Hair - I didn't get it.

[moncruzz]

Posted: 6/10/11 at 5:06pm

I know there are a lot of Hair fans in here, so please, I am writing this message with the utmost respect.

I saw Hair at the Al Hirschfield Theatre in 2009. I don't know if it's my lack of 60's knowledge, my EXTREMELY far back balcony seats, or the acoustics of the theatre, but I totally missed what the musical was about. I probably liked 2 or 3 songs, but other than that, I was completely lost the entire time.

Hair is coming to San Francisco in 2012 and I'm wondering if I should give it a second chance, or am I just completely the wrong audience for it? What do people like about this production?

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 6/10/11 at 5:11pm

Read the synopsis on wikipedia. It might help you understand what's going on. I saw the show from the balcony at the Al Hirschfield and I loved it. It's just a great show all around. I usually always try to see shows more than once even I I didn't "get it" or like it the first time around.

Posted: 6/10/11 at 5:17pm

There is nothing to "get." It's a bunch of pretty good songs and some scenes and lines. Any "Plot" that comes across is the work of a really determined director or your own imagination. If not for brief glimpses of penis it would have vanished without a trace.

[PortalGamer]

Posted: 6/10/11 at 5:21pm

Basically it is a bit a hippy who has his hippy friends and wants to know if he should go to war. Well sorta it didn't have much of a plot. It was more about hippy culture than anything of substance .

[juliethejarhead]

Posted: 6/10/11 at 5:22pm

"Any "Plot" that comes across is the work of a really determined director or your own imagination."

Sounds a lot like GODSPELL, too.

Note to self: Put a penis in your next musical.





Julie Kelleher's Web Page (on Blogger.com) Updated On: 6/10/11 at 05:22 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/10/11 at 5:32pm

It's about a boy who finds out he's a wizard! And he smokes pot!

[AnthVoice2010]

Posted: 6/10/11 at 5:44pm

"Hair!" is my favorite musical.

Before the notion came about that Broadway had to be "esoteric" and an "acquired taste", it appealed to the masses.

"Hair!" was the last musical to produce numerous top 20 hits". It spoke to a generation (and the parents of that generation) about things that were happening, right then and there.

It's a masterwork.

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 6/10/11 at 5:44pm

I think of it as a snapshot of a time. I like the show, and enjoy watching it, but I agree that the narrative structure is weak. If you didn't enjoy it on Broadway, chances are you won't like the tour (since it's the same production), but why not? I rarely say no to seeing a show if I have time for it.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/10/11 at 6:32pm

I love Hair, but it was never intended to have a traditional plot. As others have said, it is a snapshot of time. The messages are/were more important than the story line.

I always felt as if WE were suppose to feel as if we were just walking around the tribe and getting snippets of their existence.

But reading a detailed synopsis is your best bet.

[PortalGamer]

Posted: 6/10/11 at 9:26pm

But it was so random the story line !

[PortalGamer]

Posted: 6/10/11 at 9:26pm

But it was so random the story line !

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 6/10/11 at 9:46pm

It's doesn't have a linear story. It is snapshots or case studies of various people at a certain, very pivotal and emotional point in American history. It's a rebellion, a celebration, and a wake for our country all rolled into one.

The thing about HAIR is that is relies HEAVILY on the exuberance, energy and the appeal of its cast to carry the thinly pieced narrative. It also kind of relies on the times it is playing in.

When the revival opened, it was a happening. It was opening at the time when an African American was our new president and gay rights issues and marriage equality were bubbling to the forefront as volatile and important issues needing to be addressed. There was an urgency to the revival and the cast's crossover into the political arena off stage.

The revival was a perfect storm of everything coming together perfectly-cast, culture, and political climate. By the time the replacements took over, the moment had passed. HAIR onstage is exactly what it is in real-time-a moment captured that cant be fabricated.

That is why I feel the tour and the coming re-mounting on Broadway will not capture that urgency.

[into_the_woods2]

Posted: 6/11/11 at 3:44am

Well said, BettyBoy72.

I think, when done right, it's BRILLIANT. While it's not the most conventional narrative structure, I still found myself becoming emotionally attached to all of the characters and was reduced to tears by the end of the show. It's also very funny and seems to capture the extremes of the culture without condescending it.

I do think, however, that done regionally, and especially in youth community theatre, that a lot would be lost. It is definitely an adult show, and without experienced actors, I feel that a lot of the intention behind the seemingly random scenes is lost.

[AADA81]

Posted: 6/11/11 at 5:07am

"Hair" was successful in its original run but was as hated by its many detractors as it was beloved by its fans. The score was not considered to be that good (no Tony nomination) and the show itself was not embraced by the "younger generation" as it was called back then. Middle class, middle-aged folks wanting to know what all the fuss was about helped make the show a hit but the young "hippies" were most definitely not spinning the OCR on their turntables.

As for the show, I did it in college and thought the score was pretty awful and the show itself not that good, but we had a lot of fun with it and the audience seemed to really like it (even without the infamous nudity). So obviously there's something there that gets through to people regardless of artistic merit, and I guess that's still true today.

[After Eight]

Posted: 6/11/11 at 7:41am

The value of this show is its excellent score, and as a time capsule evocation of the mindset of an era.

I would say listen to the album a few more times and see if you like the songs more before spending your money on the show again.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/11/11 at 7:49am

All that being said: it's ok if you don't like it. There are plenty of shows that have been lauded that I can't stand: Rent and Curtains spring to mind.

Maybe it just doesn't work for you, and that's ok.

(The first time I saw Hair, which was about 15 years ago on a tour revival, I HATED it. I went reluctantly to the Park's production and fell in love with it.)

[junkyard]

Posted: 6/11/11 at 2:00pm

I was one of many replacements in the original company at the Biltmore. Had sort of a bad experience, I was a young combat vet fresh out of the service and revitalizing my career. Lots of drugs and other activites going on backstage, that were not dealt with. Very unprofessional atmosphere , worst show I ever worked BUT i loved doing those musical numbers (even though the paycheck wasn't very big in those days).

[MadonnaMusical]

Posted: 6/11/11 at 2:52pm

There is definitely something to get. HAIR was literally a protest on stage on broadway every night during the Vietnam war. It's meant to be a protest and tell a psychedelic story about a young hippie who believes in love who is drafted to vietnam. It's the inner struggle of the youth of the time. In the end Claude decides to go to Vietnam instead of dodge, partly because of the humiliation it would bring to his family if he dodged, and partly because NOT going would mean condemning the next kid who was sent in his place. The kids (tribe) are literally high the entire time, and the story is interspersed between trips of drugs. The result is that it should feel like you are high, and taking part in the show. Psychedelic art became very popular during this time period (art that replicates the illusions of being high). Hair was the first play/opera to be told in the psychedelic style.

You definitely would understand it more if you knew what they were protesting about in the different songs (LBJ, Red blue and white)... I went to a production in Dallas several years ago that had projections behind the cast that showed headlines and video clips of what the songs were about. It was the most clear version of Hair I've ever seen, and had a much bigger impact I think than the current version.

Either way, it is good to read up a bit on hippie life and the vietnam war before you see hair.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/11/11 at 3:08pm

I disagree that you need to research before you experience theatre. There shouldn't be prerquisites for a production.

[provocation]

Posted: 6/11/11 at 3:31pm

To add to all of this, I read in an interview with one of the writers (not sure which one) that the show was meant to make you feel like you're on drugs. You're supposed to be slightly uncomfortable, perhaps paranoid, to feel like part of the tribe. Which is, oddly enough, my biggest complaint about the revival. I was never sure if we were part of the tribe as audience members or a third party simply watching them.

The revival was also very campy and served as a nostalgic, retrospective look at a scary time in history. It was definitely a caricature. In contrast, the original production was a political statement and had a colder feel; the characterization was also more reality based. Both productions are powerful, just in different ways.

Edit: Crap, MadonnaMusical beat me to it. They said it a lot better than I did, I might add.

Updated On: 6/11/11 at 03:31 PM

[iflip4musicals]

Posted: 6/11/11 at 4:08pm

dramamama, I agree that research shouldn't be a prerequisite to see a production, but in the case of Hair if one has no to limited knowledge of the time it's certainly helpful. Personally, I enjoyed it more when I understood better what was happening and why the show happened then (original and even revival)

[undercoveractor]

Posted: 6/11/11 at 10:37pm

I have always loved the score....but after seeing the revival on Broadway a month or two after it won the Tony Award I wonder if that score is most enjoyed by me as a cast recording. It could have been how much I praise I had heard about it, or my own excitement to finally see the piece on stage, but I was just so disappointed.
What I say now is just my own personal opinion and observation so take that for what it is...just my opinion. That production seemed so very amateurish to me in the way that the cast seemed to be performing for their own enjoyment as opposed to connecting with an audience via the material. Perhaps that was part of the charm that I just did not get, but it is one of the most disappointing experiences I have had on Broadway. I was seated at the back of the orchestra and so often when the cast was back there, the personal conversations between them were so distracting to the show on stage that I was annoyed.....like when people talk during movies. They were not speaking in character but more along the lines of what they were doing after, what they were going to do in the next entrance, and in one really loud exchange, what they thought of the newly announced replacement cast. I was embarrassed that I had brought my friend to see it and that THIS was his first impression of the 'professional working actor'. I felt like I was in a community theatre production.
That being said, the score IS a masterwork and perhaps someday I will get a chance to have my impression of the piece changed in another production.
Again...just my experience.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/12/11 at 2:47pm

HAIR was, for the most part, ignored by the actual young people it spoke about back in its original run. It was considered phony. It's not hard to unearth plenty of mocking pieces written about it in the rock and underground press of the day, thanks to the archival possibilities of the internet.

Cover versions of some of its songs were Top 40 radio hits, nothing performed by the original cast and certainly nothing recorded by anybody with any rock and roll credibility. It's not to say the Fifth Dimension, Three Dog Night, or Oliver (dear lord, Oliver!) renditions of the songs weren't catchy and enjoyable and successful, but they were popular with moms and dads and whatever the equivalent of tweens were back then, as well as the armies of drama club kids everywhere. Nothing wrong with that, but certainly no closer to defining or speaking to a generation than RENT did.

Having said that, I think it's impressive the way the most recent revival forged a story line hinging on characters to really care about and a collection of songs that sound like a Now That's What I Call... hits collection.

Updated On: 6/12/11 at 02:47 PM

[tommigyrl5]

Posted: 6/12/11 at 7:14pm

What I find sad about most productions of Hair is many directors think the music carries it and they can disregard most of the script. A good director really digs out the plot and lets the music add to that instead of the other way around. Kevin Moriarty's (of DTC) HAIR at the Hangar Theater a few years back was the best production I have ever seen.