?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

. . .
oily, greasy, fleecy, shining, gleaming, streaming, flaxen, waxen,
knotted, polka dotted, twisted, beaded, braided,
powered, flowered and confettied, bangled, tangled, spangled and spahettied.


From the New Yorker:
Hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair! There’s no shortage of the stuff in the joyous revival of the American Tribal Love-Rock Musical, currently sending enthusiastic crowds to the moon (in the Seventh House) at the Al Hirschfeld Theatre. For the most part, Hair has made the transfer from Central Park with its high spirits intact. But during the famous mass-nudity moment, my companion noticed a lack of hair that helped crystallize what feels just a little off-kilter about this production: “I didn’t think,” she whispered, “that hippies had Brazilians.”

Yeah, it’s skeezy to judge a musical by its pubic hair. But those cultivated landing strips are emblematic of Hair’s improbably gorgeous, irrepressibly sunshiny cast. The hairless armpits and pecs; the gym-toned six-packs diving into low-rise jeans; the highly polished smiles; the high notes bursting with melisma: All are reminders that this time around, the hippies are being played by ambitious actors and singers, some of whom are wearing shining, gleaming, streaming, flaxen, waxen wigs.
I *heart* Hair. And I don't think it's improper at all to base a critical review on the lack of the titular filament.

Comments

( 10 comments — Say something )
cricketnyc
Apr. 15th, 2009 09:44 pm (UTC)
I noticed this when I saw it in its original revival run in the park. I didn't at first, until one young woman, who clearly got it, caught my eye with her rather impressive display of 70s porn bush. Then I realized no one else had attempted a reasonable facsimile. Then I realized I was scrutinizing a whole lot of crotches, and I should stop that.

My boss tells me that one of our clients, an original cast member, was deeply offended by this production, because it's all an act.

On a similar note, I spent the bulk of the revival of South Pacific annoyed at the bodies on display. These skinny, flat-chested girls were, indeed, nothing like Dames, save one woman who was on the larger side, never got to wear a swimsuit, and was playing a matriarchal figure. Way to tap into the era, casting folks! Add to that all the six packs on display... I was not impressed.
datawhorevoyeur
Apr. 15th, 2009 10:15 pm (UTC)
Then I realized I was scrutinizing a whole lot of crotches, and I should stop that.

*snerk*
pegster
Apr. 17th, 2009 07:00 pm (UTC)
was it lisa howard or liz mccartney in the matriarchal role?

just curious.
momwolf
Apr. 15th, 2009 09:59 pm (UTC)
That's one revival I really want to see next time I am in NYC (Dec 09, probably)
datawhorevoyeur
Apr. 15th, 2009 10:14 pm (UTC)
“I didn’t think,” she whispered, “that hippies had Brazilians.”

ahahahahahahahahaha

Yeah. Berger and Claude would really just have said "No," methinks.
melusinehr
Apr. 15th, 2009 10:36 pm (UTC)
I've done a few shows with the guy who directed the original tour of that show--I really should ask him what he thinks of the trend...
rainbow
Apr. 15th, 2009 11:38 pm (UTC)
*giggles*

I...just... NO. I see to recall the hippies from childhood as rather wild and free with their hair, no matter what part of the body it was on.

And honestly, how hard would it be to not wax for a few months for a job?
clynne
Apr. 16th, 2009 02:53 am (UTC)
Seriously.

I remember when I was in school, actors taking up smoking for a couple months (and unfortunately sometimes after) in order to realistically handle business with characters who smoked. Plus, it's not like they couldn't have worn appliances if they *really* didn't wanna let it grow for a month.

I'm bothered that no one even thought about it, or if they did, dismissed it as a makeup/costume requirement.
evylprincess
Apr. 16th, 2009 01:14 pm (UTC)
Dude. Where's the commitment?
kokopopo
Apr. 16th, 2009 04:08 pm (UTC)
We are seeing it in June!
( 10 comments — Say something )