Theater History and Mysteries

Send us Fan Mail

Check out our Hamilton Trivia Quizzes!

It took 6 steps to get to the version of Chicago that we know today. So far, we have covered the first three. There was the original play in 1927, written by Maurine Watkins, and the silent film that came out within a year the play. Then there was the 1942 movie starring Ginger Rogers, a show by the name of Roxie Hart. And…curiously....even with Ginger Rogers…it is NOT a musical.

And from the early 1940s to the late 1960s there was…nothing. Maurie Watkins, who had written the play in the first place, became a recluse, a hermit, for the last 30 years of her life. It was not until she died in 1969 that her estate released the rights, and they landed in the hands of Bob Fosse. He would craft the 1975 musical, which was a key turning point in what the show is today.

So today we are going to wade into maybe the deepest mystery of musical theater, and try to figure out who Bob Fosse was, and what made him tick.

We have learned who Maurine Watkins was, and how that impacted the way she created the story. Today we’ll take a look at who Bob Fosse was, and hope that will give us a glimpse into the sort of show that he would make.

And these are leading us back to our three central questions, which are:

• Is it pro- or anti-crime?
• Is it right? Right about women killing men & getting off, right about what Roxie/Beulah did? Was it an accurate portrayal of Chicago in the 1920s?
• What makes the show work? What does it say about life?

Maybe that’s more than 3 questions, but we’ll get to all of them on this episode of THM.

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

Check out our Hamilton Trivia Quizzes!

It took 6 steps to get to the version of Chicago that we know today. There was the original play in 1927, written by Maurine Watkins, and the silent film that came out within a year the play. The musical launched in 1975, was revived in the 1990s, and won the Oscars in the film version of 2002.

But stuck right in the middle of that is the 1942 movie starring Ginger Rogers, and the name of the show is Roxie Hart. And…are you ready for this?....it is NOT a musical.

Why in the heck would you make a movie version of Chicago, put Ginger Rogers in it, and NOT make it a musical? If you’re like me, you’re also asking, “how come I never heard about this before?”

Is it the same plot? Was the show any good? What did Maurine Watkins think of it?

And speaking of that…what DID Maurine Watkins do with the last 30 years of her life? Today, we’ll explore the questions about the movie and the straight up mysteries around the last third of Maurine Watkins life in this episode of THM.

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

Check out our Hamilton Trivia Quizzes!

The musical Chicago is based on an actual case. It inspired at least 6 different large-scale entertainment industry productions. You know the broad strokes – Roxy Hart shoots her lover, goes to trial, is backed by an adoring but doormat of a husband, meets other inmates who are equally heartless and all crave fame, as way to win their cases, and gets off when her slick and sleazy lawyer comes up with a fabrication about reaching for a gun that bamboozles a too gullible jury.

This our 3rd episode, and we already know that … that’s not exactly what happened.

But throughout these episodes we are going to keep pursuing the central questions: What does the show mean? Is the show right – about crime, publicity, Chicago, and society? Why does the show have such lasting popularity, and what does it say about us that it does?

Today, we will look at the first two of those major productions to figure out how those actual events were portrayed…and they could not be more different. We’ll cover what’s in the play, how it was different from actual events, the major mystery around the silent movie which is who really directed it, and start to piece together what that says about theater and life.

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

Check out our Hamilton Trivia Quizzes!

The musical Chicago is based on an actual case. And not in a distant, this trial inspired a story that’s been retold so many times that who knows, kind of way. A real, actual killing that in many details is exactly like the musical, and in fact was covered by a reporter named Maurine Watkins, who interviewed the real-life Roxy Hart in the actual Cook County jail, then covered the trial, and wrote articles about them all the way through it.

What happened at that trial? How similar was it to the story that has now captivated literally millions of show enthusiasts? Did the killer dance to Jazz music over the corpse of her slain lover while children played outside the window? Was this the kind of crazy, free flowing criminal behavior all too typical of the Jazz age and everything that it stood for? Did slick and opportunistic lawyers act like puppet masters whipping up public sympathy for a glamorous defendant?

OR…did the prosecution cook up its own fictitious version of events and try to railroad a lower-class and generally marginalized woman, only to find it all blow up in their face when the press and couple of good lawyers pointed out the multiple flaws of the case?

We are trying to find out with the production of Chicago tells us about Theater and Life and answer some core questions: What does the actual trial and its depiction in the plays, movies, and musicals tell us about justice? And what does our collective fascination with this story tell about us and America?

Settle in to your balcony seats…this one is a doozy. We’ll answer at least some of those questions on this episode of Theater History & Mysteries.

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

Check out our Hamilton Trivia Quizzes!

Chicago the musical is the longest running revival in Broadway history, second only to Phantom as the longest running show ever, winner of the 2002 Oscar, rare crossover of broadway hit and movie hit, is at the century anniversary of its first Broadway run, which was a play and not a musical. Not a lot of shows go on for 100 years.

There are two big questions for the show: Is it pro- or anti-crime? Is it rightabout women killing men & getting off?

Today we'll look at the real crimes, the real women, the real victims, and the real spouses who inspired the show, and the author of that 1927 play, Maurine Watkins.

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

Lin Manuel Miranda’s mega hit, the musical Hamilton, has got hiphop in it. Ya can’t miss that, it’s what makes the show distinctive, and most Broadway shows don’t even come close to trying to do it. Loren Kajikawa put it this way: “Hamilton's engagement with hip hop's history, culture, and aesthetics forms an undeniable part of the musical's appeal. Hamilton deserves to be called a "hip hop musical"

But that raises some questions…some of the traditional themes of hip hop music aren’t exactly empowering for women. Or anyone. There’s also a fair tendency to celebrate violence, especially gun violence. Is that inherently a part of the hiphop genre, or a sideshow, or is it all merely a metaphor, or is it just true of some songs and not others, or what?

There’s clearly a cultural element to hiphop…but what is it? Where did hiphop come from, and what does it mean?

And when all those questions are answered it all adds up to one big question for the show Hamiton: What does using the hiphop style of music add, take away, confound, or enhance about the show? Does it make the show work, detract from it, or not really matter at all? And…when you listen really closely…IS most of the music really hiphop?

Get your gin, get your juice, sit back, and let’s get our music history on in this episode of Theater History and Mysteries.

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

There are 2 questions at the heart of hamilton -- what makes the show work, and what makes Lin-Manuel MIranda tick. Those might be two sides of the same coin. Along the way there are some important choices – how women are portrayed, how slavery is handled, what’s up with multiracial casting.

Lin-Manuel MIranda wanted the show to be a story about America then told by America now – and America now has some issues going on. Race is a thing. Charlottesville saw 6,000 white nationalists openly marching. The death of George Floyd. ICE raids, with the Supreme Court ruling that racial profiling in ICE raids is constitutional, and ruling that protections long ingrained in the voting rights act are no longer necessary.

The Trump administration is waging war on DEI, and removing the names of highly qualified people of color from major historical sites. In the Netherlands, two panels depicting black soliders liberating cities after WW2 have been taken down; there are other and even more egregious examples closer to home at the Arlington cemetery.

Women’s rights are an issue; abortion bans are proliferating and intrude deeply into basic health care, the right to vote itself is being called into question with proposed legislation that would massively reduce the ability of women to vote in the first place, and in a way that much more drastically impacts men than women.

Representation in entertainment is an issue. 70% of the Broadway audience is white, as are the majority of the performers.

Racial exclusion and the marginalization of women are not solved problems, and our current political climate brings all of that more sharply into focus.

Into all of this walks the musical Hamilton and the person of Lin-Manuel MIranda. He'll have to make choices about all of it – race, gender, music, colonialism, representation, Broadway itself, and he will get hit on all sides.

So far, we have had dedicated episodes to each of these topics, but today we’ll look at the guy, Lin-Manuel MIranda, what he put into the show, what worked, and how his celebrity has spilled into other politics. Are the haters right? Did his efforts at creating new spaces and new ideas result in a net step backwards? Is he a hiphop sellout, is he another rich kid who made good on the back of a family fortune while capitalizing on the ethos of the streets?

Those are some heavy topics, but Lin-Manuel MIranda didn’t shy away from them. Alexander Hamilton didn’t shy away from them either. And neither will we. Let’s sort ‘me all out together on this episode of THM.

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

Philippa Soo plays the role of Eliza in the Broadway mega-hit Hamilton. And I gotta say, the more you read about Phillipa Soo the more that you like her. She’s talented, she’s been in a bunch of stuff, she adopted a dog on her birthday, got to throw out a first pitch at Yankee stadium.

All accounts, she’s a fierce performer on the stage and a compassionate human off of it. One very cool connection is this: She formed the Eliza Project, named after her character in Hamilton, and the purpose of that is to support the Grahman Windham organization. They have 19 centers that engage in community enrichment; the point is to transform communities as a way of preventing all the problems before they need treatment. Provide services to children, youth, and families facing “some of life’s most difficult obstacles.”

The organization can trace its history 220 years back in it original incantation as the Orphan Asylum Society of the City of New York, an orphanage in Greenwich Village. THe founders were Isabella Graham, Joanna Behune, Sara Hoffman and…Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton.

Clearly, Phillipa Soo finds a connection with the character she plays, and part of that connection is clearly gender. Both are women in Hamilton.

Today, we’ll review the women in Hamilton and learn more about who they are in the show, how they are in history, and get to the inevitable question of whether their portrayal in the show is a net step forward, or a net step back.

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

Lin-Manuel Miranda was not the first person to pursue multi-racial casting to make a political point. Heather S. Nathans of Tufts university shares the history:

“On March 5, 1858, around the first anniversary of the Dred Scott decision and on the anniversary of the Boston Massacre, African American abolitionist William Cooper Nell re-staged the massacre as a tableau vivant at Boston’s Faneuil Hall. Nell did it to commemorate the Scott decision and to protest the recent ruling by local Boston authorities who refused to declare Crispus Attucks the first victim of the Revolution. Nell’s restaging of the massacre used all black performers to protest their systematic erasure from the history of the Revolution. It also forecast a day when actors of color might rise up and claim their true rights and privileges.”

Nathans makes a direct connection to Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton; the quote continues: “In that, Nell resembles Miranda, who has said that one of the reasons he became a playwright was because there were no parts for him. Both men literally and figuratively wrote themselves into the archive and the repertoire.”

But, whereas Nell’s staging was all about slavery, Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton was not. It was more about…Hamilton.

And that might be the central question for Hamilton. By casting historically white people with actors of color, Miranda has put race front and center of the production about a founder. But, as we have explored in our past episodes, the show doesn’t entirely avoid race questions, but they are hardly a central point of the plot and, by design, no part of the character development.

What happens when you make race a key feature of the casting but you then don’t take on central questions of race, including slavery. Does that work? Is it cool to play Geo Wash with a black man? Alex Ham with a Puerto Rican/NewYorikan? Does it make the show better or worse, and is it s net step forward for racial progress or not?

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

Hamilton, the musical, is a show about the founders of the United States, who were mostly white men, and to a much lesser extent white women, and it is played by people who are definitely not matched to the race of the historical figures. Like, that is the most conspicuous part of the show. The one thing that you can’t miss about Hamilton is that the cast is predominantly are actors of color playing historical figures who were undeniably white. Chris Jackson, Leslie Odom Jr., and Daveed Diggs, all Black men, play Washington, Burr and Lafayette, all white men. Lin Manual Miranda plays the title role of Alexander Hamilton, and according to wikipeida “He is of predominantly Puerto Rican descent and also has distant Mexican, English, and African American ancestry.“

Once it became clear this show was going into syndication, Miranda quipped: “That’ll be the note that goes with the school productions: If this show ends up looking like the actual founding fathers, you messed up.”

LMM has claimed, “This is a story about America then, told by America now, and we want to eliminate any distance—our story should look the way our country looks.“

There are people who love this approach, there are people who really do not, and there are, strangely, a number of people who almost don’t seem to notice. We’ll do a deep dive into all these points of view, and explore the nature of history, the nature of art, and figure out what the race options are in Broadway.com’s open casting drop-down menu, in this episode of THM.

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

This is a show about Hamilton the musical, and it’s about one of the main characters. The point is to give some deep backstory to figure, and as I have promised, to never miss an opportunity to explore a crazy coincidence or good ghost story along they way.

This is the 6th episode about Hamilton, and this is our ghost story. Or rather, a monster story.

There were plenty of crazy coincidences in this guy’s life. It seemed like history was swirling around him, as events in his life and in world history were moving back and forth across continents and within huge countries, and they almost seemed to land him in the middle of things that would make a statistician shake their head against the impossible odds that one person could walk into that many different major moments.

What was his secret? Was it that he, like Hamilton himself, found himself orphaned with nothing but his wits and his drive to climb his way up to the top of society? Was there a social climb for this man, who rose from an entirely obscure and forgotten line of minor nobility to being an international figure?

No, that was all the unlikely deaths by the time he was two.

But, he did seem to have an affability and hopefulness, almost an obliviousness to the fact that other people might not like him. That WAS part of his character, but it wasn’t the the thing that has convinced many serious historians that he had raw courage, that he was someone who was unafraid in the face of danger, who was willing to enter a fight that he probably couldn’t win just for the sake of who he was.

What convinced historians of that piece of this man’s makeup?

Why, the werewolf hunts, of course.

This is about the hero of two worlds, and his role in the most famous werewolf incident to that point in history, and maybe ever. We’ll learn about the Marquis de Lafayette’s role stalking the Beast of Gevaudan in this episode of THM.

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

I’ll get right to the point: Did Alexander Hamilton own slaves?

There are those who definitely say yes. There were those who definitely said no, although those voices are growing quieter. Even Ron Chernow probably lands on the side of “probably.”

But what are the facts? What do we know for sure? Does it all add up to an air tight case against him?

But the even bigger question, probably, is what that means. Does it mean any speech he gave, any philosophy he held, or vote he cast for abolition is a lie? Does it mean that he was delusional, trying to justify for himself that which was unjustifable?

Or does it mean that his detractors are still too determined to paint him as a villain? In his day it was the Jacksonians and the Jeffersonians who were too willing to paint him as evil…and today it might be those farther left, who are really upset by the multi-racial casting of the show and, by extension, view it as a death blow if Hamilton did own slaves?

It’s a big question and a serious one, and it deserves a deep dive. We are going to walk through the mist of the most uncomfortable part of history, and see how that affects how we can understand the smash hit musical, on this episode of THM.

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

What’s the one thing you knew about Hamilton before the show? One thing I remember from elementary school? It’s the duel.

Isn’t the duel a big deal in the life of Hamilton?

Stop: What does the show have to say about the duel. What’s the take home point? What does it mean?

Probably, you like Ham by the end, and it’s sad.

Also probably mad at Burr for killing him.

If you’re like me, a little confused about why he did it. Why duel at all? Why throw away your shot? I mean, kinda honor, but had that been the real theme in the show so far? Hadn’t it all been about a new country, and new ideas, and breaking convention, and rap battles?

There ARE questions about the duel:

Why did it happen in the first place?

Who’s fault was it that they were dueling? Who challenged who, about what, and why did they have to end it by shooting?

Ham had 11 duels in his life, and most were solved before the dueling.

Why wasn’t this one?

What were they dueling about?

If the 10 duel commandments were that you didn’t really shoot each other, why did they shoot each other?

What do we know for sure really happened at that duel?

Who shot first?

The show ends when he dies…but was there interesting stuff that happened after that? Yes, there was! What was it?

Do you wanna know the answers to those questions? I do!

And WE WILL! In this episode of THM.

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

You have seen the musical and you know how the story ends: Aaron Burr shoots Alexander Hamilton. This is the podcast where we ask big questions, so let’s ask the biggest of all: Why? Why did these two guys do it? There IS more to know about the whole event…why was dueling even a thing? It was the 11th duel Hamilton had been involved with…was that a little or a lot? But there’s a bigger, more existential question here. Did those guys hate each other that much? Was it the election of 1800, where Burr had a shot at being President but lost? Did it start earlier?

Not only did they not always hate each other, but their first meeting…was about as far from a duel as you can possibly get. And their first experience with a duel that involved each other…was also nothing that would lead you to think these guys were destined to shoot the most famous duel in American history.

Of all the guys in all of the revolutionary period, why were these two the ones so at odds that it ended with one of them killing the other?

I’m not sure I can answer all of it, but I’ll take my best shot on this episode of Theater History and Mysteries.

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

What if history remembers you, but for the wrong thing? Not like, for a bad thing, but you did a bunch of amazing things that are all forgotten, and one kinda stupid thing is all that people can remember about you?

Here’s an example.

Have you ever heard of Herbert Marx? Nope, that’s not Karl’s brother. (Herman and Edward are Karl’s brothers)

This Marx created a company called Marman products, which produced and sold a motorcycle between 1948 and 1949. In World War II the company manufactured lots of stuff, including the Marman clamp, used to secure cargo. It was what held the atomic bomb on the Enola Gay, and is still used on spacecraft. Also, Herbert invented a vapor delivery heating pad, and a wrtiswatch that was also a cardiac heart rate monitor that alerted the user to an irregular heart beat.

If that sounds like an early version of the iWatch, or the FitBit, that monitors your biometrics, it WAS, and it was invented by the intrepid Herbert in the 1950s.

Elizabeth Marshall, herself a scientist, wrote in 2024:

“Marx’s contribution to the field of medical technology had a lasting impact on both innovation and patient care. While his wristwatch with a heart monitor and heating pad may not have reached widespread production, its concepts and principles laid the foundation for future advancements in wearable health technology.”

And ends the article with:

“The wristwatch with a heart monitor and heating pad exemplifies Marx’s commitment to using technology for the betterment of humanity, leaving a legacy that continues to inspire innovators today.”

You’d think at this point I was going to talk about how history has forgotten this medical research pioneers, who’s work has been overshadowed, overlooked, or just forgotten. But that’s not what we’re here for! We’re here to look aghast at people who have been remembered for all the wrong reasons.

You DO know Herbert Marx, but not because he set in motion improvements in medical technology that still inspire researchers today. You know him by the name “Zeppo” – the fourth of comic team of Marx Brothers, who made films like Duck Soup, Monkey Business, and Horse Feathers. Even his own family looked at him as a second fiddle – his second wife left him for Frank Sinatra (although a lot of that, frankly, was his fault). Anyway, if he’s remembered at all, it’s as the straight man to Groucho, or just as the least funny Marx brother.

That’s some fate, huh? You come up with a iWatch 70 years ahead of it’s time but all you’re remembered for is feeding Groucho Marx straight lines?

Well, how about this: You single-handedly saved the United State from financial ruin and are more responsible than anyone else for the creation of the United States constitution, and all you are remembered for is losing a pistol duel to Aaron Burr

Today, we’ll dive into what Alexander Hamilton should be remembered for but isn’t…we enter the world of high finance on this episode of THM.

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

Alexander Hamilton did some major things that still impact the world we live in today...but you might not really get what those are from watching the musical. Today's episode is designed to review those things and figure out what the musical focuses on, what Hamilton really did, and why it might be even more impressive than you might think.

My goal is to tell you something you don’t already know about Hamilton the musical, and Alexander Hamilton the guy.

Here’s an opening: Grew up in Utah. We had the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and Donny and Marie Osmond, a very LDS influenced state legislature, and we did NOT have underground hip hop scene.

You would have bet me in 1994 that this would have happened, I would have told you that you were crazy:

“Consider the following. On March 9, 2016, Utah State Senator Jim Dabakis, an openly gay Democrat and founder of an advocacy group called Utah Progressives, and Utah State Representative Ken Ivory, a conservative Republican best known for urging state officials to seize federal land, donned eighteenth-century costumes to extol the virtues of Hamilton to their fellow lawmakers. With Dabakis dressed as King George III and Ivory as Hamilton, they urged their peers to pass a resolution honoring Lin-Manuel Miranda and his historically inspired musical. Despite their many political disagree-ments, these legislators’ love of Hamilton had brought them to-gether. Their resolution praised the musical for capturing “the human drama, intrigue, passion, perplexity, and promise of Ameri-ca’s founding in a way that resonates with a modern and ethnically diverse America” and for captivating audiences “regardless of eco-nomic circumstances or political stances.”1 The resolution easily passed in both the House and Senate, and was quickly signed into law by Utah’s Republican governor Gary Herbert.”

From Historians on Hamilton, chapter 14.

That is mind-blowing. I want to tell you more things you don’t expect.

I’ll start with the BASIC history about Hamilton. Pretty sure that I can do it at least once in this episode of THM.

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

What’s the most awesome theater moment you’ve had? Not, like, the biggest show you’ve been in, or the biggest audience you’ve played to, or the best tickets you ever had…those are important. I want you to think about awesome…the time you were in times square on the way to a show, stopped to take a picture with Elmo, and got photo bombed by Patrick Stewart. Or the time you were in a production of In the Heights and right before the blackout scene the power really did go out…Or you were on stage and your fellow performer forgot all their lines and you successfully improved Weird Al Yankovich lyrics for 5 minutes. I mean, AWESOME.

Today’s guest is Emily Clark, and she’d have a tough time answering that question, because her life, and she, are awesome. But for my money, it was this:

BIGFOOT!! She was in Bigfoot the musical! That’s like an 11 out of 10 on the awesome scale. And it’s obviously tounge-in cheek, but works as a comedy, has great music, according to Emily is about to open off-broadway, definitely won the 2024 Best of Fringe award…but more than any of that…it’s just awesome.

Today we are going to meet performer, educator, townie in Bigfoot, and Cal. State Fullerton Master’s candidate Emily Clark, who is going to share with us her research about the Secret Garden, which is of course a beloved children’s book and was a Broadway musical that had 7 Tony nomination and 3 wins in 1991…and it was one of the first ever show with an all-female production team. We’ll cover all that ground, and get to meet Emily, but first…let’s run the intro…

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

To really understand the smash musical Hadestown, you have to understand…mines. Hear me out.

Hadestown isn’t just a re-telling of the ancient Orpheus tale, as the name suggest it’s a story that focuses on a particular location…the underworld.

And there is obviously a conscious choice to make the underworld much different than the Greeks imagined it, and much more like the company towns associated with the early industrial era. And not just any company towns, but mining towns. What you can’t really miss about the show is that it’s focused on Hades and it’s a mining town.

The other thing you can’t miss is that it’s about environmental destruction and oppression – Eurydice has to make a deal with Hades because she can’t find food and shelter on the surface, and Orpheus can’t provide it. The only one with control over resources is Hades, and he is obviously mostly interested in keeping himself at the top of the food chain. The show is an invitation to think about the themes in the Orpheus myth, but do so in the context of a real world threatened by growing levels of corporate control and ever-greater threats to the natural environment.

And it’s all centered around…mines. So what is it about mines that is so important to the central themes of the show? Grab your pickaxe, put a canary in a cage, strap on your hard hat, and let’s go into the tunnels together on this episode of THM.

Climate myth citations

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/hadestown-coal-fired-lights-are-bright-broadway

https://www.history.com/articles/industrial-revolution

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/06/too-late-climate-crisis-myth/

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-battle-of-blair-mountain/

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/workers-rights-won-by-unions

https://energyhistory.yale.edu/coal-mining-and-labor-conflict/

Support the show

Send us Fan Mail

Hadestown is a story about politics. You’ve seen the show, so you know that it’s the ancient Greek story of Orpheus put in a fictional but modern setting – a “a post-apocalyptic American Depression era.” It’s a world of environmental ravage and resource scarcity. Hades himself is unambiguously an industrialist, a mine-owner, and a tyrant. “It was hard times” is a line straight from the dialogue of the show

There is no doubt that Anais Mitchell, the author, is putting political issues right in the front and center of the audience. And the question is – what are we gonna do about it?

Today we will talk about Mitchell’s answer – how should the public respond to income inequality, unfair working conditions, environmental destruction, and sexism? A truism is that those who benefit from our current arrangement aren’t going to walk away from the things that are making them filthy rich just because it’s the right thing to do. We have to do something to force the change. There aren’t a lot of great models out there –

So, what should we do?

And to me, this is really the heart of the show, because while the problems that Mitchell puts in the script are obvious, the obvious answer to all those problems in the script is – seems a little futile. We should find a musician who will write a song good enough to restore balance to the universe, it won’t work, and then we’ll toast him for trying. Just like Sisyphus pushing his rock up a hill for all eternity, we should try again.

I mean, that’s not Annie.

Is that all there is to it? Is that enough? Is that a satisfying answer? Mitchell is right – the environment is in a lot of trouble, and the guys who are destroying it are all about building walls and not so much empowering the workers. What should we do?

If you want a big answer you gotta ask a big question, and Mitchell has certainly done that. How do you get out of Hadestown without looking back? We’ll see if we can figure out what Orpheus could not, on this episode of THM.

References

UNEP: https://www.unep.org/interactives/geo-7-feature/2025

Support the show