I really enjoyed Hamilton.
I'm finding this thread really interesting because for my PhD thesis I'm looking into the role of recording live theatre and what this adds or detracts from the experience.
Actors I've interviewed have discussed how the nights that they know they are being recorded have a different energy to them (even though a good chunk of audience is still in the building) because they plan, prepare and rehearse differently for the camera. They also discuss the pressure of knowing that THIS performance is recorded forever, when theatre art is intrinsically about the fleeting moment. A snapshot of time that exists only in experience and memory - many actors have said that in a theatre production, this is at the heart of their design and process and so the very act of brining a camera into the mix, challenges and alters that whole notion.
There is also a debate on the fact that the "filmic" quality of the camera's focus can inhibit the overall production - a PP mentioned that the close-ups mean we miss out on the other things that are happening on the stage even if only for a handful of seconds. This is really important in live theatre, because it is designed as a whole production and all of those nuances around the acting area add up to the whole. When you do this for the whole production, there's a sizable chunk of detail and intent the audience miss.
Also there is an entire section of my research devoted to the issue with the actual concept of theatre - a shared experience with that specific group of people only at any given time: actors, cast, audience, crew etc. With that cohort, in that time, with those environmental factors - each version only happens once. And we go to the theatre intrinsically aware of that.
It moves to the screen, and that vital knowledge no longer exists because we've changed the genre.
I'm fascinated by all of this and the variety of response on this thread really highlights much of my research.