOX News continuously blow their load about how brilliant and incredible the Founding Fathers were-- completely ignoring the issue of slavery. Not justifying the fact that it's omitted in HAMILTON, I was just hoping for a little recognition that the omission in HAMILTON is barely the tip of the iceberg. 

[Broadwayhunk]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 12:32pm

It's not bad writing, but he engages in some rather obvious rhetorical fallacies regarding this work with what appears to be an agenda.  

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 12:53pm

"but he engages in some rather obvious rhetorical fallacies regarding this work with what appears to be an agenda. "

 

And those who have bulldozed this thing into our consciousness day in, day out...  Does it appear that they have an "agenda?"

Updated On: 7/26/16 at 12:53 PM

[gypsy101]

Posted: 7/26/16 at 12:56pm

Minerva, "Chris" is a generic enough name that I felt the need to differentiate (probably because I wrote out that list before I looked at the cast list to count their ethnicities and couldn't recall if there was another Chris in the cast). All the other people I mentioned have unique enough names or are more widely known, I didn't mean to suggest he's less important.

Also, my main issue with the article itself was that it seems as if he's also never seen the show or even listened to the cast recording but is for some reason super-judgmental of it. Why someone would write a critique of something they haven't experienced in any way is beyond me (even After Eight allegedly sees things before giving his overblown opinion on them).