YOUR Ideal HAIR Revival Cast!- Page 2

[wildcat]

Posted: 2/7/05 at 1:45am

The problem with reviving a show like HAIR is that seeing today's performers dressing up like "pot smoking flower children" can seem a bit quaint rather than refreshing and anarchic. Also, there was a rawness about the show and its cast in the '60s which might not be acceptable these days. I saw a recent revival which had all the high gloss and choreographic discipline of CHICAGO, and although it was entertaining it left the audience feeling we had seen a novelty period piece rather than something with depth and relevance.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/7/05 at 2:12am

A lot of people seem to think the opposite. I'm only very vaguely familiar with the show, but if you watch that video clip from the Actor's Fund benefit on Broadway.com, they talk a lot about the political implications of the show, andy why they're still valid and important now, even though it's not the 60's anymore.

[Chrysanthemum62001]

Posted: 2/7/05 at 2:19am

Exactly how many times have you seen that, Emcee?

[musicgal04]

Posted: 2/7/05 at 2:27am

In the benefit concert, how was the nudity handled, and how would it be done in a revival?

[dancindramadude]

Posted: 2/7/05 at 2:29am

I have a friends that was just in HAIR in Brooklyn and it was playing ot sold out crowds. Some of the original cast and writers came and saw it. They loved it so much that they got the rights from equity to film it and put it in the HAIR vaults. And they are trying to get it to move to OffBroadway. But it is still in the rumours stage. But I hope it gets there cause it will give me a reason to go to NYC and hang out with my friend.

[elvenprincess971]

Posted: 2/8/05 at 12:54am

that would be so awesome, even if it was just off-bway.

[sweeedboy]

Posted: 2/8/05 at 1:55am

If hair were revived i think it should be done in the same manner as originally casted. When i saw the actor's fund benefit concert there was something that just didnt seem right while watching it. I couldn't put my finger on it till i left and it was the simple fact that the people in it were too proffessional sounding. Every harmony was perfectly blended, perfectly hit, and perfectly trained in tone. I think some of the raw power that is hair stems from the fact that these people are suppose ot be off the street and real. The original contained an amazing cast of trained and untrained.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 2/8/05 at 12:01pm

Hmm...the thing is, of course I would love an oppertunity to see the show in a revival, as I'm sure lots of us would...I'm just not sure it could prove to be a financial success. While nostalgia is definitely in, I just think it might be a difficult sell. Obviously, it's not for kids, which removes a chunk of financial success. And I believe there was a revival...maybe in late 70s/early 80s? that flopped because it just wasn't the time anymore. Even with some parallels with war and stuff, I just think it would be difficult for producers agree to take a chance on it. It certainly is a hard sell.

[elvenprincess971]

Posted: 2/8/05 at 5:21pm

while i agree that broadway is trying to open up to a larger audience, dont you think that a revival of such a controversial and dare i say classic (for lack of a better word) would bring in audiences?

[bjivie2]

Posted: 2/8/05 at 5:25pm

I think HAIR would be a huge hit if it was done right. We've got a political climate right now that makes it perfect for a production. And although Adam Pascal would be a great Berger, I saw Cheyenne Jackson do it at Fifth Avenue and he was quite amazing.

[elvenprincess971]

Posted: 2/9/05 at 11:38pm

thank you. I agree. Now, more than ever, would be the opportune time to revive this show. *crosses fingers*

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/9/05 at 11:43pm

I think my life would be complete if Adam did a revival of Hair. I also think I'd be forced to move into the chosen theatre and become part of the decor.

[elvenprincess971]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 6:23pm

...*crickets*...and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Hair should be revived. Just so Adam Pascal can be in it.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 8:26pm

Good. He needs something to lure him back to Broadway.

[Chrysanthemum62001]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 8:29pm

I just want to put in a request for Raúl to be in the cast as well!

ETA- Our three post in a row is really fun!

Updated On: 2/10/05 at 08:29 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 8:32pm

Then I will *really* go live at the chosen theatre.

[Chrysanthemum62001]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 8:40pm

And if we could squeeze Norbert Leo Butz in there, I definately wouldn't complain...

[elvenprincess971]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 11:22pm

alright.... i, the starter of this thread, convert it into: what is your "Ideal" Hair revival cast?!?

lol.

Man, i wouldn't mind Raul in it either... lol.

[elvenprincess971]

Posted: 2/11/05 at 12:50am

*bump*

[musicgal04]

Posted: 2/11/05 at 1:01am

I still want to know how the nudity would be handled and if so...do you think it would affect who would want to be involved?

[Chrysanthemum62001]

Posted: 2/11/05 at 1:01am

Edit the title, that might get people to post.

[wildcat]

Posted: 2/11/05 at 7:32am

The nudity was always tacked on anyway. All they ever did was stand there in dim lighting for about 16 bars of "Where Do I Go?" and then suddenly it was interval. If there IS going to be nudity it could perhaps be better integrated.

[elvenprincess971]

Posted: 2/11/05 at 5:12pm

But is the nudity really necessary now? I think it was originally added for the shock value (not that HAIR didnt already have it), but yeah... is it really necessary now?

[RumTumTugger22]

Posted: 2/11/05 at 5:21pm

I think Raul would be key in a revival of Hair

[KindnessofStrangers]

Posted: 2/11/05 at 5:50pm

Michael Arden would make a superb Claude Bukowski.