Hair: An opinionated follow-up for those interested in continued reading.
(Allow me to take this time to remind readers that the Colonialist attempts to be in no capacity unbiased. Nor do they (I) attempt to restrict themselves (myself) to conventions of length. Know this; read on).
This play was fascinating to me; like many works depicting the conflicted and turbulent period of the late 60’s / early 70’s (Easy Rider comes to mind), it did not know how right it was in its scathing social critique. The themes presented in these works are not only true for the time in which they are written, but have, to a near uniform extent, proven to relevant to this day: Although this production was a period-depiction, it most definitely could have taken place in present day.
It would have been interesting, and in my opinion, quite poignant to have seen an updated student-produced version of this play. From what I have learned of this play, the FPP production remained thoroughly loyal to the original production. I feel it would have been bold, however, to make people watch the same play take place today, but maybe that’s just me.
It seems that the contemporary dramatic scene (to maintain an extremely narrow scope) concentrates more on the personal than it does on the social, lacking the inspired, revolution-conscious disposition that characterizes this work and many like it. Maybe we don’t care enough today to be conscious of the need for at least revolutionarily -motivated literature, much less revolution itself. Maybe we spend too much time watching TV, and not seeing or writing / producing plays and films. Maybe we spend too much time fixating on scandal and not enough time perceiving a work’s actual message. Maybe we spend too much time blogging. Maybe not everyone likes peanut butter and jelly. (All of these, however, remain problems).
It was refreshing and inspiring to see a play like this put up. It was nice to see that at least a handful of people care about things happening in this country. That is, of course, if this was their intention; not only to honor this important social movement, the fortieth anniversary of which is happening / approaching, but also to remind people (students, parents, executive-board members, administrators) that these problems exist today (and in abundance) and that young people actually give a shit.
This production seemed to reveal a single spot on this particular college campus’ hardwood-milieu-table not covered by political and social shit-dust, at least in recent memory. Many people pretend to give a shit, but it feels like most don’t. Most wouldn’t have the gall to produce this play. Maybe its because of its “unconventional world view,” or because of what we know happened to hippies, or because of our refusal to acknowledge our current social / political situation, or maybe because it’s a musical and involves a potentially lethal amount of drug use, but most probably because of its “controversy;” sadly, the gravity and importance of this play seems that it will be lost to the masses.
It was important that this happened. It was important that someone produced this play and that someone directed it and that a bunch of people (truly) performed it. It was also important that it caused “controversy,” which this play, by nature and by definition of its message, must do. What is so sad about this supposed “controversy” is twofold: 1) Not everyone on campus had an opportunity to see the play, 2) the “naked people on stage” seems to be taking precedent over the real message - what should actually be making people uncomfortable.
The Hatchet published a front-page article that exposed extremely vague details about the controversy precipitated by the nudity featured in the production. Forbidden Planet is experiencing some inner-turmoil due to the director / cast choice to feature nude actors for a period on stage. This is yet another example of the Hatchet’s fixation on controversy. The Hatchet would never even dream of supporting something like this. The only times, it seems, that this paper even acknowledges “the arts” is when it is appears as a multi-million-dollar-masturbation-blockbuster, on the GW mainstage, or when it causes controversy. They didn’t explain why there might be actual controversy; this was ‘juicy material’ for them because it showed some naked dudes and gals, and ‘someone might get in trouble.’ The article lacked all semblance of what could be considered a substantial qualitative artistic review. I guess that’s not what the article was about, but consider: isn’t that sad? Your newspaper is not a source for news; it is, instead, a glorified gossip column. (News, I know)
It is understandable for FPP to refuse to support this choice, and also for them to be really pissed. But, without these naked folk, the production of Hair means nothing. To choose to ignore this aspect of the work is to deny its meaning. As far as it has been reported, no cast members will incur any of the repercussions. And, not to curse him, by any means, but I hope the director is forced to bear the consequences of this “controversial” production. If this is an actual controversy, and if he cares even the slightest bit about the material, it’s the best thing that could happen to him. This play is about people; people living in a society that refuses to accept them, a society to which they choose not to belong, a society that will undoubtedly destroy them if they cede even the slightest convention, a society not unlike the one we live in today. If this production intended, in fact, to remain true to the original, suffering repercussions for such a bold theatrical choice would be fitting.
I don’t know if the director / cast “felt it,” if they truly understood what they were “talking about,” but if they didn’t, I would be surprised. Everyone in the audience did, whether or not they agree with it. Perhaps the individuals who presented this play used nudity to get a rise (heh) out of people, to sell tickets, to cause gossip. Truth is, it doesn’t matter. The director used this play effectively; to shock people, to challenge perceptions, to sell out the Downstage, to see / show people some dicks and boobs – mission accomplished.
This, Hatchet, is perhaps what you’re missing. These kids have it right. I believe they know how important the messages communicated in this play can be. Naked or not. The “controversy” regarding nudity on stage really doesn’t matter. To focus on this and nothing else is tragic. Maybe you’re not missing it, but choosing to ignore it, which is far worse.
Now, I enjoyed the play. It was one of the best I’ve seen here. Not perfect, but really solid. But the fact that it was produced here is the most important aspect of the play to me. Really, the only problem with this play being presented is that there aren’t more like it.
Please, if you managed to read all of this, respond. React. Agree. Argue. Do something.
Also by Kevin.
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
And MFK, I think your approach to social critique is entirely wrong. In your post you say you look back nostalgically at the 60s as if it’s just about a war protest or adopting a certain hippy identity. It is clear from your post that your thought process never once extends to the CONTENT of 1960s social critique, such that you are in no position to dismiss that era because you cannot view it critically and see if those problems translate to today. To say that social change is engendered through bike riding, joining the SA (which was the name of Hitler’s terrorist civilian militia in the early 1930s), or volunteering at a homeless shelter is completely wrong. We are talking about institutional problems of a repressive social consciousness that supports and reaffirms a dogmatic and barbaric economic apparatus. You have no idea what you’re talking about - you think you do - and you’re satisfied about that. I suggest you start thinking about things on a more substantive level, not being content to read the wikipedia entry on the 1960s, or a blurb on CNN.
Hi,
I honestly don’t have too much to say here, as you essentially articulated everything that needed to be said in your article.
So I’ll just say thank you. As a member of both the cast of HAIR and the board of FPP, thank you. I’m pretty sure that I can speak for nearly everyone involved in this production when I say how much we all appreciate a commentary on the show itself rather than gossip over “theater strife.” Thank you for seeing the show, for thinking about its meaning, and for understanding the parts that mattered about its presentation.
Being in this show was gratifying to begin with; knowing that our work meant something to someone makes the experience truly incomparable.
The fact that the Hatchet serves only as a glorified gossip column has been made evident several times in recent memory. Usually, I deal with it by not reading. Since Shaina (above) is my roommate I really had to read the article. Initially, it was mostly infuriating. After reading your well-articulated response, I now think that it is mostly just plain sad. It is one of those things that makes you feel depressed by, and ashamed of your own generation of people.
It’s upsetting to me that the first two posts were deleted by their authors. I’m more than happy for this blog to be a discussion board for differing opinions. We have our opinions, and we know not everyone agrees with us.
Why would they delete their posts? It’s good that they felt differently. We need somewhere to go for open discussion. I have a feeling that someone instructed them to take their posts down, I find that horrible. We all have the right to our own opinion, regardless of what student org or publication we work for.
I didn’t agree with everything Kevin said in his post, but I’m more than happy to see it on the Colonialist.
We live in weird, weird times. That’s the main thrust of my comment, but I’ll be more detailed than that. I’m really proud of the people in the cast of HAIR. In the current social climate, or whatever you can call it, having long hair and/or believing in the power of love and music is often written off as “hippyness” or “hippydom” or “bein’ a fuckin’ hippy.” Honestly–hippies? I don’t even know what a fucking hippy is. The times when they did or did not exist, based on who you ask and what you call them, was so distant from ours, both temporally and in every other way. Peace and love are not fragments of hippy nostalgia, and anyone who thinks that this is the case is a terrible cynic. It’s really sad to me to see kids our age be so cynical about everything–often, cynicism is misinterpreted as a form of wisdom or worldliness, when truly it is just a form of emptiness. The cast of HAIR made music and took off their clothes, and generally ignored the rules for a few nights, and, honestly, that is the shit. It’s really a beautiful gesture, and obviously one that the Hatchet and those who are ideologically aligned with it are incapable or unwilling to understand. Fine. Music and love are not exactly transient things in the world–they’re ever-present, and if those people ever decide to let down their guard and open their minds, there’s enough of both for them. Remember, folks: you are what you eat. And if you eat the Hatchet, then I used you to wrap a present today.
the hatchet was right about one thing, HAIR did cause controversey within the student world, but unfortunately (as usual) the hatchet got the reason for the controversey wrong. HAIR was intended to be not just a show, but an entire experience, and in that i beleive they succedeed and i openly applaud their performance. however, i do not condone the methods under which this experience was achieved. in talking to a number of the cast members as well as some members of the FPP board and the Student Theatre Council (STC) i was alarmed at some of the stories i heard from the HAIR rehearsal proccess. during the rehearsal period which began in late september members of the cast were encouraged to do drugs and engage in sexual experimentation which was often impressed upon them under the guises of “cast bonding” or “understanding the characters.” some of the cast members i talked to openly expressed their concerns for others in the cast as well as the welfare of the production in the face of often self destructive behavior that included instances in which the director and other cast members participated in rehearsals while under the influence. the cast of HAIR was far from unified in their understandings of the proccess in which some of them often felt at odds with a director who continued to push them to try to re-live what he understood to be essential parts of hippie culure (i.e drugs and sexual freedom). HAIR may have been a good performance but the ends certainly did not justify the means. I beleive that it is fundamentall wrong to push people into illegal and unhealthy activity in the name of “art.” it is the job of the director to foster a positive creative environment in which actors can work and from all the accounts i have heard this was not accomplished. The nudity itself was not part of the controversy. the controversy was that the FPP board approached the director of HAIR and asked him to stop some of his more destructive rehearsal tactics, a request that from my understanding was largely ignored. secondly, when actors appeared nude on stage it was during the first performance of the show, prior to which the board had not been notified that it would be happening. the board was angered not by the nudity neccesarily but by the fact that they had been undermined for a second time by a director who continued to abuse their trust. while i do agree that HAIR had many redeeming qualities as a production, i can not bring myslef to truly commend their efforts due to my understanding of the proccess that created the show.
I think it’s important to point out some of the inconsistencies, discrepancies, and immaterialities presented in the above comment. I’ll use a chunk:
“members of the cast were encouraged to do drugs and engage in sexual experimentation”
I realize it may be intimidating to be “encouraged” to do things one doesn’t want, but teen movies encourage college-ists “to do drugs and engage in sexual experimentation.” I don’t think it’s an ideal situation for an STC member, but it’s fucking HAIR. Okay, so people were “encouraged,” but then they were…
which was often impressed upon them under the guises of “cast bonding” or “understanding the characters.”
Really? “impressed upon them[???]” I mean, is this guy shoving joints down throats? Pricking supple forearms with syringes?
some of the cast members i talked to openly expressed their concerns for others in the cast as well as the welfare of the production
I think this is totally valid & a sign of a healthy company. Kudos for that.
in the face of often self destructive behavior that included instances in which the director and other cast members participated in rehearsals while under the influence.
“under the influence” of what? Of marijuana? Of Schlitz? Of ether? This sounds like a DARE ad, not a response.
the cast of HAIR was far from unified in their understandings of the proccess in which some of them often felt at odds with a director who continued to push them to try to re-live what he understood to be essential parts of hippie culure (i.e drugs and sexual freedom).
Now, I’m not suggesting that the cast should’ve been forced into the Acid Queen from Tommy’s needle box coffin thing, but didn’t the cast members know they were part of the cast of HAIR?
If the director wants his players to play well then they should know what they are playing. It makes sense — even though it’s not the most ostensibly compassionate thing in the world — for the director to want his actors to know the characters.
And really, is “sexual freedom” that bad?
Also, the Hatchet article didn’t concentrate on the fact that the director was being a bit deviant, so that point is irrelevant.
Also, a director being a bit deviant is decidedly not a newsworthy topic, especially for the front page. It’s maybe last page of the Arts section material.
Despite potential reception of my previous comment, I want it to be understood that I do not think people should be forced to partake in activities against their will under any circumstances. I do, however, think people should be aware of situations they are consigning themselves to (my “cast of HAIR” remarks), but should also be not afraid to stand up for themselves if peer situations make them unhappy in any capacity: if the cast members of HAIR that had problems had left the cast, things would’ve changed & quick; also, I don’t know who the director was, I would imagine that if the cast members aired their complaints to him — instead of to a member of a council with judiciary capabilities — they may’ve been received differently than they were.
I’d also like to point out that Kevin’s (fat’n'nasty) post was a review and a criticism that does not relate to the comment above mine. That doesn’t make the comment irrelevant at all — I’m glad it was posted — but I think it’s an important distinction to be made.
ALSO:
To say “the ends don’t justify the means” might be a valid statement for an STC member, but it’s pretty silly, isn’t it? I mean, even the commenter didn’t even suggest that anyone was forced to do what they didn’t want; only that they were encouraged. I was encouraged to play little league baseball past the fourth grade, but I didn’t want to, so I didn’t do it. Agency is an important human quality.
BUT! I have no idea as to the particulars involved here and if people were genuinely disturbed, I am upset by it. I was just “put off” as they say, by the “tone” of the comment and felt it important to make another voice heard in an emerging divergent discussion.
Keep the comments going!
I’m sorry, but the post above this (before Kirk) makes very little sense to me. It seems like the concerns you present are private matters between the director and the FPP board. If people didn’t want to be involved in the production they didn’t have to be - their reasons for staying are their own. So where is the public controversy? I think the problem is that you’re viewing an artistic product from an ethical lens, which is to say you are not viewing it as an artistic product. You say that the ends don’t justify the means: this is a Kantian notion. But even Kant separated the aesthetic sphere from the ethical sphere: the ethical for him relates to the application of pure reason; the aesthetic involves the suspension of reflective judgment. The point is that you are conflating two entirely separate realms of human experience. To discount a work of art on ethical grounds is to miss the whole point of art; it is to say that the drawing you made in Kindergarten is superior to Michelangelo’s Last Judgment because the latter contains nudity against the wishes of its patron. I think your attitude towards art is completely confused - at the same time your understanding of ethical behavior seems superficial. Artists probably shouldn’t break the law (for their own sake) but this has little relevance to the consumption of the piece beyond placing it within a historical context. You discount the production on ethical grounds, saying that because of certain objections you cannot endorse the message of the product. This is philistinism. To discount the content of art on ethical grounds is to live in a world without art.
I wholeheartedly agree with the comment below my two comments and directly above this comment.
Kudos for synthesis!
also, I realized the argument above is a form of the ad hominem logical fallacy: it is to say that we shouldn’t read Freud because he did cocaine; we shouldn’t read Hemingway because he was a drunk; we shouldn’t read Marx because he was a communist; we shouldn’t view Van Gogh because he was a masochist; we shouldn’t read Nietzsche because he was a misogynist; we shouldn’t read Plato because he was a pedaphile; we shouldn’t go to Hair because the director coerced the cast into method acting.
I saw HAIR on Thursday night before services and was shocked and appalled. The cast was decked out in all sorts of gaudy “hippy” regalia- some of the MALE cast members were even wearing jewelry! This pretentious display of finery was exceeded in blasphemy only by the lack thereof at the end of the second act, when several members of the cast REMOVE THEIR CLOTHING in a tasteless display of their shameful anatomy.
The pornography continued with the prurient Thomas McDonald using foul language and even going so far as to MOLEST MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE. One respectable old man was assaulted in the first act when Mr. McDonald LICKED HIS HEAD. To show such disrespect to a senior member of society an abomination before God, running completely contrary to several of the better-known commandments!
This is all to say nothing of the rampant use of REAL AND SIMULATED alcohols, narcotics, and stimulants in the rehearsal process and even ON STAGE DURING THE PERFORMANCE. Surely railroaded into such sinful practice by example of the cast, I observed several audience members SMOKING CIGARETTES during the intermission, after which I promptly left. I could no longer bear such an affront to religion and decency.
In sum, this production was not only tasteless and laden with filthy smut, but also a corrupting influence on the GWU campus. I pray for the souls of the cast members, especially the SHAMELESS Thomas McDonald, who should be locked away for his own good.
as far as the separation between art and ethics is concerned, you are absolutely right, but everything has limits, surely if you have seen Generic’s production of The Shape of Things, you would know what I am talking about
Kirk, I think he is referring more to the play itself and the ideas explored in “The Shape of Things” than he is to Generic’s specific production of the play, though it was a great production.
justaguy, I think that’s a great connection, and I don’t wanna steal your thunder, so hopefully you’ll come back to elaborate on this point yourself!
The above comments are correct, I was refering to the content of the play. Just a brief synopsis of the Shape of Things, from what I remember, it tells the story of a young woman who is trying to complete an art thesis, and she chooses to use “a human canvas,” specifically she approaches a somewhat awkward, shy, inconsequential young man, and, through a display of affection and then by subtle nudges, she inspires him to change his entire persona, (clothing, mannerisms, likes/dislikes) into her vision of an ideal person. She puts all of her work, including the finished product, on display at her thesis presentation. It raises some thought-provoking points about what the value of art is and how far one can go in its name. That is a fairly longer explanation than I wanted give to just raise the point that the creation of art does not rise entirely above moral concerns. Where that line lies, well, that remains open for debate.
One other thing I wanted to mention was that I find the argument that cast members were not forced to do anything to be somewhat spurious, it seems to me to be very similar to the line of thinking that allowed fraternity hazing propagate widely. In fact, I would argue that the pressures imposed by being a cast member in a production are intrinsically more powerful than those created by any fraternity. I cannot testify firsthand as to what conditions the cast members were put under, I just wanted to rebut the argument theoretically
Tom McDonald played the “art project” in Generic’s Shape of Things, and was arguably the most absurd character in Hair. Coincidence?
We can truly observe there are lines everywhere. Really what we see here is the observation on the part of a teeny-weeny institution of a trend in a fat-n-nasty one: when will governments stop treating us like children?
justaguy, I was one of those cast members. There was no pressure for cast members to experiment, other than exercises in trust and stepping outside one’s comfort zone which was necessary for this production. it just so happened that many of the cast members had experimented with some of these drugs before being cast in the show and not as a result of being cast. my experience with HAIR was the director encouraging method acting. it’s not for everybody. I usually don’t do it, but I did, to an extent, for the show. HAIR has sparked controversy on campus and while I am happy about some of the conversations it has inspired, many people have gotten away from critiquing it as a show. a lot of the cast members view it as more than that, as something that should inspire thought and social change. I think this is the purpose of all theatre not just ones with nudity and drug use. I find it too bad that all of the student pieces done on campus are not talked about in such depth. My experience with HAIR was just that, an experience. I will never forget it. But these conversations were sparked not necessarily because of the quality of the show, but because a few people in high places blew the issue way out of proportion. Theatre is a reflection of “the Real”. In the real world nudity happens. So does drug use, a lot more than some people will admit. we did not do hair so we could have an excuse to get wasted. we did hair because we love the show. it’s a shame that some people refused to step out of their comfort zones and open up their minds. anyone who did open up, either in the audience or the cast, saw something really real.
In the spirt of discussion, I’ll respond to both of you. Thanks for your comments, guys.
Mfk:
-I feel that people are generally dispassionate about everything that is slightly beyond their immediate grasp. People watch more television than than read books. People like the idea of supporting presidential candidates, while they really know very little about them. Especially young people are influenced by what is handed to them in mass media. They don’t care enough to go beyond that, and I don’t entirely blame people for it. What’s sad is that this general apathy, at least in the way I am perceiving it, has hardly shown signs of ever giving way to change. I feel we’re entrenched.
-I’m not sure where you get your news from, but to me, mine is wholly unreliable. I feel lied to. I feel fooled. I feel like I know nothing because I live in America.
-joining the SA, in my opinion, is the opposite of what needs to be happening.
sarah:
-When I said, ‘The Hatchet would never support this,’ I was speaking about the play as a whole. As an unorthodox and bold theatrical production.
-the point is that the Hatchet doesn’t write reviews. All they care about is that students know there was a controversy. It’s entirely self-serving. This is in no way a “hard news piece.”
-You don’t care that this play presented a potentially perception-changing critique? Fine. I do. And its way more important than reading about people being naked on stage and about some people might be angry about it. I don’t know, because I go to school here, but I hope things like this are not as important to students on other campuses as they are here.
-It’s always a mistake to write about something you haven’t seen / know nothing about. The Hatchet does this constantly.
Thanks again.