Hair Reviews- Page 2

[dg22894]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 7:00pm

Word of Mouth Review:
http://www.broadway.com/Broadway-com-VIDEO-ON-DEMAND-Word-Of-Mouth-Reviews/broadway_information_html/5015935

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 7:01pm

Reviews of revivals are hard to compose, because it's hard to point out the problems with the production without referencing the source material because there's not much that can be done with a show that is so many years old. The material is what it is.

The second act of HAIR is very flawed. But this is the closest thing to a perfect production of it we'll ever see. Revivals should be about the PRODUCTION not the material's flaws.


Anyway, Word of Mouth was a Rave not that it matters. Updated On: 3/31/09 at 07:01 PM

[TimesSquareRegular]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 7:06pm

from snl89: "I mean, for certain shows I'd expect some negative reviews, but... this production does NOT deserve them
But at least none of these are the important ones anyway"

Sometimes the only way insignificant people can get any attention at all is to be contrary.........

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 7:07pm

Variety is a Rave:

"With its alfresco setting and the penetrating echoes of its countercultural themes during an election year in which political disenchantment became endemic, the Public Theater's revival of "Hair" last summer in Central Park was a unique experience. So shifting it indoors could only dim the thrill, right? Wrong. The enhanced production now at the Al Hirschfeld is sharper, fuller and even more emotionally charged. Director Diane Paulus and her prodigiously talented cast connect with the material in ways that cut right to the 1967 rock musical's heart, generating tremendous energy that radiates to the rafters."

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117939983.html?categoryid=33&cs=1

[rwlevin]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 7:14pm

The Talkin' Broadway review is hilarious.

"This show sucks because it's dated but all the actors are great, but still the show is bad because hippies? come on! (still I thought the performances were charming)"

[snl89]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 7:15pm

"This show sucks because it's dated but all the actors are great, but still the show is bad because hippies? come on! (still I thought the performances were charming)"

I know right!? So silly!

It's like "oh hey, everything about this actual PRODUCTION is great, but I'm still going to give it a negative review just because I don't like the original material which was from 40 years ago"

Cause THAT makes so much sense O-o

[dg22894]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 7:17pm

Maybe this will be like Chicago and still be going strong in 10 years.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 7:19pm

I don't think it will be THAT big of a hit. But I think the producers definitely have a money-maker on their hands...and it deserves to be a hit.

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 7:28pm

Backstage is a Rave:

"After a run last summer in Central Park, this Public Theater revival has moved indoors, and it looks like the hippies will be grooving there for a long time. In the park, the show was a combination picnic and rock concert, with audiences digging the sweet pop sounds and the energy of the attractive young cast. On Broadway, Diane Paulus' grab-bag staging takes on a more forceful narrative drive. Scott Pask replaces his sylvan set with a Peter Max?inspired crash pad, illuminated by Kevin Adams' psychedelic lighting. Michael McDonald's costumes ground us in the colorful period."

http://www.backstage.com/bso/news_reviews/nyc/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003957381

[snl89]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 7:29pm

NOW we're talkin'!!

[BroadwayPer4mer03]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 7:41pm

ergh kinda upset that variety thought sasha allen was "a disappointment"...

I THINK SHES FIERCE.

but at least the reviews are getting better!

[DAME]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 7:44pm

"So that leads us to ask, can Hair speak to the Obama generation, which yawns at onstage nudity and profanity and is more concerned with Facebook than flower power?

The answer is a resounding yes. After a run last summer in Central Park, this Public Theater revival has moved indoors, and it looks like the hippies will be grooving there for a long time. In the park, the show was a combination picnic and rock concert, with audiences digging the sweet pop sounds and the energy of the attractive young cast. On Broadway, Diane Paulus' grab-bag staging takes on a more forceful narrative drive"

I love this quote. I bet the Obama generation thing will be in the ads.

Updated On: 3/31/09 at 07:44 PM

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 8:10pm

The Associated Press is a Rave:

"If you want to know why this joyous revival, which opened Tuesday at the Al Hirschfeld Theatre, is so successful, you need not look any farther than the show's first-act finale. No, not its brief display of nudity, but what is happening around it.

In this moment of Dionysian frenzy, creators Gerome Ragni, James Rado and Galt MacDermot have neatly encapsulated the musical's themes. As the hippie tribe chants of beads, flowers, freedom and happiness, Claude, one of show's leads, poignantly sings, "Why do I live, why do I die, tell me where do I go, tell me why.""

http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/entertainment/article/205933

[SNAFU]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 8:19pm

Actually it is not planet Earth but The Moooooooooooooooooon!

[Sauja]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 8:19pm

I have to say, I don't think it's impossible to agree with both the Variety and the Talkin' Broadway reviews. It's an amazing production, and I left the theater thrilled (actually quite a bit MORE thrilled than I was all three times I saw it in the park). And I keep going back, which is certainly telling. But I do think the show is a museum piece. The music is amazing, but the show is incredibly dated, and I think that a lot of it just doesn't hold up. It feels like a piece whose creators had no distance from the material, so while they were able to capture the spirit of a movement (an astonishing achievement in and of itself), I don't feel as though they had the range to be able to comment on it.

So I'll keep going back. And I'll keep smiling through it. But I'll also keep staring at the stage thinking, If there hadn't been a draft, I wonder if any of you would have even cared... (sacrilege, I know).

[crushgroove]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 8:20pm

How are there reviews up of a show that is still in progress?? It's 8:20...the show started at 6:45...the show is 2 1/2 hrs with intermission.... I'm confused!!

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 8:21pm

So glad that the reviews that actually matter (sorry Murray but I don't even know why your a reviewer) are raves. This is such a joyful, vibrant, and emotionally-charged production--not to mention beautifully-acted/sung, it deserves the best. I hope it gets raves across the board and that it recoups.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 8:22pm

Crush, reviewers see the show a week or so before the opening and publish their reviews on opening night.

[theatreguy]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 8:23pm

It's been a long time since critic's went to opening night performances. They go to late previews so that they can have more time to write their reviews.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 8:23pm

Wonderful, well-deserved reviews from the worthwhile publications!

This production is fabulous, and I hope it gets a terrific review from the Times, recoups, and wins the Tony for Best Revival.

[sgv123]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 8:24pm

delete
Updated On: 3/31/09 at 08:24 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 8:25pm

They aren't allowed to PUBLISH their reviews until opening.

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 8:30pm

It'll probably win Best Revival of a Musical, if only because the competition isn't stellar.

But let's not think about that. Let's just remember what a rush this production is!

[SNAFU]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 8:30pm

Sauja, The Viet Nam war was the first war to be televised into our living rooms. There was no governmental ban on showing the coffins. It was raw. It hit a lot of people very hard. We weren't getting the Rah Rah propaganda newsreels that were sent home during WW2.To question if anyone would care if there wasn't a draft is kind of irrelevant the fact is there was and it helped create the Hippy movement.

[Sauja]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 9:14pm

Snafu, I think my point (and I freely admit that my feelings are amorphous at this moment) is that the distance 42 years gives us from the piece forces questions about how we now look at the characters because the show itself was so OF the moment. You're right--my own questioning of the effect of the draft doesn't really relate, but it's more symptomatic of what I think the larger issue is, and that's that I don't think the show holds up as particularly timely because it seems (to me, at least) to be so much about its representational present that it's messages don't feel universal overall. In particular moments, it definitely crosses the boundaries of time--"Frank Mills" particularly stands out.

For me, there are just so many other representations of the Vietnam era (from Apocalypse Now to The Things They Carried) that stood the test of time better because their creators had more fully grappled with the era and/or better addressed the implications of what they were writing about.

But I'm just blathering on about my half-formed ideas. Point is, I loved Hair the five times I saw it, but I never felt as fully caught up in it as I perhaps hoped because I couldn't escape the issues that kept nagging at me about timeliness.