Trigger Warning or Content Advisory for Hair?

I attended a production of Hair this weekend- it was produced by a small local theatre company in the south suburbs of Denver. I’m a huge fan of the show- the revival helmed by Diane Paulus was the first musical I saw in NYC and it was a joy and a privilege to see that landmark production during its initial run.



Anyways, in the program for this “Hair” was a brief notice- a content advisory or trigger warning of sorts. I’ll reprint it in full:

Hair was produced in 1968 by a progressive group of activists and artists. Some of the attitudes presented in the work specifically against women, Native Americans, Indians, and Vietnamese are unacceptable. We have made a conscious effort to frame these attitudes from a modern perspective while maintaining and presenting the original script. To erase these parts would be claim these attitudes were not part of the hippie movement, and to whitewash history. We encourage you to interrogate these moments for yourself.



Granted, this show has provoked controversy for numerous reasons- its frank depictions of sex, drugs, and nudity was shocking in its day and is still seen as provocative in some circles. But I was surprised that the producers found it necessary to clarify their positions as to what may be seen as insensitive content as it relates to cultural and gender stereotypes. I appreciate that they tried to frame the note in the program so that audiences can interpret for themselves (We encourage you to interrogate these moments for yourself), and for the most part, the show wasn’t sanitized. Some removals of racial slurs and a #metoo sign appeared amongst the protest signs during the trip sequence along with some other minute changes in staging- but otherwise it was more or less intact.



Still I was surprised. I’ve long trusted that “Hair” is understood by audiences as being reflective of a time and place and that its context is obvious. I’ve always seen “Hair” as a relatively straightforward piece- its tone when properly staged should never lead anyone to believe that it is some sort of bigoted propaganda from a bygone era. But perhaps the general public (theatre-going or otherwise) doesn’t see it that way…



I enjoyed seeing one of my favorite shows staged, but my question (since I don’t know if I have a definitive answer) is whether “Hair” needs a warning/notice for offensive content. With the Paulus revival gearing up for a live screening on television- will there be a question as to whether the work is offensive? Does “Hair” need to be explained for audiences to enjoy and understand it? Does any show’s content need to be explained in order to enjoy and understand it?



Thoughts?



**My first time posting here. Sincere apologies if this topic fits more appropriately on another Broadwayworld board!**

Updated On: 8/5/18 at 08:39 PM

I was actually just thinking about this kind of issue as it applies to the live broadcast version of Hair that is set to air in May. Although the TV version will certainly have to be heavily censored (I'm imagining whole songs being cut out), even the remaining material might be a little much for younger children. I worry that parents will assume that the show will be child friendly given that it airs on NBC, and let their kids watch it without knowing what the show is about. I think having something saying that the material being shown may not be appropriate for all audiences isn't a bad idea. Especially considering that the TV version will probably draw a decent amount of viewers who aren't necessarily big theater people.

The Distinctive Baritone said: "Can we just call “trigger warnings” something else? Like “content advisory?” I get that people have triggers but the term “trigger” or “triggering” has gotten overused so much I roll my eyes now whenever I see or hear it."



Actually the term "content warning" is starting to become the more commonly used expression among my circles. I think a lot of people prefer it because people can want content advisories for other reasons besides getting triggered.

Although to your point about the word "trigger" being overused: I think a large portion of its overuse comes from people who are either MISusing it, or using it ironically to ridicule millennials.

Updated On: 8/6/18 at 12:44 AM

Trigger is this year's word - it didn't exist in this context two years ago. What's next year's word du jour going to be.

bk said: "it didn't exist in this context two years ago."



That statement is entirely false, as even the smallest amount of research would have shown you. What you meant to say was "I've never heard of it before two years ago"

Also, thank you for proving my earlier point - these days, most of the times I hear the word "trigger", it comes from people complaining about how often the word is used, or people belittling the concept in some form or another.

Updated On: 8/6/18 at 03:18 AM

haterobics said: "The Distinctive Baritone said: "Can we just call “trigger warnings” something else? Like “content advisory?” I get that people have triggers but the term “trigger” or “triggering” has gotten overused so much I roll my eyes now whenever I see or hear it."

I neverunderstood how trigger warnings are not also triggers. If you say this work contains scenes including a rape, isn't that already a trigger?! You already made them think of rape in the process of warning them?!"

In almost no instance is merely hearing the word "rape" or "suicide" going to trigger a visceral, potentially harmful reaction in a person. However, watching a realistic depiction of triggering acts in the context of a play, film, television series etc. might. The trigger/content warning informs the audience that the work in question includes potentially triggering content and allows the viewer to make their own choice to continue with it or not.

I understand the use of a content advisory. I think it's unfortunate they felt a need to do so, but these are the times...

I'm curious about something else, though. Since they wrote, "To erase these parts would be claim these attitudes were not part of the hippie movement, and to whitewash history", did they include the nudity?

This thread is probably going to get locked because inevitably they all do, but I feel compelled to join in on this conversation because my social justice warrior friends on social media would kill me for saying this:

My biggest issue with trigger warnings is that in my personal experience, they encourage stagnancy/not recovering/special snowflakes. Over a decade ago, I was extremely anxious & depressed, suicidal, etc. - and trigger warnings weren't really a thing at this point. If I went to a class that was discussing a certain book that contained triggering content, I had to learn to cope. I went through psychoanalysis and dealt with my issues, eventually overcoming my phobias, triggers, etc. I understand my experience is different from others', but if I didn't actually delve into my trauma, I would still be sick.

I completely understand that recovery & treatment are often a privilege these days (our mental healthcare system sucks), but I get irritated when people just accept that they have xyz and have to avoid everything because of it.

/rant

ETA: Also, isn't art supposed to challenge people? Make people uncomfortable?

Updated On: 8/6/18 at 04:50 PM

GeorgeandDot said: "What you wrote that was inside the playbill isn't a "trigger warning." A trigger warning is something we should start doing on Broadway. It will just say that the production contains something like suicide, or self harm, or rape or something like that in order to let people who have experienced such things know and prepare themselves ahead of time. What they seem to have done is just included a director's note that describes what they've explored in the production in order to make it seem more current and relevant."

How about you warn me when a play or show is NOT a trigger? Then I can avoid a boring evening.

As every dramatic theorist from Aristotle to Brecht to Grotowski has written: theater is supposed to trigger, provoke, challenge, etc. Anyone who finds that too difficult to bear should stay home.

That said, I have no problem with the director's note for the Denver HAIR. It's a good way to prepare spectators and begin the experience of the musical.

"Trigger warnings" are condescending, passive-aggressive and tyrannical because their very existence implies that society is obliged to kowtow to anyone who has ever had an upsetting experience.

ETA I have no problem with content warnings for parents deciding what their children should see. It's treating adults as if they are children that I find dangerous.

Updated On: 8/7/18 at 12:26 AM

Whether that train wreck of contradictions published in the program is or isn't a "trigger warning" is a completely moot point.

I feel that if an audience member is struggling with a traumatic incident that is so severe it can be triggered by attending a performance of a 50-year-old musical like Hair, whose plot and content are generally known, they would already be aware of the risk they were taking by attending. That awkwardly-written blurb wouldn't/couldn't make a difference.

Based on the disclaimer the theater company published in the program (which to me seems to be present for the sole purpose of absolving the company of any responsibilities for the content they are presenting), I'm at a loss regarding why this show was produced in the first place.

Hair was produced in 1968 by a progressive group of activists and artists. Some of the attitudes presented in the work specifically against women, Native Americans, Indians, and Vietnamese are unacceptable.

If the company truly finds the attitudes "unacceptable", why are they doing the show? It seems that the attitudes aren't really "unacceptable" enough to keep them from performing the work. ...OR (perhaps), what they're really trying to say is, "We know you're going to be offended, but we're gonna do it anyway - We just don't want you to blame US for doing it."

specifically against women, Native Americans, Indians, and Vietnamese

I'm really confused by the listing of "Native Americans" and "Indians" in the same breath. I feel pretty sure that the author of the blurb is, too. What two groups of peoples are being referenced here? I don't recall any references in Hair to the people of India...?

We have made a conscious effort to frame these attitudes from a modern perspective while maintaining and presenting the original script. To erase these parts would be claim these attitudes were not part of the hippie movement, and to whitewash history.

Huh... When you "frame the attitudes from a modern perspective" by shoe-horning a "#metoo" protest sign (from the 21st century) into a scene that takes place in the 20th, haven't you actually portrayed an attitude that was NOT part of the hippie movement, and in reality "whitewashed" history?

We encourage you to interrogate these moments for yourself.

I would encourage the writer to seek a definition of the word, "interrogate". Moments cannot be interrogated. "Moments" cannot reply to an interrogator. The writer could have written "contemplate your navel" and the reader would achieve the same result. Oh, and by the way, keep those results to yourself, as instructed.

Updated On: 8/7/18 at 09:40 AM