The Jazz Singer, a 1927 movie musical, was one of the first uses of blackface and received many negative feedback because of the racial offensiveness. It took until 2015 for this type of racism to be reversed in the musical people from all over the world aspire to see, Hamilton. This American Musical is a rapped through musical about the life of American Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, using the opposing casting method of different ethnicities to portray a mostly all-white historical event.
Lin-Manuel Miranda, creator and star of Hamilton told Broadway World in 2015 that his philosophy behind race in casting is a great deal depends on “authorial intent.” As a Dramatists Guild Council member, Miranda shares how highly they protect the author’s power over their words and what they decide to do with them (Miranda). “Colorblind casting” has been an industry phrase for decades now, and while it has a few competing definitions, the common public understanding is that it refers to casting directors disregarding skin color as they fill roles. Hamilton is not, by the common definition, colorblind; all of the original cast except one were races other than white. It does not merely allow for some of the Founding Fathers to be played by people of color, it insists that all of them be. This insistence is part of the play’s message that Alexander Hamilton’s journey from destitute immigrant to influential statesman is universal and replicable.
However, there has been backlash because of the misinterpretation of the casting for this show. Initially, the casting call sought "NON-WHITE" performers. The show's producers said they regretted the confusion the notice may have caused after seeing this controversial notice beginning to circulate all over social media. They said that they would change the posting that had drawn criticism, to make it clear that people of all ethnicities are welcome to audition, but would not back away from the show’s commitment to hire a diverse cast. “It is essential to the storytelling of Hamilton that the principal roles — which were written for non-white characters (excepting King George) — be performed by non-white actors," the producers said in a statement. And indeed, the producers did amend their casting call later Wednesday. The updated version did keep the phrase "non-white actors" in the notice, however it was now no longer capitalized. This still reverberated negatively with many people, especially human rights lawyer Randolph McLaughlin. “You cannot advertise showing that you have preference for one racial group over another,” said McLaughlin. "I don't know how a producer in the 21st century can think this is OK. Even when the intention is obviously good, you can't express racial preference. This is an issue we have been fighting for decades and it started for black people. Imagine if the casting call was for WHITES ONLY. Al Sharpton would have a picket line” (Nessouli and Sanchez). However, this was not Miranda’s philosophy at all when this show was being created. In other words, a production with a diverse cast feels like opportunity, while hiring a white actor for a minority role feels like appropriation, considering how many white role opportunities there really are.
Miranda’s diverse cast was admittedly purposeful and planned, he told The Hollywood Reporter. “In Hamilton, we're telling the stories of old, dead white men, but we're using actors of color, and that makes the story more immediate and more accessible to a contemporary audience. You don't distance the audience by putting an actor of color in a role that you would think of as default Caucasian, you excite people and you draw them in” (Bennett). This is what he was doing, drawing the audience in. Why else has this show been such a success? People are attracted to this new portrayal of diversity Miranda has introduced to the world.
Regardless of one’s political views, it is important to recognize the continuous impact immigrants have had on the political landscape of America. Hamilton arrived during a time where immigration was a prevalent topic however the term “immigrant” developed a negative connotation that dehumanizes the full American immigrant experience people dream of. In the show itself, Alexander Hamilton constantly reminds everyone that he too is an immigrant and has had such an influence in developing this country. Here, the brilliance of the casting extends beyond the novelty of diversity. American is an adopted nation comprised of solely immigrants, yet now in this midst of this conversation on immigration devolved into an Us vs. Them narrative. The story beginning at the start of the Revolution where it had not even been 200 years after the discovery of Jamestown was a time of only immigrants living in America on the stolen land they so righteously claimed to be theirs. Part of his rationale is that even if these men and women were historically white, the impulse that drove the revolution was decidedly alternative, progressive, and very “New York.” If the Revolution were to occur today, in New York as it did historically, its language would be rap and the main organizers of the movement would be minorities. The Black, Latina, and Asian American actors in the show emphasize the reality of who really built the foundations of America but also how irrelevant it is to have white actors portray the Founding Fathers just because that was their true ethnicity in reality. Having this diversity actually allows our history to better come to life with the reflection of this contemporary point in time. Hamilton has introduced people to a new perspective of our Founding Fathers and how this modernized culture has had a significant influence on the show.
For in Miranda’s Hamilton, America is claimed not by white men, but by the people of color onstage. Miranda has done what many history curricula fail to do: allow young people of color to see themselves in history. The idea has always been to look the way America looks now, and that does not exclude anyone.
Not only is race in casting significant to Miranda, but so is economic fairness. He was instrumental in an agreement that led to the original cast and several other participants getting a share of the show’s gross profits. Jeffrey Seller, the lead producer of Hamilton, now generating upward of $500,000 in profit every week on Broadway, confirmed the agreement (Paulson). This showed how not only are these people of different races welcomed to the project, but they are an integral part of making the show what it is and are finally being recognized for that. This proves how Hamilton was not a publicity stunt, like many other instances we find on Broadway. They have showed a continuous commitment to diversity in three separate productions, and by giving the original cast part of gross profits, they proved their intentions were out of principle, not for money. This has also been a major victory for the cast and could potentially have ripple effects in the theater industry, where the huge success of Hamilton, and the lack of profit-sharing, catalyzed a growing debate about actor compensation.
Miranda has also been outspoken on the issue of the secondary ticket market in which insane sums end up in the coffers of ticket operators who have nothing to do with the creation of this work. He made the daily lottery of $10 tickets a communal event in the theater district in New York. He has fostered an alliance with the Rockefeller Foundation, other donors, and the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History that will bring 250,000 school kids around the country to Hamilton (Brooks).
Hamilton has set a record for the most money ever made in a single week by a Broadway show. The musical, which attracted national attention just before the week began with criticism from President-elect Donald J. Trump of its quality and the manners of its cast, grossed $3.3 million in mid-November of 2016. That is a huge sum for Broadway, where only unusually strong shows gross more than $1 million in a week and most pull in far less (Paulson).
Some people may question if the success of this show is because of it’s massive portrayal of diversity or not. What if the Founding Father’s were instead as an all-white cast like history “entailed?” Back in 2010, Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson ran 120 nights on Broadway. This historical rock musical about the founding of the Democratic Party was similar to Hamilton in the sense that it was stylistically a new type of show based on another significant historical figure, however instead using an all-white cast. Many people argue that the unsuccessfulness of the show is attributed to its non-diverse cast. It’s use of an all-white cast, is not proven to be the cause of its “failure,” but it is a very likely reason for its dissatisfaction by the public.
In addition to Broadway, there is similar trend starting in film industry. For instance, “Girl’s Trip” is the most successful female-driven R-rated comedy, passing “Bridesmaids.” This movie was almost not produced because the producers thought there would not be an audience for a movie starring all black women. However, its massive success showed there are audiences that want this kind of diversity and will pay to see it. And now movie producers are acknowledging that trend and making more films with massive diversity.
Hamilton wasn’t the first portrayal of diversity. But instead, it has opened the eyes and minds of producers to have faith in diversity. Being so notably successful, the show has piqued the attention of a new group of people – producers, decision-makers on Broadway. Because of this, the show’s inclusive embrace feels like an act of love at a time when politicians are working malignly to exploit differences and resentments. A musical can’t be expected to save the world, but it’s very obvious how Hamilton has been able to open hearts and minds of many people.