Another siting of HAiR in NoCal – Mountain Play puts on an extravaganza
(Disclaimer – As many readers of this blog may know by now, I am directing my own production of Hair in San Jose this July/August and I have been actively involved researching my production by visiting the Hair Archives in Massachusetts, interviewing members of original Hair tribes and seeing as many productions of Hair as possible. I have a very passionate view of what Hair should be, and that view has been altered by my research. I do not claim to be an authority on Hair, and this review is solely my personal opinion. If you are planning on seeing the Mountain Play production, even if you know the original production of Hair, pleased be advised that this review contains spoilers that you might not expect!)
This is obviously the season for Hair in California (and elsewhere as well!) So far this year (the 40th anniversary year of the first production of Hair at New York’s Public Theater), there are have been to the best of my knowledge five California productions of Hair with at least three more on the horizon (including our own in San Jose this July/August as well as California State University East Bay in August and Michael Butler’s production at The Met in Los Angeles in September). I have seen four of them: Fullerton College (March), Bishop O’Dowd High School (April), Sacramento’s Artistic Differences (May) and now the Mountain Play Association in Mill Valley (I sadly missed the Berkeley High School production, as both O’Dowd and Berkeley chose to stage their shows on the same weekends and there just wasn’t enough time to do both).
There is a lot to say about the Mountain Play production. If you have never been there, it is quite an experience. They do one show a year at the theater on Mt. Tamalpais, set high above the surrounding peninsula of Marin County. We were actually well above the fog and clouds, going from 50+ degree temperatures in the parking lot (there is a 30-minute shuttle bus to take you up the mountain on a very winding road) to 90+ degrees in the theater, making for a very sunny and warm afternoon despite our initial misgivings about the weather.
The view of the San Francisco Bay is spectacular on a clear day, although yesterday, all you could see were the tops of the clouds! The seating for over 4000 people is inlaid stone blocks which means you either have to bring a lot of blankets and cushions, or rent/buy the portable stadium seating they provide which is cushy for the first act, but starts to give way by the second. We brought a lot of suntan lotion and a fantastic picnic lunch and dined al fresco. There is covered seating for the solar-averse but it costs an arm and a leg – regular admission is $35 a ticket, covered seating costs almost than twice that. This is definitely a fun place to see a show in the afternoon albeit a bit pricey.
The Mountain Play group has been producing shows here for almost 100 years and is considered a “family-friendly” theater company. Over the past 20 years, for instance, they have done Fiddler on the Roof, Annie, Sound of Music and Music Man all several times. Their decision to do Hair during the Summer of Love’s 40th Anniversary was a peculiar choice, as it includes themes and language that are far afield from their traditional productions.
The music was excellent. This was Galt’s music and Gerry’s/James’ lyrics sung as they should be. The voices were strong, the words clear, the sound system excellent (not an easy chore in an outdoor amphitheater that seats over 4000!) and the band quite good. There were a few glitches vocally: I’m Black was sung at a dirge tempo, and Ain’t Go No Grass never got up to that amazing rapid-fire response that blows you away, but overall, the music sounded great.
I wish I could say the same for the choreography. This was an over-choreographed show that more resembled Hairspray than Hair as I believe it should be done (admittedly, my bias and opinion). Almost totally missing was the sense of spontaneous dance and movement that marked the original productions and many of the recent local productions (including, I should say, the Sacramento AND Bishop O’Dowd High School productions). To be fair, the dancers were fantastic, with amazing energy and skill, executing the steps they were given in perfect precision. Nothing can be taken away from their talent which was amply displayed. It just didn’t look like Hair.
The tougher questions, in my opinion, had to do with the changes made to the show. The publicity made it quite clear that there would be no nudity, and while some people feel that this would be a critical omission, as we found out when we saw Bishop O’Dowd’s production (also with no nudity), lacking nudity doesn’t necessarily kill Hair (and having nudity doesn’t necessarily make a weak production into a good one as I found out in Santa Cruz in 2002). However, I would like to say that the Mt. Tam setting would really be ideal for the nude scene, as it would embrace the natural beauty of the outdoors combined with the natural beauty of the body – in all sizes and shapes – in a way that is hard to do inside a theater – it would remind me of Woodstock and all those other open air festivals of the 1960s where nudity prevailed.
I was much more disappointed at the missing music. Completely ignoring legal issues (I still don’t see why this isn’t enforced more by Tams-Witmark), the wisdom of removing Sodomy from the production is highly questionable. And in terms of what they DID do, I don’t understand WHY. If the production had been a completely “sanitized†G-rated version of Hair, sans all the language, sexual innuendo, etc., this peculiar removal might have made some sense (although the resulting show really wouldn’t have been Hair at all).
But that isn’t what they did. In fact, almost all of the REST of the strong language was left in the show (including Berger’s famous “fucky-fucky-fuck†line in Act 2). So why remove one of the signature songs simply because it includes references to fellatio and cunnilingus? Actually, one fellow audience member and I chatted about this during intermission, and he had an interesting theory. He felt that all of the rest of the language is “common gutter†language which kids already have heard (possibly from their parents!) and parents can simply tell their young children “we don’t want you saying those thingsâ€. However, Sodomy leads to all sorts of questions about meaning and parents might not want to have to explain it to them.
Other missing music included Don’t Put It Down (although they did the flag folding bit without the song anyway and ended it with a strange tap dance number), The Bed and Dead End.
Another interesting point was the dichotomy of leaving the drug usage in the show but then making a really strange addition to try to “PC†the issue. In this production, Jeanie and other tribe members were more stoned than I have typically seen even in other shows (in fact, at times Jeanie looked stumbling drunk, not stoned). However, during Hashish, they added a “Grim Reaper†to the song, who walked among the tribe and as each drug was mentioned, he touched the forehead of a tribe member (ala Jimmy Swaggart) and the tribe member fell down (dead presumably from the effects of the drug?) and was covered up with a black cloth, because, of course, “drugs are bad, m’kay?†:-). It was all very weird and hardly in keeping with the spirit of Hair.
A few other interesting modifications:
Instead of the ritual hair-cutting ceremony that opens the show, Claude comes up out of the trapdoor in Army uniform and M-16 during the opening notes of Aquarius and is promptly killed by gunfire, then is covered up by the tribe waving a parachute and finally comes back to life by driving in with Berger in a “flower powered†VW microbus at the end of the song.
Jeanie sang the entire song of Air with her face inside the gas mask. I have never seen it done that way and, while it didn’t effect her ability to sing (she was mic’ed nicely) it just looked weird.
Margaret Meade was a woman, not a man, although she still ended up doing the “I’m not wearing a dress†bit just as it is written. It just didn’t make any sense that way 😉
(Also, a small costuming note for anyone who reads this and is doing the show: it is pretty important for the coat that Margaret Meade wears to have the bottom edge of a dress sewn in and appearing below the bottom of the coat. She is completely covered up during the scene by the coat and if there is no dress appearing at the bottom, there is no reason at all for Berger to say “Love your dress!†This point was mentioned to us by Nina Dayton at the Archives and now, having seen it done right twice and wrong twice, it is so obvious! Sure, it’s a tiny detail and many audience members won’t have a clue anyway, but those that do will be pleased by the attention to detail. Thank you, Nina!)
And speaking of gender switches, there were essentially none in this production. The dads were men, the moms were women, ditto for Rhett Butler and Scarlett O’Hara and other possible gender switches. I guess it can be overdone (although I’m not sure how) but having NO gender switches at all makes some of the material bland and uninteresting and unfunny.
Finally, after Claude is shot at the end (the second time in this show 😉 Berger comes out in full Indian regalia and exhorts the audience to do “the dance†and revive the dead. Feeling much like the audience in Peter Pan, who are asked to bring back Tinkerbell by believing in fairies, we all “did the dance†and Claude was miraculously revived for the finale of Let The Sun Shine In.
What a long strange trip indeed 🙂
Was this a bad show? No, it wasn’t, and certainly the audience didn’t think so (they gave it a standing ovation and let me tell you, seeing 4000 people come to their feet is pretty amazing!) It was fun, enjoyable, warm and fuzzy, on a dazzlingly beautiful day in a fantastic venue. It indeed conveyed the essential meaning of Hair (well, at least PART of the essential meaning, that war is bad for us all).
Was it a really good production of Hair? In my opinion (and my opinion only), no. I think it strayed so far from what is intended that it lost the edge that is essential to make the show great and important. Last week, when we saw Sacramento’s production in a miniscule theater with a fraction of the budget of Mountain Play, and despite our intimate familiarity with the show, we shed tears when Claude died. This week, not a tear was shed.
I continue to wonder why they did this. Obviously, they wanted to sell tickets (and as a producer myself, that is not necessarily a bad thing). But if you have to homogenize a show this much in order to make it palatable for your audience (and even then, still leave all sorts of so-called “objectionable†material in the show), why bother at all? This was the Cowsills’ Hair, not Ragni/Rado/MacDermot/O’Horgan/Butler’s Hair.
Over 20,000 people will see this production, and that is good for Mountain Play (by contrast, if we sell 5,000 tickets in San Jose, just over one full house for Mountain Play, we will sell out our entire run of 36 performances!) but next year, I expect they will do even better, as they return to their roots, aptly following their 2007 production of Hair with the Wizard of Oz. I certainly wish them the best.
Namaste,
Jon Rosen
This entry was posted on Monday, May 28th, 2007 at 9:14 AM and filed under Uncategorized. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.
Being an avid attendee of many, many different musicals, I have always stepped outside the box and put the Director’s interpretation into consideration. Whether it is a play with or without music, each piece is translated into a form of art.
With that said, I found it to be not only idiotic, but hypocritical to hear someone like yourself, a Producer, to be overly critical and continuously hides behind the term “only my opinion†when it comes to criticizing the Mountain Play production of HAIR. Needless to say, I was appalled to read words such as “It just didn’t look like HAIR,†or “Was it a really good production of Hair? In my opinion (and my opinion only), no.â€
You’ve obviously put yourself out there to sound as though you’re some kind of HAIR buff, so that would mean you know what you’re talking about. Unfortunately, the only thing you seemed to accomplish through that blog was sound bitter. If you have in fact done your homework on HAIR, you will know that every single production of HAIR was different. Every Director (and Producer) has their own approach to a piece and it’s up to them on how they want to deliver it.
What’s interesting is that you actually answered your own questions/ concerns/ rants in your blog:
“There were a few glitches vocally: ‘I’m Black’ was such at a dirge tempo, and ‘Ain’t Got No Grass (which by the way you had many typos)’ never got up to that amazing rapid-fire response that blows you away, but overall, the music sounded great.†– Again, this is a reflection of what the Production decided to do share THEIR art form. There is no right or wrong in this… they weren’t being graded for school.
“This was an over-choreographed show that more resembled Hairspay than Hair as I believe it should be done (admittedly, my bias an opinion)… It just didn’t look like Hair.†– This was thought to be rather cowardly-stated because you “believed it†even though it was bias and an opinion. Just as in a debate, back up your own words. The choreography, again, was another form of art the Production chose to use. This was THEIR show, not yours. And how, may I ask, is HAIR “supposed†to look like anyway?
“However, I would like to say that the Mt. Tam setting would really be ideal for the nude scene, as it would embrace the natural beauty of the outdoors combined with the natural beauty of the body – in all sizes and shapes – in a way that is hard to do inside a theater…†– This is sick. You had addressed a few paragraphs prior to this statement that the Mountain Play group is “considered a ‘family-friendly’ theater company.†Well then there you have it! Not everyone is obviously as comfortable as you apparently are with nudity. And, as you stated most people, parents or not, will have an easier time explaining vulgarity (referring to Berger’s “fucky-fuck-fuck†line in Act II) because yes, adults use it ALL the time around kids. Kids will hear the work “fuck†more than they will have to see someone’s penis or vagina hanging freely. This is also in reference to the Sodomy song and the lack of usage for gender bending. Being a former Peer Outreach counselor, you would have an easier time explaining the word “fuck†than fellatio or why a woman is dressed as a man and visa versa. This was a decision made obviously for reasons they believed to be honorable.
“Jeanie and other tribe members were more stoned than I have typically even seen in other shows (in fact, at time Jeanie looked stumbling drunk, not stoned).†– This is irrelevant. I have seen people high who appeared as though they were intoxicated by alcohol. That was an interpretation made on the actor’s part… again, because it was their art form.
“It was all very weird and hardly keeping the spirit of Hair.†referring to the “Jimmy Swaggart†effect of the Grim Reaper used during Hashish. – This is hilarious. They were very much in the spirit of HAIR. The touch of Grim Reaper was, shall I dare say again, their decision to use as an art form because it is THEIR production.
“Was it a really good production of Hair? In my opinion (any my opinion only), no. I think it strayed so far from what is intended that it lost the edge that is essential to make the show great and important… Last week, when (we) saw Sacramento’s production in a minuscule theater with a fraction of the budget of Mountain Play, and despite our intimate familiarity with the show, we shed tears when Claude died. This week, not a tear was shed.†– This was by far the weakest argument of your blog. Do you have any idea where the money goes to for the Mountain Play? People are not paying only for the show. They are paying for upkeep of Nature, which for many attendees of the Mountain Play productions feel was very much in the spirit of HAIR. Think of the time era of HAIR… this is what the flower power was all about… peace, harmony, nature, love… and not over the fact that one show made you cry and the other didn’t. No one intends for the show to be a tear-jerker, although there are those that are more sensitive than others. “It was uplifting, heart-warming, humorous, fun and true,†said one woman who attended the show twice. I spoke with this woman for nearly ten minutes – and she found the Mountain Play production of HAIR to be one of her most favorites. She didn’t care about the nudity or the missing Sodomy song, and she had in fact attended the original production of HAIR and said they were equally well done.
Lastly, “I continue to wonder why they did this. Obviously, they wanted to sell tickets… But if you have to homogenize a show this much in order to make it palatable for your audience, why bother at all?†– You’ve totally missed the point. The Mountain Play, no matter the production/ show, ALWAYS sells tickets. They will shape and mold their shows as they always have these past 100 years and will continue to do so for another 100 years. They did this because they can and they did, and the public loves it. But, that’s my opinion, and my opinion only.
Posted on 04-Jun-07 at 1:01 pm | PermalinkAnother reasonable voice.
Posted on 04-Jun-07 at 2:25 pm | PermalinkThank you fan4hair.
I feel I must speak up here – the opinions expressed in Jon Rosen’s post are just that – his opinions, something he goes to great lengths to state repeatedly. You have every right to disagree with those opinions, but, as the moderator of this blog I would ask that you express your disagreement in a way that does not attack him personally, as you do, fan4hair, in your above comment. The blog FAQ states:
“BEHAVIOR: It is to be expected that in discussions people will not always agree with each other. Discussion of differing opinions is encouraged on the blogs, and one is always free to state one’s position, and go into reasons and explanations for holding that opinion. However, it is expected that people will express their opinions in a way that does not insult the person with whom they are disagreeing. No personal insults will be tolerated on the blogs.”
You have every right to disagree with Jon’s post, but I would ask that in future you discuss your differences without attacking him personally as you do above, such as calling his opinion “idiotic” and calling him “sick”. If you read the Hair Strands thread down the board a way you will see a good example of how people can totally disagree with each other without calling each other names or making the other person wrong for having a differing opinion.
As moderator I will make sure that you are free here to express your opinion even if people disagree with you. I would ask you to show the same respect for others here.
Nina
Posted on 04-Jun-07 at 4:34 pm | PermalinkHi 🙂 Despite the acrimonious responses I have been smacked with, I think I am a really nice guy and I expect if we could have a face to face conversation we would probably strongly agree about a lot of things.
I am curious that you find it hypocritical to “hide behind the phrase ‘only my opinion'”. I would hope that would be seen to make sure people know that I have an opinion and I recognize and accept that others may disagree. The one thing I do not hold myself out as is an expert. If I had said without qualification “There is only one way to do HAIR!” then I would expect to be criticized as lacking credentials to make such a statement. To say “In my opinion, this is not the way to do Hair” is just that, an opinion. You take me to task for not being an expert (which I acknowledge I am not) but then you beat me up for making clear that I have no other drum to beat by my own. I don’t know what to say that wouldn’t get you upset!
I think it is clear that every production is different (different casts, different directors, different stages). I don’t do clones (pretty damned hard). I try to do show that are true to the purpose and meaning of the original. I think that is what is expected. Yes, I have done my homework on HAiR. I visited the Hair Archives in Massachusetts at my own expense, I spent many hours talking with people from the original casts on the phone, I read every book ever written about Hair (all four of them 🙂 ). I have listened to almost every album ever recorded to try to figure out which of the vocal approaches were the best (and as anyone who has done this knows, even the professional productions weren’t always consistent – consider the differences between the Broadway and London casts which are almost day and night).
I wasn’t ranting when I said “there were a few glitches vocallyâ€. I was expressing the opinion (possibly not very well) that I didn’t like those choices. Maybe I needed to make that clearer. I feel the choices that Mountain Play made for those weren’t very good. You certainly are free to disagree with me. But why do you attack me for saying that?
You are right that there is no “right†or “wrongâ€, but there is certainly the right to express an opinion about the way something is done if you like it or don’t like it.
Again, why is it “cowardly†to say this is my opinion about the choreography? If I said that the choreography was categorically wrong, you would say “what gives you the right to say that?†Well, you would be quite right to challenge me if I made such a statement. I have no right to say it, which is why I clearly identified it as my opinion. How is it cowardly to make that clear?
Since you asked me about how I think Hair is supposed to look, I will tell you. Hair is supposed to look spontaneous, not choreographed (in my opinion, based on all of the productions I have seen which I thought were good, including the original Broadway production in 1969/70, and the Los Angeles production in 1971/72). Of course, it IS choreographed, but it should look like it is almost being made up by the tribe on the spot. So when I see a group of dancers doing the same movement in a “chorus line†form, I think “that’s not Hairâ€. I acknowledge that to be my opinion and bias, and certainly others are permitted to feel differently, but to me, it makes the show better and more effective when it really has that look that Tom O’Horgan and Julie Arenal gave it originally, that is not like any previous Broadway musical had ever looked. I just felt that the Mountain Play Hair looked like most musicals and not like what I expected a production of Hair to look like. Anyone who has carefully researched Hair knows this. Again, they don’t have to agree with it, but it is certainly clear that the very underpinnings of the early productions were an attempt to LOOK highly spontaneous.
I have to say that you keep making ad hominem attacks (“this is sickâ€, “cowardlyâ€, etc.) It would be nicer to stick to the arguments instead of characterizing me in pejorative ways. I didn’t do that to anyone in the Mountain Play association.
Why is it sick to say that nudity in the outdoors would have been beautiful? It would have. I understand why the Mountain Play didn’t do the nude scene, and actually I didn’t really have any argument with that. The Bishop O’Dowd production had no nudity and I acknowledged that I thought they did a terrific show. Please show me anything I wrote which attacked them for not doing the nude scene as fiercely as you are attacking me now for suggesting that nudity in the outdoors would have been terrific. By the way, someone told us that in 1967, the REAL summer of love, there was a festival at the exact spot of the Mt. Tam theater and there was plenty of nudity and rock’n’roll and drugs. Not toleratable today, I guess, but back then, we were different 🙂
It is not irrelevant to have an opinion. If you think so, you don’t understand criticism. I do indeed feel that the depiction of Jeanie was not very good because she looked drunk. I have been around people who smoked pot since 1965 and I can honestly state that I have never seen anyone who looked drunk (unless they were both stoned and drunk at the same time). One thing an actor tries to do is present an interpretation of reality, that is their craft. Unless there is a reason to NOT do it, you want as good an interpretation as possible. If you act drunk when you are supposed to be stoned, and people notice, you shouldn’t be shocked to be criticized for it. Maybe you don’t know how someone looks when they are stoned, in which case you need to do some research. If you are trying to make a comedy of something, then it is fine to do a misinterpretation intentionally (Keystone cops?), but I don’t think Jeanie is supposed to be interpreted that way, and, in my opinion, that is something to be critical of which is why I made the comment.
We can agree to disagree on the Grim Reaper thing. I didn’t like it, obviously you did. I have no problem with you defending it. It did nothing for me and I prefer Hashish staged as a drug orgy, as it is usually done (and as it was done in the original).
In all of your attacks on my opinions, you have never once addressed the main point, that they did a rewrite of the intent of the show by bringing Claude back to life at the end. Do you have an opinion about that? Regardless of whether you liked the ending or not, do you think it is a theater company’s right to simply rewrite the work so that the ending is different? In another post, I raised the question whether anyone would complain if we did West Side Story and had Tony wrestle the gun away from Chino and end up alive and with Maria. Do you have an opinion on that? Would that be acceptable? Legal? And if not, why is that different from HAiR?
By the way, if you think no one intends for this show to be a tear-jerker, I wonder if you have ever seen a really good production of Hair. On Broadway, people cried every night. Here is a quote from Jonathon Johnson’s book Good HAiR Days:
“When intermission came, she and her husband went into the lobby for a drink. She wanted to leave but her husband insisted on seeing Hair in its entirety. Reluctantly, she returned with her husband to see the rest of the show. Somehow during the second act this woman allowed herself to get caught up in the story and by the show’s finale, she was up on her feet and in tears.â€
I cut out all the early stuff about this woman being a politically conservative woman in Miami who supported the war and had two estranged teenagers at home whom she didn’t understand. For more background, get Jonathon’s book (he played Claude in the closing months on Broadway), it is very revealing.
However, anyone who thinks the show isn’t intended to wrench tears from the audience certainly doesn’t understand it (in my opinion). It is, and properly done, it does. Of course, Let The Sun Shine In also serves (as it progresses from funeral requiem to wake) as a hopeful song for the future. But I assure you, tears should be shed and if they aren’t, then the show is missing an awful lot of the power that should be there.
I am glad people enjoyed the Mountain Play production (really, I AM glad – I think that anything that encourages people to come to see theater is a good thing). But I also heard from people (many of whom had no idea who I was) talking in lines heading for the cars about why the nude scene was missing, feeling the show was tamed down way too much. I am sure in 4000 people there are going to be a lot of opinions, as well there should be.
And that was all I was doing, respectfully expressing my opinion. I didn’t defame anyone or call anyone a coward, I clearly acknowledged who I am (something you have chosen not to do). I will let the readers decide what the verdict should be.
Beads, flowers, freedom, happiness and peace,
Jon Rosen
Posted on 04-Jun-07 at 4:39 pm | PermalinkThanks, Nina. Just for the record, my post was written before I saw Nina’s response. I am actually pretty thick-skinned so the ad hominem comments don’t really bother me much. What saddens me is that it is not seen as reasonable to express opinions about the work of others (and I honestly invite sincere criticism of my work as well I must if I am to be artistically and intellectually honest about my own feelings). Fan4Hair, whoever you are, please contact me and I would be happy to comp you to see our show. If you dislike it, please feel free to say so. Even if your criticism stings, I will accept it in the spirit which I hope it will be given, as honest criticism of my work. We may disagree but if your criticism is sincere, I would never argue with your right to make it.
Posted on 04-Jun-07 at 4:44 pm | PermalinkJust thought I should make a few small notes about what I took from the Mountain Plays production. Without engaging in this seeming bitter tirade.
1) The Grim Reaper Scene was a memorial for those from the 60’s who had died from drugs NOT “drugs are bad mkay”
2) The opening scene with Claude is a premonition of what’s to come. He did not die and come back to life twice.
3) Claude was not brought back to life. Since it was obvious that he went to Vietnam and died, but by singing “let the sun shine” as a way to will him (and all the other fallen soldiers) back to us. He is dead but his spirit will dance with us forever.
One thing I will agree with you on is “seeing 4,000 people come to their feet is pretty amazing” they must of thought it was good show.
Posted on 05-Jun-07 at 11:59 am | PermalinkZebra,
Thank you VERY much for your explanations of your feelings about the show without any anger or hostility. I think this kind of discussion is what is useful on a blog like this, not name-calling (and I have tried hard to avoid that myself).
1. I see your point about how the Grim Reaper scene could be interpreted, but I did find it confusing the way it was staged. I also wonder how many people actually died from drugs in the 60s. The show originally celebrated the use of drugs as ways of expanding one’s consciousness and I just felt this scene didn’t honor that message. However, I can certainly understand your position.
2. I apologize for this one. I certainly understood this to be the case and I guess I was using humor poorly in making the crack about bringing him back to life twice. I just felt that the show as written clearly doesn’t call for that kind of telegraphing of the conclusion of the show and again, I didn’t like it. Call me a traditionalist, but as I said it was my opinion. I can see where you felt it was something positive.
3. I am not sure I think this is at all clear and I certainly didn’t like it. Berger’s words (I believe) are “we can bring him back.” There have been a few other shows where Claude is “brought back” for whatever reasons and in whatever form (a ghost, etc.) and most people I respect have totally disliked this kind of reworking of the show and I dislike it too. The most powerful moment in the play is when Claude lies on the stage and Berger raises his drumsticks over the body and the play ends. This was completely lost, in my opinion. And he and Berger hugged when Claude got up at the performance we saw. That seemed a little strange from a spirit.
I don’t disagree about your last point either. I expect that most of the 4000 people did think it was a good show. Millions of people love rap music too, and I personally don’t think that makes it a good. My only question is if they had a frame of reference (i.e., if they saw a different version of Hair, say the one in Sacramento that we saw the week earlier) would they feel the same way? By the way, not EVERYONE got to their feet (and I am not just talking about my party 😉 There were quite a few people scattered around the theater who didn’t get up, and in fact there were some I noticed who didn’t even politely applaud. Of course there are shows I see which I think are great and others walk out or sit through curtain calls with a blank stare and I wonder “Why?” so far be it for me to say they are wrong to feel they liked the show. All I have ever said was that I didn’t like it (and in fact, not ALL of it either, I took pains to point out that there were indeed some very good things about it, in particular the music which I thought was excellent), and I expressed my reasons for that.
I certainly hope you will take a chance to see our show and I welcome your opinion, either personally or via the blog, and regardless of whether you like it or not. All I ask is that you don’t hold against me the fact that I am willing to express my opinions, but rather judge the work for what it is as you view it.
Peace,
Jon
Posted on 05-Jun-07 at 12:30 pm | PermalinkOne more thing… I really don’t think if you look at my posts that I have shown any bitterness. I was very surprised (in fact stunned) at the bitterness shown towards me for having expressed my opinions. Yet, even despite the names I endured in yesterday’s flame war, I hold no bitterness towards Rana or Fan4Hair (whoever that is) as I am not a bitter person at all. I don’t think Hair stands for embracing anything regardless of whether you like it or not. It certainly stands for respecting people for their differences.
If anyone feels I have disrespected anyone in the Mountain Play Association, I sincerely apologize for that, as my critique of their show never intended any disrespect. I merely wanted to give my opinion about a version (which I didn’t like) of a show (which I love dearly).
Jon
Posted on 05-Jun-07 at 12:36 pm | PermalinkBorn and raised in Marin County (Mill Valley, no less!) and having experienced the so called ‘neo-hippies’ that live around here, I feel the need to point out a few things to you. The Reaper was in fact a memorial to not only those who died of drugs in the sixties, but those who have perished since then as well. Think what you want about the memorial and “how many actually died,” but please also consider that for those who had experiences with mind altering drugs and came back down aokay there were also those who chose to go the way of excess. It’s easy to become confused.
Drug culture in Marin County (well, Southern Marin) is by no means what it once was, but though people don’t talk about it it is not by any means difficult to find parents smoking with their children at home, an alternative school teacher taking the day off to trip on Mt. Tam, or just a general acceptance of cannabis. Even amongst those who don’t partake themselves, the sentiments regarding legalization (or at least decriminalization) tend to run on the more liberal side.
I can’t say much about omissions and what was “right” or “wrong” to include or leave out, but I do believe that the majority of people were there to enjoy the day. The Mountain Play is only a little bit about the prodcution…it’s mostly about the experience. For many in the audience it was the first experience with Hair (thank you, young rich ocuples invading our lifestyle) and they were not there for Hair, they were there because it was “So darling the way they put the show on! So SIXTIES!”
You are entitled to your opinions, but learn more about a) Mountain Play ticket sales and b) the Marin demographic and those the production reached before critiqe-ing too harshly.
Posted on 09-Jun-07 at 5:10 pm | PermalinkThanks Chiomafia for your comments too. We disagree on the appropriateness of taking the song Hashish and altering its originally intended meaning (which was not a memorial to those who died of drugs but rather clearly intended as a staged homage to the drug culture) but I certainly respect your right to disagree.
It is precisely because of the fact you mention in your second paragraph that I always felt Marin County, while possibly a bit closeted in public about such things, wouldn’t need to homogenize a show like Hair so much. Marin has always been a pretty liberal community and so I was taken aback by the need to make some of the concepts about the show so pablum like the gender-bending stuff. Imagine removing all of that not 10 miles from San Francisco – this is not Peoria, or heavens, even Bishop O’Dowd Catholic School in Oakland (except when they did Hair, they left all of that IN the show!)
I have no objection to the Mountain Play experience, and if that is the prime objective, they should choose shows which meet it (Fiddler on the Roof, Annie, Music Man, Wizard of Oz 😉 Taking on a show like Hair and then removing much of the important content to make it “acceptable” is an insult to the artists who wrote it, and worse, means that thousands who have never seen the play before come away totally ill-informed about what the play is and what it really means.
Its like doing Rent and taking out all the stuff about AIDS. Or doing Miss Saigon and removing all the stuff about prostitution.
Or, as I pointed out privately, playing Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony in a C-Major instead of C-Minor because “hey, our audiences just don’t really like all that sad-sounding music!” If you do that, is it really Beethoven’s Fifth afterwards?
Peace,
Jon
Posted on 10-Jun-07 at 7:25 am | Permalinkmaybe we should have a grim reaper for beer, booze and cigarette ads
Posted on 10-Jun-07 at 9:17 am | PermalinkHere here, Mike!
Posted on 10-Jun-07 at 4:49 pm | Permalink