Consider this a place where the social, cultural, and political impact of HAiR can be discussed without competing with the newest picture of Gavin Creel's dog for attention.
Holla. I have a bitch of a headache so I'm not even going to try to be intelligent the moment, but I will be partaking in this gem soonest. Thanks.
Swing Joined: 5/1/09
Namo, consider this our gift to you.
Stand-by Joined: 12/28/07
oh my god, there are HAIR fans who actually like talking about things rather than the cast getting naked, and the fun songs you get to dance too??
I am so glad, I have found you all. Lets begin.
Referring to the revival, I have never seen a show where the audience looked so happy. It has that ability to connect to a wide range of audiences, which is what I love about it so much.
"oh my god, there are HAIR fans who actually like talking about things rather than the cast getting naked, and the fun songs you get to dance too??"
Yes, but we like talking about those things too.
HAIR can be discussed without competing with the newest picture of Gavin Creel's dog for attention.
Ouch!
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/19/06
Actually, the proper spelling is HAiR. Traditionally, the infinity sign over the 'i' was the way of knowing a production was legit. This has changed in recent years, but HAiR is still the proper spelling.
Hey everybody! since this is the intellectual thread i figured this is the best place to post this:
I saw hair the other day and while I loved it, I was confused alot.
Some of the things going on just didn't seem necessary to the plot [like frank mills and claude's trip] maybe somebody can explain it to me a little better?
Washing hair is usually done with shampoo, however there are instances where it is washed with other materials. Washing hair is a subject of discussion with different parties arguing for and against the practice. The case for not washing hair has been championed by British broadcaster and journalist Andrew Marr. Matthew Parris is another who apparently does not wash his hair.
In his article in the Daily Mail Marr wrote, "Former Conservative MP and author Matthew Parris threw down the gauntlet last week when he announced that he hadn't washed his hair in a decade, and suffered no ill-effects, socially or otherwise."
Marr then argued the case advising non use of shampoo was natural as well as having environmental and economic benefits. Jessica Simpson has been cited as a reduced shampooer rather than a non shampooer.
Mmmm, I wonder if Gavin Creel uses shampoo to wash his dog's hair.
Stand-by Joined: 12/28/07
Well in short, when Claude is having his trip, it basically goes through his mind, and illuminates everything he is really afraid of....the war, religion, dying. It just pushes you into his head, and shows you what is going on inside.....
Well, Hair is kind of notorious for not having much of a plot. The other day at the Barnes and Noble event, Rado and MacDermot were talking about how they don't really see it as a book musical, and explained that there was a lot more book that got chipped away as they streamlined the show. But yeah, a lot of it is kind of random and out there, because while it has a definitive storyline, it does have a pretty loose plot. Though I actually think Claude's trip is one of the big plot-driving sequences in the show because it's a picture of everything that's going on in his mind. You really see what he's afraid of.
You make a good argument for the proposal to not washing hair. However this often leads to Head-Louse Infestation or its proper name Pediculosis. Perhaps the slogan should be "Don't wash at your own risk".
I was front row for the B&N event and didn't understand that untill I saw the show later that night haha
and thanks for clearing it up a bit for me
I thought I was just seriously missing the point and being slow haha
The trip is without a doubt my favorite part ofthe show. It completely changed how I saw everything the characters did, coloring all their actions with a youthful desperation to evade something they just couldn't control.
Yes, Hair is driven by the music instead of by the plot. I used to think Hair wouldn't really work in today's theatre because it was more of a revue than the plot-driven musicals that have become the norm. I couldn't see audiences reacting well after 40 years of being steered away from it. I'm still not sure if people can accept a show in this style, or are just tolerating it because it's HAIR.
Growing up, my parents loved Hair, even if it stood for everything they didn't. They had the original cast LP, as well as The 5th Dimension and Oliver's covers on 45s. They managed to separate the show from the image of the hippies they remembered (they were a bit too young and came of age in the reactionary 70s), into whimsical characters with punchlines. It would be like Rudy Giuliani singing along to Christmas Bells at Rent with the homeless junkies.
It's a fascinating era, and this production is really trying to capture some of that feeling. I wish it were a bit more free-flowing and less rehearsed, but I suppose that's an unattainable goal in theatre.
The through line is definitely Claude's struggle with listening to his head or his heart -- he needs to decide where he truly belongs. Claude is truly a lost soul.
MY thoughts on the "free style" story telling: the audience has just dropped in to hang out with the tribe for a little while. As we walk from member to member we have different conversations, overhear and observe different events.
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/13/05
I feel that HAIR is more of a theatrical experience, where the audience has joined the tribe for a night, and things just happen to transpire while the audience is there. This is one reason why audiences are connecting to this production so well...that, and the actors are doing such a fantastic job of creating a reality. When I saw the show, I felt like the tribe (meaning, the CHARACTERS) had become good friends of mine. I'm sure many others have felt the same way.
I laughed, I cried, I smiled, and I jumped to my feet at the end. I'll never forget the thrill of dancing on that stage and turning to look at an SRO crowd on its feet, dancing and singing together...feeling connected in such a sincere and honest way with over 1,000 people all the way to the last row of the Mezzanine.
Is talking about how I prefer the original cast recording to the new cast recording considered intellectual?
^So does my son, but he's 8. But he listens to both...actually he listens to the off b'way recording once in a while as well.
I know -- some of you think I'm nuts for letting an 8 year old listen to it: but he loves it -- even if he has no idea what he's listening to. He refers to "Sodomy" as the "relaxing song." Really.
I don't really have a preference, I rotate which I chose to listen to.
Chorus Member Joined: 6/17/09
I think it's pretty intriguing how we're being told of a time by a cast who wasn't even born then! The whole production is very powerful...
Leading Actor Joined: 1/10/09
This might end being a very short thread.
Maybe it really is all about the music, the experience, the nudity....oh and the dog.
I don't know that intellectual is quite the right word choice for the intent. There's just more to talk about than understudies and interaction; the music and the experience being part of that, but the other thread has gone on a track that seems very limiting.
Thats what happens to all the 'love' threads.
Mel --- that's not uncommon. Even the original production of 1776 could boast that. Or many movies/tv shows/plays/musicals that are historic.
Videos