[Mb-hair] Visceral connections

[richard haase]

two different things
the revival on bdwy was qualitively beautiful i thought
albeit as i have always contested needed minor updating
but i thought it was a function of the show clashing with the then late 70s
ethos of the time
not any fault on the part of the production
which i thought was wonderful

again as you know sir
even the finest people come up with unfeasible projects
most of the time
foreman is a wonderful director
but not for Hair or he wasnt then etc
the script was terrible
and treat williams was no jerry ragni
a rock star like david lee roth etc might have been better

i too agree that the next production will make the same mistakes
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Butler" <michael at michaelbutler.com>
To: "HAIR List" <mb-hair at islandlists.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Mb-hair] Visceral connections


> Martin & Richard,
> Some comments: The Foreman film was troubled with a bad script which had a
> lack of connection with Claude. We were lucky to have Milos do the film.
He
> was approved by all including the authors. The great trouble was the loss
of
> Hal Ashby as Director and the troubles at Paramount which did not allow us
> to use Colin Higgins as the Director.
>
> Tom's revival in late 70's was produced by me and I know well what its
> problems were. The same mistakes will probably be made by the next
> production. Michael
>
>
> > Visceral connectionsalso martin where it might matter
> > is that for example the reason the foreman film missed so badly was a
lack of
> > visceral connection with the various tumults of the 60s as it occurred
here in
> > america
> > the picture was totally divorced from the reality of the piece
> > in my opinion
> >
> > so i wonder as a director of one of the companies
> > ( eg off bdwy revival in 80 - 81 in nyc at harry streeps
> > 400 seat brook theater )
> > and as a packager who seeks at some pt in the near future
> > to do more companies
> > so the question of relevancy accessibility is very important for me
> >
> > eg look what happened to toms revival in 77 which arrived DOA
commercially
> > speaking and yet wasnt a bad production;
> > i thought the 77 revival was quite quite excellent
> > although not quite as good as the original production
> > which was the greatest evening i ever spent in the theater
> > ever
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Martin Eayrs
> > To: mb-hair at islandlists.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:58 AM
> > Subject: [Mb-hair] Visceral connections
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard asks:
> >
> >
> >   i got an interesting question
> >   obviously many of these companies youre seeing are wonderful
> >   and the show itself is so penultimately good
> >   but im curious
> >   when one sees a company now
> >   the generation being so divorced from the actual physical
> >   reality of the period
> >   eg i was 10 - 11 at the time and ill be 47 this summer
> >
> >
> >   the passion of the struggle etc
> >   do the kids now know what " it " was about?
> >   what is their visceral connection
> >   i wonder
> >   ?
> >
> >
> > I suppose a deconstructionist approach to this would be that the
AUDIENCE will
> > get out of it according to it what they are able to bring to it - that
is, it
> > will be the interaction of the event with their own bundle of
experiences and
> > expectations. This could lead to some unexpected interpretations...
> >
> >
> > The event itself will be the aggregated accumulation of what the ACTORS
and
> > DIRECTOR(S) themselves are able to bring to it. In the case of a 21st
Century
> > High School production this may not be comparable with early off
Broadway
> > productions whose cast   -it is often alleged - lived the parts they
played
> > and even lived partly in the playing area. Comments very welcome :-)
> >
> >
> > And, big question, what was/is Hair about? Can the war in Iraq compare
with
> > the Vietnam War?  Obviously not - no conscription, no draft card to
burn.
> > Sexual liberation (through freely available contraception) is no longer
a
> > newly liberating thing. The mystery and romance had already gone out of
drugs
> > by the time I reached San Francisco in Autumn 1969, when Haight Ashbury
was a
> > disaster area of bombed out panhandlers and the Summer of Love a two
year old
> > memory. Or perhaps i just met the wrong people ;-)
> >
> >
> > That said, i think Hair has a lot to offer present generations - and not
just
> > recidivist hippies in their fifties ad sixties. (Terrible thought, but
if you
> > lived the sixties you are - or soon will be - in the sixties). And if
you dig
> > it, does it matter why ? The point is that audiences do dig it - and I
think
> > they will, even if they react to it within terms of reference that have
no
> > relationship to the late 60s.
> >
> >
> > End of long incoherent rave .. and back to work, or what passes for it
> >
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mb-hair mailing list
> > Mb-hair at islandlists.com
> > http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-hair
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mb-hair mailing list
> > Mb-hair at islandlists.com
> > http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-hair
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mb-hair mailing list
> Mb-hair at islandlists.com
> http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-hair