Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Angelica in "Hamilton" | |
| Posted by: Kjisgroovy 09:18 am EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: Angelica in "Hamilton" - Delvino 08:18 am EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| My mind has always been boggled as to why they cut Angelica’s short second act song scolding Hamilton. It brings her arc to a close really nicely. As it stands, as you said, her arc isn’t unresolved. But. She’s not telling the story. Maybe it’s by design? | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Angelica in "Hamilton" | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 12:00 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Angelica in "Hamilton" - Kjisgroovy 09:18 am EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| I would not be surprised if it was cut for time, or it was cut because there was the feeling that there were too many ballads in a row. Unfortunately, the machinery of Broadway likes to flatten and simplify on its way to a tight 2.5 hours of a stage time. I'm with you - the song gives me chills, and I wish we had the Act 2 pairing of Hamilton hate songs to match the Act 1 pair of Hamilton love songs (in reverse order). Maybe they can restore it for the 25th Anniversary Tour (or when the show reopens on Broadway, whichever is sooner). |
|
| reply to this message |
| or the sequel. Don't laugh. nm | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:06 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Angelica in "Hamilton" - Singapore/Fling 12:00 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Angelica in "Hamilton" | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:16 am EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Angelica in "Hamilton" - Kjisgroovy 09:18 am EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| I've thought about it too and it would be interesting to hear LMM's (or TK's or anyone who was in the process) take. Playing devil's advocate here, I think the blunt answer would be that she does not have an arc, that whatever she thinks or feels is not a part of any story except as it affects the Hamilton's. (Remember also that Angelica's arc in the play is largely fake.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Angelica in "Hamilton" | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 11:32 am EDT 07/05/20 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 11:32 am EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Angelica in "Hamilton" - ryhog 11:16 am EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| Your devil's advocacy makes sense, and I agree that the character has no history-backed stake in any outcome. I'm more intrigued with the craft aspect. Marsha Norman famously described theatrical storytelling as a pact between audience and playwright: when you introduce an idea, you make a promise: stick around and I'll pay this off. It's about Norman described as harnessing expectation. So my point is more to that point: a mid-act number like "Satisfied" is so off-the-charts filled with appetite whetting expectation, we feel promised more of same. Further revelations or actions may not be historically earned, but that expectation may be a baked in issue with a electric number so strongly conceived and staged. And performed, needless to say. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| But it's ultimately the right series of setups & payoffs for the protagonist | |
| Last Edit: GrumpyMorningBoy 01:32 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| Posted by: GrumpyMorningBoy 01:21 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Angelica in "Hamilton" - Delvino 11:32 am EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| First off, FULLY agree about the importance of setups and payoffs. Thing is, I actually feel like I get enough payoff from Angelica in the show as it eventually became. If she hadn't delivered such a delicious kiss off in "The Reynolds Pamplet" and returned for "It's Quiet Uptown," I probably wouldn't have felt that way. I'll make a broader argument, though. By editing and placing things where he does, Lin-Manuel Miranda arranges things far more interestingly for his protagonist. Say what you will about playwriting, but that's the arc that matters most. To begin: - He certainly took a major gamble by presenting Angelica front and center in "The Schuyler Sisters," which sets up an expectation that she's our romantic interest for Hamilton... - But then flips the focus to Eliza, rather unexpectedly for "Helpless," which -- in the theater, made me feel like maybe Hamilton was ending up with the wrong girl... - Only to be IMMEDIATELY followed by "Satisfied," which was a SUPER ballsy choice, because not only does it put two love songs back to back, but makes my loyalties return to Angelica... And in doing so, I'm not terribly invested in his relationship with Eliza. Which makes it FAR more easy to empathize with Hamilton when he continually chooses to take own 'shot' over loyalties to her. We'll see him do that every time he returns to Washington, when he eventually has an affair, when he allows his own pride to send him into a duel with Burr. Yes, we need to care what Eliza wants and thinks. But If this show had put Eliza front and center when we met the women, and kept her there, I really don't think I'd be able to cheer for the protagonist to get what he wants. And if we don't want the protagonist to get what they want... well, game over. To your question: if our thoughts in Act 2 drift back to Angelica, we wouldn't feel the central tension between Alexander's loyalty to Eliza vs. his loyalty to America and his hunger to make history. We need to feel that tension and be somewhat glad that he acts selfishly to make America a better place. And so, I think cutting "Congratulations" was the right call. It might not give us quite as rich of a payoff for Angelica in Act 2, but it keeps our focus where it needs to be for the primary plot's setups and payoffs to work. - GMB |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: But it's ultimately the right series of setups & payoffs for the protagonist | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:05 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: But it's ultimately the right series of setups & payoffs for the protagonist - GrumpyMorningBoy 01:21 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not sure I follow your train of thought - or if I do, I guess I don't agree that the order of how we meet the women has any bearing on my investment in Hamilton's marriage (or that I would be cheering him on to have an affair and abandon his wife). A few thoughts: I think you should at least consider the possibility that by seeing Hamilton fall in love with Eliza before knowing about the Angelica attraction, Miranda is cementing the rightness of his marrying Eliza and the centrality of that relationship in his life. While Hamilton enjoys flirting with Angelica, and while she holds out hope that he loves her, he's very clear that he knows who he married. And for the show as a whole, Eliza is the last voice we hear, and her journey is the one that makes his have meaning. There's a reason we don't end with Angelica, and it's not just because she died first. Eliza becomes the heart of the play. Your analysis of the first act skips over "That Would Be Enough", which is a major love song. I'm surprised that doesn't lead you to invest in this marriage, but the writing expects you to be invested in them by that point, and to use this moment to become more deeply involved in their marriage and family story. Otherwise, we could just stay with the war and make Act 1 a bit shorter. It's true that we have empathy for Hamilton as he makes his series of unfortunate choices in Act 2, but empathy doesn't mean that we should want him to make that choice, or that we shouldn't be conflicted about that choice. Yes, Hamilton must serve his country and create the central bank and resolve state debts so that we can have America - but also, Eliza is right that he is ignoring his family, and Philip is performed in the film as a neglected child who by age 9 has severe daddy issues and emotional problems which lead to him being killed at 19 in a sacrificial attempt to defend his father's honor (which was besmirched in the first place when his father publicly humiliated his mother). Both of these realities are true, and we should feel torn between our loyalties, and I think that satisfaction of the drama comes from these complexities. Likewise, we can understand his psychology enough to empathize with his need to tell the world about his affair in order to not be vulnerable to blackmail or political pressure, even as we don't forgive him for what he does to his wife and family. Likewise, I downright hate the man for going to duel with Burr and abandoning his wife YET AGAIN, leaving her completely alone, and all because... what? Because his career is at an end and his heart is broken because his ambition led to his son dying? So he's going to take his own life as well, rather than be there for his wife? Truly, there's something monstrous and unbearably selfish about Hamilton - and the show is more meaningful because that complexity is at the core of the drama. Your analysis of our desire for Hamilton to achieve his goals works for the first act, which is very much the mold of the Hero's Journey. But in Act 2, Hamilton becomes an anti-hero, and the story structure is built upon the morality tale of how he makes bad choices - a structure that "Congratulations" directly calls out when Angelica reminds him that she begged him to come with them to take a break, rather than continuing to work and having this affair-turned-prostitution situation. To get to back your thesis, this further reminds us that he abandoned the project of making America a better place when he wrote the Reynolds Pamphlet, because it tanked his chances of continuing building the country actively. One of the brilliances of the play, I think, is in how boldly it embraces the two act structure to tell two very different one-act musicals that combine as a whole. Act 1 is a Hero's Journey, and it ends with Hamilton victorious. But in the second act, we find ourselves in a tragedy, and we end with a broken man embracing the death he has spent his entire life worrying about, leaving behind the people who love him. And I think that is why we end in this massive outpouring of grief, rather than celebration - and why we end with Eliza, who loved him most, and who was loved most by him in return. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: But it's ultimately the right series of setups & payoffs for the protagonist | |
| Posted by: GrumpyMorningBoy 02:31 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: But it's ultimately the right series of setups & payoffs for the protagonist - Singapore/Fling 02:05 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| You really see Hamilton as a full-fledged antihero in Act 2? I'd never considered it that way. I'd like to think on that more. But as for "It Would Be Enough," even that lyric shows us that LMM was concerned with setting up what Eliza wants. She wants practically nothing. Just stay alive. That would be enough. All of that is super intentional on LMM's part... and I really think it's strategic in getting me to invest more fully in Alexander than Eliza for the bulk of the piece. I would argue that I don't really care much about what Eliza wants until we see her as a grieving mother... - GMB |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: But it's ultimately the right series of setups & payoffs for the protagonist | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 03:21 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 03:17 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: But it's ultimately the right series of setups & payoffs for the protagonist - GrumpyMorningBoy 02:31 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| I think the song has a progression that you're not fully considering. Yes, she starts by saying that she wants him to just stay alive (which I think isn't nothing during a war when your husband is itching for a fight), but that is only the beginning of her demands on him. She builds slowly, as she must in order to get around his defenses, but her ending demand is much deeper (emphasis mine): If I could grant you peace of mind If you could let me inside your heart Oh, let me be a part of the narrative In the story they will write someday Let this moment be the first chapter Where you decide to stay And I could be enough She isn't just asking him to be alive. She's asking him to commit to her ahead of all other things, to stay with her and be part of her family, and to let her into the work he is doing. As someone who is married to a workaholic, I resonate deeply with her wish that she could be enough for him, that their love could be what sustains him and gives his life meaning (which, of course, is too much to ask anyone, thank you therapy) . She's asking him to tear down the barriers that he has erected to keep her out - the same barriers that allow him to write about the affair which leads to Philip's death - and to actually share himself with her, which he can't. Not really. She's also asking him to give her the access that he gives Angelica - to involve her in his work, and to respect her intellect. Instead, he's writing Angelica about his problems with states' debts, while Eliza is downstairs raising their son. For me, the core of this song is she's asking him to love her, fully and truly, and it's a big demand because it's something he can't give her. That makes me cry every time. I think one of the reasons it's easy to dismiss Eliza is that she asks for so much while appearing to ask for so little. She crouches these big demands inside of smaller demands (though, again, asking him to not die in a war that he sort of wants to die in isn't really a small request, in the same way that asking him back to bed when he's about to go get killed is no small request), and even when she lands on what I see as the cri de coeur - "that I could be enough" - she follows with the more inclusive, "and we could be enough, that would be enough". She understands how he needs to hear this, even as she knows she's fighting a losing battle (which is how I read it, but also I think how Phillipa Soo plays it). I don't think that Miranda needs a strategy to get us to invest in Hamilton over other characters. I think the story and the point of view naturally does that. I see Miranda's work as the opposite - getting us to care about all of the other characters who surrounded and supported him, and giving them all weight to argue against him. But then, I don't have a problem caring about multiple characters at the same time; I can invest in Alexander as well as Eliza, Angelica, Washington, Burr, Lafayette, Mulligan, Lawrence, and Philip. I think one of the hallmarks of "Hamilton" as Epic Theater is that there are so many people to care about and invest in throughout the story. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: But it's ultimately the right series of setups & payoffs for the protagonist | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 04:38 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 04:35 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: But it's ultimately the right series of setups & payoffs for the protagonist - Singapore/Fling 03:17 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| Really thoughtful discussion on this issue, and persuasively argued on all fronts. I've continued to think about it since this morning, and will answer my own question: If I had to make a case that Angelica does have an arc, say to an actor tackling the role, I'd build on one of Grumpy's points. Arguably, by keeping Angelica in the arena in which she's introduced -- a conflicted response to Alexander's entrance into her family, i.e. exclusively portrayed in the private part of Hamilton's life -- she does ultimately complete what she sets up. A piece of "Congratulations" does remain, in which Angelica chooses a side: her sister's. Her whole initial argument in "Satisfied" is an internal debate about Eliza's romantic win ("She'd be lying!"), and her acceptance that she couldn't come between them. She sees the marriage, she accepts its deep connections. She's conflicted again about it in the Reynolds imbroglio -- but again, weighs in where she's always had a personal stake. And then, finally, it is logically Angelica who observes and reports that her sister and Alexander achieve rapprochement through shared grief. When Angelica sings, "She takes his hand..." etc., it's surely Miranda giving Angelica not just a moment but structurally the final word on a marriage that is consistently Angelica's focus in the storytelling. So one could refute my OP by drawing attention to that moment: "Forgiveness..." In the final analysis, Angelica recognizes that Eliza is still the right partner, the choice proven by a final act of reconnection. Anyway, I've much enjoyed this thread. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: But it's ultimately the right series of setups & payoffs for the protagonist | |
| Last Edit: mikem 07:13 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| Posted by: mikem 07:05 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: But it's ultimately the right series of setups & payoffs for the protagonist - Delvino 04:35 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| GMB, I've never pondered Angelica's arc before, and I find your argument very compelling. I would add that it's probably not coincidental that "Helpless" is a teenpop, fluffy kind of song, while "Satisfied" is much more complex. And we hear about Hamilton's correspondence with "my dearest Angelica" in detail, while we don't hear much from Eliza at all except that she wishes Hamilton was more present for her. For much of the first half of the show, LMM seems to be setting up the idea that, as you say, maybe Hamilton married the wrong sister, and maybe Hamilton subconsciously thinks so, too. He certainly doesn't seem to appreciate her. So when Angelica arrives after the Reynolds Pamphlet comes out, it's not strange that Hamilton thinks she's come to comfort him. And I think Angelica's "I'm here for my sister, you dumbass!" response, and Hamilton and Eliza's shared grief after Philip's death, make Hamilton realize what a treasure he has in Eliza. And LMM allows Eliza to come into her own, and it makes sense that she is the one who gets the show's final moments. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: But it's ultimately the right series of setups & payoffs for the protagonist | |
| Last Edit: GrumpyMorningBoy 08:27 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| Posted by: GrumpyMorningBoy 08:25 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: But it's ultimately the right series of setups & payoffs for the protagonist - mikem 07:05 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| I've enjoyed this thread a lot too, and it's given me a lot to chew on. Thanks for starting it, Delvino! Singapore, you do make great points that I'll have in mind as I rewatch it. I've always questioned if my own 'loyalty' to Angelica over Eliza was formed more by the performances of the original cast, but I felt the same way with the other casts that I saw. As others have pointed out, I do think that Eliza grows in prominence and, and I really like the center stage treatment she gets in the finale. Her final solo feels like much more than a mere denouement or an epilogue -- it feels like the natural conclusion of the themes that LMM has set up from early on. To explain -- I often feel like "... and this is why we tell the story" full company finales have become an overdone cliche (which is why the end of CAROLINE, OR CHANGE thrilled me so). But HAMILTON earns its final message, if only because it confronts head on the persistent questions about whose stories are told, how they're told, and why. In this sense, I think the idea that Eliza put herself "back in the narrative" is very satisfying. I would argue that her seeming vacancy from the events and focus of Act 1 makes that re-insertion that much more meaningful. - GMB |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: But it's ultimately the right series of setups & payoffs for the protagonist | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:22 pm EDT 07/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: But it's ultimately the right series of setups & payoffs for the protagonist - GrumpyMorningBoy 08:25 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| This thread has been a blast! What a joy to talk about real, living theater again, even if it's a five-year old production that some of us are just now getting to see (I've mentioned on here before that I finally was going to see the show on Broadway a few weeks after quarantine hit, which I still find a bit painful). And "Hamilton" is truly one of the great commercial works of art we're ever going to see on Broadway. I did want to say that I've never missed "Congratulations", and if it hadn't been written for the show, I wouldn't be complaining that the show has a big hole in it. But, since it was written, and since it's so great and it only adds like 4 minutes to the show, I'd still rather they left it in. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Angelica in "Hamilton" | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:03 pm EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Angelica in "Hamilton" - Delvino 11:32 am EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| I completely understand what you are saying. Let's look at it from the other end for a second. It goes without saying that the nature of theatre is that things evolve (or at least should) as the show develops. Here a part of that process is that Angelica went off the charts, one could easily suggest because of Rene. Had some lesser being been "in the room where it happened" [sorry, but that really is an expression that is likely to endure forever in the way that Shakespeare added so many common expressions], the entire Angelica story might have receded. (As it is, it is a complicated story line that leaves other stones unturned, stones that I have heard others say left them feeling shortchanged.) Finally, and playing another angle of the devil, it is important to remember that Norman is teaching her version of storytelling craft, and there are others. Anyway, just musing on a lazy Sunday morning (that just became Sunday afternoon while I wasn't looking.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The song was called "Congratulations," and here's a decent discussion of its value | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 10:37 am EDT 07/05/20 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 10:36 am EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Angelica in "Hamilton" - Kjisgroovy 09:18 am EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| Here's a good discussion of the song which basically answers the questions I raise in the OP. "The time has come for me to talk about “Congratulations” from Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton. A song that was cut from the show, “Congratulations” was, originally, for Angelica to sing to Alexander Hamilton after he admits his affair to the world. In the context of the show, Alexander Hamilton is asked to take a break with his family. The problem is that he’s so dedicated to his work with the government that he “can’t.” So, Angelica goes with Eliza and the children to their parents’ home and leaves Hamilton in the city. While alone, he meets Maria Reynolds, and the two strike up an affair throughout the summer. In order to stop his name from being slandered (despite no one really knowing what happened), Hamilton decides to release the Reynolds Pamphlet, a paper that explains his entire affair to the world and something that he didn’t tell Eliza about. When both Angelica and Eliza find out, they’re rightfully distraught and angry at Hamilton, but Angelica’s song about the pain she feels was cut from the show..." "While cut, the song is, at least to me, an empowering number that shoves Hamilton’s “intelligence” back in his own face. As consumed with succeeding and worrying about how he is perceived as he is, it gives Angelica an agency against him in a way that she doesn’t have throughout the rest of the show. His actions are, as Angelica points out, stupid, and I love the fact that she isn’t afraid to call them such. In “Satisfaction,” we learn of her love for Hamilton and how she gave it up for Eliza because she was the oldest, and her job wasn’t to “fall in love,” but rather, to find a husband who could provide for her family. But Eliza gets to marry for love, and Hamilton’s betrayal is not just against Eliza and the family they build, but also against the trust and love that Angelica had for him. So, “Congratulations” is a song that tears down this idea of who Alexander Hamilton is. Sure, “Burn” gives that moment to Eliza, and it’s beautiful, but there is something about the power behind “Congratulations” that is now missing because Angelica doesn’t really get to give Hamilton that slap to the face that he deserves." |
|
| Link | Congratulations |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Angelica in "Hamilton" | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 09:50 am EDT 07/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Angelica in "Hamilton" - Kjisgroovy 09:18 am EDT 07/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| Yes. All very intriguing about Angelica and Miranda’s apparent fascination with her. And that actress did indeed rock it! Besides, Angelica was, historically, already very well married when she met Alexander. It may have been necessary to diminish her role in the second act in order to shift some of the import to Eliza, since the story wants us to invest in that marriage. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.047818 seconds.