In 2016, Hamilton blew up as the Broadway smash hit that everyone needed to see. There was even a sense of prestige that went along with saying that you had experienced the original cast in person, which included the musical’s writer and creator, Lin-Manuel Miranda. While the songs from the musical certainly circulated, you were simply not a true fan of Hamilton unless you had seen the musical in person. Yet, seeing this musical was not accessible to all: after Lin Manuel Miranda announced he would be leaving the cast, the price of the cheapest seats rose to a median of $1000 in order to see him perform (Bunt, 2016). In his discussion that distinguishes the difference between objects of high or popular culture, John Storey states that “being difficult ensures its exclusive status as high culture” (Storey, 2009, p. 7). In the case of Hamilton, seeing the musical live, in its original form, was extraordinarily “difficult” due to prices, and therefore exclusionary: a clear form of high culture.
However, over the summer of 2020, the musical went viral, thereby losing its exclusionary status, when it became available to stream as a movie on Disney Plus, a television streaming service. The performance had been filmed in 2016 and was meant to be released in theaters, but due to the closure of theaters for COVID-19, the film was released on Disney Plus instead so it could be streamed from home (Teague, 2021). According to the director of Hamilton, Thomas Kail, who wanted to preserve the incredible talent of the original cast in a film, “the world is wide enough for both ‘Hamilton’ the stage musical and ‘Hamilton’ the film, without one cannibalizing the other” (Lee, 2020). For Kail, it seems that the intended audience of the film is the world: the purpose of this creation is to share the story, and allow the experience of watching the musical to be a part of mass culture. Sharing this musical with the world in the form of a streamable movie mitigates the exclusion that initially qualified the musical as a form of high culture.
There is something special, new and exciting about the filmed version of Hamilton. While the content of the musical is identical to the live performance, the viewing experience is entirely different. To start, the filming required nine cameras to be placed in the Richard Rodgers Theatre in New York City: this allowed incredible close up shots and overhead views of the actors, as well as different angles that showed the intricacy of the actors’ facial expressions, and details as specific as the sweat on their heads (Lee, 2020). Additionally the fact that this was filmed as a movie with several different cameras allowed for the existence of edits, and cuts which keeps the content exciting and provides views one might not be able to receive even from the front row of the live musical.
It’s clear that the main goal, besides profit, of creating this movie was to share the brilliance of the original musical with as wide an audience as possible, but of course this comes with a consequence. There is a certain, unmatched feeling of being in art’s original presence, and this feeling is related to what Walter Benjamin designated the aura. In “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Benjamin asserts that the aura is “the here and now of the artwork--its unique existence in a particular place” (Benjamin, 1936, p. 51). Although he discusses this unique, genuine feeling of connection in the sole context of art, it can be applied to theater as well, such as watching Hamilton live on Broadway, with the original cast. But, recreating the musical and placing it into the digital sphere is like taking a picture of the Mona Lisa: it diminishes the aura that has generally “withered in the age of mechanical reproduction” (Benjamin, 1936, p. 50). There is a clear barrier of technology, as well as the aspect of mass production that prohibits the Hamilton movie experience from feeling as authentic as its live counterpart.
While the diminishment of the aura is definitely a consequence of the creation of this film, there are still positive aspects of the movie’s creation. In her writing, Crystal Abidin borrows the idea of parasocial relationships from Horton and Wohl (1956), and defines them to “produce one-sided interpersonal connections and an illusion of intimacy with their audience” (Abidin, 2015). While Abidin discusses this relationship in terms of influencers and their interactions with followers, such as the “ask me anything” posts on Instagram, this one-sided relationship can also be applied to the Hamilton filmed musical which contains the actors of its original cast (Abidin, 2015). There was certainly a huge fandom around Hamilton and it’s star Lin-Manuel Miranda before the movie was released, and through the transformation to become a movie, fans are now able to establish or deepen as much of a sustained connection with the original play as they would like. Fans can now open up their computer at any point in the week, at any time of day, and watch the film, which creates a one-sided yet strong feeling of connection to both the play and the original cast.
Based on Benjamin and Abidin, there are clear benefits, such as increased parasocial connections, and drawbacks, such as the diminishment of the aura, that stem from the transformation of Hamilton from musical to movie. While I know that Benjamin would likely disapprove of the movie’s benefits such as Abidin’s parasocial relationships, in the age of digital culture, the advantages of the streamable film definitely outweigh the consequences.
References
Abidin, C, (2015). Communicative <3 intimacies: Influencers and perceived interconnectedness. A Journal of Gender, New Media, & Technology 8.
However, over the summer of 2020, the musical went viral, thereby losing its exclusionary status, when it became available to stream as a movie on Disney Plus, a television streaming service. The performance had been filmed in 2016 and was meant to be released in theaters, but due to the closure of theaters for COVID-19, the film was released on Disney Plus instead so it could be streamed from home (Teague, 2021). According to the director of Hamilton, Thomas Kail, who wanted to preserve the incredible talent of the original cast in a film, “the world is wide enough for both ‘Hamilton’ the stage musical and ‘Hamilton’ the film, without one cannibalizing the other” (Lee, 2020). For Kail, it seems that the intended audience of the film is the world: the purpose of this creation is to share the story, and allow the experience of watching the musical to be a part of mass culture. Sharing this musical with the world in the form of a streamable movie mitigates the exclusion that initially qualified the musical as a form of high culture.
There is something special, new and exciting about the filmed version of Hamilton. While the content of the musical is identical to the live performance, the viewing experience is entirely different. To start, the filming required nine cameras to be placed in the Richard Rodgers Theatre in New York City: this allowed incredible close up shots and overhead views of the actors, as well as different angles that showed the intricacy of the actors’ facial expressions, and details as specific as the sweat on their heads (Lee, 2020). Additionally the fact that this was filmed as a movie with several different cameras allowed for the existence of edits, and cuts which keeps the content exciting and provides views one might not be able to receive even from the front row of the live musical.
It’s clear that the main goal, besides profit, of creating this movie was to share the brilliance of the original musical with as wide an audience as possible, but of course this comes with a consequence. There is a certain, unmatched feeling of being in art’s original presence, and this feeling is related to what Walter Benjamin designated the aura. In “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Benjamin asserts that the aura is “the here and now of the artwork--its unique existence in a particular place” (Benjamin, 1936, p. 51). Although he discusses this unique, genuine feeling of connection in the sole context of art, it can be applied to theater as well, such as watching Hamilton live on Broadway, with the original cast. But, recreating the musical and placing it into the digital sphere is like taking a picture of the Mona Lisa: it diminishes the aura that has generally “withered in the age of mechanical reproduction” (Benjamin, 1936, p. 50). There is a clear barrier of technology, as well as the aspect of mass production that prohibits the Hamilton movie experience from feeling as authentic as its live counterpart.
While the diminishment of the aura is definitely a consequence of the creation of this film, there are still positive aspects of the movie’s creation. In her writing, Crystal Abidin borrows the idea of parasocial relationships from Horton and Wohl (1956), and defines them to “produce one-sided interpersonal connections and an illusion of intimacy with their audience” (Abidin, 2015). While Abidin discusses this relationship in terms of influencers and their interactions with followers, such as the “ask me anything” posts on Instagram, this one-sided relationship can also be applied to the Hamilton filmed musical which contains the actors of its original cast (Abidin, 2015). There was certainly a huge fandom around Hamilton and it’s star Lin-Manuel Miranda before the movie was released, and through the transformation to become a movie, fans are now able to establish or deepen as much of a sustained connection with the original play as they would like. Fans can now open up their computer at any point in the week, at any time of day, and watch the film, which creates a one-sided yet strong feeling of connection to both the play and the original cast.
Based on Benjamin and Abidin, there are clear benefits, such as increased parasocial connections, and drawbacks, such as the diminishment of the aura, that stem from the transformation of Hamilton from musical to movie. While I know that Benjamin would likely disapprove of the movie’s benefits such as Abidin’s parasocial relationships, in the age of digital culture, the advantages of the streamable film definitely outweigh the consequences.
References
Abidin, C, (2015). Communicative <3 intimacies: Influencers and perceived interconnectedness. A Journal of Gender, New Media, & Technology 8.
Ashley Lee, L. A. T. (2020, July 3). Bringing ‘Hamilton’ to Disney Plus: Filming is easy, editing’s harder. Chicagotribune.com. Retrieved November 7, 2021, from https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-ent-hamilton-on-disney-plus-how-it-was-made-20200703-en6kyjcfhjfcpbpqpb6y3xsv6y-story.html.
Benjamin, W. (1936). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Visual Culture: Experiences in Visual Culture.
Bunt, A. (2016, July 26). Hamilton Ticket Prices & Trends 2016. SeatGeek. Retrieved November 3, 2021, from https://seatgeek.com/tba/articles/hamilton-ticket-prices-trends/.
Storey, J. (2009). What is popular culture? Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, pp. 1-16.
Benjamin, W. (1936). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Visual Culture: Experiences in Visual Culture.
Bunt, A. (2016, July 26). Hamilton Ticket Prices & Trends 2016. SeatGeek. Retrieved November 3, 2021, from https://seatgeek.com/tba/articles/hamilton-ticket-prices-trends/.
Storey, J. (2009). What is popular culture? Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, pp. 1-16.
Teague, K. (2021, January 22). Hamilton is still streaming on Disney Plus, but there is no free trial. How to watch. CNET. Retrieved November 7 2021, from https://www.cnet.com/how-to/hamilton-is-still-streaming-on-disney-plus-but-there-is-no-free-trial-how-to-watch/
It is definitely very interesting to see the change from the exclusivity of Hamilton to a much more widely seen show and movie. I remember when Hamilton first came out and how expensive and difficult it was to get a ticket. Those that were lucky enough to see it in the theater would post it and share the news with their friends, basically trying to “flex.” I feel as though this relates to Adorno and Horkheimer’s idea about false needs as people genuinely viewed seeing Hamilton with Lin Manuel Miranda as crucial and truly important. While it would be great to see Hamilton with the original cast, it is not like the plot or script changed after Lin left. I used to tell people that I saw Hamilton without Lin Manuel Miranda and people were genuinely upset for me; it made me feel as if I hadn't even seen the real show. Your point about parasocial relationships being more significant as a result of the movie is very interesting. However, I almost feel as though the people who see it in person feel more of a connection as a result of how rare it is. In addition, I think the aura of being so close to the actual performers strengthens these parasocial relationships. I definitely feel a sense of aura when I attend Broadway shows. The famous performers don't seem human, but when you see them in real life, it feels extremely unique and special, something that cannot be replicated through a screen.
ReplyDeleteAmanda,
ReplyDeleteI loved reading your blog post about how Hamilton has been transformed from high culture into popular culture. Hamilton is my favorite musical and I remember when it came out and I was lucky enough to see it with the original cast, and then saw it again as the Disney+ version. It was so interesting to think about this in the context of popular culture and in connection with the class readings, since it is something I have experienced in my every day life and haven't thought about in an academic context. I thought your connection to Benjamin was perfect - the Hamilton experience live vs. film is exactly what Benjamin talked about when he argued that aura is lost with the introduction of the camera; the experience is not the same when you see a live performance vs. a film. I thought you did a great job illustrating this point in your post, and I could relate to it as I personally had a very different experience watching the Disney+ version as I did when I saw it live a couple years earlier. While it was technically the same show, there was a certain feeling that came with seeing it live in the theater that I did not get when watching the film in my bedroom. Although I agree with this interpretation, I appreciate how you also acknowledged the benefits of this piece of art being transformed from high culture to popular culture, and I thought your connection to the Abidin reading was very strong and relevant. By including this you were able to recognize the nuance of the situation which I feel is important, because there are definitely both benefits and drawbacks to the Hamilton film. This was a great post and I really enjoyed reading it! You made me think about the Hamilton film in a different light.
Hi Amanda,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your blog post about Hamilton and it definitely made me think about it in a way I had not before. I remember when Hamilton first came out I actually was not as into it as everyone else and I consider myself a big musical person. Fortunately enough I got the opportunity to see it performed in Philly and immediately became obsessed with it. Then when it came out on Disney + I watched it many times. I definitely agree with you and Benjamin that there is a sense of aura that is taken away when you watch it at home versus in the theatre but I also think it is great to have both because I got to see more from the Disney + version. When I saw it live, as amazing as it was, I was high up and I could not see very well. By viewing it at home, although it may not have been as authentic, it gave me a new perspective and I was able to see parts of the show that I previously was not able to see. I would agree that it isn’t the same but I think it can be just as rewarding in other ways, depending on how you look at it. I also thought about Schudson’s piece and how he talks about audiences and the idea that the popular audience is not necessarily more critical or creative than the elite audience. I found that to be very true because every audience is different and while some may disagree I think that means the viewing experiences can be great no matter what depending on the person. Overall, I really liked what you wrote and thinking about Hamilton in a new way was fun!
-Maia Curry
Amanda,
ReplyDeleteAs a huge Hamilton fan, I really enjoyed your piece about Hamilton's transformation from a part of high culture to a piece of art that can be enjoyed by all. Since I have seen Hamilton live with the original cast, live with a different cast, and on Disney+ I found it really interesting to retrace the different experiences I had with the show each time.
Your blog post was particularly successful because you used different texts to analyze both the positive and negative effects of Hmailton becoming a streamable movie.
I found your discussion of Walter Benjamin's The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction particularly engaging. While Hamilton is now accessible to a larger audience, there is an aura or a special “magic” about the original performance that decreases when technology is used for reproduction.
Another concept I thought about as I read your blog post is Adorno and Horkeimer’s notion of standardization. Standardization is the idea that “culture now impresses the same stamp on everything.” Similarly, the broadway hit Dear Evan Hansen was recently turned into a movie. The uniqueness of Hamilton becoming a movie is diminished as more and more musicals are recreated as movies. The culture industry seeks to pump out the same material over and over again, proven by the number of musicals that have become movies in the past few years.
I also think it would be interesting to analyze which of John Storey’s definitions Hamilton and the Hamilton movie would fit under.
I really enjoyed your piece! Great work!!