Getting to the bottom of it

[selenak]

Question: if a play, musical, movie, book, uses the device of the hostile (or at least ambiguous-towards-the-central-character) narrator - Evita, Elisabeth, Jesus Christ Superstar, Hamilton - do you believe the audience is meant to share the narrator's judgment? (Amadeus is a somewhat different case from those I mean, because Mozart isn't the central character, Salieri is, as well as being the - actually somewhat unreliable - narrator.) Because now that my days with the Mouse are coming to an end, it did strike me that while in, say, Evita, I definitely have the impression that Che's accusations against Eva are meant as valid and to be shared by the audience, the fact that Hamilton in its very last scene switches its narrator from Burr to Eliza also could be read as a statement re: how it sees its central character, because the way musical!Alexander is presented is the way Eliza sees him. And while Burr is presented with great sympathy, the one valid point the musical lets him make is, ironic enough, in his early judgment on duels. (What I mean: when Angelica comes back post Reynolds Pamphlet, I have the impression the narrative is with what she says to Alexander. Whereas whenever Burr says something, from his initial "talk less, smile more" advice onwards, the story shows him to be wrong.

(Novel-wise, btw, the one that immediately comes to my mind when I think "hostile or highly ambiguous narrator to central character" is Wuthering Heights, which additionally pulls off several narrators, and the very first one is immediately shown to get everyone's relationships and characters wrong in his initial assumptions.)

Unrelatedly, have a fun link: The Guardian's choice of Top Ten Bottoms in Art, with illustrations, of course.

Comments

[tree_and_leaf]

Whereas whenever Burr says something, from his initial "talk less, smile more" advice onwards, the story shows him to be wrong.

Except right at the end, where he says "I was too blind to see/ the world was wide enough for Hamilton and me"?

[selenak]

That is true, but that's also when he stops being the narrator.

[likeadeuce]

Oh, wow, I have so many thoughts about Burr as narrator (and am a bit dissatisfied with the switch to Eliza at the end, as it doesn't really make up for the way Eliza is positioned in the rest of the show to be like 'the one person who we can position as never having done a single thing wrong was the hero all along!)

I think the slipperiness of what Burr is doing there is one of the things that makes the show endlessly fascinating, but I'm not sure how much of the ambiguity is a choice versus Miranda being a bit muddled about what he wants the show to say, versus (in the filmed version at least) Odom being so adept at seizing the material for his own ends. So I don't know enough about those other shows to have a general feeling of what that kind of narration usually does but that the artists here (whatever combination of Miranda and Odom and the director you attribute it to) are well aware that the audience won't know quite what to make of this character in this role.

[selenak]

Re: the switch from Burr to Eliza as narrator for the final scene, complete with Eliza as final hero: I've seen somewhere the argument that the show should have ended with "the World was Wide enough" (and thus with Burr as narrator). I could see that (so Hamilton, too, has epilogue arguments like Harry Potter and The Hunger Games *g*), but I think the way Eliza takes over and the final stage gesture of letting her see the audience definitely makes it look like her judgment of Alexander (including even the "you would have done something about slavery if you had time") is meant as the authorial one. (Not talking about history, just within the musical universe.)

Now, death of the author, etc., and in a decade or so it might be interesting to watch productions that spin it differently (and maybe one which does end with Burr, not Eliza), but:

I'm not sure how much of the ambiguity is a choice versus Miranda being a bit muddled about what he wants the show to say, versus (in the filmed version at least) Odom being so adept at seizing the material for his own ends.

Odom is superb, but you know, no composer/librettist hands over that many key songs to a character he doesn't want the audience to empathize with. (Which isn't the same as wanting the audience to agree with said character.)

[maia]

But so much of the political and psychological insight of Hamilton is voiced by Burr. We're not supposed to like him, personally, but are we really supposed to discount his observations? For instance, in "The Room Where It Happens," Burr winds up making it about his own desire to be "in the room where it happens" - but that doesn't make his insights into how political compromise works untrue. Burr as portrayed in Hamilton is unprincipled, selfish, and cynical - but he's also perceptive and insightful about people and about politics.

[selenak]

We're not supposed to like him, personally, but are we really supposed to discount his observations?

I had the reverse impression. We're very much meant to like him, personally, and emphathize wiht his frustrations. But he's not given final narrative authority, so to speak. Perhaps we're talking of different things, because I agree re: "The Room Where It Happens". Again, I can only point to other examples to illustrate the difference. When Che in Evita critizes Eva for being all show, little substance in terms of actual change for the people, accuses her of being mainly concerned for her own glory and points out that opponents get disappeared by the Peron regime, these are all points validated by the show itself, and because Che does not have a personal relationship with Eva, he doesn't come across as having his accusations influenced by personal animus. Judas in "Jesus Christ Superstar" does have a very personal relationship with Jesus, but he and the story are also written in a way that doesn't just validate his criticisms, but make it clear his is arguably the true tragedy (as presented in this musical), since the narrative positions he acts out of concern for the people while his affection for Jesus never lessened.

Now it's not that Hamilton, the musical, isn't critical of its titular character. But not through Burr. Who spends the majority saying positive things about him anyway. But Burr doesn't get a moment like musical!Jefferson does, who is far more negatively written than Burr and the clear antagonist of the second act, but, I'd argue, in the second cabinet rap battle fulfills the "jerk has a point" trope in the argument about whether or not to help revolutionary France. Hamilton's final "Lafayette was my friend first, he'll be fine!" retort is not presented as him winning the argument (with the audience, he did win with Washington earlier). (Even less so when considering the meta that Lafayette and Jefferson are played by the same actor, and that anyone knowing the history would be aware that while Lafayette survives, he's anything but fine for the rest of his life.)

Burr, by contrast, does not get such a moment in any confrontation/scene (they don't actually argue that often) he has with Hamilton. (Unless you count him saying in act 1 "we agree that duels are immature and outdated, right?" in the lead up to the Laurens/Lee duel, but that's more ironic foreshadowing than anything else, since it's not a confrontation between Hamilton and Burr.) When Hamilton tells him in the lead up to "The Room Where It Happens" that he's now finally following Burr's advice - "talk less, smile more" -, this is a good quip but it's not actually what he does. What he does is making a compromise, and that's not what Burr advised all the way back in Act 1 - "talk less, smile more" was followed up by "don't let them know what you're against or what you're for". Not "be willing to give up something to get something". Everyone knows what Hamilton is for throughout the play, and Burr refusing to committ on this is presented as the ultimate cause of his decline throughout the play.

[maia]

I agree re: "The Room Where It Happens"

I probably focus too much on that song, since I find it so fascinating. In "The Room Where It Happens" I find Burr's political insights so astute but also find it hard to like him, because he makes it all about himself. But you're right, that's just one song!

(OTOH, I don't think "The Room Where It Happens" is the only time where Burr speaks truth? I need to watch it again, but I'm thinking of "Death doesn't discriminate between the sinners and the saints".)


Judas in "Jesus Christ Superstar" does have a very personal relationship with Jesus, but he and the story are also written in a way that doesn't just validate his criticisms, but make it clear his is arguably the true tragedy (as presented in this musical), since the narrative positions he acts out of concern for the people while his affection for Jesus never lessened.

That's fascinating! Do you think the story validates his criticism? (I've never seen Jesus Christ Superstar performed, but I bought the CD of the music back in the 90s. Most of it isn't my cuppa, but I really like the song "Heaven On Their Minds" and have listened to it often. But I don't know much about the context.)


Now it's not that Hamilton, the musical, isn't critical of its titular character. But not through Burr. Who spends the majority saying positive things about him anyway. But Burr doesn't get a moment like musical!Jefferson does, who is far more negatively written than Burr and the clear antagonist of the second act, but, I'd argue, in the second cabinet rap battle fulfills the "jerk has a point" trope in the argument about whether or not to help revolutionary France. Hamilton's final "Lafayette was my friend first, he'll be fine!" retort is not presented as him winning the argument (with the audience, he did win with Washington earlier). (Even less so when considering the meta that Lafayette and Jefferson are played by the same actor, and that anyone knowing the history would be aware that while Lafayette survives, he's anything but fine for the rest of his life.)

Excellent points.


Everyone knows what Hamilton is for throughout the play, and Burr refusing to committ on this is presented as the ultimate cause of his decline throughout the play.

I can see what you mean. Though I do wonder whether Burr would actually have been a bad president? How much of Hamilton's endorsement of Jefferson was real concern for the actual effects of a Burr presidency, and how much was personal offense at Burr's lack of commitment? People seem to have a visceral dislike of the seemingly uncommitted (I'm thinking of how the accusation of "flip-flopping" undid Kerry's candidacy in 2004).

[selenak]

JCS: I've seen it on stage, the 1970s movie version, and a more recent production that got livestreamed, so I'm familiar with at least three different interpretations, four if you count the original album which I also have, and what they all have in common is Judas-as-tragic-hero. (The interpretation of Jesus varies between narcissistic cult leader to exhausted but genuine idealist from production to production.) (The one point where Judas doesn't look so good is when he's dissing Mary Magdalene, but that's about it.) Of course the musical is production of the 1970s, when turning good/bad narratives upside down was a thing, and Charles Manson was a very recent memory. Not that Jesus ever gets written or played as Manson-type evil, but self declared Messiahs were definitely viewed with suspicion.

People seem to have a visceral dislike of the seemingly uncommitted (I'm thinking of how the accusation of "flip-flopping" undid Kerry's candidacy in 2004).

God yes, and I think it was voiced against Hillary Clinton, too, at least from some quarters. It definitely was one of the constant critiques voiced over here against Angela Merkel pre 2015. (The refugee crisis changed this in that no one could deny this was Merkel taking a risky and increasingly unpopular stand.) And I think Hamilton-as-presented in this musical might be meant to echo those complaints in some regards. However, the musical also showed him genuinely shocked at Burr switching parties in order to get the New York Senate seat, and I don't think this was just because it was his father-in-law who lost said seat (or at least that's not how it came across to me when watching), but because if Burr is able to switch parties and go from Federalist to Democrat-Republican for a Senate seat, what does that say about his convictions?

Mind you, I think it would be possible to play Hamilton as just personally incensed at Burr, and giving Jefferson his vote out of pettiness, but that's not how I felt this particular production plays it.

[maia]

JCS: I've seen it on stage, the 1970s movie version, and a more recent production that got livestreamed, so I'm familiar with at least three different interpretations, four if you count the original album which I also have, and what they all have in common is Judas-as-tragic-hero. (The interpretation of Jesus varies between narcissistic cult leader to exhausted but genuine idealist from production to production.) (The one point where Judas doesn't look so good is when he's dissing Mary Magdalene, but that's about it.) Of course the musical is production of the 1970s, when turning good/bad narratives upside down was a thing, and Charles Manson was a very recent memory. Not that Jesus ever gets written or played as Manson-type evil, but self declared Messiahs were definitely viewed with suspicion.

Oh, fascinating! This makes me very much want to see a production.


God yes, and I think it was voiced against Hillary Clinton, too, at least from some quarters.

Yes, indeed.


It definitely was one of the constant critiques voiced over here against Angela Merkel pre 2015. (The refugee crisis changed this in that no one could deny this was Merkel taking a risky and increasingly unpopular stand.)

Oh, that's interesting - that the same person is criticized for seeming insufficiently committed, and then criticized for taking an unpopular stand.


And I think Hamilton-as-presented in this musical might be meant to echo those complaints in some regards. However, the musical also showed him genuinely shocked at Burr switching parties in order to get the New York Senate seat, and I don't think this was just because it was his father-in-law who lost said seat (or at least that's not how it came across to me when watching), but because if Burr is able to switch parties and go from Federalist to Democrat-Republican for a Senate seat, what does that say about his convictions?

That's an excellent point!


Mind you, I think it would be possible to play Hamilton as just personally incensed at Burr, and giving Jefferson his vote out of pettiness, but that's not how I felt this particular production plays it.

I agree.

[cahn]

Whereas whenever Burr says something, from his initial "talk less, smile more" advice onwards, the story shows him to be wrong.

Hm - while Burr is quite often wrong, I had never thought "talk less, smile more" was exactly wrong. It's wrong in the extreme way Burr applies it in the same way that "I'll write myself out" is wrong in the extreme way Alexander applies it in "Hurricane." In fact Alexander himself uses "talk less, smile more" to great effect in "The Room Where It Happens."

--But as to your main point, I think the audience is absolutely not meant to share Burr's judgments on things. Though I don't think he's all that dissimilar from Salieri in some ways -- though he's not the central character in the way Salieri is, as you pointed out in your Hamilton review, Burr is the one who changes over the course of the musical. (And I would bet that Amadeus was a formative movie for LMM the way it was for both of us.)

But yeah, I agree that Che is supposed to be narrator-as-audience-in-judgment in a way that Salieri isn't, and (I would argue) that Burr isn't either. Burr is a bit different -- Burr, I think, is audience-in-terrible-empathy. (At least, I felt horribly empathic towards Burr at the same time he was clearly being terrible.)

/still hasn't actually watched the Disney+ version, though may try to do that this weekend

[selenak]

But yeah, I agree that Che is supposed to be narrator-as-audience-in-judgment in a way that Salieri isn't, and (I would argue) that Burr isn't either. Burr is a bit different -- Burr, I think, is audience-in-terrible-empathy. (At least, I felt horribly empathic towards Burr at the same time he was clearly being terrible.)

Oh, agreed. Burr is very sympathetic, and I don't think that's just the performance (which is a great one), it's Miranda giving him several of the key songs and a complete character arc. I just find it interesting that he's a different type of opponent-as-narrator than the other examples I named.

Amadeus as influence: very possible! "Why do you write as if you're running out of time" definitely feels in a line with Salieri's frustration.

Hm - while Burr is quite often wrong, I had never thought "talk less, smile more" was exactly wrong. It's wrong in the extreme way Burr applies it in the same way that "I'll write myself out" is wrong in the extreme way Alexander applies it in "Hurricane." In fact Alexander himself uses "talk less, smile more" to great effect in "The Room Where It Happens."

Welllll, as I said to Maia above, when Alexander tells him in the lead up to "The Room Where It Happens" that he's now finally following Burr's advice - "talk less, smile more" -, this is a good quip but it's not actually what he does. What he does is making a compromise, and that's not what Burr advised all the way back in Act 1 - "talk less, smile more" was followed up by "don't let them know what you're against or what you're for". Not "be willing to give up something to get something". Everyone knows what Hamilton is for throughout the play, and Burr refusing to committ on this is presented as the ultimate cause of his decline throughout the play.