Courtesy of CNet.com
The hit Broadway show “Hamilton,” created by Lin-Manuel Miranda, memorializes the lives of our founding fathers, especially Alexander Hamilton. Prior to the historic date of July 3, 2020, when “Hamilton” became accessible to the public via Disney+, fans, historians and world leaders alike were charged up to $1,150 for a ticket to see the musical sensation.
By sharing “Hamilton” on Disney+ for the low price of $6.99 for a basic subscription, Disney has made this work of art accessible to many who have not had the opportunity to experience live theater. It also serves as a way to educate Americans of the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton. The timing of their chosen release date, the day before America celebrates its independence from Britain, is impeccable.
The 11-time Tony award-winning musical “Hamilton: An American Musical” is truly a remarkable accomplishment by Miranda in collaboration with director Thomas Kail, choreographer Andy Blankenbuehler and music director Alex Lacamoire. The show focuses on the pride, wit, failures and legacy of Alexander Hamilton through his early life, time serving under Washington, founding of the United States government and untimely death. While focusing on Alexander Hamilton, Miranda also shares the stories of the founding fathers, King George III, Marquis de Lafayette, Aaron Burr, Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton and Angelica Schuyler through captivating songs.
Through the film, Disney kept the wonder of the live theater production alive while forming deeper connections with the audience through the specific focus on certain characters, moments and facial expressions captured on camera. The camera acts as its own character, allowing the audience to better understand aspects of Hamilton’s life as depicted in the show. This different perspective emphasizes the magnificence of Blankenbuehler’s choreography, which strengthens the narrative between prominent characters. Additionally, the wide camera shots allow the audience to get a better grasp of the lighting design, which greatly contributes to the beauty and emotion in many of the scenes. In a Broadway theater, one may be less able to appreciate the artistry involved in the lighting design and staging, based on the seat they can afford.
From the named characters to the ensemble, the entire cast shined every moment they took the stage. Three character moments were especially essential to the overall meaning of the show and highlighted the importance of understanding our history. The first was George Washington’s commitment to stepping down from his role as president, which Christopher Jackson so gracefully portrayed during the song “One Last Time.” Secondly, the choice to portray the bullet that fatally shoots Phillip Hamilton and his father as a character is remarkable. In the duel scenes, Ariana DeBose dances across the stage as the bullet. Her choreography is filled with emotion as Phillip aims his gun at the sky and Alexander reflects on his life. Blankenbuehler went above and beyond choreographing DeBose as she acts as a harbinger of death in the dueling scenes. Finally, at the concluding number of the show, Eliza Hamilton’s solo dedicated to preserving her husband’s legacy through her work with the Orphan Asylum Society is earth-shattering. Her realization that she has indeed preserved her husband’s legacy is one of the most profound and touching moments in the show. Phillipa Soo absolutely killed this part of her role as Eliza and showed audiences that Hamilton’s story is not only about him.
While Miranda’s musical is based on Ron Chernow’s book “Alexander Hamilton” and is coined under his name, it really is not solely about Alexander himself, but about his fight for independence, friends, life, death, family and legacy, secured by his wife Eliza. Through cinematography, Disney captures the incredible work on stage by recording three performances, which adds to the masterpiece that is Lin-Manuel Miranda’s “Hamilton: An American Musical.”
J Williams • Mar 7, 2018 at 8:50 pm
No one is forcing you to go to Hofstra, you chose to go there, knowing that it’s expensive. Don’t complain about something that was your choice, as you could have gone somewhere else. Second, if you don’t like how much Hofstra chooses to pay their student employees, don’t work for Hofstra. Put some effort in and find a job somewhere else. Third, Hofstra offers mental health services simply as a service to students, they’re not meant to be people’s regular therapists, they are meant for the occasional times that students need some extra help.
Anonymous • Mar 8, 2018 at 2:39 am
The article indicates that the authors knew going in that Hofstra would be expensive. Why would they choose to go to a school without knowing how much they were going to pay? The piece is about the price increases for living on-campus , which already adds to the high costs students and their families are paying. But let’s breakdown this point about high costs for college –
It’s all about the allocation of resources. If students are paying high for school, surely they need to be incentivized. The economy works on that simple price model where the higher the cost, the more rewards need to come. If poor mental health services are being offered to students, on top of unpredictable housing costs and stagnant low wages (which by the way is a bummer for select international students who can’t work anywhere else but on campus which pay low minimum wages), then students will find it harder to stay at the university.
Also, the mental health services offered to students should be services, but the article’s point is that they are not. If students receive healthcare from the university, then why not the same model be applied to mental health care? This is due to stigma of mental health, which again is reiterated by Hofstra’s careless mishandling of its mental health care services. If I play for the Hofstra soccer team and I injure my foot, surely the school will take care of me. However, if I need mental health, my path to getting services will made harder. Colleges are meant to be grounds of cultivating students and nurturing them to become leaders in the world and beyond. Some look at it as a stepping stone to a better job. That maybe, but they still need to have the room for therapy in case they need it. Some public high schools offer counselors, therapists – why can’t a large private institutions like Hofstra do the same?
This is the final point. If Hofstra is to emanate the exact attitude of this comment, then surely it will find it hard to compete against better schools going into the future. Hofstra doesn’t have the storied past of an Ivy-league school or the prestige or name of an NYU. It is disadvantaged, in a sense and this approach towards not taking of its students, only deepens its weakness as a school. If Hofstra is better at cultivating its students, more willing to be innovative with its handling of price increases and student affairs, then it can have serious clout against better schools. If it stays like this and carries the sentiment of this comment, then it will be stagnant for a long time. Taking care of its students will be a win win for the student body and for Hofstra, going forward.