Another musical based loosely on real events that you can find on Disney Plus is Newsies (the Broadway version). I think that it has created a bit of interest in some people about the life of real newsies and the power newspapers had in the past, but the actual events in the musical didn't really happen.
The Back to the Future trilogy, especially 1 and 3, are really interesting looks at history through entertainment. Still waiting on my hoverboard, though.
I'm surprised you didn't bring in McKay's other HUGE film (that he wrote), "The Big Short" which is all about historical-fiction of how the 2008 recession was caused by a few. It'd be interesting if you did a full video just on that film.
Well it might sound dumb to say it is however as a non-American, I had never even heard of Hamilton. So going into it I WAS completely unspoiled on the plot.
@My name is Irrelevant I think you are really overestimating how much I care about American history. I know it's not completely accurate. More than a few times, I've found myself googling things like 'Did Martha Washington really name her feral tom cat after Hamilton?' and 'Did Hercules Mulligan f**k a horse?'. I have had some interest and looked into some of the things mentioned in the musical. But in terms of broad strokes, without Hamilton the musical, I would never have heard of that particular found. However WITH the musical, I've learned a good bit about that particular individual that IS true - and frankly, I've learned more about the American revolution and the founding of America than I ever knew, the revolution is covered very quickly in the history lessons in my country's schools.
@My name is Irrelevant That's certainly fair but I think the degree of inaccuracies are overstated. Granted, I have done my research but I'm still not an American and didn't learn this stuff growing up, maybe there's a lot that's I'm just missing. But it strikes me as being largely accurate for the most part and has actually engaged a lot of younger people in a way that has opened the doors and allowed them to learn (and retain information), more than they might have just reading straight from a school book.
@My name is Irrelevant I was kind of in that boat but also did really poorly at history. My history teacher was openly homophobic and single-handedly had the GSA in the school disbanded as it 'infringed on her religious liberty', so also a few others, I made a point of regularly skipping her classes...actually now that I think back, I still got an A in her class but it was not for lack of trying lol I'm not so great when it comes to events and dates (I'm actually getting better at the former, don't think I'm ever gonna get good at the later), but when it comes to profiles and stories about people, that's when it really clicks with me. To use an American example, I couldn't tell you WHEN the constitutional convention was held but I CAN tell you who attended.
When I see a performance like Hamilton, it makes me want to research and find out more about the characters. Before the musical I never heard of John Laurens or Hercules Mulligan, but now I’m better informed. Hamilton is good because it creates interest in US history. I never took the musical Hamilton as gospel.
This is exactly what I was going to write. I've been reading up about the historical figures that I wouldn't have if not for Hamilton. It sparked my interest.
Melissa Richmond Yesssss! It revived my interest in the American Revolution. Two weeks ago, I was in Manhattan, near Wall Street and saw the tombstone of Alexander Hamilton & Elizabeth Schuyler in the churchyard of Trinity church. It made me feel closer to the story and led me to doing more research on Hamilton’s life.
It’s bad because it takes a time where the stories of the people who matter are never told, and it just tells more white rich awful stories but makes them look woke. Hamilton was kept on american currency because of this awful play.
Hamilton actually made me want to look up more history. I also didn't go in expecting 100% historical accuracy. I think it depends not only in the person but the work as well on if biopics make people dumb to history. In my case, they make me want to learn more about events and people.
Same here, I didn’t know crap about the revolution before I listened to Hamilton, nor did I care, but nowadays I read letters from white dudes who died hundreds of years ago to learn more about the period. And I wholeheartedly agree that it depends on both the person and the work as well.
Exactly, this made me go into Hamilton’s life and family legacy. I ended up looking up their family tree and tracking his children. I also sometimes look up interesting lines in the lyrics like “Here’s an itemized list of 30 years of disagreements” or when Lafayette asks for French aid or when Washington dismisses Burr.
I think people need to realize that any historical fiction is never truly accurate and just realize whatever they are watching is still a work of fiction. But I can understand that some people watch like a biopic or something and think that's just the whole truth without doing the research. At the same time, people can learn a lot from understanding the differences between the source and the real life events that they wouldn't have known otherwise. So it's a complicated issue like anything else.
Honestly one of the best biopics out there is The Dirt, the one about Motley Crue. They're fully self aware of their embellishments and omitted details, they often even have Mick Mars look at the camera and point them out
Yeah, I agree. I think every biopic or anything cultural about a person can have elements of truth and lies. It's kind of baked into the medium. To make the thing you have to highlights parts and omit other parts, so there'll always be some some dishonesty or not have a fullly complete picture being painted. If someone didn't do that, they wouldn't be able to fit it into a 2-3hr project.
People need to realize that even HISTORY as we get to know it, from books and documentaries is always an interpretation... usually limited by what sources are available and who's views have been recorded (is what Hamilton wrote in a letter or even another person wrote in their autobiography really truthful or do they leave out certain things that would make them look bad and maybe add things that didn't happen the way as written but making them look great? and of course vice Versa to their sworn nemeses or close friends.) and then additionally edited by the producers/directors to what they WANT to tell about the things they took from said sources. There is a good deal of slant to ANY historical writing, factual or fictional alike. And to work out how much of a slant and to what direction is hard work even for learned historians that can compare dozens or hundreds of reports and even original sources.
"Is Hamilton Bad?" feels like a clickbait title, implying a verdict on its artistic merits, when the video is more accurately an investigation of "Is Hamilton Accurate?" or "Is Hamilton's Inaccuracy Bad for You?"
Abject Permanence it’s really not, it’s not historically accurate but as a musical it is very well written. I don’t understand why movie critics criticize Hamilton when they don’t really have any clue on how theater actually works. How music theory works, or stage positions or anything of that nature.
As an Australian, Hamilton was the first time that I was actually intrigued by American history and ended up spending hours on the Wikipedia rabbit hole looking up the founding fathers and the civil war. Is it wholly factual? No Is it the first time I've been excited by American history? You bet
Me too. I usually study the Viking age, the Roman Empire and currently I’m doing a depth study on Germany from 1919-1945 (summary: the Nazis were hypocritical lunatics) and I somehow got into Hamilton a few months ago and now I’m going to see it when it comes to Sydney next year. Sure most of Hamilton is fictional but I get to flex to my American mates that I know more about their history so it’s worth it. Lol
yep not factual but i prefer you look through other articles other than Wikipedia to make sure what your reading is fact checked bc it can be edited by anyone during anytime
While I understand criticizing Hamilton for promoting historical half-truths, I'm 1000x more concerned with the outright lies being taught in many southern schools about the history of the civil war TO THIS DAY.
@@androdeiculus9712 Depends on what "lies" are being perpetuated, tbh. These days, the schools are scrubbed of any potential causes of the Civil War, other than slavery. When I was in school, we learned about the various other causes that the Southern people had at the time, such as their desire to avoid an income tax being imposed upon them by the Lincoln administration (you can look that up btw).
@@fireballbastard7873 I understand that the civil war was pretty complicated as all international politics are. The way my school taught it (in high school, in middle school it was solely about slavery) was a form of the states rights argument, but the main state right they wanted to preserve was slavery. The southern states wanted to prevent the expansion of the authority of the federal government to stop both slavery and federal interference in the southern states in general. So yes the civil war was about slavery, and it was about anti-federalist sentiment.
@@noahanderson8688 Slavery was guaranteed by the Confederate constitution, but it wasn't wholly... or even mostly about the right to own/keep slaves. The vast majority of people who fought for the South didn't care at all about Plantation Joe and his rights to keep permanent unpaid servants. Hell, he wanted Joe to lose his slaves, because then he'd have no choice but to start hiring. The wealth of the South increased as slavery was abolished, because it meant that the plantation owners spread their wealth and mechanized, rather than being allowed to hoard it and remain stagnant. The issue of income tax, however, affected everyone, rich or poor. That, and culturally, the South was never on the same page as the North. Imagine if England held dominion over France, put an English person on the throne, then they immediately started telling the French that they were going to have to start acting like Englishmen and obeying both English law and customs, in such a way that it would ruin the French identity, and potentially the French economy as well. Know this, and you'll know why the South tried to secede.
How dare you. My great great great grandfather was saved from a dozen vampires by none other than Lincoln himself. The ONLY innacuracy in that movie was the failure to address the thousands of vampires Lincoln actually strangled with his bare hands and a cross, instead opting for a more "arsenalized" Lincoln
Uh no, it is largely biographical. Roughly as accurate as your average biopic. No fantastical elements. The rap is stylistic,.like iambic pentameter in Shakespeare's plays
Yes its very important for people to understand that even if it has biographical elements it is still ment to be for entertainment... Miranda himself pointed out that he wanted the play to be a defense of Hamilton since most of the things we know from him were things his enemies said..
I prefer the term "romanticized history" to "historical fiction" in cases like Hamilton. "Historical fiction" is a term more appropriate for your description of Assassin's Creed and Lovecraft Country where the focus is on the historical period rather than a person. I also love how a channel about Philosophy posits "Is Hamilton Bad?" only to wrongly compare biopics with historical fiction and avoid answering the question. We want to know if you think Hamilton is morally bad!
"Fictionalized" would be better than "romanticized", almost any retelling of history has to romanticize as least a little because that's just how retelling a story works, Hamilton is a different case of actual historical inaccuracies being made to serve a fictionalized narrative.
@@goldenhorde6944 Ah yes good call. I like that. Looks like this one triggered me two years ago. It’s frustrating how Wisecrack has become a channel that arrogantly and aggressively pushes their own ideas rather than joyfully exploring multiple frameworks to view the topic like they used to.
Something that should be noted about Hamilton is that not only does it never claim to be historically accurate, but it also constantly draws attention to the fact that it's a story being told to an audience. There's fourth wall breaks, pop culture references, plus characters are always talking about their legacies and their place in the narrative. The last song is literally about 'who tells your story', and ends with Lin Manuel, as himself, showing the audience to Eliza. Hamilton is actively telling the audience that it's a dramatization for basically its entire runtime, so to criticize it for not being accurate is kind of silly, since that clearly isn't the intention, and it doesn't pretend otherwise.
also it starts with two premises that consciously break "history" ... the use of Rap to transport the story and the inclusivity of the casting to present MODERN DAY population distributions, not the founding fathers 250 years ago... both have their merits, but mean that a lot of leeway has to be taken to fuse this medium with the historical subject.
Yeah, I actually think all those examples you listed were very intentional because the overall themes are that of legacy and memory. I think tho, that a lot of fans, specially the ones on the younger side of things, kind of,, see it as icing on the metaphorical Hamilton cake? Like, i think more fans connect with the characters presented in the musical as just that, characters. And not as "complex historical figures who were simplified for the sake of storytelling". I kind of enjoy fans taking these caricatures and putting them in modern settings because I think none of them would approve. But also, it makes them seem more "#relatable", and erases a lot of the nuance and a lot of the voices of those who they were oppressing. And also, casual viewers are likely to not research afterwards and find out the truth. Nowadays, entertainment doubles as education for a lot of people, and even if it shouldn't be that way, it is, so maybe we should hold more creators accountable for the information they spread??? Maybe the solution is not assaigning the role of educators to entertainers, maybe its a mix of both.
@@dumbumbumbum8649 I disagree. I found it dull, despite my interest in the subject matter. The plot was disparate and poorly paced, the score was abrasive, and the lyrics were fine but not worth getting excited about. Good enough for a B movie, but not Broadway.
The way I see it, adapting a piece of history is like adapting a book; you have to make changes for it to work on the big screen. If a film was 100% historically accurate, then it could be really boring. Two of my favourite films are The Social Network and Amadeus, there are quite a few things they changed for the adaptation. Thankfully, they keep the core of the historical piece. That being said, you do have a certain responsibility to portray history in an accurate, plausible way. Two examples that grossly misrepresent what really happened would be Patch Adams and 1492: Conquest of Paradise. Patch Adams portrays Hunter Adams as a clown who stole from hospitals, practised without a license, was against "the establishment", and liked to goof around than study for his medical degree. The worst change has to be when his love interest is murdered (A real person was murdered, but it was actually a MALE best friend of Hunter Adams). The reason for this change was to "make the film more interesting" according to the filmmakers. 1492 is a film made to stroke the myth of Christopher Columbus' discovery of America. He's shown as "the white saviour" in the film. In real life, Columbus was a genocidal monster who took advantage of the natives to steal their gold, sold their women and daughters to sexual slavery, and murdered anyone who disobeyed his orders. Both these films do a disservice to history since the average viewer will think this really happened. What I'm getting at is that there's a line you have to keep in mind. You can change some of the truth, but change it all and you've made a fool out of everyone, especially yourself.
Amadeus is entirely acceptable because it is so aggressively stylised that it isn't at all pretending to be factual. In some ways that's preferable to The Social Network attempting to be a true depiction, which will always run into the problem that a truly fair representation of a person makes for a terrible narrative for film purposes. Anyone who watches Amadeus and takes it as 100% factual deserves to be made a fool.
Well I think that's the point, whoever makes the movie or play, should communicate their intentions properly. If Lin claimed his play is 100% truthful depiction of Hamilton's life, he would've failed. Instead he kinda wanted to tell a story about american founding father that ALL americans could relate to. At least that's how interpreted his intention 😅 In my opinion, tell whatever story you want, but label it correctly. Historical fiction, loosely based or just based on a true story, biobic... You can come up with other labels. And maybe they could throw few lines in the beginning of the movie or at the end of it, of how they researched the subject and how they decided what include and what not. Or since "making of" and "behind the scenes" and all dvd and Blu-ray extras are so common now that they've almost considered part of the movie experience, they could explain their vision there.
Shoutout to six, which is a musical about the Six wives of Henry, but openly admits in the their songs that this is mostly made up. In their final song they even sing. "but we wanted to say before the drop of the curtain, Nothing is for sure nothing is for certain. All we really know is that we used to be six wives."
Also because they were women, historians don't record their life as much detailed as Henry VIII. I think it was a nod to the fictional part and also empathizing with the great women in history who are often omitted.
@@vanphung7270 There's an additional subtlety... they weren't born important. Certainly, we know more about Elizabeth I than, say, Shakespeare or, indeed, her own mother. And even once they were married to Henry, they weren't important in the same way... same as how you don't hear much of anything about Anne's husband (even though he was a prince in his own right)... compare the length of their Wikipedia articles, for example. (But to your point, compare Anne's sister and her brother-in-law's articles.) It's not just that they were women. It's that being women exacerbated an absence of presumed historical significance from before they were married. And that holds just as true today. It's the difference between Donald Trump jr and Prince George... the one was 42 when his Wikipedia article was created and the other... wasn't even born. (For clarity, Wikipedia was founded in 2001. These articles were created in 2007 and 2013, respectively. Their fathers' articles were established in June and August 2004, likewise respectively.)
That is literally not true... the creators went to huge lengths to be historically accurate. The only incorrect fact was when Anne Boleyn refers to “1522 came straight to the UK” when the UK hadn’t been created yet. The lyric you quote is a comment on historical interpretations, not on basic factual errors. I interviewed the creators as part of my academic research into tudor historical fiction.
@@DaniCavenderHandley oh no I don't mean it like that! They definitely did their research with this musical, I mean that they personality-wise changed them all to be more modern. The whole story even takes place after they all died.
I also think that Hamilton framed Alexander as a poor guy who was more aligned with the "working class" of the time, when in reality he grew up to be of a higher class and was part of the party that thought only educated (rich) people should vote. I always thought it was interesting that so many people who disagree with that viewpoint (at least who I know) were and are still so obsessed with Hamilton. I think it's a great show but I was never like a stan or anything
i mostly agree, but wealthy does not equal educated. You can get educated the hard way despite being born poor and you can be rich and not ever learn crap (like a certain person in a well known ellipsoid stateroom). Monetary wealth opens doors, it does not guarantee you actually pass through them.
He’s a gross and awful figure made woke and all the stories that actually matter are erased. People were learning to reject this nation’s historical myths and Hamilton warped that process.
I see it like a rag to ritches story. He got rich by reading greatly and writing poetry in a small British isle in the Caribbean. Went he got to America/New York, he further became notable due to his wit against Samuel Seabury's attack of the Convention. All of this lead him to notability by the rich of New York, thus they helped him to become the man he was.
If we find out our current administration drinks human blood but walks in the daylight, it could turn out very differently. The trips to Ukraine weren't to get dirt on Biden, but a quest to recover Dracula's coffin.
For me; I take Hamilton as a story about the trappings of ambition and legacy. To be so obsessed with making a name for yourself that you end up pushing away those who love you and ignoring the smaller things in life, only for one thing to come crashing down and leaving you with nothing. History may not be perfect, but sometimes the lessons of the past can be what teaches us today.
Wisecrack: "some works of art fall into the uncanny valley of truth but the stakes are low." [Wisecrack shows a clip of the movie 300] The whole Persian community: WHHHHHAAAAAAAAT?
I think they mean the stakes are low because the movie is so over the top and ridiculous that no one is likely to take it seriously. It's like the South Park episode on the founding fathers. It's so silly and cartoony that no one is going to march into their history class and say "But what about the part were the first Wednesday of every month is ice cream day?"
@@averagejoe6617 Well, I am genuinely surprised but certainly can't blame them. Never would have thought anyone would even give a second glance to such a silly film.
Pretty much everyone I know who really did like Hamilton ended up reading a lot more about the real history of the events depicted, which is something I really don't see often. It made me get the Chernow book which fills in a lot more detail, but when going through it I do also get why the changes were made for the play. The musical isn't really just supposed to be a history lesson. It has its own themes that it's author is interested in and wanted to explore. For example you have the Hamilton-Burr rivalry being a central part of the story and with both characters being portrayed as philosophically opposite to one another, and they just keep running into each other. In truth, they didn't really seem have much of a relationship at all before the war, and were both much more nuanced than they are in the play. But having their personalities clash and them repeatedly brush up against each other makes the play a better work of literature, so I'm still glad it's there.
In fairness, they said Jefferson "basically missed the late '80s." The war ended in the early 80s. But yes, as the late 80s are summed up in a really short span and Jefferson is not in the first act at all, it does give that impression.
That is also how I remember it, but Hamilton felt more like a play filled with shoutouts and easter eggs for history nerds than one originally intended as an educative experience. A lot of Miranda’s lack of nuance or explanation becomes forgiveable if he assumed he would be reaching a more knowledgeable audience.
“Is Hamilton Bad” No. It might not hold up as an piece of that portrays its real life characters and their History accurately, but it doesn’t need to. It’s still a fantastic piece of art in its own right.
It's actually really interesting when you read the book on the development of Hamilton the musical the approach that Lin Manuel Miranda took when writing the musical. It was very much "write a good story" first and "only use fact" second. He was aware that the simple nature of stories doesn't lend itself to as much nuance as you'd need to describe the life of a real complex human being who kind of did a lot of shit in his life, so that's not what the musical is about. The musical is about the rivalry between Hamilton and Burr and everything that had to happen to lead up to the final conclusion of that rivalry, because when reading the part of the biography that Lin read and thought would make a good rap album. So he very much made choices on what to include based on the question "does this further the story." A notable example is the third Cabinet Battle that was supposed to be addressing slavery but was ultimately cut because in the end, nobody actually did anything in either direction so it didn't improve the story even thought it might have added some nuance.
Serpentine 812 don’t get me started I’ve written about 5 essays on everything wrong with the greatest showman and I’m trying to move past spending so much time on a film I hate
Legit one of the worst works of historical fiction. Completely butchers and sugarcoats Barnum's legacy and it doesn't even manage to be a good musical in the process.
Wonderful film and musical. Don’t care about it being accurate. It’s fiction based on a real person, that’s it. If you want historical accuracy read a book, watch a documentary or a movie that actually strives to be historically accurate.
Roman00 I’ve sworn of getting in long arguments about this film but I just want to say it should have further differentiated itself because he did BAD things and it’s also unfair to the performers and slaves he abused as well as Jenny Lind who was a kind and generous woman who doesn’t deserve most people knowing her as a home-wrecker when she did nothing of the sort. I’ve strongly disliked PT Barnum since before the film but I also dislike the film on its own merits and think it’s lowkey problematic. I won’t respond to any other comments telling me to just enjoy the film because this isn’t my first rodeo.
Great take. Something that always bothers me about some historical fiction or documentaries is when they portray a narrative that is just incomplete or has a couple made up events thrown in. When we're believing 90% of the movie, it's much easier to swallow fictional takes as well. I believe Chernobyl had a couple of these too.
I think maybe being not an American makes this easier to deal with. If you're not taught American nationalism and patriotic dogma from birth, Hamilton doesn't seen like it's in this uncanny valley of truth. It seems obviously heavily stylised, and that's fine. It's more like a creation myth for America than a historical account of its founding. Analogous to Shakespeare's Henriad.
Hamilton himself makes a joke about Martha Washington naming her cat after him and says "This is actually true" clueing us in that other things may Not be true.
I know I'm getting old, because I'm watching people discover stuff I thought everyone already knew, like "historical fiction contains fiction." Man, if the inaccuracy of historical fiction is upsetting your worldview, just wait until you hear about the inaccuracy of things that claim to be historical facts...
"Is historical fiction a useful tool to get us jazzed about the story of America's founding and the exhilarating history of constitutional law or is it just going to confuse everyone on their AP history exam?" This statement, which ends this video, is a microcosm of everything wrong with this musical and everything wrong with the critiques of it, and also the critiques of those critiques (ie. this video). The argument in this video, from beginning to end, is essentially that the critiques of the musical are invalid because they are petty or pedantic. Look at the first shot across the bow (0:13), which happens immediately out of the gate and sets up the video: it pokes fun at what is perceived as a knit-picky critique. Essentially, this implies all the critiques of the play are merely knit-picky, and, as he says later, historians generally laud Hamilton for its historicity. But, again, this is blatant rhetoric on the part of the video's writer. The historicity of the musical is sound in that the events play out in the general way that they did and there aren't huge historical issues as in a movie like "Braveheart" for example, which pretends to depict the true history of William Wallace and really gets no where close the historical man, or the historical issues with a movie like "Gangs of New York," which has its historicity issues but never pretends to be anything other than a stylized version of what life was like in the Five Points in the 1860s. For _Hamilton_ that is not the case. The history is mostly fine. The problem is the persona. And this is what is infuriating about this video; it is intentionally obfuscating this very valid critique of the musical. The main problem with _Hamilton_ is that it is tone deaf. Alexander Hamilton, the actual historical persona, doesn't really exist in popular awareness outside of maybe the $10 bill and the duel with Burr; add to this the fact he was an immigrant and he is a perfect choice to be glorified. The problem is that Hamilton was not in any way a proponent of the poor; he used that rhetoric but he supported the Constitution the way it was originally written. Unpropertied people were not guaranteed voting rights; the landed men would vote for Congress and the Electoral College, the latter of which would vote for the President on a one time basis then be disbanded; and State Legislatures would vote for the Senate. There is only one direct popular vote there: Congress. And think about what "popular" (i.e landed white men) means at this time, and still, Hamilton, Madison and the other framers of the Constitution want to give _as little_ direct power to the people as they possibly can. That's what Alexander Hamilton was all about. He *pretended* to be in favor of the everyday person (as any successful politican), but when you really get down to it, he did not really think the poor and working classes should have much of a say in government. Go read the Federalist Papers, it's all rhetoric in defense of not giving the people a say, but ostensibly he was always thinking of the "public good." It's the same corporatist nonsense one would get from the likes of a McConnell or a Pelosi in a modern day setting. Now, not only do you rightly point out the real issue (4:05), but then you do everything you can to write that issue off as not a real issue. After saying that this is the real problem the video then devolves into this discussion about the "Uncanny Valley of Truth" (5:10), but THAT DOES NOT MATTER. It is a red herring to get the audience's attention away from the real problem with the musical, which actually kicked off this segment, where you say that Hamilton, the actual historical person, sold slaves and had a lot of issues when is came to race and class. Just look at how the host transitions again to a pedantic argument with the ahistorical notion that Thomas Jefferson was absent during most of the war (6:55). Who cares! There are much more pressing ahistorical matters in the musical. But, what is a little more insidious comes directly before that (6:33): people who watch this musical will now think that Hamilton was some type of abolitionist and defender of the people, when he clearly was not. But then, of course, does the video talk about that? No! It switches to a discussion about Jefferson being absent during the war, like that is a big deal for some reason. Here is another example of why I think this musical, and this video defending it, are not entirely honest actors. Miranda has basically admitted that he based the whole musical on only one book about Hamilton, which is fine and all, but this particular book is not generally considered to be the paradigm of historical biographies. Ron Chernow is not a historian, so if he is the only source Miranda had, that's kind of an issue (2:26). Again you point his out correctly (twice! 4:05 and 14:02), but then by the end you have entirely forgotten that and say that the historical inaccuracies are not important, what's important is getting people to think about history (15:25). But, now to correctly inform a viewer of the musical about the real Hamilton it's an uphill battle. How is that helpful? Why are you are normalizing the idea that Hamilton was anything but an elitist who cared nothing for the lower classes, despised minorities, and for all intents and purposes would have been exactly like any corporate goon that we have nowadays? Isn't this channel against that? So, excuse me if I think that your framing here is a bit off, but failing an AP exam is the least of the worries when it comes to why I think this production is "bad". This play serves the same function as the statues that were being torn down across the country over the last few months. It mythologizes the founding fathers, fetishizes that myth, revels in the glory of the status quo, and then barks down anyone who deigns criticize this beloved "history." Maybe nuance is more important. And this is where _Hamilton_ drops the ball. The musical should be doing everything it does with its "healthy amount of self-awareness" (14:55) and then use it to criticize the status quo, critique the ruling class (including Hamilton and the other founding fathers), and promote the very people it has co-opted in its production: black and brown folks. This is an important piece of American historical knowledge (15:11), and I completely agree that everyone should know how America was born. But if you want to deny the racism and classism of that birth then you are "white-washing" the founding fathers in the worst possible way. Where I think we completely agree is that I think this production is super important in presenting the material to the audience, but the problem is the message (13:40). The message is that the founding fathers should be glorified and mythologized but now for a new millennium, but is that really important? Shouldn't we be taking uncomfortable and honest looks at history (like "Lovecraft Country")? Maybe even absurdistly honest? And that is absolutely not _Hamilton._ The potential was there, the idea was amazing, but the execution seems to have had the reverse effect.
i clicked onto this video quite worried that it wouldn't address the actually important problems with hamilton - which is exactly you described! you hit the nail on the head so hard... this a youtube comment essay that i am 100% here for. king shit.
@@buttons6171 Thank you! As soon as I saw the video thumbnail, I thought that they would not really address the actual issue(s), but I didn't think they would actually address it and then sweep it under the rug with logic fallacies. I guess that's how strong "patriotism" is, though: it breaks an otherwise logically sound youtube channel and turns its content into propaganda. Had to be said.
Oh, wow, you wrote a lot! So, while I think you have some good points (actually a lot of them), I think you - like you accuse the creator of this video of doing - are missing the point. First of all, it’s called “historical fiction” for a reason. Although it’s based, or relies heavily on history for plot, characters and/or settings it’s fiction (which means literature that describes imaginary events and people - this one seems especially relevant to your comment but I’ll come back to that section later - , often less imaginary when it’s concerning historical fiction, but the definition still stands). It has never claimed historical accuracy, and the creator (LMM) has admitted to “ignoring” historical facts several times (I’ll insert an example of an occasion where he does this exact thing here). Of course, it is a problem when people get mislead and think that’s the entire story, or that the way its portrayed is exactly how it happened, but to be honest, that’s not the musical’s fault. Like I said: it’s historical fiction, it has never claimed to be entirely historically accurate and if people don’t decide to look more into these people and stories, find out what they really did, what they were really like, what they actually stood for, that’s honestly their own fault. The musical (or any other work of historical fiction for that matter) can’t take responsibility for viewers and consumers ignorance. Hamilton (as far as I know) was higher class and - though I haven’t seen any concrete evidence, I don’t doubt it - classist, but here’s when you kind of lost me: you say that “-Hamilton was not in any way a proponent of the poor-“ Now because of your following sentence, I’m guessing you just mean that he simply wasn’t poor (if you meant that he just wasn’t a spokesman - or at least not a good one - for the poor, that’s another matter entirely and I apologise for the following segment), which as a sentence without any further nuances or clarification could be accused of even being false. There’s no denying that he was - in the literal definition - dirt poor his entire childhood (because he was illegitimate and didn’t get any of the fortunes he could’ve gotten if he was not, aka: in theory he was born into a high class family, or at least one that once was, but he didn’t actually get to reap any of its benefits. This is just one example of why class and economic status isn’t the same) so he did know what the less economically fortunate were going through, even if he was very rich in his later years. Again, this doesn’t mean he was a good spokesman for the poor, but for a person who’s claiming that this musical denies the facts I thought it was important to bring up a few of the facts you “denied” to get a little perspective. Not only that, but in his adult life, he wasn’t fully rich either. Because of his honesty in economic matters (despite people like Jefferson claiming otherwise) he actually was in debt (and not a small one either). When he died his family (especially Eliza) were left with this debt and had to ask for help and gather a trust-fund from their close friends to help may it off. But don’t get me wrong, if I just misunderstood that entire sentence/segment, please let me know and we’ll clear it up. Maybe it’s just differences in our sources. If you want mine, just ask! Also, this doesn’t mean that Hamilton was a good person. I honestly don’t think he was. Like I said, I do believe he was classist, and racist, and sold slaves, which are all characteristics few good people have. I’m just saying that even with terrible people (maybe especially with terrible people) it’s important to keep track of what terrible things they were actually guilty of. Secondly, I want to address your “white-washing” comment, and the segment surrounding it. Because just like with the other sentence I just covered, I was confused on what you meant. Maybe you can clarify? Because as far as I could tell, this musical does everything it can do to literally promote black and brown folks. You can’t forget that, before a lengthy, but fun history lesson, this is a story. Not a history book who’s job is to tackle every single issue at the time. It’s Hamilton’s story, and just like slavery played an relatively important, but small role in his life, it does in this musical too. Ifb you wanted a musical about slavery, that already exists. And yes, it’s extremely important to push the history of black and brown people into the spotlight whenever it’s pre-slavery, during slavery or after slavery (this is of course, only when you think about afro-americans, and not black and brown folks with other backgrounds). We need to educate ourselves on this topic! However, what I fail to see mentioned in your comment is the fact that - again - it’s not what this story is about. Lin-Manuel Miranda also does what basically no one else would’ve: casted people of colour and minority groups. This helps people of colour much more than mentioning them a few more times ever could. It - and I don’t know how to stress this enough - literally promotes them. Also, the fact that you said white-washing when that’s the exact opposite of what this musical did just baffles me. In the end, I guess your biggest point was about the glorification of these so-called characters which I to an extent agree with, but the complexity of a real person is too complicated to cover in a musical anyway, especially several. And again, I don’t believe that any work of historical fiction owes you complete historical accuracy, whenever that means events or people. If people just want to enjoy the musical with all its fantastic songs and choreography, that’s fine. But if they’re going to actually make statements about the founding fathers and the people surrounding them, they should educate themselves on their actual actions and personalities. My main point is: you expect too much of this musical. Though I don’t deny that it’s flawed, I think it tackles most of the problems and complexities perfectly. If you want more context or information, google is free.
@@candywrap4974 (Sorry, I had to break this up in two posts) First of all, thank you for your thoughtful response. I think you do as good of a job as you possibly can in defending this musical, but unfortunately you are fighting an uphill battle. Secondly, if you think this is a lot, then you should read some of my other posts! haha And you were certainly up to the challenge; I very much enjoyed reading your response. :-) Ok, gloves off now; sorry, but we have some substantive critiques to get to here. I will try to be more brief this time, but let's get some stuff just out of the way first. You seem to be constantly implying that I want this musical to teach _me_ and that I am concerned about _my own_ historical knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth; I have a degree in history, so I couldn't care less whether or not the historical fiction I am consuming is accurate or not. I know whether or not what I'm watching is garbage history, or whether it is pretty good. And even if something is outside of my historical knowledge, I can go and look up actual historians and figure it out myself. In fact, I love historical fiction, and titles like recent anime series _Vinland Saga_ or the 1994 movie _Casino_ or even the HBO series _Rome_ can do a lot of different things because they are not treading on the sacred ground of social commentary and the formulation of the very country in which we still currently abide. So, I would contend that the extreme lengths Miranda goes to to make the musical "as historically accurate as possible," and that he felt "an enormous responsibility" to do so, are the very things that make this musical so nefarious (from the aptly titled "How Lin-Manuel Miranda Shapes History" from _The Atlantic_ article on September 19, 2015). By appropriating the bodies and voices of black and brown folks, yet not actually allowing any black or brown historical personas to grace his stage (save Sally Hemings coming out of and fading back into the Chorus, which excuse me if I don't bristle at how apt a treatment of black and brown experiences that actually is for this play), this musical just trumpets the same mythological founding nonsense that any bs high school text book around the country would give. I call it "happy history" because it makes sure that the conflicts it talks about are neutered for a modern audience. This is what I mean by "white-washing." And, if you noticed, I put that in quotation marks for a reason. I was using it satirically. Let's be very, very clear. This play is WHITE history. Chernow, who Miranda used exclusively to write his play, is NOT a historian. He is giving you the high school textbook version of history, which is going to promote whiteness and show how Hamilton was just a man of the people. As Eliza says at the end of the play: "I speak out against slavery/ You could have done so much more if you only had-" Ew and no! Even Miranda himself doesn't understand the weight to which he has changed history for the average audience member. Saying in a June 2020 interview, after he had already received criticism for his ahistorical characterizations: "Hamilton - although he voiced anti-slavery beliefs - remained complicit in the system. And other than calling out Jefferson on his hypocrisy with regards to slavery in Act 2, doesn't really say much else over the course of Act 2. And I think that's actually pretty honest. ... He didn't really do much about it after that. None of them did. None of them did enough. And we say that, too, in the final moments of the song" ("The Past Isn't Done With Us,' Says 'Hamilton' Creator Lin-Manuel Miranda" NPR Fresh Air interview June 29). Wait wait wait. Miranda wants to completely skate over an issue and then take credit for it? Come on. Please. So, not only does he get to rewrite Alexander Hamilton as this people-loving, common-man, abolitionist, he then gets to rewrite history in the closing moments of his play and say that Hamilton could have done so much more? This is what got the actual historians going, btw. So much so, they all got together and wrote a book about how terrible this play is because of how it portrays Hamilton in this manner. If you are interested the book is called "Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America's Past," and you can find it for about $15 online. I recommend it for the _Hamilton_ stan in your life. Next point, Hamilton was not a "proponent of the poor." So, we can parse whether or not he actually cared about the poor or the public good, which I think he did in a Machiavellian way (ie. he cared for the public good in so much as it benefited the elite at the top, as described in Machiavelli's _The Prince_ ). However, let's just stick to the provable, non-theoretical parts of this. Hamilton was instrumental in the formulation of the Constitution and the removal of the Articles of Confederation (he didn't write a whole lot of it, but he and Madison worked out a lot of it together while they wrote the Federalist Papers at the same time as the Convention), which he hated because it gave too much power to the people and the states. Hamilton even argued at one point during the Constitutional Convention that the President and Senate should be elected for life like the Supreme Court and other judges (for F's sake, this is your people's champion?! ugh, why do I even have to have these conversations?).
@@candywrap4974 (Part 2) But here you go, you want my "sources"? How about Alexander Hamilton himself? Here he is in 1787, speaking at the Convention: "All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people...The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government.” Or how about this gem from the Federalist Papers, no. 55: "Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." Btw, in my opinion, this is one of the dumbest quotes ever in history. Do you want more elitist nonsense from Hamilton? How about this one? "It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity" (June 21, 1788, NY, speech at the Constitutional Convention). Are you convinced yet? No? Ok, one more, this is a long one, from Federalist 63 (his caps, not mine): "From these facts, to which many others might be added, it is clear that the principle of representation was neither unknown to the ancients nor wholly overlooked in their political constitutions. The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies IN THE TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE PEOPLE, IN THEIR COLLECTIVE CAPACITY, from any share in the LATTER, and not in the TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE from the administration of the FORMER. The distinction, however, thus qualified, must be admitted to leave a most advantageous superiority in favor of the United States. But to insure to this advantage its full effect, we must be careful not to separate it from the other advantage, of an extensive territory. For it cannot be believed, that any form of representative government could have succeeded within the narrow limits occupied by the democracies of Greece. In answer to all these arguments, suggested by reason, illustrated by examples, and enforced by our own experience, the jealous adversary of the Constitution will probably content himself with repeating, that a senate appointed not immediately by the people, and for the term of six years, must gradually acquire a dangerous pre-eminence in the government, and finally transform it into a tyrannical aristocracy. To this general answer, the general reply ought to be sufficient, that liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power; that there are numerous instances of the former as well as of the latter; and that the former, rather than the latter, are apparently most to be apprehended by the United States. But a more particular reply may be given." Did you get what he said there? He said that the Senate must be elected by the Congress and they must have at least a 6 year term because giving any power to the people is dangerous and the liberty of the people MUST be curtailed to ensure the safety of the public good. In other words, you and I are not intelligent enough to run the government. Only the rich and elite can run the government. Hamilton and Madison will throw us a bone, and we can vote for the one group of people who have the shortest terms. But not everyone. Again, remember, only landed white men are voting at this point. Hamilton was hard pressed to even extended suffrage to the common farmer or artisan, let alone everyone else. Women, poor, black and brown folks and anyone else not part of the wealthy and elite is, of course, not "wise" enough to vote, let alone have any other role in government. People did not elect Senators till 1917. The Electoral College even was not clearly set up to be a popular vote, as it kind of is now, and only became so after several Presidential elections. And doesn't this all make the fact that he did get out of poverty even more hypocritical? He is just like Amy Coney Barrett, slam the door on the people behind him. You want my Miranda-like prediction? If the country was set up the way Hamilton wanted black and brown folks would have never even risen to the place where this musical would be possible. That's what I mean by white-washing. If you would like a substantive critique of American history and the people that rule it, I always recommend starting with Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." "My main point is: you expect too much of this musical." I expect this musical to respect the bodies of the people that perform it, merely by doing EVERYTHING THAT IT DOES but just critiquing the status quo. All it does is revel in the glory of the myth of the founders, and all while putting that myth in the mouths of black and brown folks so it can propagate that myth to a new audience. Frankly, it's gross. Think of how powerful it would be to have actual black voices on stage, like Crispus Attucks or James Armistead Lafayette or literally ANY slave in the country? Or have the voice of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton all critiquing the white ruling class! But, unfortunately that opportunity was squandered along with the brilliant social commentary this could have actually been. (Sorry, I meant to make this short, I really did. I told you to read some of my other posts. haha)
What I love about historical fiction like Hamilton is that it gives us the flavour of the moments depicted. It doesn’t have to be 100% historically accurate in order to get the gist of it across. And that’s pretty cool 👍🏼
Lin Manuel Miranda is not a genius in my opinion because if he really was one, he would have taken general stupidity of American public in consideration and added the comment that “This ain’t history, it’s theatre!” at the start of the play.
Is Hamilton Bad? - Depends on a person's preference but it is good for me. Is it Historically Accurate? - No I just feel the title is a bit clickbaity.
Well we can also discuss “should musicals be allowed to play with the truth of historical events?” Since some would say that there can be damage caused by this. Yes it’s for entertainment and not a history lesson, but if people are going to accept what they learn from this musical in the same way they would from an actual history lesson, then we need to be wary of that impact.
@@notryangosling3065 I definitely would not show Hamilton to a US History class, but the core of the story is mostly accurate, though obviously the amount of POC in the musical was NOT reflective of the time. I wouldn't take everything as truth, but it makes you want to do research on the founding of the US. I went into Hamilton knowing full well many details would be historically inaccurate, but I find that I know a lot more about how the US was created as a non-American
@@notryangosling3065 Lin-Manuel Miranda has already explicitly expressed that Hamilton is not an entirely accurate representation of history. The whole purpose was of the musical was not to give out a history lesson in accuracy but rather circle the idea of how the actions a person commits can lead to different endings and narrative interpretations of what really happened. The musical utilizes the life of Hamilton as an example of a poor figure rising to power but ultimately being disregarded and having his story simplified. Besides, many people understand the show is riddled with inaccuracies especially with some sly jokes and comical moments being sliding in. The entire comedy and humor of the show expresses the simplification and exaggeration of the true reality. The impact of taking in historical inaccuracy is not as extreme as we may think. Many who take Hamilton's historical aspects seriously are often corrected by those more knowledgeable in the subject or may research on their own the real truth. My whole point is that it's fine to have a show that romanticizes history because in the way these shows are represented we only see musicals like Newsies, Bonnie and Clyde, Six (etc.) as stories telling us an overarching theme with bits of fun facts and not a history lesson.
@@watari9644 The amount of POC wasn't to be historically accurate but to show to all the minorities and POC that you don't have to be white to be a leader. Though not at that time, today it is possible for a black child, asian child, white child (etc.) to grow up and impact the world like the founding fathers and other great figures. Intelligence and bravery is not reserved for only the white. This is why we see many musicals and shows casting POC to originally white figures. It's not a matter of historical accuracy but rather a social and political statement :)
Hamilton did not own slaves, although when working in St Croix he worked for a company trading in commodities that included slaves. Him, John Adams, and the entire Federalist Party as a whole were abolitionist, and he was one of the main driving forces behind the eventual abolition of slavery in the State of New York later on. He even supported Haiti and her revolution, which made his contemporaries in the Democratic-Republican Party very nervous indeed.
It kind of reminds me of that park in England with the giant lizard statues to show what dinosaurs looked like, but now is considered a record of what people used to think dinosaurs looked like.
“The founding father’s theme rap musical is full of hideous lies” Like the fact Daveed Diggs is actually the scariest person alive but you don’t know that because you don’t know clipping
@@mkthatartist7979 Oh he hasn't done anything bad, I'm just saying that the lyrics to a song like Body & Blood is a far cry from anything from the musical
If it encourages the viewers to look into the information for context and clarity, or just a little self-gratification before your next BYOB historical trivia night, I’d say it’s worth it
IMO it’s a well written musical with lots of fun musical devices, repeating themes and motifs, and clever word plays that is also about as historically accurate as Sweeney Todd. In other words, it’s a piece of fiction I enjoy.
I literally just finished re-watching the whole Hamilton movie and then this shows up. Coincidence? I THINK NOT! But on a serious note, i knew from the start that the musical will eventually have facts being changed and altered to better fit the story/lyrics/song. Hamilton is based of these real life founding fathers but it was clear to me that it was never supposed to be treated seriously since the characters are very much portrayed as fictional characters. I still adore this musical because honestly, I came for the absolute bangers in the album. And, I learned a lot about American history when I'm not even from America (even if those facts are not entirely accurate)
I feel this, I just don't think it should be treated as complete fact in the classroom. It happened to me when I took APUSH. My teacher said how it was all based on historically accurate sources and such. But she never mentioned how Hamilton owned slaves and such.
I love how it is assumed that actual historical facts will dictate what the "correct" answer on a history exam will be. I just love that unjaded optimism. Considering most of the founding fathers declared independence for the exact purpose of evading the looming threat of the aboloshment of slavery and to get out of the treaty made with the native people that further westward expension would cease. They wanted freedom, the freedom to exploit people in order to make money. Not that a musical will teach you that, good thing it's also not an acceptable answer on most history tests...
There are no facts in fiction, only the opportunity for truth. Something like Hamilton is not about history; it's only using the texture of history to talk about our experience right now. Characters - whether we're talking about Hamilton or Bilbo Baggins - are simply symbolic elements, cogs in the meaning-machine of a story - and stories exist to help us find meaning in OURSELVES, not explanations of the past. The use of history in a movie might make someone interested in actual history - and that's fantastic. But the fact that The Untouchables is absolutely not accurate in the slightest doesn't mean that it's not beautifully true in what it's saying, just as Star Wars is completely made up, but is incredibly meaningful to people. Because If it's a story, it is by definition made up. It's there to make examine your own emotions, your own decisions, and give you tools to think about what you believe. In short, the only thing stories are made to educate us about is US.
Angelica Schuyler may have actually had brothers despite the fact Hamilton says otherwise. So Hamilton did tell me wrong, but I'd never have even heard of her and thought to look her up to find out the truth if I hadn't watched Hamilton.
It's so interesting, but Neil Gaimen's `Norse Mythology` opens with a whole section about how History is ultimately just people sitting around a campfire telling stories. And he's just like hey, I'm a writer, I love these stories, and there doesn't exist a popular compendium so I'm just going to write it myself; here you go! That's a really useful lens on History, I thought and that seems to be the takeaway from this video as well. Have a nice day. :)
Glad you covered this. I'm in the same boat, personally. I find it disappointing how many inaccuracies the show is built upon, but the show is still valuable in many facets: Music, character building, creating interest and connectivity with American history and spreading positive, (mostly) forward thinking ideals. Hamilton holds a lot of value, especially for modern audiences who have an increasingly harder time finding pride and interest in the history and accomplishments of America.
The solution is pretty easy. Teach people that fiction and documentary are very different things. It's pretty annoying when someone points out that a movie is twisting real facts. yes, is a movie, a work of fiction, a piece of entertaiment. Chill the f out
Wouldnt it be better, for Hamilton to instead be an introductory to incite interest in the public for them to *take responsibility in proper research and fact checking on a* *historical musical* that is based on both historical fact but also takes *creative liberties* ? Would'nt it be better for a medium meant for entertainment and recreational leisure be what starts others to actually go out of their way to start taking history *seriously* as a source of reference and teachings and lessons to construct well-informed, self-aware and yet sensible opinions and thought that are meant to better our understanding to better our actions, not necessarily to use as a way to further ignorance or justify inherent bias; to find balance and commonality, not in their time, but in the present much more progressive (compared to back then) modern time period?
This vid is pretty dishonest on how it frames Hamilton's criticism and it defends Lin Manuel-Miranda way too much. Alexander Hamilton was such a conservative even at the time, that he'd be considered a fascist now. Also he fought for disgustingly authoritarian systems.
The name "unitary executive" may have come around in the 80s. But when I learned it in law school, we started with the underpinnings in the Nixon Administration.
It is not historically accurate, but it made me read about it, in our country (at least in my school), we get very little education about America as a whole. And god I love the songs. Not historically accurate, no, but not bad either! My opinion.
Assuming you take historical based fiction as fact that could be harmful but on the flip side it can inspire you to find the truth in those media, signed someone who wrote a 10 page paper on Japanese history because of Samurai Warriors
I listened to an interview from McCay about Vice and that Politifact article (only source you cited). He rebuked the article claiming he researched for two years and had dozens of interviews with former staffers. Politifact might not be a reliable source on this.
I think a comparison/contrasting to the ERB youtube channel would've helped this video, considering lots of young people have gained an interest in historical figures through catchy rap lyrics similarly to Hamilton. Though it's arguable that ERB, being way further from the Uncanny Valley fundamentally, has more freedom to spit actual truth since it doesn't have to bend facts to tie everything together in a 3-hour storyline for strengthening desired themes.
Why are you throwing substitute teachers under the bus for putting on movies? We don't get to choose what activities the students do, we get instructions in the morning and if the teacher just leaves a movie, that's the thing that happens; we can't just Dead Poets Society the class out into the courtyard to seize the day
I hope you guys do something on The Last Dance Im sure most of the wisecrack audience could care less about sports but i think there is real nuance and interesting topics to tackle in Jordan's documentary. The biggest point of interest to me is the idea of sacrificing to be successful. I understand that this is just a wisecrack pop culture Channel but I would really be fascinated to look into the fascinating lives athletes lead and how interesting and almost soap opera esque their life's can be
The thing is, I've never met a Hamilton fan who didn't know the real history. It inspires you to do your own research. Look up any Hamilton reaction on UA-cam; every comment is going to be Hamilfans teaching them the true story ("Actually, Eliza was already pregnant at the time of Philip's death with their eighth child, named Philip II in his brother's honor!" and "In reality, Angelica had been married for some time before she ever met Alexander, and there's no record of a real affair between them"). Hamilton fans could tell you the most random details and facts about the characters' real histories. It's the people who watch Hamilton once, do no research at all, and then head to Twitter to rant and spread rumors who are the problems. That's not a flaw with Hamilton, that's a flaw with an unintelligent audience.
This is a ridiculous question to ask. No media is bad... Its free speech. Although I disagree with some parts of the play and think it wrong to complain about white washing and then turn around and cast black actors as white historical figures. I will stand up for the rights and integrity of this play and almost any other.
I can't speak for others but if anything Hamilton made me more curious about finding out the truth behind the portrayal of events in the musical. I think just as was pointed out towards the end of the video, it's important to note that there is no claim made that the musical is an accurate depiction of history. And also it's very medium (a musical) lends a fantastical element to events that distance it from reality in the mind.
Well, the question titled was if "hamilton is bad?" And it ended with "is historical fiction a bad thing".... thanks How about a straight forward honest opinion...
This is called "creative liberty". With a creative medium comes a level of twisting to be able to make the most engaging and/or successful version of itself. The presence of creative liberty and suspension of disbelief in Hamilton is IMMEDIATELY made obvious by the casting. POC then were treated as slaves while POC today are (or should be) recongised as the human collective of everyone. If the musical claimed to be accurate, everyone would look like King George III. (I'm pretty sure I just compressed your entire video into a comment, sorry >.
Any form of entertainment that INSPIRES you to go learn something that you don't already know is best in my book. The ANIME show DRIFTERS made me look up the PUNIC WARS and the SENGOKU ERA because I wanted to know the real history behind those characters. Just like that HAMILTON made me look into the AMERICAN REVOLUTION. ART is made to inspire and that's what HAMILTON DID.
Like,... I relate a bit because when I was really into Hamilton I looked up all the letters between burr and Hamilton and other stuff too,, but I also have to admit that it's not the experience most viewers are gonna have, 1) because I have the privilege of having a ton of free time and 2) because many people look no further, either because they aren't willing to do so or because they are under the impression that it isn't necessary and that the historical innacuracies wouldn't be that important. So that's why I think LMM shouldn't have excluded the "problematic" aspects of Alexander Hamilton character. Its the same reason that I think representation in the media is important; it shouldn't come to entertainment to educate people about other ways of experiencing life but most people realistically aren't going to research or learn more about them. So I think its important for the media to more accurately represent historical figures like the founding fathers and represent diversity in people, like lgbtqi+, disabled and neuro diverse people. But, like, I also get that a more realistic depiction of Hamilton wouldn't have sold well in Broadway. And also the music slaps. So. I dunno
@@MrRrusiii the rhymes in Hamilton are insane “She courted me Escorted me and when she had me in the corner That’s when Reynolds extorted me For a sordid fee I paid him quarterly I may have mortally wounded my prospects But my papers are orderly”
Whether or not historical fiction is good or bad is (like everything) subjective, based on it's quality. The more accurate the better of course, that's a given. But engagement of the media is important too. How invested you can get the audience in the historical aspects, for instance by leaving some mysteries unanswered in the story for the audience to figure out with their own research. It also helps to separate fact from fiction, by making the fiction aspect very obvious. By, say, weaving in a story about ancient civilizations and secret societies of super assassins safeguarding life and liberty.
“Hamilton wasn’t an anti slavery activist” He was. “In fact, he bought and sold slaves for his relatives” Yes. He also did that. History is complicated.
@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 There are various accounts, and nothing is certain, because he married into the Schyler family who were one of the wealthiest slave owning families in New York. Hamilton bought slaves posthumously through the estate of Angelica's husband, because he handled all of the finances and bookkeeping of the Schyler family. To me Hamilton is a person who is very similar to most people, he has some high ideals, but his ambition and pragmatism made him far to susceptible to compromising those ideals to get what he wanted.
It's bad, but not for the reason you named. It's bad because it's rap for people who don't actually like rap. A musical for people who don't actually like musicals. History for people who don't actually like history. It makes everything it represents worse by existing.
A friend's interest in Hamilton actually helped me gain an interest in reading history and listening to historical lectures. Watching the musical left me with mixed feelings. My friend is obsessed with it and helped her to have an interest in history too, but she doesn't move beyond the musical. All of her "knowledge" is based on the music rather than reading a book. She actually found the facts boring. I'm personally concerned that there are more people like her out there who would rather watch a 3-hour musical than spend 30 hours reading a book...
I guess that’s kinda the thing about Hamilton: it traded being completely historically accurate for being a well made, catchy musical story centering around the man. It kinda makes it easier to digest and have fun with in a way, distracting from the rather gruesome, unsettling, and even vague historical details.
I truly believe that an artistic 'interpretation' of historical events should never be consider learning. It should be appreciation of history that should've been already learned already.
The TV movie John Adams took some license but was fairly faithful to the historical knowledge to date. And John Hurt's performance in I, Claudius...camp personified. Absolutely loved it.
Did we miss any of your favorite works of historical fiction?
Another musical based loosely on real events that you can find on Disney Plus is Newsies (the Broadway version). I think that it has created a bit of interest in some people about the life of real newsies and the power newspapers had in the past, but the actual events in the musical didn't really happen.
See the BBC's "Upstart Crow" which is based on Shakespear, but is a sit-com.
The Back to the Future trilogy, especially 1 and 3, are really interesting looks at history through entertainment. Still waiting on my hoverboard, though.
#FreePhilip
I'm surprised you didn't bring in McKay's other HUGE film (that he wrote), "The Big Short" which is all about historical-fiction of how the 2008 recession was caused by a few. It'd be interesting if you did a full video just on that film.
Can you spoil a historical event?
“Class, today we’re discussing the fall of The western Roman Empire.”
“Aww, Mrs Smith! Spoilers!”
Well it might sound dumb to say it is however as a non-American, I had never even heard of Hamilton. So going into it I WAS completely unspoiled on the plot.
@My name is Irrelevant I think you are really overestimating how much I care about American history. I know it's not completely accurate. More than a few times, I've found myself googling things like 'Did Martha Washington really name her feral tom cat after Hamilton?' and 'Did Hercules Mulligan f**k a horse?'. I have had some interest and looked into some of the things mentioned in the musical. But in terms of broad strokes, without Hamilton the musical, I would never have heard of that particular found. However WITH the musical, I've learned a good bit about that particular individual that IS true - and frankly, I've learned more about the American revolution and the founding of America than I ever knew, the revolution is covered very quickly in the history lessons in my country's schools.
@My name is Irrelevant That's certainly fair but I think the degree of inaccuracies are overstated. Granted, I have done my research but I'm still not an American and didn't learn this stuff growing up, maybe there's a lot that's I'm just missing. But it strikes me as being largely accurate for the most part and has actually engaged a lot of younger people in a way that has opened the doors and allowed them to learn (and retain information), more than they might have just reading straight from a school book.
@My name is Irrelevant I was kind of in that boat but also did really poorly at history. My history teacher was openly homophobic and single-handedly had the GSA in the school disbanded as it 'infringed on her religious liberty', so also a few others, I made a point of regularly skipping her classes...actually now that I think back, I still got an A in her class but it was not for lack of trying lol I'm not so great when it comes to events and dates (I'm actually getting better at the former, don't think I'm ever gonna get good at the later), but when it comes to profiles and stories about people, that's when it really clicks with me. To use an American example, I couldn't tell you WHEN the constitutional convention was held but I CAN tell you who attended.
Kollektivet -- Don't Spoil It (it's a song on UA-cam, watch it)
'Tis a ballsy move to antagonize Hamilton stans.
What are they going to do, burn down your neighborhood?
CottonBalls cancel you online
You call it ballsy. I call it good marketing and video naming.
A bold strategy cotton
Fuck em
I can already sense the comment section becoming saltier than the dead sea
good to see you make a comeback
Justin Y is the epitome of being early and semi-famous.
Hey justin how are ya?
i can see it already
Word
I was throughly upset when I found out Jefferson wasn’t just LaFayette in disguise 😕
Me too. I was devastated
When I see a performance like Hamilton, it makes me want to research and find out more about the characters. Before the musical I never heard of John Laurens or Hercules Mulligan, but now I’m better informed.
Hamilton is good because it creates interest in US history. I never took the musical Hamilton as gospel.
This is exactly what I was going to write. I've been reading up about the historical figures that I wouldn't have if not for Hamilton. It sparked my interest.
Melissa Richmond Yesssss! It revived my interest in the American Revolution. Two weeks ago, I was in Manhattan, near Wall Street and saw the tombstone of Alexander Hamilton & Elizabeth Schuyler in the churchyard of Trinity church. It made me feel closer to the story and led me to doing more research on Hamilton’s life.
It’s bad because it takes a time where the stories of the people who matter are never told, and it just tells more white rich awful stories but makes them look woke. Hamilton was kept on american currency because of this awful play.
@@Ad3tr yeah what's up with t h a t
Adil “the people who matter” yikes
Hamilton actually made me want to look up more history. I also didn't go in expecting 100% historical accuracy. I think it depends not only in the person but the work as well on if biopics make people dumb to history. In my case, they make me want to learn more about events and people.
Same here, I didn’t know crap about the revolution before I listened to Hamilton, nor did I care, but nowadays I read letters from white dudes who died hundreds of years ago to learn more about the period.
And I wholeheartedly agree that it depends on both the person and the work as well.
Hamilton made me interested in the founding fathers. In high school Hamilton himself was a very minor character in colonial history.
Exactly, this made me go into Hamilton’s life and family legacy. I ended up looking up their family tree and tracking his children. I also sometimes look up interesting lines in the lyrics like “Here’s an itemized list of 30 years of disagreements” or when Lafayette asks for French aid or when Washington dismisses Burr.
Same you can’t expect it to be perfect but because of it I learned a lot more
There’s a big difference between a little bit of historical inaccuracy and outright lying about Alexander Hamilton being an abolitionist
I think people need to realize that any historical fiction is never truly accurate and just realize whatever they are watching is still a work of fiction. But I can understand that some people watch like a biopic or something and think that's just the whole truth without doing the research. At the same time, people can learn a lot from understanding the differences between the source and the real life events that they wouldn't have known otherwise. So it's a complicated issue like anything else.
At the end of the day it’s entertainment
All i see is a starting point for research with any movie musical or book.
Honestly one of the best biopics out there is The Dirt, the one about Motley Crue. They're fully self aware of their embellishments and omitted details, they often even have Mick Mars look at the camera and point them out
Yeah, I agree. I think every biopic or anything cultural about a person can have elements of truth and lies. It's kind of baked into the medium.
To make the thing you have to highlights parts and omit other parts, so there'll always be some some dishonesty or not have a fullly complete picture being painted. If someone didn't do that, they wouldn't be able to fit it into a 2-3hr project.
People need to realize that even HISTORY as we get to know it, from books and documentaries is always an interpretation... usually limited by what sources are available and who's views have been recorded (is what Hamilton wrote in a letter or even another person wrote in their autobiography really truthful or do they leave out certain things that would make them look bad and maybe add things that didn't happen the way as written but making them look great? and of course vice Versa to their sworn nemeses or close friends.) and then additionally edited by the producers/directors to what they WANT to tell about the things they took from said sources. There is a good deal of slant to ANY historical writing, factual or fictional alike. And to work out how much of a slant and to what direction is hard work even for learned historians that can compare dozens or hundreds of reports and even original sources.
"Is Hamilton Bad?" feels like a clickbait title, implying a verdict on its artistic merits, when the video is more accurately an investigation of "Is Hamilton Accurate?" or "Is Hamilton's Inaccuracy Bad for You?"
Welcome to UA-cam buddy. Clickbait gets clicks
Hamilton is bad tho
Nah, Hamilton IS bad.
As an editor at cracked once eloquently put it _"we'll stop the click bait as soon as you people stop clicking exclusively on it"_
Abject Permanence it’s really not, it’s not historically accurate but as a musical it is very well written. I don’t understand why movie critics criticize Hamilton when they don’t really have any clue on how theater actually works. How music theory works, or stage positions or anything of that nature.
As an Australian, Hamilton was the first time that I was actually intrigued by American history and ended up spending hours on the Wikipedia rabbit hole looking up the founding fathers and the civil war.
Is it wholly factual? No
Is it the first time I've been excited by American history? You bet
The Revolutionary War, you mean. Hamilton had been dead for 57 years when the Civil War began.
Me too. I usually study the Viking age, the Roman Empire and currently I’m doing a depth study on Germany from 1919-1945 (summary: the Nazis were hypocritical lunatics) and I somehow got into Hamilton a few months ago and now I’m going to see it when it comes to Sydney next year. Sure most of Hamilton is fictional but I get to flex to my American mates that I know more about their history so it’s worth it. Lol
That was same with me I’m an Australian too and when I watched it I got extremely interested in American history
yep not factual but i prefer you look through other articles other than Wikipedia to make sure what your reading is fact checked bc it can be edited by anyone during anytime
Our story is real history and not his story.
While I understand criticizing Hamilton for promoting historical half-truths, I'm 1000x more concerned with the outright lies being taught in many southern schools about the history of the civil war TO THIS DAY.
really? that happens? woah
@@androdeiculus9712 Yeah man. The Confederacy laid its roots deep in their education systems.
@@androdeiculus9712 Depends on what "lies" are being perpetuated, tbh.
These days, the schools are scrubbed of any potential causes of the Civil War, other than slavery.
When I was in school, we learned about the various other causes that the Southern people had at the time, such as their desire to avoid an income tax being imposed upon them by the Lincoln administration (you can look that up btw).
@@fireballbastard7873 I understand that the civil war was pretty complicated as all international politics are. The way my school taught it (in high school, in middle school it was solely about slavery) was a form of the states rights argument, but the main state right they wanted to preserve was slavery. The southern states wanted to prevent the expansion of the authority of the federal government to stop both slavery and federal interference in the southern states in general. So yes the civil war was about slavery, and it was about anti-federalist sentiment.
@@noahanderson8688 Slavery was guaranteed by the Confederate constitution, but it wasn't wholly... or even mostly about the right to own/keep slaves.
The vast majority of people who fought for the South didn't care at all about Plantation Joe and his rights to keep permanent unpaid servants. Hell, he wanted Joe to lose his slaves, because then he'd have no choice but to start hiring.
The wealth of the South increased as slavery was abolished, because it meant that the plantation owners spread their wealth and mechanized, rather than being allowed to hoard it and remain stagnant. The issue of income tax, however, affected everyone, rich or poor.
That, and culturally, the South was never on the same page as the North. Imagine if England held dominion over France, put an English person on the throne, then they immediately started telling the French that they were going to have to start acting like Englishmen and obeying both English law and customs, in such a way that it would ruin the French identity, and potentially the French economy as well.
Know this, and you'll know why the South tried to secede.
Watching Hamilton expecting to learn history from it is like watching Abraham Lincoln vampire hunter thinking it's a biopic
xDD good one
How dare you. My great great great grandfather was saved from a dozen vampires by none other than Lincoln himself. The ONLY innacuracy in that movie was the failure to address the thousands of vampires Lincoln actually strangled with his bare hands and a cross, instead opting for a more "arsenalized" Lincoln
Uh no, it is largely biographical. Roughly as accurate as your average biopic. No fantastical elements. The rap is stylistic,.like iambic pentameter in Shakespeare's plays
Yes its very important for people to understand that even if it has biographical elements it is still ment to be for entertainment... Miranda himself pointed out that he wanted the play to be a defense of Hamilton since most of the things we know from him were things his enemies said..
Dude! OUCH!!!
I prefer the term "romanticized history" to "historical fiction" in cases like Hamilton. "Historical fiction" is a term more appropriate for your description of Assassin's Creed and Lovecraft Country where the focus is on the historical period rather than a person. I also love how a channel about Philosophy posits "Is Hamilton Bad?" only to wrongly compare biopics with historical fiction and avoid answering the question. We want to know if you think Hamilton is morally bad!
"Fictionalized" would be better than "romanticized", almost any retelling of history has to romanticize as least a little because that's just how retelling a story works, Hamilton is a different case of actual historical inaccuracies being made to serve a fictionalized narrative.
@@goldenhorde6944 Ah yes good call. I like that. Looks like this one triggered me two years ago. It’s frustrating how Wisecrack has become a channel that arrogantly and aggressively pushes their own ideas rather than joyfully exploring multiple frameworks to view the topic like they used to.
Yeah! It’s only talking about other things, so I can answer it. NO! Hamilton is amazing and anyone who fails to think that will deal with me!
Something that should be noted about Hamilton is that not only does it never claim to be historically accurate, but it also constantly draws attention to the fact that it's a story being told to an audience. There's fourth wall breaks, pop culture references, plus characters are always talking about their legacies and their place in the narrative. The last song is literally about 'who tells your story', and ends with Lin Manuel, as himself, showing the audience to Eliza.
Hamilton is actively telling the audience that it's a dramatization for basically its entire runtime, so to criticize it for not being accurate is kind of silly, since that clearly isn't the intention, and it doesn't pretend otherwise.
also it starts with two premises that consciously break "history" ... the use of Rap to transport the story and the inclusivity of the casting to present MODERN DAY population distributions, not the founding fathers 250 years ago... both have their merits, but mean that a lot of leeway has to be taken to fuse this medium with the historical subject.
Doesn't make it good, either.
Yeah, I actually think all those examples you listed were very intentional because the overall themes are that of legacy and memory.
I think tho, that a lot of fans, specially the ones on the younger side of things, kind of,, see it as icing on the metaphorical Hamilton cake? Like, i think more fans connect with the characters presented in the musical as just that, characters. And not as "complex historical figures who were simplified for the sake of storytelling". I kind of enjoy fans taking these caricatures and putting them in modern settings because I think none of them would approve. But also, it makes them seem more "#relatable", and erases a lot of the nuance and a lot of the voices of those who they were oppressing.
And also, casual viewers are likely to not research afterwards and find out the truth. Nowadays, entertainment doubles as education for a lot of people, and even if it shouldn't be that way, it is, so maybe we should hold more creators accountable for the information they spread??? Maybe the solution is not assaigning the role of educators to entertainers, maybe its a mix of both.
Brian Start nope. The fact that it’s a good musical makes it good
@@dumbumbumbum8649 I disagree. I found it dull, despite my interest in the subject matter. The plot was disparate and poorly paced, the score was abrasive, and the lyrics were fine but not worth getting excited about. Good enough for a B movie, but not Broadway.
The way I see it, adapting a piece of history is like adapting a book; you have to make changes for it to work on the big screen. If a film was 100% historically accurate, then it could be really boring. Two of my favourite films are The Social Network and Amadeus, there are quite a few things they changed for the adaptation. Thankfully, they keep the core of the historical piece.
That being said, you do have a certain responsibility to portray history in an accurate, plausible way. Two examples that grossly misrepresent what really happened would be Patch Adams and 1492: Conquest of Paradise.
Patch Adams portrays Hunter Adams as a clown who stole from hospitals, practised without a license, was against "the establishment", and liked to goof around than study for his medical degree. The worst change has to be when his love interest is murdered (A real person was murdered, but it was actually a MALE best friend of Hunter Adams). The reason for this change was to "make the film more interesting" according to the filmmakers.
1492 is a film made to stroke the myth of Christopher Columbus' discovery of America. He's shown as "the white saviour" in the film. In real life, Columbus was a genocidal monster who took advantage of the natives to steal their gold, sold their women and daughters to sexual slavery, and murdered anyone who disobeyed his orders.
Both these films do a disservice to history since the average viewer will think this really happened.
What I'm getting at is that there's a line you have to keep in mind. You can change some of the truth, but change it all and you've made a fool out of everyone, especially yourself.
Amadeus is entirely acceptable because it is so aggressively stylised that it isn't at all pretending to be factual. In some ways that's preferable to The Social Network attempting to be a true depiction, which will always run into the problem that a truly fair representation of a person makes for a terrible narrative for film purposes. Anyone who watches Amadeus and takes it as 100% factual deserves to be made a fool.
Well I think that's the point, whoever makes the movie or play, should communicate their intentions properly. If Lin claimed his play is 100% truthful depiction of Hamilton's life, he would've failed. Instead he kinda wanted to tell a story about american founding father that ALL americans could relate to. At least that's how interpreted his intention 😅
In my opinion, tell whatever story you want, but label it correctly. Historical fiction, loosely based or just based on a true story, biobic... You can come up with other labels. And maybe they could throw few lines in the beginning of the movie or at the end of it, of how they researched the subject and how they decided what include and what not.
Or since "making of" and "behind the scenes" and all dvd and Blu-ray extras are so common now that they've almost considered part of the movie experience, they could explain their vision there.
nope
0:50 I mean, in Anastasia Rasputin was an evil zombie who could use dark magic
Not sure what you're saying, but that part of that movie was definitely accurate to history.
That was real
He was One Sick Siberian!
That was a fun documentary
It is known that all Don Bluth films are simply historical documentaries of impeccable fidelity.
Shoutout to six, which is a musical about the Six wives of Henry, but openly admits in the their songs that this is mostly made up.
In their final song they even sing.
"but we wanted to say before the drop of the curtain,
Nothing is for sure nothing is for certain.
All we really know is that we used to be six wives."
Also because they were women, historians don't record their life as much detailed as Henry VIII. I think it was a nod to the fictional part and also empathizing with the great women in history who are often omitted.
@@vanphung7270 you said it gurl!
@@vanphung7270 There's an additional subtlety... they weren't born important. Certainly, we know more about Elizabeth I than, say, Shakespeare or, indeed, her own mother. And even once they were married to Henry, they weren't important in the same way... same as how you don't hear much of anything about Anne's husband (even though he was a prince in his own right)... compare the length of their Wikipedia articles, for example. (But to your point, compare Anne's sister and her brother-in-law's articles.)
It's not just that they were women. It's that being women exacerbated an absence of presumed historical significance from before they were married. And that holds just as true today. It's the difference between Donald Trump jr and Prince George... the one was 42 when his Wikipedia article was created and the other... wasn't even born. (For clarity, Wikipedia was founded in 2001. These articles were created in 2007 and 2013, respectively. Their fathers' articles were established in June and August 2004, likewise respectively.)
That is literally not true... the creators went to huge lengths to be historically accurate. The only incorrect fact was when Anne Boleyn refers to “1522 came straight to the UK” when the UK hadn’t been created yet. The lyric you quote is a comment on historical interpretations, not on basic factual errors. I interviewed the creators as part of my academic research into tudor historical fiction.
@@DaniCavenderHandley oh no I don't mean it like that! They definitely did their research with this musical, I mean that they personality-wise changed them all to be more modern. The whole story even takes place after they all died.
I also think that Hamilton framed Alexander as a poor guy who was more aligned with the "working class" of the time, when in reality he grew up to be of a higher class and was part of the party that thought only educated (rich) people should vote. I always thought it was interesting that so many people who disagree with that viewpoint (at least who I know) were and are still so obsessed with Hamilton. I think it's a great show but I was never like a stan or anything
i mostly agree, but wealthy does not equal educated. You can get educated the hard way despite being born poor and you can be rich and not ever learn crap (like a certain person in a well known ellipsoid stateroom). Monetary wealth opens doors, it does not guarantee you actually pass through them.
You can stan the musical without stanning Hamilton as a person.
The musical does go into that. Especially in the Cabinet Battle.
He’s a gross and awful figure made woke and all the stories that actually matter are erased. People were learning to reject this nation’s historical myths and Hamilton warped that process.
I see it like a rag to ritches story. He got rich by reading greatly and writing poetry in a small British isle in the Caribbean. Went he got to America/New York, he further became notable due to his wit against Samuel Seabury's attack of the Convention. All of this lead him to notability by the rich of New York, thus they helped him to become the man he was.
If I could live long enough, I wonder how much time would go by before 'Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter' became historical myth?
Do you mean to suggest he wasn't a vampire hunter? Guess we have to rewrite the history books...
@@andrewnetherton652 🤣🤣🤣🤣
If we find out our current administration drinks human blood but walks in the daylight, it could turn out very differently. The trips to Ukraine weren't to get dirt on Biden, but a quest to recover Dracula's coffin.
For me; I take Hamilton as a story about the trappings of ambition and legacy. To be so obsessed with making a name for yourself that you end up pushing away those who love you and ignoring the smaller things in life, only for one thing to come crashing down and leaving you with nothing. History may not be perfect, but sometimes the lessons of the past can be what teaches us today.
Wisecrack: "some works of art fall into the uncanny valley of truth but the stakes are low."
[Wisecrack shows a clip of the movie 300]
The whole Persian community: WHHHHHAAAAAAAAT?
I think they mean the stakes are low because the movie is so over the top and ridiculous that no one is likely to take it seriously. It's like the South Park episode on the founding fathers. It's so silly and cartoony that no one is going to march into their history class and say "But what about the part were the first Wednesday of every month is ice cream day?"
@@labetenoire you have never been to the middle east. They HAAAATTTTEEEEE 300, they see it as iranophobic and purporting negative stereotypes.
@@averagejoe6617 Well, I am genuinely surprised but certainly can't blame them. Never would have thought anyone would even give a second glance to such a silly film.
That movie is a darling of western fascists and repeats a shit ton of lies.
@@labetenoire that's what happens when you don't have the perspective of an Iranian I suppose
Most comments are: Hamilton stans Will be mad.
And it didn't happened.
Because no one else was in the room where it happened 😔
@@satvrno5382 The room where it happened.
Say what you want about the characters and the play itself, the background dancers stole the whole show
Agreed! "The Bullet" is absolutely phenomenal throughout the play! Worth a few rewatches just for them!
Pretty much everyone I know who really did like Hamilton ended up reading a lot more about the real history of the events depicted, which is something I really don't see often. It made me get the Chernow book which fills in a lot more detail, but when going through it I do also get why the changes were made for the play.
The musical isn't really just supposed to be a history lesson. It has its own themes that it's author is interested in and wanted to explore. For example you have the Hamilton-Burr rivalry being a central part of the story and with both characters being portrayed as philosophically opposite to one another, and they just keep running into each other. In truth, they didn't really seem have much of a relationship at all before the war, and were both much more nuanced than they are in the play. But having their personalities clash and them repeatedly brush up against each other makes the play a better work of literature, so I'm still glad it's there.
funny how satire is somewhat more historically accurate when it wants to be
this sentence hurts my brain but i see what you meant lol
On that subject, The Death of Stalin is one of the best period pieces of all time
In fairness, they said Jefferson "basically missed the late '80s." The war ended in the early 80s. But yes, as the late 80s are summed up in a really short span and Jefferson is not in the first act at all, it does give that impression.
That is also how I remember it, but Hamilton felt more like a play filled with shoutouts and easter eggs for history nerds than one originally intended as an educative experience. A lot of Miranda’s lack of nuance or explanation becomes forgiveable if he assumed he would be reaching a more knowledgeable audience.
plus the same guy that played lafayette plays jefferson.
“Is Hamilton Bad”
No. It might not hold up as an piece of that portrays its real life characters and their History accurately, but it doesn’t need to. It’s still a fantastic piece of art in its own right.
It's actually really interesting when you read the book on the development of Hamilton the musical the approach that Lin Manuel Miranda took when writing the musical. It was very much "write a good story" first and "only use fact" second. He was aware that the simple nature of stories doesn't lend itself to as much nuance as you'd need to describe the life of a real complex human being who kind of did a lot of shit in his life, so that's not what the musical is about. The musical is about the rivalry between Hamilton and Burr and everything that had to happen to lead up to the final conclusion of that rivalry, because when reading the part of the biography that Lin read and thought would make a good rap album. So he very much made choices on what to include based on the question "does this further the story." A notable example is the third Cabinet Battle that was supposed to be addressing slavery but was ultimately cut because in the end, nobody actually did anything in either direction so it didn't improve the story even thought it might have added some nuance.
This is like the beef I have with The greatest show man
I think the greatest showman is far worse in its inaccuracies than Hamilton.
Serpentine 812 don’t get me started I’ve written about 5 essays on everything wrong with the greatest showman and I’m trying to move past spending so much time on a film I hate
Legit one of the worst works of historical fiction. Completely butchers and sugarcoats Barnum's legacy and it doesn't even manage to be a good musical in the process.
Wonderful film and musical.
Don’t care about it being accurate.
It’s fiction based on a real person, that’s it.
If you want historical accuracy read a book, watch a documentary or a movie that actually strives to be historically accurate.
Roman00 I’ve sworn of getting in long arguments about this film but I just want to say it should have further differentiated itself because he did BAD things and it’s also unfair to the performers and slaves he abused as well as Jenny Lind who was a kind and generous woman who doesn’t deserve most people knowing her as a home-wrecker when she did nothing of the sort.
I’ve strongly disliked PT Barnum since before the film but I also dislike the film on its own merits and think it’s lowkey problematic.
I won’t respond to any other comments telling me to just enjoy the film because this isn’t my first rodeo.
Great take. Something that always bothers me about some historical fiction or documentaries is when they portray a narrative that is just incomplete or has a couple made up events thrown in. When we're believing 90% of the movie, it's much easier to swallow fictional takes as well. I believe Chernobyl had a couple of these too.
I think maybe being not an American makes this easier to deal with.
If you're not taught American nationalism and patriotic dogma from birth, Hamilton doesn't seen like it's in this uncanny valley of truth.
It seems obviously heavily stylised, and that's fine.
It's more like a creation myth for America than a historical account of its founding.
Analogous to Shakespeare's Henriad.
“The past changes a little every time we retell it.”
--Hilary Mantel
"this passing chugs a lentil ever tome I retail in"
-Hillary Martell
"What?"
--Hilary Mantel
I'll quote that
"OKAY!"
-Hilarity Mental
"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet."
― Abraham Lincoln
Essentially the plot of Hamilton is a real life 'noone else was in the room where it happened' it's impossible to have it 100% accurate!
Hamilton himself makes a joke about Martha Washington naming her cat after him and says "This is actually true" clueing us in that other things may Not be true.
I know I'm getting old, because I'm watching people discover stuff I thought everyone already knew, like "historical fiction contains fiction."
Man, if the inaccuracy of historical fiction is upsetting your worldview, just wait until you hear about the inaccuracy of things that claim to be historical facts...
"Is historical fiction a useful tool to get us jazzed about the story of America's founding and the exhilarating history of constitutional law or is it just going to confuse everyone on their AP history exam?" This statement, which ends this video, is a microcosm of everything wrong with this musical and everything wrong with the critiques of it, and also the critiques of those critiques (ie. this video). The argument in this video, from beginning to end, is essentially that the critiques of the musical are invalid because they are petty or pedantic. Look at the first shot across the bow (0:13), which happens immediately out of the gate and sets up the video: it pokes fun at what is perceived as a knit-picky critique. Essentially, this implies all the critiques of the play are merely knit-picky, and, as he says later, historians generally laud Hamilton for its historicity. But, again, this is blatant rhetoric on the part of the video's writer. The historicity of the musical is sound in that the events play out in the general way that they did and there aren't huge historical issues as in a movie like "Braveheart" for example, which pretends to depict the true history of William Wallace and really gets no where close the historical man, or the historical issues with a movie like "Gangs of New York," which has its historicity issues but never pretends to be anything other than a stylized version of what life was like in the Five Points in the 1860s. For _Hamilton_ that is not the case. The history is mostly fine. The problem is the persona. And this is what is infuriating about this video; it is intentionally obfuscating this very valid critique of the musical.
The main problem with _Hamilton_ is that it is tone deaf. Alexander Hamilton, the actual historical persona, doesn't really exist in popular awareness outside of maybe the $10 bill and the duel with Burr; add to this the fact he was an immigrant and he is a perfect choice to be glorified. The problem is that Hamilton was not in any way a proponent of the poor; he used that rhetoric but he supported the Constitution the way it was originally written. Unpropertied people were not guaranteed voting rights; the landed men would vote for Congress and the Electoral College, the latter of which would vote for the President on a one time basis then be disbanded; and State Legislatures would vote for the Senate. There is only one direct popular vote there: Congress. And think about what "popular" (i.e landed white men) means at this time, and still, Hamilton, Madison and the other framers of the Constitution want to give _as little_ direct power to the people as they possibly can. That's what Alexander Hamilton was all about. He *pretended* to be in favor of the everyday person (as any successful politican), but when you really get down to it, he did not really think the poor and working classes should have much of a say in government. Go read the Federalist Papers, it's all rhetoric in defense of not giving the people a say, but ostensibly he was always thinking of the "public good." It's the same corporatist nonsense one would get from the likes of a McConnell or a Pelosi in a modern day setting.
Now, not only do you rightly point out the real issue (4:05), but then you do everything you can to write that issue off as not a real issue. After saying that this is the real problem the video then devolves into this discussion about the "Uncanny Valley of Truth" (5:10), but THAT DOES NOT MATTER. It is a red herring to get the audience's attention away from the real problem with the musical, which actually kicked off this segment, where you say that Hamilton, the actual historical person, sold slaves and had a lot of issues when is came to race and class. Just look at how the host transitions again to a pedantic argument with the ahistorical notion that Thomas Jefferson was absent during most of the war (6:55). Who cares! There are much more pressing ahistorical matters in the musical. But, what is a little more insidious comes directly before that (6:33): people who watch this musical will now think that Hamilton was some type of abolitionist and defender of the people, when he clearly was not. But then, of course, does the video talk about that? No! It switches to a discussion about Jefferson being absent during the war, like that is a big deal for some reason.
Here is another example of why I think this musical, and this video defending it, are not entirely honest actors. Miranda has basically admitted that he based the whole musical on only one book about Hamilton, which is fine and all, but this particular book is not generally considered to be the paradigm of historical biographies. Ron Chernow is not a historian, so if he is the only source Miranda had, that's kind of an issue (2:26). Again you point his out correctly (twice! 4:05 and 14:02), but then by the end you have entirely forgotten that and say that the historical inaccuracies are not important, what's important is getting people to think about history (15:25). But, now to correctly inform a viewer of the musical about the real Hamilton it's an uphill battle. How is that helpful? Why are you are normalizing the idea that Hamilton was anything but an elitist who cared nothing for the lower classes, despised minorities, and for all intents and purposes would have been exactly like any corporate goon that we have nowadays? Isn't this channel against that?
So, excuse me if I think that your framing here is a bit off, but failing an AP exam is the least of the worries when it comes to why I think this production is "bad". This play serves the same function as the statues that were being torn down across the country over the last few months. It mythologizes the founding fathers, fetishizes that myth, revels in the glory of the status quo, and then barks down anyone who deigns criticize this beloved "history." Maybe nuance is more important. And this is where _Hamilton_ drops the ball. The musical should be doing everything it does with its "healthy amount of self-awareness" (14:55) and then use it to criticize the status quo, critique the ruling class (including Hamilton and the other founding fathers), and promote the very people it has co-opted in its production: black and brown folks. This is an important piece of American historical knowledge (15:11), and I completely agree that everyone should know how America was born. But if you want to deny the racism and classism of that birth then you are "white-washing" the founding fathers in the worst possible way.
Where I think we completely agree is that I think this production is super important in presenting the material to the audience, but the problem is the message (13:40). The message is that the founding fathers should be glorified and mythologized but now for a new millennium, but is that really important? Shouldn't we be taking uncomfortable and honest looks at history (like "Lovecraft Country")? Maybe even absurdistly honest? And that is absolutely not _Hamilton._ The potential was there, the idea was amazing, but the execution seems to have had the reverse effect.
i clicked onto this video quite worried that it wouldn't address the actually important problems with hamilton - which is exactly you described! you hit the nail on the head so hard... this a youtube comment essay that i am 100% here for. king shit.
@@buttons6171 Thank you! As soon as I saw the video thumbnail, I thought that they would not really address the actual issue(s), but I didn't think they would actually address it and then sweep it under the rug with logic fallacies. I guess that's how strong "patriotism" is, though: it breaks an otherwise logically sound youtube channel and turns its content into propaganda. Had to be said.
Oh, wow, you wrote a lot!
So, while I think you have some good points (actually a lot of them), I think you - like you accuse the creator of this video of doing - are missing the point.
First of all, it’s called “historical fiction” for a reason. Although it’s based, or relies heavily on history for plot, characters and/or settings it’s fiction (which means literature that describes imaginary events and people - this one seems especially relevant to your comment but I’ll come back to that section later - , often less imaginary when it’s concerning historical fiction, but the definition still stands). It has never claimed historical accuracy, and the creator (LMM) has admitted to “ignoring” historical facts several times (I’ll insert an example of an occasion where he does this exact thing here). Of course, it is a problem when people get mislead and think that’s the entire story, or that the way its portrayed is exactly how it happened, but to be honest, that’s not the musical’s fault. Like I said: it’s historical fiction, it has never claimed to be entirely historically accurate and if people don’t decide to look more into these people and stories, find out what they really did, what they were really like, what they actually stood for, that’s honestly their own fault. The musical (or any other work of historical fiction for that matter) can’t take responsibility for viewers and consumers ignorance.
Hamilton (as far as I know) was higher class and - though I haven’t seen any concrete evidence, I don’t doubt it - classist, but here’s when you kind of lost me: you say that “-Hamilton was not in any way a proponent of the poor-“ Now because of your following sentence, I’m guessing you just mean that he simply wasn’t poor (if you meant that he just wasn’t a spokesman - or at least not a good one - for the poor, that’s another matter entirely and I apologise for the following segment), which as a sentence without any further nuances or clarification could be accused of even being false.
There’s no denying that he was - in the literal definition - dirt poor his entire childhood (because he was illegitimate and didn’t get any of the fortunes he could’ve gotten if he was not, aka: in theory he was born into a high class family, or at least one that once was, but he didn’t actually get to reap any of its benefits. This is just one example of why class and economic status isn’t the same) so he did know what the less economically fortunate were going through, even if he was very rich in his later years. Again, this doesn’t mean he was a good spokesman for the poor, but for a person who’s claiming that this musical denies the facts I thought it was important to bring up a few of the facts you “denied” to get a little perspective.
Not only that, but in his adult life, he wasn’t fully rich either. Because of his honesty in economic matters (despite people like Jefferson claiming otherwise) he actually was in debt (and not a small one either).
When he died his family (especially Eliza) were left with this debt and had to ask for help and gather a trust-fund from their close friends to help may it off.
But don’t get me wrong, if I just misunderstood that entire sentence/segment, please let me know and we’ll clear it up. Maybe it’s just differences in our sources. If you want mine, just ask!
Also, this doesn’t mean that Hamilton was a good person. I honestly don’t think he was. Like I said, I do believe he was classist, and racist, and sold slaves, which are all characteristics few good people have. I’m just saying that even with terrible people (maybe especially with terrible people) it’s important to keep track of what terrible things they were actually guilty of.
Secondly, I want to address your “white-washing” comment, and the segment surrounding it. Because just like with the other sentence I just covered, I was confused on what you meant. Maybe you can clarify? Because as far as I could tell, this musical does everything it can do to literally promote black and brown folks. You can’t forget that, before a lengthy, but fun history lesson, this is a story. Not a history book who’s job is to tackle every single issue at the time. It’s Hamilton’s story, and just like slavery played an relatively important, but small role in his life, it does in this musical too. Ifb you wanted a musical about slavery, that already exists. And yes, it’s extremely important to push the history of black and brown people into the spotlight whenever it’s pre-slavery, during slavery or after slavery (this is of course, only when you think about afro-americans, and not black and brown folks with other backgrounds). We need to educate ourselves on this topic! However, what I fail to see mentioned in your comment is the fact that - again - it’s not what this story is about. Lin-Manuel Miranda also does what basically no one else would’ve: casted people of colour and minority groups. This helps people of colour much more than mentioning them a few more times ever could. It - and I don’t know how to stress this enough - literally promotes them.
Also, the fact that you said white-washing when that’s the exact opposite of what this musical did just baffles me.
In the end, I guess your biggest point was about the glorification of these so-called characters which I to an extent agree with, but the complexity of a real person is too complicated to cover in a musical anyway, especially several. And again, I don’t believe that any work of historical fiction owes you complete historical accuracy, whenever that means events or people. If people just want to enjoy the musical with all its fantastic songs and choreography, that’s fine. But if they’re going to actually make statements about the founding fathers and the people surrounding them, they should educate themselves on their actual actions and personalities.
My main point is: you expect too much of this musical. Though I don’t deny that it’s flawed, I think it tackles most of the problems and complexities perfectly. If you want more context or information, google is free.
@@candywrap4974 (Sorry, I had to break this up in two posts) First of all, thank you for your thoughtful response. I think you do as good of a job as you possibly can in defending this musical, but unfortunately you are fighting an uphill battle. Secondly, if you think this is a lot, then you should read some of my other posts! haha And you were certainly up to the challenge; I very much enjoyed reading your response. :-)
Ok, gloves off now; sorry, but we have some substantive critiques to get to here. I will try to be more brief this time, but let's get some stuff just out of the way first. You seem to be constantly implying that I want this musical to teach _me_ and that I am concerned about _my own_ historical knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth; I have a degree in history, so I couldn't care less whether or not the historical fiction I am consuming is accurate or not. I know whether or not what I'm watching is garbage history, or whether it is pretty good. And even if something is outside of my historical knowledge, I can go and look up actual historians and figure it out myself. In fact, I love historical fiction, and titles like recent anime series _Vinland Saga_ or the 1994 movie _Casino_ or even the HBO series _Rome_ can do a lot of different things because they are not treading on the sacred ground of social commentary and the formulation of the very country in which we still currently abide.
So, I would contend that the extreme lengths Miranda goes to to make the musical "as historically accurate as possible," and that he felt "an enormous responsibility" to do so, are the very things that make this musical so nefarious (from the aptly titled "How Lin-Manuel Miranda Shapes History" from _The Atlantic_ article on September 19, 2015). By appropriating the bodies and voices of black and brown folks, yet not actually allowing any black or brown historical personas to grace his stage (save Sally Hemings coming out of and fading back into the Chorus, which excuse me if I don't bristle at how apt a treatment of black and brown experiences that actually is for this play), this musical just trumpets the same mythological founding nonsense that any bs high school text book around the country would give. I call it "happy history" because it makes sure that the conflicts it talks about are neutered for a modern audience. This is what I mean by "white-washing." And, if you noticed, I put that in quotation marks for a reason. I was using it satirically. Let's be very, very clear. This play is WHITE history. Chernow, who Miranda used exclusively to write his play, is NOT a historian. He is giving you the high school textbook version of history, which is going to promote whiteness and show how Hamilton was just a man of the people. As Eliza says at the end of the play: "I speak out against slavery/ You could have done so much more if you only had-" Ew and no! Even Miranda himself doesn't understand the weight to which he has changed history for the average audience member. Saying in a June 2020 interview, after he had already received criticism for his ahistorical characterizations: "Hamilton - although he voiced anti-slavery beliefs - remained complicit in the system. And other than calling out Jefferson on his hypocrisy with regards to slavery in Act 2, doesn't really say much else over the course of Act 2. And I think that's actually pretty honest. ... He didn't really do much about it after that. None of them did. None of them did enough. And we say that, too, in the final moments of the song" ("The Past Isn't Done With Us,' Says 'Hamilton' Creator Lin-Manuel Miranda" NPR Fresh Air interview June 29). Wait wait wait. Miranda wants to completely skate over an issue and then take credit for it? Come on. Please. So, not only does he get to rewrite Alexander Hamilton as this people-loving, common-man, abolitionist, he then gets to rewrite history in the closing moments of his play and say that Hamilton could have done so much more? This is what got the actual historians going, btw. So much so, they all got together and wrote a book about how terrible this play is because of how it portrays Hamilton in this manner. If you are interested the book is called "Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America's Past," and you can find it for about $15 online. I recommend it for the _Hamilton_ stan in your life.
Next point, Hamilton was not a "proponent of the poor." So, we can parse whether or not he actually cared about the poor or the public good, which I think he did in a Machiavellian way (ie. he cared for the public good in so much as it benefited the elite at the top, as described in Machiavelli's _The Prince_ ). However, let's just stick to the provable, non-theoretical parts of this. Hamilton was instrumental in the formulation of the Constitution and the removal of the Articles of Confederation (he didn't write a whole lot of it, but he and Madison worked out a lot of it together while they wrote the Federalist Papers at the same time as the Convention), which he hated because it gave too much power to the people and the states. Hamilton even argued at one point during the Constitutional Convention that the President and Senate should be elected for life like the Supreme Court and other judges (for F's sake, this is your people's champion?! ugh, why do I even have to have these conversations?).
@@candywrap4974 (Part 2) But here you go, you want my "sources"? How about Alexander Hamilton himself? Here he is in 1787, speaking at the Convention: "All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people...The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government.” Or how about this gem from the Federalist Papers, no. 55: "Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." Btw, in my opinion, this is one of the dumbest quotes ever in history. Do you want more elitist nonsense from Hamilton? How about this one? "It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity" (June 21, 1788, NY, speech at the Constitutional Convention).
Are you convinced yet? No? Ok, one more, this is a long one, from Federalist 63 (his caps, not mine): "From these facts, to which many others might be added, it is clear that the principle of representation was neither unknown to the ancients nor wholly overlooked in their political constitutions. The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies IN THE TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE PEOPLE, IN THEIR COLLECTIVE CAPACITY, from any share in the LATTER, and not in the TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE from the administration of the FORMER. The distinction, however, thus qualified, must be admitted to leave a most advantageous superiority in favor of the United States. But to insure to this advantage its full effect, we must be careful not to separate it from the other advantage, of an extensive territory. For it cannot be believed, that any form of representative government could have succeeded within the narrow limits occupied by the democracies of Greece.
In answer to all these arguments, suggested by reason, illustrated by examples, and enforced by our own experience, the jealous adversary of the Constitution will probably content himself with repeating, that a senate appointed not immediately by the people, and for the term of six years, must gradually acquire a dangerous pre-eminence in the government, and finally transform it into a tyrannical aristocracy.
To this general answer, the general reply ought to be sufficient, that liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power; that there are numerous instances of the former as well as of the latter; and that the former, rather than the latter, are apparently most to be apprehended by the United States. But a more particular reply may be given."
Did you get what he said there? He said that the Senate must be elected by the Congress and they must have at least a 6 year term because giving any power to the people is dangerous and the liberty of the people MUST be curtailed to ensure the safety of the public good. In other words, you and I are not intelligent enough to run the government. Only the rich and elite can run the government. Hamilton and Madison will throw us a bone, and we can vote for the one group of people who have the shortest terms. But not everyone. Again, remember, only landed white men are voting at this point. Hamilton was hard pressed to even extended suffrage to the common farmer or artisan, let alone everyone else. Women, poor, black and brown folks and anyone else not part of the wealthy and elite is, of course, not "wise" enough to vote, let alone have any other role in government. People did not elect Senators till 1917. The Electoral College even was not clearly set up to be a popular vote, as it kind of is now, and only became so after several Presidential elections. And doesn't this all make the fact that he did get out of poverty even more hypocritical? He is just like Amy Coney Barrett, slam the door on the people behind him.
You want my Miranda-like prediction? If the country was set up the way Hamilton wanted black and brown folks would have never even risen to the place where this musical would be possible. That's what I mean by white-washing. If you would like a substantive critique of American history and the people that rule it, I always recommend starting with Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States."
"My main point is: you expect too much of this musical." I expect this musical to respect the bodies of the people that perform it, merely by doing EVERYTHING THAT IT DOES but just critiquing the status quo. All it does is revel in the glory of the myth of the founders, and all while putting that myth in the mouths of black and brown folks so it can propagate that myth to a new audience. Frankly, it's gross. Think of how powerful it would be to have actual black voices on stage, like Crispus Attucks or James Armistead Lafayette or literally ANY slave in the country? Or have the voice of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton all critiquing the white ruling class! But, unfortunately that opportunity was squandered along with the brilliant social commentary this could have actually been. (Sorry, I meant to make this short, I really did. I told you to read some of my other posts. haha)
What I love about historical fiction like Hamilton is that it gives us the flavour of the moments depicted. It doesn’t have to be 100% historically accurate in order to get the gist of it across. And that’s pretty cool 👍🏼
Unfortunately it does that by deitising a horrible human being
@@austinsavage5962 You are not wrong...
"I like to put Quotes on Wisecrack videos to look smart and shit."
-- Gex
best comment
"This is just posting a Gex quote outside of a videogame dunkey video."
-Gex
Lin Manuel Miranda is not a genius in my opinion because if he really was one, he would have taken general stupidity of American public in consideration and added the comment that “This ain’t history, it’s theatre!” at the start of the play.
No. He's one of the greatest racing drivers ever to live.
Here here
Shame he's a tax-dodging asshole.
Lovely guy, extremely skilled driver, born in my town. Should pay his taxes.
@@AkuraTheAwesome move on dude, the jet story is 3 years old.
Michael- Then I'm going to describe the uncanny valley.
-Wait aren't you doing a video on Hamilton?
Michael-yeah, so anyway about the uncanny valley.
That bit felt shoehorned in the script to pad the duration.
Nikolaos Yeah, honestly this whole video felt kinda padded and misleading. That may just be me though…
Is Hamilton Bad?
- Depends on a person's preference but it is good for me.
Is it Historically Accurate?
- No
I just feel the title is a bit clickbaity.
Hamilton is a musical not a history lesson I don’t need to add anything else
Well we can also discuss “should musicals be allowed to play with the truth of historical events?” Since some would say that there can be damage caused by this. Yes it’s for entertainment and not a history lesson, but if people are going to accept what they learn from this musical in the same way they would from an actual history lesson, then we need to be wary of that impact.
@@notryangosling3065 I definitely would not show Hamilton to a US History class, but the core of the story is mostly accurate, though obviously the amount of POC in the musical was NOT reflective of the time. I wouldn't take everything as truth, but it makes you want to do research on the founding of the US. I went into Hamilton knowing full well many details would be historically inaccurate, but I find that I know a lot more about how the US was created as a non-American
@@notryangosling3065 Lin-Manuel Miranda has already explicitly expressed that Hamilton is not an entirely accurate representation of history. The whole purpose was of the musical was not to give out a history lesson in accuracy but rather circle the idea of how the actions a person commits can lead to different endings and narrative interpretations of what really happened. The musical utilizes the life of Hamilton as an example of a poor figure rising to power but ultimately being disregarded and having his story simplified. Besides, many people understand the show is riddled with inaccuracies especially with some sly jokes and comical moments being sliding in. The entire comedy and humor of the show expresses the simplification and exaggeration of the true reality.
The impact of taking in historical inaccuracy is not as extreme as we may think. Many who take Hamilton's historical aspects seriously are often corrected by those more knowledgeable in the subject or may research on their own the real truth. My whole point is that it's fine to have a show that romanticizes history because in the way these shows are represented we only see musicals like Newsies, Bonnie and Clyde, Six (etc.) as stories telling us an overarching theme with bits of fun facts and not a history lesson.
@@watari9644 The amount of POC wasn't to be historically accurate but to show to all the minorities and POC that you don't have to be white to be a leader. Though not at that time, today it is possible for a black child, asian child, white child (etc.) to grow up and impact the world like the founding fathers and other great figures. Intelligence and bravery is not reserved for only the white. This is why we see many musicals and shows casting POC to originally white figures. It's not a matter of historical accuracy but rather a social and political statement :)
That's fine but this is a bad take when in reality people watch it and take it As Fact which is what this video talks about.
Hamilton did not own slaves, although when working in St Croix he worked for a company trading in commodities that included slaves. Him, John Adams, and the entire Federalist Party as a whole were abolitionist, and he was one of the main driving forces behind the eventual abolition of slavery in the State of New York later on. He even supported Haiti and her revolution, which made his contemporaries in the Democratic-Republican Party very nervous indeed.
If I recall correctly, he bought/sold sold a couple for the Schulers and hated himself for doing it.
Hamilton did get me interested in the actual history of the USA, but seeing people take the musical as fact is painful lmao
Yeah same
It kind of reminds me of that park in England with the giant lizard statues to show what dinosaurs looked like, but now is considered a record of what people used to think dinosaurs looked like.
“The founding father’s theme rap musical is full of hideous lies”
Like the fact Daveed Diggs is actually the scariest person alive but you don’t know that because you don’t know clipping
Wait! I’m genuinely concerned. What did he do?
I’ve known clipping for a little while and heard maybe 3 to 4 songs
@@mkthatartist7979 Oh he hasn't done anything bad, I'm just saying that the lyrics to a song like Body & Blood is a far cry from anything from the musical
@@sunnowo Oh thanks! I thought he actually did something bad but sometimes I don’t read thoroughly
marie antoinette 2006 is amazing example of how historic movies can be inspired by history but make it obvious it is just inspiration
I’ve been living under a Dwayne Johnson for a while, what happened to Jared? No offense to Michael but Jared’s voice was like liquid crack to me.
Liquid wisecrack.
im so confused this is a hamilton video 👁
He has left Wisecrack
Yes. The music is painful to listen to.
Understandable. I personally liked it but I like rap and hip-hop type music to begin with so.
@@jam5369 Yes, that style of music is not generally my cup of tea. I am glad it brings joy to other people, just not for me.
If it encourages the viewers to look into the information for context and clarity, or just a little self-gratification before your next BYOB historical trivia night, I’d say it’s worth it
I'm sure seeing _Hamilton_ live would have been a fantastic event where hours just fly by.
Me watching it on Disney+ I lasted 10 minutes.
Loved Hamilton. Great lyricism, storytelling, and choreography. Never took it as an accurate historical text
Impact by Musical Stans Incoming! Battlestations! Brace for impact!
IMO it’s a well written musical with lots of fun musical devices, repeating themes and motifs, and clever word plays that is also about as historically accurate as Sweeney Todd.
In other words, it’s a piece of fiction I enjoy.
no the music sucks
@@MrRrusiii your opinion and you're entitled to have it as the OP is entitled to thinking the music is great
@@kiamatyful Wrong
I literally just finished re-watching the whole Hamilton movie and then this shows up. Coincidence? I THINK NOT!
But on a serious note, i knew from the start that the musical will eventually have facts being changed and altered to better fit the story/lyrics/song. Hamilton is based of these real life founding fathers but it was clear to me that it was never supposed to be treated seriously since the characters are very much portrayed as fictional characters. I still adore this musical because honestly, I came for the absolute bangers in the album. And, I learned a lot about American history when I'm not even from America (even if those facts are not entirely accurate)
I feel this, I just don't think it should be treated as complete fact in the classroom. It happened to me when I took APUSH. My teacher said how it was all based on historically accurate sources and such. But she never mentioned how Hamilton owned slaves and such.
the music sucks
@@MrRrusiii you're wrong!
@@androdeiculus9712 Quiet
@@MrRrusiii No!
Ooooooh, you gonna talk about how G.W. And Hamilton weren’t no angels, huh? Brace yourselves for the fan onslaught.
Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter is a good example of this too.
I love how it is assumed that actual historical facts will dictate what the "correct" answer on a history exam will be. I just love that unjaded optimism.
Considering most of the founding fathers declared independence for the exact purpose of evading the looming threat of the aboloshment of slavery and to get out of the treaty made with the native people that further westward expension would cease.
They wanted freedom, the freedom to exploit people in order to make money.
Not that a musical will teach you that, good thing it's also not an acceptable answer on most history tests...
“Founders’ Chic” is such a great way to describe this genre, thank you for bringing it into my life
There are no facts in fiction, only the opportunity for truth. Something like Hamilton is not about history; it's only using the texture of history to talk about our experience right now. Characters - whether we're talking about Hamilton or Bilbo Baggins - are simply symbolic elements, cogs in the meaning-machine of a story - and stories exist to help us find meaning in OURSELVES, not explanations of the past.
The use of history in a movie might make someone interested in actual history - and that's fantastic. But the fact that The Untouchables is absolutely not accurate in the slightest doesn't mean that it's not beautifully true in what it's saying, just as Star Wars is completely made up, but is incredibly meaningful to people. Because If it's a story, it is by definition made up. It's there to make examine your own emotions, your own decisions, and give you tools to think about what you believe. In short, the only thing stories are made to educate us about is US.
Angelica Schuyler may have actually had brothers despite the fact Hamilton says otherwise. So Hamilton did tell me wrong, but I'd never have even heard of her and thought to look her up to find out the truth if I hadn't watched Hamilton.
It's so interesting, but Neil Gaimen's `Norse Mythology` opens with a whole section about how History is ultimately just people sitting around a campfire telling stories. And he's just like hey, I'm a writer, I love these stories, and there doesn't exist a popular compendium so I'm just going to write it myself; here you go! That's a really useful lens on History, I thought and that seems to be the takeaway from this video as well. Have a nice day. :)
Glad you covered this. I'm in the same boat, personally. I find it disappointing how many inaccuracies the show is built upon, but the show is still valuable in many facets:
Music, character building, creating interest and connectivity with American history and spreading positive, (mostly) forward thinking ideals. Hamilton holds a lot of value, especially for modern audiences who have an increasingly harder time finding pride and interest in the history and accomplishments of America.
The solution is pretty easy. Teach people that fiction and documentary are very different things. It's pretty annoying when someone points out that a movie is twisting real facts. yes, is a movie, a work of fiction, a piece of entertaiment. Chill the f out
Hamilton is one of the greatest pieces of art that man has ever made. I don't care how historically accurate it is. It's art.
*Reads title*
*Looks at my 100+ times listening to each song*
"no"
Wouldnt it be better, for Hamilton to instead be an introductory to incite interest in the public for them to *take responsibility in proper research and fact checking on a* *historical musical* that is based on both historical fact but also takes *creative liberties* ? Would'nt it be better for a medium meant for entertainment and recreational leisure be what starts others to actually go out of their way to start taking history *seriously* as a source of reference and teachings and lessons to construct well-informed, self-aware and yet sensible opinions and thought that are meant to better our understanding to better our actions, not necessarily to use as a way to further ignorance or justify inherent bias; to find balance and commonality, not in their time, but in the present much more progressive (compared to back then) modern time period?
Watching Hamilton made me care about U.S. history, and made it easier to understand, so no, I don't think it's really a bad thing
Tho people *should* know to distinguish fantasy from reality
Despair Waffle Yeah! No one is that stupid, right?
This vid is pretty dishonest on how it frames Hamilton's criticism and it defends Lin Manuel-Miranda way too much.
Alexander Hamilton was such a conservative even at the time, that he'd be considered a fascist now. Also he fought for disgustingly authoritarian systems.
Bless Aaron Burr.
The name "unitary executive" may have come around in the 80s. But when I learned it in law school, we started with the underpinnings in the Nixon Administration.
It is not historically accurate, but it made me read about it, in our country (at least in my school), we get very little education about America as a whole. And god I love the songs. Not historically accurate, no, but not bad either! My opinion.
I mean ironically Shakespeare did this as well "et tu, Brute?" Anyone?
Actually jefferson was us ambassador to France between 1783 and 1789
if you use a musical as a tool to study for your exams, you deserve the grade you get...
Assuming you take historical based fiction as fact that could be harmful but on the flip side it can inspire you to find the truth in those media, signed someone who wrote a 10 page paper on Japanese history because of Samurai Warriors
ITT:
Every commentor is a legitimate source of pure Historical accuracy.
I listened to an interview from McCay about Vice and that Politifact article (only source you cited). He rebuked the article claiming he researched for two years and had dozens of interviews with former staffers. Politifact might not be a reliable source on this.
Of course it’s not historically accurate there was no Hip Hop back then
I think a comparison/contrasting to the ERB youtube channel would've helped this video, considering lots of young people have gained an interest in historical figures through catchy rap lyrics similarly to Hamilton. Though it's arguable that ERB, being way further from the Uncanny Valley fundamentally, has more freedom to spit actual truth since it doesn't have to bend facts to tie everything together in a 3-hour storyline for strengthening desired themes.
Why are you throwing substitute teachers under the bus for putting on movies? We don't get to choose what activities the students do, we get instructions in the morning and if the teacher just leaves a movie, that's the thing that happens; we can't just Dead Poets Society the class out into the courtyard to seize the day
I hope you guys do something on The Last Dance
Im sure most of the wisecrack audience could care less about sports but i think there is real nuance and interesting topics to tackle in Jordan's documentary.
The biggest point of interest to me is the idea of sacrificing to be successful. I understand that this is just a wisecrack pop culture Channel but I would really be fascinated to look into the fascinating lives athletes lead and how interesting and almost soap opera esque their life's can be
The thing is, I've never met a Hamilton fan who didn't know the real history. It inspires you to do your own research. Look up any Hamilton reaction on UA-cam; every comment is going to be Hamilfans teaching them the true story ("Actually, Eliza was already pregnant at the time of Philip's death with their eighth child, named Philip II in his brother's honor!" and "In reality, Angelica had been married for some time before she ever met Alexander, and there's no record of a real affair between them"). Hamilton fans could tell you the most random details and facts about the characters' real histories. It's the people who watch Hamilton once, do no research at all, and then head to Twitter to rant and spread rumors who are the problems. That's not a flaw with Hamilton, that's a flaw with an unintelligent audience.
This is a ridiculous question to ask. No media is bad... Its free speech. Although I disagree with some parts of the play and think it wrong to complain about white washing and then turn around and cast black actors as white historical figures. I will stand up for the rights and integrity of this play and almost any other.
I can't speak for others but if anything Hamilton made me more curious about finding out the truth behind the portrayal of events in the musical. I think just as was pointed out towards the end of the video, it's important to note that there is no claim made that the musical is an accurate depiction of history. And also it's very medium (a musical) lends a fantastical element to events that distance it from reality in the mind.
Well, the question titled was if "hamilton is bad?" And it ended with "is historical fiction a bad thing".... thanks
How about a straight forward honest opinion...
I mean if people don’t want to watch Hamilton, I’d gladly recommend them Liberty’s Kids. Good memories....
I loved that show!
Now you got that damn theme song in my head...... 🎶 I take my heart into battle!🎶
This is called "creative liberty". With a creative medium comes a level of twisting to be able to make the most engaging and/or successful version of itself.
The presence of creative liberty and suspension of disbelief in Hamilton is IMMEDIATELY made obvious by the casting. POC then were treated as slaves while POC today are (or should be) recongised as the human collective of everyone.
If the musical claimed to be accurate, everyone would look like King George III.
(I'm pretty sure I just compressed your entire video into a comment, sorry >.
Any form of entertainment that INSPIRES you to go learn something that you don't already know is best in my book. The ANIME show DRIFTERS made me look up the PUNIC WARS and the SENGOKU ERA because I wanted to know the real history behind those characters.
Just like that HAMILTON made me look into the AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
ART is made to inspire and that's what HAMILTON DID.
Hey, I got interested in Japanese history because of Rurouni Kenshin, I can relate.
Art should aspire us to something better. Gone with the wind inspired a lot of confederate flags and plantation weddings. Screw Hamilton.
Like,... I relate a bit because when I was really into Hamilton I looked up all the letters between burr and Hamilton and other stuff too,, but I also have to admit that it's not the experience most viewers are gonna have, 1) because I have the privilege of having a ton of free time and 2) because many people look no further, either because they aren't willing to do so or because they are under the impression that it isn't necessary and that the historical innacuracies wouldn't be that important.
So that's why I think LMM shouldn't have excluded the "problematic" aspects of Alexander Hamilton character.
Its the same reason that I think representation in the media is important; it shouldn't come to entertainment to educate people about other ways of experiencing life but most people realistically aren't going to research or learn more about them.
So I think its important for the media to more accurately represent historical figures like the founding fathers and represent diversity in people, like lgbtqi+, disabled and neuro diverse people.
But, like, I also get that a more realistic depiction of Hamilton wouldn't have sold well in Broadway. And also the music slaps. So. I dunno
@@kokuinomusume :) :) :)
@@Ad3tr I don't think Hamilton doesn't present any extremes like that
Wait, is abraham Lincoln; vampire hunter a work of fiction?
I don't really care how accurate is it, it is absolutely brilliant in terms of writing a musical show
No it sucks
@@MrRrusiii the rhymes in Hamilton are insane
“She courted me
Escorted me and when she had me in the corner
That’s when Reynolds extorted me
For a sordid fee
I paid him quarterly
I may have mortally wounded my prospects
But my papers are orderly”
@@jacktaliasteinberg9681 who gives a shit it's a dumb subject
@@MrRrusiii even if it’s not historically accurate, it’s still very impressive
@@jacktaliasteinberg9681 I'm not impressed
Whether or not historical fiction is good or bad is (like everything) subjective, based on it's quality.
The more accurate the better of course, that's a given. But engagement of the media is important too. How invested you can get the audience in the historical aspects, for instance by leaving some mysteries unanswered in the story for the audience to figure out with their own research. It also helps to separate fact from fiction, by making the fiction aspect very obvious. By, say, weaving in a story about ancient civilizations and secret societies of super assassins safeguarding life and liberty.
“Hamilton wasn’t an anti slavery activist”
He was.
“In fact, he bought and sold slaves for his relatives”
Yes. He also did that.
History is complicated.
Yes he bought and sold a couple, and hated it, swore to never do it again.
Hamilton was a nerd and is boring
Eloquin yes.
Steven Edwards I’m pretty sure it was more than a couple.
@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 There are various accounts, and nothing is certain, because he married into the Schyler family who were one of the wealthiest slave owning families in New York. Hamilton bought slaves posthumously through the estate of Angelica's husband, because he handled all of the finances and bookkeeping of the Schyler family.
To me Hamilton is a person who is very similar to most people, he has some high ideals, but his ambition and pragmatism made him far to susceptible to compromising those ideals to get what he wanted.
It's bad, but not for the reason you named.
It's bad because it's rap for people who don't actually like rap. A musical for people who don't actually like musicals. History for people who don't actually like history.
It makes everything it represents worse by existing.
A friend's interest in Hamilton actually helped me gain an interest in reading history and listening to historical lectures. Watching the musical left me with mixed feelings. My friend is obsessed with it and helped her to have an interest in history too, but she doesn't move beyond the musical. All of her "knowledge" is based on the music rather than reading a book. She actually found the facts boring.
I'm personally concerned that there are more people like her out there who would rather watch a 3-hour musical than spend 30 hours reading a book...
I guess that’s kinda the thing about Hamilton: it traded being completely historically accurate for being a well made, catchy musical story centering around the man. It kinda makes it easier to digest and have fun with in a way, distracting from the rather gruesome, unsettling, and even vague historical details.
Omg it literally sounds like when they do a rap on sesame street or Nickelodeon.
It's called Historical FICTION. FICTION.
Um... no. This is weirdly siliencing the horrible truth that came with Hamilton back then and his SLAVES
We don’t get to censor that....
It’s called whitewashing and humanizing.
I truly believe that an artistic 'interpretation' of historical events should never be consider learning. It should be appreciation of history that should've been already learned already.
I’m getting nightmares about Lin Manuel’s rap battles
The TV movie John Adams took some license but was fairly faithful to the historical knowledge to date. And John Hurt's performance in I, Claudius...camp personified. Absolutely loved it.