HAIR - how is it doing now? (spring 2010) — Page 4

Saw this this afternoon at the matinee, which was decidedly not full (at least in the stalls). Audience reaction was very enthusiastic, but for me it wasn't the best production I've seen of this show. Now, I really love 'Hair', love the music, love the idea, but this felt a little... I don't know. Forced? It seemed like there was a lot of sound and fury but not attention to the story going on. Mssrs. Creel and Swenson gave sincere and annoying performances in turn, I thought.

I think I'm getting old. Time for my nap?

Prety much how felt about it but I just felt totally cold about the whole thing. Forced is a very good word.
One of the most underwhelming evenings I have spend in a theatre for many many years.
I have been a lover of the show since my early teens and saw the 1977 second national UK tour around 20 or so times.
This production is just another Cameron venture for the masse s-the tourist masses.
This kind of answers my other thread which I haven't answered as yet, LOL

Not seen the London one yet but seen the NY one and i loved it, the energy was terrific and the set, lighting, costumes and cast were brilliant.

Hair really does split people

---

I think Cameron took this on because in the US it was a huge hit (not a Billy Elliot or Wicked, mind) and won a Tony for best revival and garnered a lot of attention. not everything translates across the pond. I have heard both from those who saw this in the 60s/70s...it is refreshing and amazing or it is nothing like i remembered and got bad reviews. the one thing i enjoyed about James Rado talking about this is when he did it originally, he did not pick any "broadway names" at all. he wanted just normal people who were hippies. that was the magic. one of the best experiences for me was dancing beside him on stage and having a word.

---