Hair: A Review.
This past weekend, Forbidden Planet Productions presented their rendition of Hair. I had never seen this play before this past Sunday evening. I hadn’t even heard of it, or at least cognized its existence until earlier this semester when audition flyers began appearing campus. To summarize before I begin, I entered the theater slightly skeptical and left substantially impressed.
From what I know now of the play, it is immensely popular – a traditional, yet still present piece of 1960’s hippy nostalgia / political & social commentary / drug induced, performed and witnessed musical adventure. After having seen it this weekend, it certainly lived up to its alleged reputation. (Supposedly, there were one or more members of the original cast in attendance, which, if you’ve ever performed in or seen anything, you know / can imagine how incredible (or embarrassing) this can be).
So, here’s some review action for all yall, in no particular chronological or hierarchical order:
As far as musicals go, the vocals were raw. Not uniformly – some of it was pretty amazing – but, overall, the singing was not the most outstanding feature of the production, nor should it have been. Its raw quality lent itself to a more genuine / natural aura, which is, to presuppose intention, “what they were going for.” In fact, the production seemed to attempt to remain true to both the piece and the times; in dress, in attitude, in audience interaction, in drug and alcohol consumption, in social and political perception, in devastating disillusionment (more on this in other post). This attitude made this play truly unique among dramatic productions today, student-run and otherwise.
The physical production was very impressive. If you’ve ever been inside the Lisner Downstage, you know 1) how little space / environment there is to work with, 2) how often this can become a detriment to production. Interestingly, though, this worked to Hair’s distinct advantage. The theater was literally immersed in the production; the scaffolding, which composed the majority of the set, was huge. It was always being climbed or slept or sat or stood on. To this same end, the lighting was extremely effective in communicating the play’s emotions and themes. Overall, the atmosphere in the theater was spot on for the show. One of the most creative uses of what really can be a crappy performing space.
The band, which interacted with both the audience and performers throughout, was stationed under a part of the scaffolding. They were excellent. When they weren’t performing the score, they were jamming with the actors, who were constantly climbing into the audience – a great way to achieve the rowdy, liberated attitude that makes Hair what it is.
The actors were pretty much hanging out the whole time, talking with the audience, in and out of character. I thought this was great. Not something you see a lot of, but definitely appropriate for the material. The quality of the acting itself was also quite impressive. The lead actors of the play, Tom McDonald as Berger and Colby Katz-Lapides as Claude, gave intense and moving performances. (And, as I failed to mention before) Zoe Petkanas gave an equally moving performance (and possibly the most disturbing , at least in the way of social commentary) of Jeanine.* They were, of course, supported by an impressive company. These guys went all out. I’ve really never seen anything like it.
The play was long; it dragged toward the end of the first act and the beginning of the second. This might just be the play or this particular interpretation, but the pace was noticeably altered during this time.
This drawback became secondary, however, in the end of the play. The final 10 minutes were outstanding. As I’ve mentioned, I had never seen the play, so perhaps the ending surprised me more than it did others. Regardless, it was moving. The play ends on an unexpected tragic note, with Claude being drafted for Vietnam; the rest of “the tribe” stands around his dead body, before exiting. The final minutes were completely silent. Of course, the cast came back on stage for a final reprise of “Let the Sun Shine,” but that silence stuck with me. Though the whole play challenged social and political convention, the ending hit the dramatic nail right on top of its thematic head, enforcing the darker elements of the 60’s counter culture movement. I felt immersed in it.
Overall, this play was the most outrageous I have ever seen performed on campus. It was also one of the best.
by Kevin V. Mead
*post-post addendum.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
can’t believe you didn’t review amadeus, just as good but different, less ridiculously in your face but equally well-acted and moving
I didn’t see it. Also, we don’t review everything that goes on on-campus. Its the nice thing about having a blog as opposed to any other form of publication. Feel free to submit a review if you’ve seen it.
i agree. amadeus was much more professional quality and the actors were stronger. hair was fun, but only if you were high.
“hair was fun, but only if you were high.”
the only bad part of Hair is that there are so many people who are incapable or unwilling to understand.
Amadeus was excellent for student theater. Hair was excellent for student theater. If Hair is done properly, it is “in your face.” I don’t understand how you can compare the two. Both plays are powerful pieces that need different treatment. Many people that saw Amadeus didn’t get it. Many people that saw hair didn’t get it.
Why would you attend either play if you didn’t like the subject matter? Apparently both sold out… no one made you sit in that seat for those three hours. Why did you even go if you knew you were going to hate it?
I don’t understand where all this hostility is coming from.
I liked them both! No need to be hostile about people trying to bring amadeus into light though, it sold out but I don’t think it got much publicity
the quality of either one of these productions aside, it is immature and embarassing to instigate competition and attempt to make comparison between these two shows. This is a Hair review– a review that was written because the piece moved the creators of this blog.
it is exactly this catty, dramatic nonsense that hinders productive creativity within GW student theatre. competition between companies, directors, and rumormongers should be thrown out the window— then maybe we can all reach a point where we can reflect on the art and the ability of a show to move people. in viewing this website, it looks as though hair did just that.
can’t believe you reviewed hair without mentioning zoe petkanas’ jeanie performance. i heard so many people leaving the theater talking about “that girl with the short hair” and how amazing she was. talk about “intense performances” from cast members. . .