Trigger Warning or Content Advisory for Hair?- Page 2

[John Adams]

Posted: 8/7/18 at 9:40am

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

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 8/7/18 at 10:35am

Re: "references in Hair to the people of India," there are actually at least three: "I've been to India / And saw the yogi light..." in "Donna," a depiction of Buddhist monks in the trip sequence in Act II which amounts to a caricature typical of the era that some today would regard as an insensitive portrayal, and a reference post-trip to Berger potentially hiding out in India and staying high forever (I admit to not knowing how someone would find that last one offensive, but it's the only other reference I can find).

As for content advisories, I have no problem with them. If we have a ratings system for films, and another one for television, and, for example, warnings in a live context about the use of strobe lighting and smoke-related effects, I see no reason not to acknowledge content that people consider problematic and give them full warning to get out or deal with it. If they stayed, and they sue, they can try if they like; I'm already covered legally with my posted notice, be it in printed matter or on some sort of notice board before one enters the venue.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 8/7/18 at 10:39am

Oh, and before I forget, though there is not an extensive history of it in productions of the show, it is the nature of Hair, though born in the Sixties, to live in the present, and, in its free form, to make reference to today, reinforcing the unfortunate truism that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

As far back as the short-lived Broadway revival in 1977, the posters in the protest rally have occasionally incorporated current references; said revival, for example, included "No Nukes Is Good Nukes," "Con Ed Goofed," "Save the Whales," topical references to the women's rights movement, and other slogans that would have made no -- or at least little -- sense to a playgoer in 1968.

(Indeed, the show's very first Off-Broadway revival in 1980 updated all of the topical references and set the show in the then-present. It was very well received, and played a command performance in front of 100,000 people on the Capitol steps in D.C.)

Updated On: 8/7/18 at 10:39 AM

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 8/7/18 at 11:26am

There's also the entire "Be-In/Hare Krishna" sequence... I'm South Asian and Hair is one of my favorite musicals, but I do think that particular sequence (and the general co-option of Eastern religion by the 1960s counterculture, often bastardizing them as excuses to get high) merits discussion. It's an aspect of the hippie culture that has been discussed by a handful of people but as the population of Asians within the U.S. has been growing substantially over the last 50 years, will probably pick up salience more and more as we go forward into the next half century.

As for the content warning in the program, I don't see it as very different from the "notes from the director" essays that sometimes are featured in programs. Oftentimes, the essay is meant to contextualize the musical/play into its time period, comment on its relevance or ramifications for a modern audience, describe the approach of the present production, etc. I'd rather that than doing what I saw in my first production of Hair, a community college production in which a lot of material was cut. Updated On: 8/7/18 at 11:26 AM

[John Adams]

Posted: 8/7/18 at 12:58pm

When the Tribe references Krishna in Hair, they are not referencing the people of India, nor Buddhism, nor Buddhist monks.

They are referencing themselves. More specifically, they're referencing the adoption and practice of the Hare Krishna faith that was was founded in 1966, in New York City.

From: After 50 Years, Hare Krishnas are no Longer White Hippies who Proselytize in Airports

"Back then, members of the Hare Krishna faith — more formally known as ISKCON or the International Society of Krishna Consciousness — were mostly young, white hippies drawn to a new version of counterculture spirituality. They gave up their jobs and their homes and then gave up alcohol and drugs and extramarital sex. They went to live in remote communes and proselytized to strangers in airports."

I do agree that regarding co-option of Eastern religion, the show (Berger, I think?), "bastard[izes] them as excuses to get high". To be accurate though, the Hare Krishna faith is a US-born religion based on Eastern practices. At the time of Hair, it was not predominantly practiced by those of Eastern or Asian cultures.

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 8/7/18 at 1:21pm

I don't find that scene particularly bothersome because, you're right, the Hare Krishna movement was part of the hippie culture, and I think the show does a somewhat decent job of tackling the somewhat skewed nature of that intersection of Eastern culture and the 1960s counterculture. ISKCON was a movement started by an Indian immigrant, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who actively set out to bring Westerners into the fold of Hinduism, in particular the bhakti yoga (devotional) tradition of that religion. The people who actually followed Bhaktivedanta's teachings were more straight-edge and didn't drink or smoke, ate vegetarian with no garlic or onion, etc.

In that song, they're referring to the Hindu God Krishna, and portraying an appropriation of that religion. This particular tribe isn't portrayed as very devout adherents to the Hare Krishna faith. I think the show itself actually comments on the conflation of drug culture with Eastern religion in that song when they superimpose "Marijuana! Marijuana!" over the ancient mantra of "Hare Krishna!" and later "Take trips, get high, etc." As such, I don't think that scene necessarily needs to be called out for its portrayal of Indian religion, but rather can serve as a vehicle for discussing the excesses and foibles of the hippie movement with regard to mis-using aspects of other cultures (Native American, Indian, etc.) to forward its own agendas.

[John Adams]

Posted: 8/7/18 at 2:09pm

Hey, Mike - I think we're mostly in sync on a lot of points.

Personally, I don't find anything particularly offensive in Hair. I'm not a fan of censoring, or whitewashing the show because (and maybe only for me) presenting the original form blatantly illustrates the changes that have occurred (for better or worse). Hair is a time capsule. 

Neither do I think it was a bad idea to include a disclaimer. In my first post I wrote: "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 disappointed in their wording. It reads as being very fearful and very contradictory. ...Like, "We want to do Hair, but we're SOOO afraid of any backlash we might receive." IMO, they wrote too much. 

[bwayrose7]

Posted: 8/7/18 at 2:16pm

Re: the trigger warnings debate - we have similar advisories/warnings for things like strobe lights that could cause a medical/physical reaction, so I see little difference between warning for triggers like that and warning for contextual triggers. Use the "reasonable person" standard just like we do for elements of physical productions that could cause issues: no, you don't need to warn that a specific color of light is used, but just that strobes are used.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/7/18 at 3:22pm

In that song, they're referring to the Hindu God Krishna, and portraying an appropriation of that religion.

I think that really depends on the production you're seeing.  The songs is really about the Be-In, which was really about the hippie gatherings, either socially or politically motivated, that celebrated a commonality among the spectrum of the far left, often resulting in drugs and sex.  The number would open with a small group of Hare Krishna members and build, adding members of the tribe and possibly other representations of students, military, tourists, etc. (I've seen this done to great effect in other productions) who may or may not be simply jumping on a bandwagon for thrills as conservative onlookers voice their disapprovals.  If the Hindu God Krishna is represented on stage, it's purely a directorial choice.

Oh, and before I forget, though there is not an extensive history of it in productions of the show, it is the nature of Hair, though born in the Sixties, to live in the present, and, in its free form, to make reference to today, reinforcing the unfortunate truism that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I guess it's all about how tight the direction is and its incorporation of modern elements.  My favorite production used a framing device of Sheila, Berger and Woof at the Vietnam War memorial in DC with the show existing as their memory.  There was no dialogue for this, but just a visual representation as they transformed to their hippie selves with the help of the tribe during Aquarius.  Just before The Flesh Failures, during the music vamp, they reappear in modern clothes at the memorial and the unchanged dialogue takes on new meaning (Where's Claude?  He should be here...etc.) as they search for his name on the wall.  Claude appears above the wall for the scene and at the climactic moment, his name on the wall is lit.  The Tribe then appear from behind the wall to fill the stage for Let the Sun Shine In.  The effect was almost overwhelming in emotional intensity.  I've never seen another production that ever came close to the emotional effect of the finale than this one.

I would hope that modern references in the show would be consistently used and not simply lazily dropped in with 60s hippies holding signs referencing another era.  One of my favorite recordings of Hair is the 2001 Vienna production that really blended the eras not only with visuals, but in sound.  The modern orchestrations are sensational and enhance the timelessness of which you speak.

Obviously, I hold great affection for this particular show.  One of my favorite numbers is The War, often omitted from recordings as it is a short instrumental.  I saw another production choreograph this number so brilliantly, it started out absolutely hilarious, then became deeply disturbing as it gained speed.

Updated On: 8/7/18 at 03:22 PM

[bk]

Posted: 8/7/18 at 4:38pm

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "Re: "references in Hairto the people of India," there are actually at least three: "I've been to India / And saw the yogi light..." in "Donna," a depiction of Buddhist monks in the trip sequence in Act II which amounts to a caricature typical of the era that some today would regard as an insensitive portrayal, and a reference post-trip to Berger potentially hiding out in India and staying high forever (I admit to not knowing how someone would find that last one offensive, but it's the only other reference I can find).

As for content advisories, I have no problem with them. If we have a ratings system for films, and another one for television, and, for example, warnings in a live context about the use of strobe lighting and smoke-related effects, I see no reason not to acknowledge content that people consider problematic and give them full warning to get out or deal with it. If they stayed, and they sue, they can try if they like; I'm already covered legally with my posted notice, be it in printed matter or on some sort of notice board before one enters the venue. "

That's swell, only where do you stop.  You might cover content that covers this person or that person's "trigger", but then another person might be triggered by something you haven't thought of.  They might be triggered by the use of a word or a phrase, a piece of blocking - I find the whole thing utterly absurd.  Somehow we've gotten along all this time without doing this.  I understand the times in which we live, but for me this is just inane.  I remember when trigger was a horse.  You all understand this word did not exist in this context two years ago.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 8/7/18 at 4:53pm

bk said: "That's swell, only where do you stop. You might cover content that covers this person or that person's "trigger", but then another person might be triggered by something you haven't thought of."

 

This is another argument I hear a lot. The fact is - you're right. We can never predict everybody's triggers. There will always be people who are triggered by random, unpredictable, everyday things. But there are some things - like sexual assault, suicide, self-inflicted harm, gore, gunshots, other extreme violence - that cover a large percentage of cases. It's like a flu shot; you do your best to predict what strains there might be, and you cover your bases by including all of them that you can in the shot. Some people might still get the flu, but it's better than not having the flu shot at all. 

 

"You all understand this word did not exist in this context two years ago."

 

No, I do not understand that, because it's not true. Why would you say that utterly false statement AGAIN, when I already pointed out to you earlier that it is incorrect, and even a brief Google search on the history of trauma triggers would me right about that? The word has been used to in the context of PTSD for decades. And yes, discussion around it has grown in the last few years, but even still, people have been talking about it for more than two years. I remember distinctly having a long debate about trigger warnings in my high school about 5-6 years ago. 



 

 

Updated On: 8/7/18 at 04:53 PM

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 8/8/18 at 12:00am

Mister Matt said: "I would hope that modern references in the show would be consistently used and not simply lazily dropped in with 60s hippies holding signs referencing another era. One of my favorite recordings of Hair is the 2001 Vienna production that really blended the eras not only with visuals, but in sound. The modern orchestrations are sensational and enhance the timelessness of which you speak."

Actually, that production didn't stop at the arrangements, and was not so much a "blend" as a total update; it was not unlike the 1980 Off-Broadway revival that way. In fact, it was the culmination of a trend of re-examining Hair in general in Europe that began in the late Nineties.

That particular production -- which had a serious budget, a very contemporary edge, and name stars (as far as European theater goes, anyway) -- was the brainchild of Werner Stranka and Martin Gellner of BEAT4FEET Productions. The characters dressed in modern clothes, and spoke and carried themselves as modern disenfranchised youth. During "Aquarius," instead of the ritual of cutting Claude's hair, he sat in a foreboding chair reminiscent of an electric chair, and received a tattoo. During "Going Down," the cast stormed the stage with South Park dolls in hand, forming a massive "chorus" of students cheering Berger on as he boasted his freedom from "high school heaven." There were other really interesting dialogue and song updates, minor changes in the grand scheme, but in spite of the production's success, Jim Rado frowned upon it. Said the changes were "a complete failure" and that the show was "no longer Hair."

(Didn't stop him from attempting to tackle something similar with other producers a few years later, but that's a story for another time.)

Updated On: 8/8/18 at 12:00 AM

[bk]

Posted: 8/8/18 at 1:07am

JBroadway said: "bk said: "That's swell, only where do you stop. You might cover content that covers this person or that person's "trigger", but then another person might be triggered by something you haven't thought of."



This is another argument I hear a lot. The fact is - you're right. We can never predict everybody's triggers. There will always be people who are triggered by random, unpredictable, everyday things. But there are some things - like sexual assault, suicide, self-inflicted harm, gore, gunshots,other extreme violence - that cover a large percentage of cases. It's like a flu shot;you do your best to predict what strains there might be, and you cover your bases by including all of them that you can in the shot. Some people might still get the flu, but it's better than not having the flu shot at all.



"You all understand this word did not exist in this context two years ago."



No, I do not understand that, because it's not true. Why would you say that utterly false statement AGAIN, when I already pointed out toyou earlier that it is incorrect, and even a brief Google search on the history of trauma triggers would me right about that? The word has been used to in the context of PTSD for decades. And yes, discussion around it has grown in the last few years, but even still, people have been talking about it for more than two years. I remember distinctly having a long debate about trigger warnings in my high school about 5-6 years ago.





"

It did not exist in the popular lexicon of two years ago, sorry.  You and five other people may have used it, but as the popular cliche it's become, no, not two years ago.  It's really been in the last year that it began to be used by everyone.  And don't lecture me, please.  Somehow people have gotten along without long screed printed trigger warnings for, oh, since theatre began, in fact, right up to about two years ago.  How did they, I wonder?  This seems to be a "thing" for you, since you take on everyone who dares not have the same opinion as you.  

Updated On: 8/8/18 at 01:07 AM

[kelsey1389]

Posted: 8/8/18 at 1:44am

My favorite part of this website is seeing how quickly every thread can dissolve to all hell. I already posted on here earlier, but I’m putting something up again:

Broadway shows should have content advisories. That was the main question being asked in the thread and that’s my opinion on it. The content advisory would/should read something like: “this show contains mentions of (suicide/self harm/rape) and depicts (drug use, nudity, whatever). This would serve both as a trigger warning of sorts to people who are triggered by such things (and most triggers are a little more general, obviously if someone’s going to be triggered by the word orange or something we can’t do anything about that) The content advisory also serves as a warning for people who walk into shows with no context or people who have no idea what they’re about to watch. Case in point: A few weeks ago I was chatting with the woman I babysit for and we were talking about theater and the upcoming live productions of both Hair and Rent. She said to me (I swear) that she was going to let her kids (7 and 9) watch Hair because it was an important show about racism and the civil rights movement. And this is coming from a woman who has seen shows on Broadway before, and has a general awareness about most issues. You have to think about how stupid the average person is, and then think about how half the people are dumber than that. People walk into Dear Evan Hansen thinking it’s appropriate for their 8 year old. Content advisories are a good idea, and I wish more shows would have them.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 8/8/18 at 2:07am

bk said: "Somehow people have gotten along without long screed printed trigger warnings for, oh, since theatre began, in fact, right up to about two years ago. How did they, I wonder?" 

 

Most likely people DID get triggered in the theatre, but nobody cared because, as you pointed out, it wasn't an issue people were talking about much. Nor was it an issue the average person knew much about. It's also possible that it was less common to find theatre that included triggering content. I'm not saying it didn't exist in the theatre of course - but it was probably less common due to changing sensibilities and theatre styles. 

I said something similar to this in the Legacy Robe debate, but I'll say it again here: the movement to include content warnings in the theatre is only designed to HELP people who are asking for help. It doesn't hurt anybody, except for potentially causing minor spoilers - and even then, it doesn't have to, for the reasons I said in my earlier post. It may only apply to a small portion of the population, but that small portion of the population deserves to have their needs met, considering their needs are easy to fill, and literally don't harm you, are anyone else. 

 

"This seems to be a "thing" for you, since you take on everyone who dares not have the same opinion as you."

 

Is that supposed to be a dig at me? Yeah, it's a "thing" with me - a thing I feel passionately about. And yeah, I'm "taking on" people who I disagree with. It's called defending my viewpoint, which you are of course welcome to do too. 

But you'll be very glad to hear that I'm getting extremely tired of getting into these kinds of arguments on this board. I've decided to stop engaging in this sort of thing from now on - at least for a good while. So you're welcome to continue ranting and raving about things that don't cause you any harm, and you won't hear a peep out of me. Congratulations on your victory. 

I won't be opening this thread again. 

Updated On: 8/8/18 at 02:07 AM

[kdogg36]

Posted: 8/8/18 at 9:16am

bk said: "It did not exist in the popular lexicon of two years ago, sorry. You and five other people may have used it, but as the popular cliche it's become, no, not two years ago. It's really been in the last year that it began to be used by everyone."

It's been used widely in the context of university course content for maybe ten years. I'm sure the majority of those who have taught or studied at a university in that period are familiar with it.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/8/18 at 11:25am

Actually, that production didn't stop at the arrangements, and was not so much a "blend" as a total update

To me, it was a blend because, while the costuming and makeup was contemporary, it still heavily referenced the late 60s (as did much of the choreography).  But yes, that's the sort of fully realized modern application I feel is more successful than simply dropping in a few visual cues here and there, which is really just lazy, gimmicky and lacks creativity..

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 8/8/18 at 12:19pm

Well, there was a limit to how much of the book they could change. Later productions in that chain of re-examination took things much further, each time with Rado's initial blessing and eventual total disavowal. I've often thought that period of Hair's history is unjustly ignored.

Updated On: 8/8/18 at 12:19 PM

[noracharles89]

Posted: 8/8/18 at 2:23pm

bk said: "JBroadway said: "bk said: "That's swell, only where do you stop. You might cover content that covers this person or that person's "trigger", but then another person might be triggered by something you haven't thought of."



This is another argument I hear a lot. The fact is - you're right. We can never predict everybody's triggers. There will always be people who are triggered by random, unpredictable, everyday things. But there are some things - like sexual assault, suicide, self-inflicted harm, gore, gunshots,other extreme violence - that cover a large percentage of cases. It's like a flu shot;you do your best to predict what strains there might be, and you cover your bases by including all of them that you can in the shot. Some people might still get the flu, but it's better than not having the flu shot at all.



"You all understand this word did not exist in this context two years ago."



No, I do not understand that, because it's not true. Why would you say that utterly false statement AGAIN, when I already pointed out toyou earlier that it is incorrect, and even a brief Google search on the history of trauma triggers would me right about that? The word has been used to in the context of PTSD for decades. And yes, discussion around it has grown in the last few years, but even still, people have been talking about it for more than two years. I remember distinctly having a long debate about trigger warnings in my high school about 5-6 years ago.





"

It did not exist in the popular lexicon of two years ago, sorry. You and five other people may have used it, but as the popular cliche it's become, no, not two years ago. It's really been in the last year that it began to be used by everyone. And don't lecture me, please. Somehow people have gotten along without long screed printed trigger warnings for, oh, since theatre began, in fact, right up to about two years ago. How did they, I wonder? This seems to be a "thing" for you, since you take on everyone who dares not have the same opinion as you."

We've gotten along without a lot of things, but that doesn't negate the need for progress. 

Look.

Are there sixteen year olds who want to be shielded from every unpleasant thing in the world, and use "triggers" to emotionally bully people into walking on egg shells around them? Yes. 

But there are plenty of sensible people who just want to be able to make educated decisions about how to deal with their trauma. 

I was sexually assaulted three years ago. I've been diagnosed with PTSD, I regularly attend therapy, and I've done everything I can to continue to be a functioning member of society. 

I've made a lot of progress. 

In the early aftermath, I couldn't stand to see male/female romantic interaction depicted on screen or stage (I'm a lesbian, and my only sexual contact with a man was with my rapist). I'd throw up. But I'm not unreasonable. I didn't demand trigger warnings for this mundane thing, which happened to set me off. That would be ridiculous. I just didn't attend theater, kept working with my therapist, and tested myself on the television in the privacy of my living room until I was able to get past that hang up. 

The only PTSD symptom I'm still struggling with is that I get panic attacks when confronted with depictions of rape. I've gotten to the point where I can watch characters describe assault and discuss it, but if the incident plays out in front of me, I begin to hyperventilate.  

I cannot tell you how much easier it makes my life when there are warnings indicating that a play, film, or TV show contains depictions of sexual assault. I'm hopeful that one day I'll be able to engage with material containing these depictions, but until then, this saves me the experience of having a panic attack in public. 

I know some of you believe that to post trigger warnings is to indulge a small minority, but this small annoyance on the part of theater management allows us to return in normalcy.

I'm especially grateful when theaters post content warnings on their websites, as the alternative is to spend time researching or calling and asking (and occasionally having to deal with theater personal who refuse to answer my questions because "spoilers" . ) My desire to avoid this isn't born of laziness--I just want to be able to buy tickets to a play without thinking about what happened to me. 

Updated On: 8/8/18 at 02:23 PM