I was thinking more about this topic in conjunction with the musical Hamilton. I haven't watched it yet (though I would like to), and have only listened to the soundtrack and seen a few clips. Obviously, the source content for this musical is American history, and more specifically, the biography of Alexander Hamilton written by historian Ron Chernow. So, all of the 'characters' in the musical are real people from history, presented in a very particular way to tell the story of Hamilton. It's a stage musical, or a themed hip-hop album, so the point is to showcase certain character traits over historical accuracy...though historical details are worked in as the framework.
One could just as easily describe this project by asking, "What if Macbeth and Hamlet were in the same play, with a modern setting?" Alexander Hamilton compares himself to Macbeth in the show (in a letter to Angelica), and of course his fatal flaw is certainly his hubris. Aaron Burr's hesitation embodied by 'Wait For It' sounds very much like Hamlet's approach to life. Both of them reverse course by the end and regret it.
Naturally, though, seeing as how it *is* based on history, it's certainly possible to fact check the show. And people have. There are clear alterations, to both characters and to the timeline, that were introduced for specific storytelling purposes.
Some examples:
Alexander Hamilton did not meet Aaron Burr, Marquis de Layfayette, Hercules Mulligan, and John Laurens on the same day in the same tavern. He met them at various times and places (college, in the military during the war, etc), and they certainly would not have all been there in New York at the same time, as depicted. So why do this? Obviously, to introduce characters within a single song, rather than have him meet them all individually at different times. "Aaron Burr, sir" is the 2nd song in the show (leading immediately into the 3rd song "My Shot" and the 4th "The Story of Tonight"), so introducing the supporting cast after being introduced to Alexander Hamilton in the opening number makes sense. (And as far as details go - Alexander Hamilton did get in an argument with someone at Princeton, but he did not "punch the bursar" - that was for the rhyme.)
"One Last Time" deals with George Washington's decision to step down after two terms in office, not running for a third time. In the musical, this is paired with Thomas Jefferson's decision to resign from the cabinet and to run for president in an opposition party. In reality, these two events did not even happen in the same year. But they were thematically linked, so they wound up in the same song, and changing the timeline gave more immediacy to the issue. Similarly, "Farmer Refuted" features a real person, but his arguments were made a few years earlier than they are set in the show. More significantly, Philip's duel in "Blow Us All Away" happens prior to the election of 1800; in real life, it was in 1801.
Angelica Schuyler is...a great character in the show. She's interesting and compelling. She speaks her mind, makes sacrifices, and clearly loves her family. She goes toe-to-toe with some of the other characters to argue with them. It's much easier to like her and take her seriously than her sister Eliza, who doesn't really become a compelling character until "Burn" or even the final number, really ("Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story"). "Satisfied" is certainly a more interesting song than "Helpless." (And "Burn" stands out more because "Congratulations" was cut.) Problem? Almost *none* of the details about Angelica are true to history. Her character is (mostly) a fabrication for the show, to tell an interesting story. She was not a single woman when she met Hamilton; she was already married. Her father did have sons, so the idea that she had no brothers and thus had to 'marry well' was contrived. And while some of her views play well with a modern audience, there's little indication that she held them. She did correspond with Hamilton, of course, but of all the historical figures presented, the most liberties were taken with her. It can be disappointing to learn that, but I don't think that inventing interesting side notes with Angelica makes this a bad adaptation. It does make it a less accurate/faithful adaptation, though.
All of these changes were made for storytelling purposes. Some of them the audience expects. A scene where the main character meets their sidekicks + future nemesis reads as a fictional event. Everyone knows real life is messier, but depicting how they all became friends is an important part of the story, whether you're assembling a crew for your ship, gathering a team of superheros, or simply forming a group of school friends. So, I think that that first liberty is expected in adaptation. So, yeah, Alexander Hamilton meeting Burr, Laurens, Mulligan, and Layfayette 'reads' very similarly to Harry meeting Draco, Ron, and Hermione, or to Simon Tam meeting the crew of Serenity.
The timeline liberties are taken because the timeline is not the most important part of the story. Does it matter what year Alexander Hamilton met his friends, or what year that guy published his political pamphlet? For the purposes of telling the story...no, not really at all. The idea of Jefferson and Washington stepping down together is more thematic than literal. So, telling that story in that way is more just a nuanced version of how to introduce those facts to the audience, without focusing on dates. Now, when you get to the death of Philip, you have a significant event that impacts the story. Alexander Hamilton (in the musical) is portrayed as stepping out of politics not just because of the scandal surrounding the Reynolds Pamphlet, but also to mourn the loss of his son. He and his wife take the time to reconcile and console one another ("It's Quiet Uptown"). He gets back into politics over the election of 1800. So...shifting that duel had a significant impact on the actions of the story and how the audience would view them. Also, even though his duel with Burr did not occur until 1804, it is clear that Hamilton backing Jefferson in the election was at the root of it, so, for storytelling purposes, going straight from the election into the feud into the duel makes sense. Meaning....that the story with Philip had to be told earlier, not during the interlude between the election and the death of Alexander Hamilton. So, that is a story pacing choice - inconvenient of Phillip not to get himself killed at the correct time, but hey, such is life. It's messier than stories.
The alterations of Angelica are less defensible. There was no 'need' to create this love triangle, where she admired Alexander Hamilton's brain, but 'let' him marry her sister instead. Having her as a supporting character to Eliza is fine - but the changes to her character were not "necessary" changes in the way that changing the time of Philip's death was. At the end of the day, this change was an artistic choice to make her character more interesting and 'cooler.' It fit fine because of the affair - but her story could have been handled differently. This was an outright change, introducing original material and altering an existing character's motivations around that. Is that a bad choice? Not...really. Most people like Angelica. But it is definitely one of the less faithful parts of the storytelling, and would fall under invention in a way that the 'tweaks' mentioned above do not.
The musical Hamilton is brilliant in a lot of ways. It's high energy and a compelling way to tell this particular story. Sure, details are tweaked, timelines are altered, and characters do and say things that don't always reflect the historical personage. It's not a history book. It's a story. It's a retelling. And, overall, it's *mostly* a faithful one. More faithful than some other examples of historical dramas that exist, actually.
rickriordan.com
