This summer marks the 10-year anniversary of Hamilton‘s debut on Broadway at the Richard Rodgers Theatre. In commemoration of that, and on the persistent recommendation of a coworker, I have decided to finally watch the musical in the form of its recording on Disney+. Below is my review.
Needless to say, Hamilton has been extremely well-received in the decade since its launch. The original Broadway production secured a record 16 Tony nominations, notching 12 wins, and the critical reception has been overwhelmingly positive. Its cultural impact was so great that it forced the US government to rescind plans to remove Alexander Hamilton from the country’s $10 bill. Therefore, there is likely nothing novel or interesting that I can add to the conversation, but I will express my thoughts nonetheless.
The premise for the show, in Lin-Manuel Miranda’s own words, is “America then, as told by America now.” In that vein, Miranda casts actors of diverse ethnic backgrounds to play the founding fathers and other historical figures. The underlying message, as is made clear throughout the musical, is that America is a country created, built, and held together, by immigrants.
The genius of this message is that it is crafted specifically for the stage. Take, for instance, the Schuyler sisters in the play. In this rendition, they are cast by Phillipa Soo, Renée Elise Goldsberry, and Jasmine Cephas Jones—each of a different ethnicity. However, while this would run the risk of feeling like forced tokenism in a feature film, in the theatre, it provides the musical with the charm of a small town production. There is no space for fretting over the appearance or race of casting choices in the local theatre—the best talent available must be selected. While talent availability was no actual concern in Miranda’s rendition, the casting provides a secondary meaning: the stage serves as a metaphor for America, standing as a beacon beckoning the world to send its tired, its poor, its huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Just as the burgeoning nation of America would go on to reach stupendous heights as a global superpower, so too would Hamilton reach the zenith of musical production as a broadway smash hit.
The music and lyrics throughout are decidedly modern. This fits with the core premise of the show, and has the added benefit that hip-hop lends itself well to the exposition-heavy dialogue which Miranda leans on to provide historical context. The lyrics are also deftly tailored to the persona of each character, from George Washington’s stoic and fatherly advice to Burr’s shifty and evasive rhetoric. Hamilton himself is given insightful, passionate dialogue mixed with surprisingly crass retorts.
All of the actors in this production portray these personas well, in my layman opinion. As for the historicity of the personalities assigned to each, to the extent that it is possible to know, they vary widely. Most seem to be reasonably within the bounds of plausibility, with the most notable exceptions being Thomas Jefferson and George III. Daveed Diggs’ Jefferson, in particular, is jarring. Diggs portrays him as a boisterous and gallivanting showman. In reality, Jefferson was, by all accounts, a shy and aloof person, whose stutter prevented him from finding much success in oration. (Jefferson’s writing proficiency and extensive education was the true source of his political success.)
As for George III, his portrayal as a cartoonishly entitled and incompetent tyrant provides welcome comedic relief. It does not, however, provide accurate historical context. George III was largely a popular and effective king, especially in comparison to the other Hanoverian kings. This feeds into a broader criticism I have of Hamilton. Miranda makes little to no attempt to add nuance to the mythos of the American Revolution. In Manhattan’s Theater District, under the watchful eye of Lady Liberty herself, Miranda shies away from portraying anything she might find sacrilegious.
Nascent America, in Hamilton‘s telling, is a bastion of liberty and human rights, a shining city on the hill, and that truth is held to be self-evident. Sure, there are a few quips which acknowledge some of its flaws, such as repeated references to the stain of slavery on the credibility of the ideals in the Constitution, Angelica Schuyler’s remark that the Declaration of Independence ought to have mentioned women’s unalienable rights too, and, of course, Hamilton and Lafayette’s bonding over the ability of immigrants to get the job done. However, to me, none of those statements feel bold, original, or even particularly interesting.
Make no mistake, the American Revolution without question had a positive impact on global politics and world events. The adoption of a founding constitution, the explicit separation of powers, and the ratification of the Bill of Rights all had a lasting effect on political and human rights worldwide. However, the cinematic drama of a common people fighting a singular tyrant does not have much basis in the historical record.
For instance, George Washington first made a name for himself commanding the Virginia Regiment during the French and Indian War. In this role, he fought for the British army against the French. At this point, it’s safe to say he did not consider the British to be promoters of tyranny in the face of the liberty-loving French, though his anger at the refusal of the British military to promote him as a colonial helped shape his later views. Similarly, the principal offending acts of the British government in the revolutionary wars, such as the Stamp Act, the Tea Act, and the reactionary Coercive / Intolerable Acts, were enacted by parliament, not by any royal decree of George III. Many among the revolutionary Patriot side even considered that George III’s will had been circumvented by corrupt ministers. To this day, the parliamentary constitutional monarchy system of government promoted by the British remains arguably more effective at achieving political and social liberties than the American federal presidential republic. None of this nuance is to be found in this musical.
Once Hamilton moves past the revolutionary era and into the early days of the United States, its accuracy is much more grounded. The depictions of the struggles of the country to move past Washington’s leadership, the growing sense of partisanship, Hamilton’s embroilment in the nation’s first sex scandal, and his ongoing feud with Burr all seem accurate enough in spirit, even if the specifics sometimes get lost.
Overall, Hamilton is a charming look at a complicated man once largely forgotten by the American general public, and a shining example of how to turn potentially dull historical material into engaging popular entertainment.