HAIR: This is what we get for a Broadway revival?

In celebration of the landmark musical's 40th anniversary?

I finally saw the show tonight (like many of you, I've tried the online lottery to no avail but had good luck in the standy line) and came away thinking....pretty lackluster stuff.

It's not an offensive production but its also pretty uninspired.

Rather than Gerald Freeman's sparsely symbolic original staging at the Public or Tom O'Horgon's wildly over the top theatrics of the original Broadway production, Diane Paulus has given the piece an almost 'anti staging:' scenes and songs are pretty much all treated the same way: let the actors sit, group or lunge in clump at center, or let them stand in a line spread across the football stadium stage that is the Delacorte. If this production started life as a concert version it hasn't traveled very far to its present incarnation...

To her credit, Claude's trip in Act 2 is great - and the overall storyline has never been clearer (partly because of some new script changes) but the text is played in such a dragged out, heavy handed way, how could you not...feel...the...importance...of every word?

There is no set and minimalist props but we get numerous costume changes (spot on by Scott Task, and very reminiscant of the original, but lacking the concept to go with them).

The cast is energetic but mostly too old and not particularly distinct.

The band kicks ass and the show is (for the most part) sung well - though I'm not sure who's idea it was to make "Abie Babie" a sung aria for Abe Linclon. Completely loses the humour.

The show ends with a limp, not a bang and the curtain call "dance on stage with the hippies" seems an obligatory ad on now that it doesn't organically come out of "Let the Sunshine."

Don't get me wrong. Sure its fun sitting in the park and hearing this great score again - and most of the audience was right there in it.

But it seems a shame that after so many hypothetical transfers of productions of the show over the past decade, this is the production thats actually going to make the Bway revival.

Just last year Michael Butler's revival of HAIR at the Met Theatre in Los Angeles was a far better cast, more inventive and moving classic staging of the show.

Broadway really deserves a more visionary revival of this, but perhaps this production will actually work better in a small more conventional space. I just wonder if they are going to try to take that astro turf with them...

Well if the rumors are true about HAIR getting the Broadhurst after Equus, then that should give them some time to tweak some things. So perhaps the final product will be better than it is now, plus they may end up recasting some of it.

I'm just excited that the show itself is getting a proper revival at all!

Well, not to be a pessimist - but they did have over a year to tweak things from when they did it in the park last summer...

I'm sure they'll do some recasting and fine tuning - and like I say above, this could play better in a more intimate house, but I just don't think Diane Paulas has created a production that justifies transfer.

My friend Rick won tickets on the virtual line yesterday (OMG - amazing.) We had all but given up hope since we've both been registering every single day since the run began. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw "Congratulations Patrick... you've won tickets to HAIR..." That said, I had the most amazing time in the theater since SOUTH PACIFIC (but that's a whole 'nother story.)

It was a perfect night & the show was fantasmagoric
I'm totally shocked to hear anybody who didn't love every glorious minute. I cried for joy when it began, and then laughed & cried and smiled from ear to ear from beginning to end. As we floated out of the park we sang bits of the songs all the way to the 7th Ave. subway.

It was a highlight of my summer. For those of you who didn't LOVE this show then I'm sorry for you... I guess I'm not so picky.

---

Not to change the subject, but Michael Bennett, what time did you arrive to the standby line, and how many people were in front of you?

Thanks.

---

Foster -- I got there right about 5:00 and there were maybe 60 people in line in front of me. They went through the voucher crowed first, starting at about 6:30 and didn't get to the standby line until well after 7:30. I actually didn't get my ticket until about 5 minutes til 8:00

Scaryclowns - I actually don't really buy into the whole 'letting the material speak for itself' concept. I mean you don't need to have some brilliant new idea for the material to make it work, but you still need a good director.

Perhaps Paulus' concept was for the Tribe's interaction to be 'completely organic' - but as others have pointed out, the show was given such a laissez-faire style that nobody in the tribe seemed very bonded or very genuine.

And I would think the bench mark for what would have been a 'historically accurate' production of HAIR would be to look back at what o'Horgan or Freeman did with it originally. Both of their visions were much more highly theatrical.

Perhaps that is the problem. HAIR in truth has never been a realistic depiction of the hippie movement. Even when it was new, it was a glorified stage representation - but what made it exciting was that it was depicted through the ground breaking, emerging theatrical techniques of the late 60s downtown theatre scene. What Paulus seems to be going for is something perhaps more realistic and thats a problem because thats not the show.

If Paulus were trying to be more 'accurate' - she should go read about what La Mama was doing in 1967...

Jeffrey - if this had been a concert version I'd have had no (well less) problem with it. My thoughts are really geared towards this being a production good enough for a Broadway revival.

Updated On: 9/1/08 at 10:53 AM

We did the stand-by line as well last night...got our tickets at about 7:58 pm, 9th row, right in the center. Claude and Berger were at times only about 6 feet away...If only I had been able to hold Berger's jeans for him.
I'm not nearly as much of an expert as many others on the boards, but I truly thought it was perfect. But what do I know? I'm a veterinarian! I think what impresses me so much is that as a piece, it has so many layers; and that it goes from being playful and frivolous one moment to gut wrenching emotion (at least for me) in a heartbeat.

---

From what I've seen online, this looks VERY good. I would really like to see it, so I hope it does go to Broadway.

---

I agree 100% with MichaelBennett...I did enjoy it and loved hearing the music in glorious Central Park, but it did leave me wanting. And my seats were on the side, so I really noticed the proscenium-directed front and center feel and felt left out.

The footage on youtube of HAIR on the Smothers Brother show was actually of the original Los Angeles cast. It does feature Jim Rado/Gerry Ragni though as Claude and Berger and yes, they were both in their late 30s at the time and were way too old for their roles. William Goldman actually talks about this in his expose on HAIR in his book THE SEASON and says that, at the time, the fact that Jim Rado was way too old to plausibly be drafted actually made the show more palpable as a sort of escapist entertainment. You do get a small glimpse of what made the original staging of HAIR unique from that footage though.


The rest of the original Los Angeles cast, like the OBC were quite young. Most actually listed their birthdates in the original playbill and most were between the ages of 17 and 24.

The cast at the Delacorte is probably average age of early 30s, with some people like (the wonderful) Megan Lawrence closer to 40.

I thought Chris Hanke was kind of bland. His voice isn't great, but he looks young and coltish and his acting was nice. I don't think he really has the charisma to make the character of Claude a sort of****of the walk charmer though.

One thing I failed to mention that I thought was a big directorial mistake in Paulus's vision: cutting the ceremonial cutting and burning of a lock of Claude's hair at the top of the show. Its (I think) pretty integral to the symbolism of the show.

I'm still bitter this is transferring rather than the delightful Two Gentlemen of Verona while it was still highly relevent during the Bush administration. That was a grossly missed opportunity. I understand that Hair has a much higher profile and is more marketable, but unless the show is completely reimagined, as with the brilliant 1999 Vienna production, I just don't think it can ever recapture the potency it once had. It will probably turn into the new Grease (if it hasn't already), earnest, watered-down and stripped of its immediacy in exchange for a chance to simply hear the score performed live and offer a cast the chance to pretend they're hippies. Or as with the 25th anniversary tour, try to remain faithful to the original production and look so horribly dated and futile (I walked out after "Donna").

I honestly feel this is a show that works best in small, intimate theatres and a revival should stick to Off-Broadway, but that's just me. I've seen countless productions of Hair (whether I wanted to or not) and the harder the production tries to recreate a past era, the more removed the audience becomes from the material. Unless the audience is immersed in the action, it almost seems pastiche.

---

Updated On: 9/2/08 at 10:58 AM

I finally won tickets in the virtual line. I could not believe it. I had tried for every single performance. My theory is that so many people were away for the Labor Day weekend that they upped the allocation of virtual line tickets. But maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway, I agree with a lot of this - the fact that it was incredibly fun and rewarding seeing this show in Central Park and hearing the wonderful songs...but also that the staging is somewhat lackluster. And I have one further comment to add.

Diane Paulus, whose entire credo involves respect for the audience, should have known better in her stagfing of this show. We were all the way off to one side, but the entire thing seems to have been staged directly for the center section and that is it. So, we, and, I assume those on the other far section, got nothing but a lot of backs, and back of heads, and of yes, every now and then, one of the actors will run out into the audience for something or other. But all in all, it reminded me of watching, say, Spring Awakening from the onstage benches, where you are practically seeing the show from a reverse angle.

The sound system was great, the night was beautiful, the seats were free, so this is not really a complaint as much as an observation.

On the other hand, had I paid $165 per ticket for those summer supporter seats, I might be singing a different tune. But I got the idea, and with a glass of wine under the stars, it was magical, even in spite of Diane's seriously clunky direction.

What “Hair” did not need to be is yet another obvious parallel with Iraq (thank you very much, “Two Gentlemen of Verona: the Musical!”). If such a parallel exists, let the audience find it. I would much prefer subtlety over a half-baked production directed by a fool of a director who throws a Bush-like figure on stage as if to say: “Look at me! I’m so inventive and profound!”

Except the director didn't really do that. There was one minor lyric change in one song in which the parallel to Iraq was quite obvious to the cheering audience in the first chorus (they did actually find it on their own). You're giving her quite a bit of credit for that.

---