April 18, 2006
Long, Confusing Hair
We finally got around to seeing CanStage's anachronistic (and possibly mid-life crisis-induced) production of Hair last night. As the photos in the adverts promise, the cast is young, gorgeous, and sometimes scantily clad. The tagline in the adverts ("Now More Than Ever") is less accurate, however.
Hair is very much a product of its time, a reaction to the draft and the Vietnam War, and a celebration of the free-lovin' hippy lifestyle. And while there are certainly parallels to be drawn between the problems of the 1960s and the problems of today, this production fails to do any such thing. The result is an irrelevent and very confusing show broken up by the occasional awesome song (we can never hear Good Morning, Starshine without thinking of the residents of Springfield standing around in their "Homer is a Dope" t-shirts). You know how when the Japanese take a liking to something distinctly North American and try to recreate it, and it feels forced and surreal? That's how this production of Hair feels - it got lost in translation, somehow, and it so lacks for specificity and context that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
|
I think everyone expected way too much from this production. Granted, the 'now more than ever' tagline didn't help much to avoid these expectations being set.
However, I protest that HAiR is OBVIOUSLY a product of its time, as is a heck of a lot of other plays and musicals that we love. It, for a musical, rather successfully captured some of both the soul and the superficiality of the hippie movement. Hippie-ism is permanently behind glass, it ain't ever coming out. But, like in other of the aforementioned anachronistic plays and in every history class everywhere, we can afford to look back and see what we can learn from comparing our own times to those being depicted onstage. We don't really need the production to do that for us, do we?
HAiR got some revision from one of its original writers for this production at CanStage. The show always needs revision, because as even the writers recognized, it's not that well-written a play. It evolves with every staging, and benefits from some reimagining, but that's part of what needs to be appreciated in seeing it: what are they trying to do differently?
This Canstage production certainly didn't try to just resurrect the original show, so why aren't we enjoying this, the artistic process, instead of finding every last thing to criticize, out of our disdain and embarrassment over once coveting ours or our parents' bell bottoms?
I know it had problems. Major problems. But I still enjoyed it. I think there's more than enough there to celebrate and praise (like Craig Burnatowski's performance, the rich visual displays and multidisciplinarity including pageant puppetry and stiltwalking, the music, OH THE MUSIC!!!, and the very moving closing scene).
Let's give HAiR a break, shall we? Let it be what it is: Broadway's view of history.
Ok, so what ARE they trying to do differently? What are they trying to say? Where was this thing even supposed to be set? What on earth was going on?
I'm not being a smartass here, I genuinely do not have answers to any of those questions, and am open to answers.
Yes, the music was great, but there was a problem with the sound such that half of the lyrics were lost (which could be a contributing factor to my lack of comprehension). I dug the stilt-walking and brief aeriel acrobatics, but I didn't understand why they were there. And good songs don't make a good show - there were some tedious stretches in there.
Nothing in this production rang true to me at all. No, we don't need a production to specifically point out the differences between two eras for us, but if we are meant to draw the distinction (and why should CanStage do such an obviously dated piece if we are not?) ourselves, the production needs to speak for itself. This one doesn't. This one feels like a bunch of kids found their parents' old clothes in an attic and decided to stage a script in a language they don't understand.
I am pleased that this show is employing so many young actors, and they all seem to be having a blast, which is nice, but it's not much fun to watch other people pretend to get stoned, even if they're really cute.
HAhahaha...lol I appreciate your criticism, Alison. But, as a die-hard fan of this flawed musical, I have a responsibility to respond to you.
What they're doing differently is doing it at all. I know that doesn't sound like it's answering your question, but I feel that it does. Thinking about how theatre reflected and responded to life and politics of the time (in 1969) and finding that it strikes similarities to our current climate is an interpretive exercise in itself, as I believe I said in other words in my last post.
The director, Richard Prior, a fan of multidisciplinarity and performance (as am I, I'm sure you know) jammed this production full of his most creative imaginings within the near limitlessness of the script. His goal, I believe, was to dust the thing off and put it up onstage for us to reconsider in a different light. To contemporize it (is that a word?) would be to bastardize it. He animated the thing like a puppet, and constantly acknowledged its antiquity (e.g. the scriptual references to being in a theatre, instances of audience interaction). I think that's more of an achievement than trying to entirely gut and renovate it.
And yes, I agree, the sound was $#@^%$@&%$@&%. At the night I attended, Craig Burnatowski's mic busted and he was called offstage several times throughout the first act to try to fix it. The poor thing acted up a storm despite having a handheld mic for half the time. A testament to his talent.
and you say nothing rang true to you at all? You weren't even alive in the sixties!! (of course, neither was I...) but I appreciated how the depiction of these young people purposely made them look foolish and immature at times. because, like all high-school-dropouts, they kinda are. but I think that Hair is trying to say that there's perhaps something important about that naivete, that maybe seeing young people as incapable of understanding international politics isn't right. but anyone who thinks that HAiR is trying to idealize these hippiekid characters is wrong. just wrong. (take the song 'frank mills' and the scene just prior to 'easy to be hard' for instance).
and on the casting, for sure it left something to be desired (i am NOT a fan of the kid who ruined - ahem, played - the role of Claude), but would you rather see 28-year-olds try to play teens?
peace and love,
dahlia
The poster looks like something from Fructis. That's all I can add.
rek, that's the original poster from 1969, actually. but that doesn't make you wrong...
I don't think Hair is about trying to idealize hippie culture (there's a big difference between 'idealize' and 'celebrate'), and that is a good thing. I wasn't alive in the sixties, but my mom was, and she said the whole exercise felt alien and wrong to her.
I think the one of the reasons nothing rang true is that, in true CanStage fashion, everything was too clean. The set, the actors, everything - too bright and shiny and clean. Where was the body hair?
I'm not suggesting that the show should have been contemporized - that would have made even less sense. But in order to be effective, Hair should have felt more specifically tied to its own era. Something crucial is missing in this production that is more than just flaw in the show.
Ah, agreed. On all counts.
On your last paragraph especially. From what I'm reading of other (scathing) reviews, people seemed to expect to be told plainly why "now more than ever" in full thesis format, and were disappointed that the production thus felt 'dated'. ... which I think is a ridiculous accusation. Does King Lear feel dated? We have this disdain for the recent past, a self-consciousness, as if "oh we're so over that". But if something's REALLY old, it's fascinating.
I agree with the comment that everything was too clean. I remember sitting in the audience thinking to myself that the 'hippies' were too childlike. There is a difference between playing naive, idealistic young adults and children. That's why the moments between Sheila and Burger turned out to be the most interesting; because suddenly we were all sure they were grown-ups.
I'm not sure I articulated that very well but it's been bugging me ever since I saw the show.
If something is done in a manner true to its time it's fascinating, regardless of when in history it occurred.
I didn't think Hair felt dated at all - there are some songs that are still alarmingly relevent ("Breathe Deep", for example, I liked because I found it chilling). But overall, the production was too incoherent for anything more than an occasional moment to shine through like that.
I just totally contradicted myself by saying Hair didn't feel dated at all. That's not what I meant to say. I meant to say that I wasn't troubled by how Hair is dated. Obviously, Hair is dated.
I need to stop typing "dated".