(no subject)

[seekingferret]

What IS the political message of "You'll Be Back"? Like, what is "Hamilton"'s position on monarchy and in particular the British monarchy as expressed in "You'll Be Back"? George III is not precisely a character in "Hamilton" the way other characters are, and certainly it's hard to say that this goofy, only occasionally historically accurate song is a character piece exactly, so the song almost has to be there to advance plot, thematic or political arguments.

Is it that King George acted like a creepy, stalkery ex-boyfriend toward the colonies? Is it that monarchy in general is abusive, that something inherent in investing that kind of authority in one person leads to this kind of behavior? Is it that monarchy/the George III monarchy is rather silly and self-important in a way that masks a dangerous edge? Is it that the dangerous threat of absolute monarchy is actually silly and more easily underminable than it would seem at first?

And perhaps more importantly, based on whatever political message we want to read into the song, what is the narrative function of "You'll Be Back" in "Hamilton"? Why does it appear when it does, following "My Shot" and "The Schuyler Sisters" and "Farmer Refuted" where the colonists have already basically decided to go to war? How does it interact with a story that is otherwise a grounded, AMERICAN human drama about navigating the halls of power and trying to effect change in the world? It seems to me that mostly it doesn't. It's a solo from and about a character Alexander Hamilton never meets in person and doesn't have human-to-human level opinions about, and which doesn't reach that character on a human level either. Is the purpose to serve as a reminder to the audience that all of the other characters, the characters who actually matter, have been living with a metaphorical abusive boyfriend this whole time? Is the rest of the musical consistent with the reading?

I think the song is hysterical, and as a work of political satire at a particular historical figure, it is incredibly cutting (though also arguably ableist? Per Miranda “There are nerds who laugh when King George says, ‘When you’re gone, I’ll go mad,’ because they know King George went fucking mad!” I'm uncomfortable with that, I got the reference*, but I don't think George III's probable mental illness is worth laughing over.), but it's not really clear to me what it does in the show. It's not really a show that's litigating the question of whether the Revolution was right, we get a tiny bit of debate in "Farmer Refuted" (which almost immediately shifts to namecalling, as usual), but otherwise the show takes as a given that there's something here worth fighting for, for whatever reason, so why bother with a satirical takedown of George III? Googling says it was according to Miranda the first song written, perhaps he just couldn't bring himself to cut such a brilliant song as he realized what the show was really about?


*Maybe the metajokes about George III are the point? I wrote in my review of Equivocation that because I'm a trivia nerd but not a theater nerd, there's a sort of theater joke that tends to falls flat for me where part of the joke is that only part of the audience, the theater nerd part, knows the context of what makes it funny. Maybe the idea is just that there's a certain image of George III that Americans are taught, and here Miranda is offering a skewed take on that standard image, as part of the general reinterpretation of history- who tells your story- that is "Hamilton".

Comments

[primeideal]

I'm not sure if this counts as "political" (in a 1770s context), but I think one of the points is that George III is the only white soloist/named character. To underscore the difference between "America now" which is multiracial and hip-hoppy, and the "bad old days" that the revolutionaries were fighting against. (Which is also why his melody is more Beatles-esque and simplistic compared to the complex rhyme schemes of Jefferson etc.)

[peoriapeoriawhereart]

Much of what is savaged about George the III's madness ala Shakespeare History play assassination is last I read pretty much at the leeches' door with a flaming sack of pure. They were applying the wrong treatments for what ailed him, and if he'd had less coin to pay them they might have stopped sooner.

The Taxation part was window dressing, because the Colonists were getting price supports domestic Britons were not. The grievances were much more diffuse and unsuitable after the fact for hagiography.

Not sure if porphyry is still one of the attributed conditions he was suffering/if it was some other problem since phototropic problems are apparently more common.

[alexseanchai]

The guy from "Farmer Refuted", isn't he a named character played by a white person? That's someone from the ensemble taking on a bit part, which is different from King George, but still.

[primeideal]

Fair--the phrase Genius.com uses is "principal character," but I'm not sure if there's a technical definition for that.

[coffeeandink]

John Rua, the ensemble member who plays Seabury in the film/the original Broadway recording, is Latinx.

[alexseanchai]

👍🏻

[seekingferret]

That's a good point. I think the reason I read such a confused mixed message is the intermixing between is Hamilton a narrative about 1776, or is it a narrative about modern day politics, or is it a narrative about how we in the modern day understand 1776? In the pure narrative about 1776, "You'll Be Back" doesn't really seem to serve much purpose in telling the story.