Yikes, there is a lot of sniping about Groff.
The problem with some of Groff's detractors, I think--and I don't mean this in a condescending manner--is that many go into the show with a preconceived notion of what all the hippies in
Hair are supposed to act like. Because there's very little in the way of linear narrative to explain things to the audience, not everyone understands from the get-go that Claude
isn't supposed to fit in with the Tribe. He's odd, arrogant, melodramatic...he's a young man still trying to find out who he is, and so far he finds "hippie life" unsatisfying. That's why (SPOILER, YO!) he doesn't burn his draft card. That's why he decides to serve in Vietnam. He's confused, constantly searching, and he feels out of his element everywhere he goes.
Sound familiar? The role of Claude Bukowski is quite similar to Melchior Gabor. I get the sense that many audience members are going into the show unaware of that, and they decide from the beginning that Groff is simply re-hashing his character from
Spring Awakening and not playing a hippie properly--when, in fact, Claude is not a "proper" hippie at all.
That said, I know this doesn't go for all of you who disliked Groff's performance. Many of you are quite familiar with
Hair and simply didn't enjoy Groff's interpretation of Claude. But could this at least begin to explain the reactions of some who might not have been so familiar with the show?
Sure, he was in a great show (Spring Awakening), but that doesn't give him free will. I don't think that's
quite what you mean to say. All humans should have "free will". Even if they are Jonathan Groff.
"If there is going to be a restoration fee, there should also be a Renaissance fee, a Middle Ages fee and a Dark Ages fee. Someone must have men in the back room making up names, euphemisms for profit."
(Emanuel Azenberg)
