Dissenting opinion on Hair

I saw Hair last night (after seeing it both with Groff and Hanke in the park), and I appear to be in the extreme minority here that did not like it. I suppose the nicest thing I could say about it is that it was a good production of a show I'm not at all fond of, but I liked it more this summer so I don't think that's even accurate.

To start with, Gavin Creel was a weak link. I'm a fan of his, but he came off as pretty bland in the role. I don't think he's developed much of a character out of Claude, especially compared to Groff and Hanke, who were both better. The show is all about Will Swenson now, who has strongly etched a character out of Berger. This upsets the balance of the show for me. It's hard to be interested/care about Claude when he's not that engaging.

Along with Will, Bryce Ryness is giving the best performance of the cast by far. If only they had better material to work with! The women don't fair so well. Caissie Levy and Sasha Allen are belting it out, but they seem to be more worried about winning American Idol than discovering characters to play.

I'll admit that some of the score is good, but a lot of it I find to be nonsensical drivel. Notice how they keep sending the cast out into the audience as if to make sure everyone is still paying attention. When everyone was clapping along to "Air" were they actually listening to the lyrics? People seem to be caught up with the energy and the atmosphere, but not really paying attention to what is being said.

Some of the "book" scenes are the worst. Many times the jokes received tepid laughter at best, and the dialogue came across as very dated. The show felt like a museum piece to me. To even compare it to what is going on in Iraq (as some theatergoers were both here and in the park) is ridiculous, and quite frankly insulting to those drafted during Vietman.

I know few will agree with me on this one, but I just don't see why so many find Hair to be a well-crafted musical. I just hope West Side Story walks away with Tony come June.

---

You were there last night and you thought the audience was subdued?? Were we in the same theater??

I have not seen this production, but I have done Hair before. The book is awful, but I don't feel like the authors intended for it to be a strong book musical. In my mind it's more of an experience.

---

singtopher, you are probably right that it is supposed to be "an experience." I guess I just have no way at all of connecting with this material. It is definitely a hit musical (as seen over the past 40 years) so obviously it was a wonderful "experience" for many people throughout the years. Like I said, I don't think I can, or ever will, connect with HAIR. I'm glad that others can though...

Okay, well I guess I understand why neither of you enjoyed it. You both stated that you aren't fans of the show itself. So it's understandable. I still disagree that the audience was subdued, but hey. Guess it's good you two gave Swenson and Ryness props.

The creators of Hair wrecked the book intentionally while moving it from the Public/Cheetah productions to Broadway, IIRC. It's something in between a revue and a book musical, so expecting every song to further a centralized plot is only going to lead to disappointment for you. :)

Kacie Sheik was a stand out for me! I thought she was wonderful and her voice was so strong and so unique.

Anyways, I don't really know what ya'll were expecting? Have you ever been to a show when people erupted with applause after every song? No. Not every song in the show is great, and not every song in the show deserves a huge round of applause.

Everyone around me was into it, but the "book" scenes don't really call for that much response? I mean, I think the audience was cracking up during the "old lady" bit. And every one around me seem to be genuinely into the show. But I do think the show can be a bit jarring for some one who didn't know what to expect. I mean, for a lot of middle Americans the show throws out gay jokes, N-words, and nudity.

But I couldn't disagree more with you guys. It was a great evening at the theater. And I think the design of the show could have been better, but it is what it is. And I think they preserved the same experience at the park.

Well I don't think songs always have to advance the plot; advancing character development is as equally important. The problem with "Frank Mills" is that although it develops Chrissy for three minutes of the show she never is developed further. It is such a dead end character.

I would also argue that you can develop well-defined characters even in a revue (which Hair is not). Take Ain't Misbehvin' for example. Look how the OBC was able to create rounded characters, even though they were essentially playing themselves.

Perhaps Will Swenson is coming off so well because his character is more defined than others, and thus has more to work with. I'm not blaming Alison Case for not making "Frank Mills" work. I just think it doesn't work period.

---

Thanks, Phyllis. I remembered hearing that line in the park and groaning both times. It didn't sit well with me last night either.

I don't think a show has to be plot heavy for me to enjoy it. Company is one of my favorite shows and that plot can be summed up faster than Hair's. The songs in Company don't advance the plot either, but they say so much!

Edit:
[tos] received massive applause after every three words uttered several of times I saw it.

---

Updated On: 3/9/09 at 03:36 PM

It's like comparing PHANTOM to SWEENEY TODD. Take a horror story, turn it into a grand musical with gigantic sets, add a continuous score with impossible songs to sing, and ta-da! They work for their own reasons, but they cannot be compared.

I know few will agree with me on this one, but I just don't see why so many find Hair to be a well-crafted musical.

I don't believe so many do. 1776 is a well-crafted musical and won the Tony that year. Hair will forever be remembered as a landmark show that changed the face of Broadway and was highly influential to musical theatre.

For example the "Frank Mills" song. This number is terrible. It comes out of nowhere from a character we basically know nothing about. We never find out anything else about Chrissy after this number either.

You're not supposed to. The number isn't actually about Chrissy. It is not that literal.

Well I don't think songs always have to advance the plot; advancing character development is as equally important. The problem with "Frank Mills" is that although it develops Chrissy for three minutes of the show she never is developed further. It is such a dead end character.

Frank Mills was not about developing a character or a plot. The main reason it doesn't work is that the material is dated. It was a simple "in-one" comedic number in which Chrissy's description of the man she unconditionally loves (and cannot seem to find) was considered quite appalling in 1968 and her rather deadpan seriousness was a humorous curiosity. But it fit in perfectly with the hippie ideology and persona, which is what Hair is about.

Black Boys/White Boys is another example. The song does not exist to advance the plot or develop characters. It is about a rather shocking exclamation of lust during a more conservative era. People were just getting used to the idea of interracial relationships and her on stage were women blatantly celebrating the joys of the flesh belonging to the opposite race.

After reading some descriptions of the directorial choices (Clapping along with Air??? Are they kidding??), I can only assume this production has pretty much abandoned the spirit and meaning of the show and replaced it with a faux-retro pastiche hit parade or Diane Paulus simply didn't do her homework. So either the direction is such that it does not allow you to see the forest for the trees or perhaps you merely expected it to be something it was never meant to be?

I mean, I think the audience was cracking up during the "old lady" bit.

You mean Margaret Mead?

---

I totally agree with not all the songs being great. There are a few that I'd totally fast forward if I could, but "Frank Mills" is a cute song. There are plenty of characters who aren't really "advanced." I mean, Kacie Sheik's character is sort of mentioned once, and then she's just there for the rest of the show. Normally I think that would be bother me but because the show is done in such a non-traditional style, that it doesn't really bother me. The whole show is sort of disjointed, and it's interesting to see these glimpses into the characters lives.

Also, and this might be totally out there, but I applaud the creative team for putting someone with a little more "weight" into the show. I think it provides and a good message, and I wish they had let her sing! Her voice sounded like she could belt it out!