 |
| Scene from Give 'Em Hell, Harry |
For most of us, this weekend will be a special moment. Not only is it the annual celebration of Independence Day, but Disney+ will at long last release a professionally shot version of the musical Hamilton. Most of us have been dying to see the show ever since it hit Broadway in 2015, and now that it's available for streaming, what will it all mean for the future of live theater? Will we be seeing every big show like Dear Evan Hansen and Hadestown making their way onto Netflix or Hulu? Will this be a one-off, or will the future look a lot more accessible to those outside of major city markets? Or, if I'm being honest, the question that I am asking myself is if Hamilton will stand a chance to be an Oscar-winning production?
That's a loaded question given that Hamilton has more in common with Tony and Grammy Awards, fields that recognize stage work. Given that it was originally scheduled for a theatrical release, it does seem like would stand a chance even if there's very little precedent for it getting a nomination. Well, I want to ask for a show of hands. Does anyone know the other Oscar-nominated work that's basically a filmed piece of live theater? Any takers? While Hamilton has an uphill battle to make the cut, it wouldn't be the first to receive this distinct honor. There was one 45 years ago that earned James Whitmore his second Oscar nomination, also steeped in American history. Yes, Give 'Em Hell, Harry remains the only major crossover between stage and screen to receive an Oscar nomination. If anything suggests a potential upset by Hamilton, it's this one.
If the header photo looks a little grainy, it's because of one unfortunate truth. The currently available release of Give 'Em Hell, Harry is available on YouTube in a washed-out version. There's very little of it that has the polish that later recordings of Broadway shows will have. However, there is something to be said that this was the show that The Oscars would notice. This was the one that made them recognize the acting ability that transcended medium, able to compete against such 1975 heavyweights like Once Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Dog Day Afternoon. It was a performance by James Whitmore that clearly captivated voters enough to give him a spot in this line-up, whether it was because of the limited selections, or he was just that good.
The story follows Whitmore as President Harry S. Truman, who is recalling his life as a president. As far as stories go, it's an interesting one that initially finds him as a Vice President to Franklin D. Roosevelt and ends with the infamous decision to bomb Japan to end World War II. Sure we get plenty of those endearing Americana moments that make him human. We get stories about whistlestops that make him seem more accessible. As a whole, this is one long monologue, shifting from various sets to show how this man's life evolved. There's criticism from Republican figures, and he pokes comically at them. After all, his motto is to give 'em hell. The buck stops here. He's the one who makes all of the tough decisions.
There frankly isn't much to speak about the presentation. It's a live performance, audience in tow, that doesn't leave much in the way of discussion. If you've seen one man shows, you're well aware of what Whitmore achieves with this. If you're a presidential junkie or Oscar completist, this is something special. Otherwise, it's a bit obscured by the fact that the video quality is lacking and it's a one man show, drawn entirely from his elocution and ability to endear you to Truman's humble roots. I think it works, but it's arguably the most baffling Oscar nomination for an actor because it feels stolen from another medium, not entirely belonging in a field where most actors got multiple takes per scene. Whitmore is more audacious, but so are any theater actors. Why you could throw the 1998 version of Cats on the acting list because frankly their commitment and achievements are far more impressive because of having to film it all as one fluid piece without breaks, save for intermission.
When we're looking at Hamilton, it's easy to use this as a point of pride and an easy shoe-in. Given that The Academy has said that streaming movies will qualify for this year, one has to wonder why you wouldn't want to put this forward, especially since Hamilton is a phenomenon that would only bring positive attention to Oscars. It's also likely to look much better than the grainy VHS-level recording of Give 'Em Hell, Harry. Also, since Hamilton has already won many Tonys and Grammys, it already has clout that could give it an edge. They've already proven that they love Lin-Manuel Miranda, so why not? That's probably the exact reason they nominated Whitmore, who hasn't been nominated since. It was a bias nomination to recognize a great, for fear that he would never be recognized again.
I say this because Give 'Em Hell, Harry is unexceptional in design. Maybe in 1975, the production seemed richer, with better cinematography. However, I wonder why it stood out then and why there hasn't been another live theater nominee since. Could it be that most productions don't meet the one week run requirement to be nominated? Or is there some rule that has changed things since then? Whatever it is, I think that we shouldn't rule out Hamilton because of how weird 2020's nominees are probably going to be anyways. It's also probably going to be one of the movies of the year whether we like it or not.
What do you think? Should recordings of live theater be allowed to compete? I do believe that there's merit in rewarding these type of shows, even having them available to the public. However, I am not particularly sure that The Oscars, a place for movies, should do it. I'm excited to see if Hamilton can break the barrier, though given that Give 'Em Hell, Harry didn't advance cinema in any meaningful way and felt like a bias nomination, I think that there's a reason that few have been nominated since. I'm definitely excited for Hamilton, though I wonder how far things will really go.
No comments:
Post a Comment