Hamilton - Broadway Musical Review | Is Hamilton Really A Masterpiece?

[thoseplaysdoh]

Posted: 5/11/17 at 10:26am

YouTube Link: HAMILTON BROADWAY REVIEW

Those Plays-Doh review the Broadway show Hamilton: An American Musical, answers the question "Is it really a masterpiece?" and takes a look at its LGBTQ representation!

 

[gypsy101]

Posted: 5/11/17 at 1:27pm

it's been around for years now, this isn't the timeliest of reviews... but yes, it's a masterpiece

[thoseplaysdoh]

Posted: 5/11/17 at 9:11pm

Haha, yeah we say in the review we are a bit late. But we hadn't decided to or weren't ready to do a review channel yet at the time, so here we are :). The reason we ask that question is because the reasons people say it's a masterpiece is because it's something totally new and different than anything ever made. We think it's an amazing musical, but from where we come from, it has elements that we have heard and seen before. Why do you call it a masterpiece?

[JBroadway]

Posted: 5/11/17 at 9:22pm

I actually think it makes perfect sense to review the show now. Now that the Hamilton-mania has died down a bit, I expect a lot more level-headed, objective critiques of the show will surface. And I think we should have more reviews of shows that are written/recorded after some time has past. I think there is more perspective. I love Hamilton, but I think it's far from perfect. 

Great video, guys! 

[broadwaysfguy]

Posted: 5/11/17 at 10:14pm

yes, it's a masterpiece and i hope and pray Miranda has a few more in him he wants to share.

Like one of my favorite musical teachers said, there is no "perfect" musical and I think it will be great to look more objectively at Hamilton beyond the hype and hysteria bubble of the first years of the show.

I did see it on tour again a month ago, and have to share its a  thrilling ride from start to finish, and I will have to be mindful not to compare other upcoming musicals the very very high bar of Hamilton....

 

[ladypresent]

Posted: 5/12/17 at 9:07am

the music and orchestrations and lyrics are a masterpiece. The direction and choreography aren't. They actually take away from the music IMO. I would rather sit at home and listen to the recording then go see it again. Many times you don't know who is talking, you cannot understand the lyrics, the dancing is repetitive and confusing and its not focused enough. 

I think many directors and choreographers could have worked with that brilliant score and won a tony and the show would have succeeded (imagine alex timbers with that music..or rob ashford or chris gatelli)

[mpd4165]

Posted: 5/12/17 at 9:34am

ladypresent said: "the music and orchestrations and lyrics are a masterpiece. The direction and choreography aren't. They actually take away from the music IMO. I would rather sit at home and listen to the recording then go see it again. Many times you don't know who is talking, you cannot understand the lyrics, the dancing is repetitive and confusing and its not focused enough. 

I think many directors and choreographers could have worked with that brilliant score and won a tony and the show would have succeeded (imagine alex timbers with that music..or rob ashford or chris gatelli)

 

"

Ya lost me at Rob Ashford. 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 5/12/17 at 10:43am

Thanks, I really enjoyed watching this.

Does a musical's claim to masterpiece status necessarily rest on whether or not its score breaks new ground?
Can a score be masterly even if it arguably isn't innovative?  (many, for instance, might persuasuviely argue that South Pacific's score is a masterpiece, but to what extent is it stylistically unlike anything anyone ever heard before?)

Also, Chernow, while recognizing that Hamilton and Laurens may have been lovers, persuasively argues that similarly demonstrative expressions of affection between men in the 18th century were common and not conclusive of a sexual relationship. What strikes 21st century ears as "gay" certainly might have had different meaning in the 18th century. 

From my own personal reading of the letters, one possibility is that Hamilton may have understood that Laurens had a strong erotic attachment to him, which may have flattered even honored Hamilton, but which he didn't return in kind notwithstanding the mutual boycrush.  Just one possibility.  

But I agree with Chernow we will never know.   
The inconclusiveness of their physical relationship raises several interesting questions for a librettist.  How to tackle dramatizing their affection given that we don't know whether or not they were lovers?  Would it have been preferable to present the ardor between these two men without telling us whether they had sex?  Would some consider that a cop out?  Would it have been preferable to go all the way with it?  Or would that have been considered by some objectionably speculative and sensationalistic?  Given this quandary (lose-lose proposition?), might it not be better to simply leave it alone, particularly considering how many other parts of the story need to be told?

Which brings us to the King.

I respectfully disagree that his presence or his numbers are superfluous.   Not only are George's song and reprises great pop, they entertainingly underscore exactly why the American revolution turned the world upside down, sparklingly contrast the old and new world orders, and dramatically highlight old and new world anxieties.  

Updated On: 5/12/17 at 10:43 AM