HAIR: This is what we get for a Broadway revival? — Page 2

Except…I gave no one any such credit.

Read the posting a little more carefully. What I simply said is this:

“What ‘Hair’ did not need to be is yet another obvious parallel with Iraq…… If such a parallel exists, let the audience find it.”

The current Public Theater production of “Hair” is not a scathing indictment about Iraq, the Bush administration, or anything Bob Woodward has already exhaustively examined. At best (and saying even this is a stretch) this production delves into themes relating to the politics of war *generally*.

In earnest, I did not know there was a lyric change. I would hardly give any one credit for that inconsequential alteration. However, credit is due to an exceptional cast and the production company’s innovative staging and blocking. I ask any of you: did that bare turf of grass ever seem naked?

Don’t over analyze this musical people…simply take it at face value and enjoy.

Except…I gave no one any such credit.

Read the posting a little more carefully. What I simply said is this:

“What ‘Hair’ did not need to be is yet another obvious parallel with Iraq…… If such a parallel exists, let the audience find it.”

Uh, I quoted exactly what I was responding to, which was more than that one sentence. Like the one where you mentioned the director. You know, this part: ...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!”

I'm not sure how you arrived that the director was so egomaniacal about a minor lyric change. There was nothing else about the character, his voice, or the staging that was specifically Bush-like in the least. The song was originally political and proved its relevence simply by being performed. I'm still not sure why you believe she was so overly pretentious about a song that is inherently relevent to the times. It really didn't have much to do with her at all.

The current Public Theater production of “Hair” is not a scathing indictment about Iraq, the Bush administration, or anything Bob Woodward has already exhaustively examined.

Neither was Two Gentlemen of Verona. There was just the one song that had to do with anything political.

---

I don't remember the exact lines off the top of my head, but the bit where the Duke of Milan sings about smoking a joint (send him off at rifle point!) and putting him in the draft were replaced with lyrics about gays in the military and the only Bush reference "God's on my side!". It just took some dated references and made them a little more current. I'm still not sure how it made the director seem so smug and pretentious. The original lyrics winked to the audience of 1971 and the new lyrics winked to the audience of 2006. It appeared that the director really was trying to keep the spirit of the original production rather than doing anything specifically inventive or profound. And in that, she succeeded. The show was hilarious and joyful.

---

I didn't have a problem with the acting per se, but thought the actors were directed in such a way that the show was not always best served. I just really disliked the gravitas Paulas gave to the book scenes, particularly in the ACT 1. It took away from the youthful energy that should permeate the show.

For the record, I did notice a few lines in this production of HAIR that were changed to reflect our current politics. Namely, one of the lyrics in "Colored Spade" was changed to..."And when he's president, what you gonna feed him?" An obvious poke at Obama