Sunday, September 16, 2007
The Aging of Aquarius
New York Times: "IF it were a man and not a musical, “Hair” would now be facing the indignities of middle age. As he turns 40, a man must reckon with harbingers of decay like reading glasses and a recalcitrant belly roll. If it were a man and not a musical, “Hair” might by now have a bald spot it was sheepishly trying to hide. Why “Hair” might even be wearing a hairpiece."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I actually saw Hair in Philly back in June, and I feel that it still can resonate with audiences. Although I was somewhat... speechless... in Act 2 of the show, I felt that the show definitely can be translated to today's issues in society, so the show definitely still works.
It’s interesting that this author seems to thing that for a show to be considered a good piece of art it has to do well more then just once. If hair were only ever a movie would it still be considered a failure as a piece of art? A movie is made once and re-watched over and over again as the exact same thing. Does that mean that it’s not still a great movie? There are lots of shows that are hailed as great works of art that have direct references in them to the time in which they were produced. I find it funny that Hair is considered a not enduring art because it didn’t do well as a Broadway revival. Hair can still be appreciated for what it was at the time. It’s odd that the author refurse to the main characters of Hair as attitude and not characters; a lot of musicals are the exact same way. When considering a show you must consider the genera it comes from. Hair is a musical, and all musicals don’t have to be deeply meaningful or moving. In fact there are precious few musicals that pull off meaningful and moving. Not all theatre has to be art, some can be entertainment!
I think so much of the iconic culture of the sixties was a product of an incredibly unique time. Its nearly impossible for us to understand what it was like before the sixties and thus our generation sees the decade as a crazy drug induced time. So many pieces tried their best to capture the spirit of the age and failed miserably. A broadway revival of Hair might be nothing more than an old flower child trying to bring back the most interesting years of his life by any means necessary.
who can define what a "timeless" piece of theater is? or how it's "timeless." you can't. if it works today, which is to say, if it's successful at the box office, then it works today. As such, it has become "timeless," at least in the perspective of the last 40 years. who knows what hair will say 40 years from now, 80 years after it's initial run. will the ideas still work? absolutely. will the style still work? probably not, because in 40 years there will be a handful of people who have any sense of what the 60's or the era of eisenhower was all about. But if it still sells tickets, then it still works. Who cares what the New York Times critics say about it?
I can see why a show as old as this may not quite resonate with an audience as it did in the past. But a true work of art can still take on new meanings as time passes. It is not the play's sole job to hold meaning, but meaning can come just as much from an audiences interpretation.
Dave = Dave Kinkade (I dont know how to make it say my full name)
What i seem to define as timeless theatre applies to all genres of theatre and from any time period. though it can be seen with musical theatre a lot because the music tends to lend one to the general message, I do feel that any piece of theatre with a message that we can all relate to is timeless. It isn't the catchiness of a piece but how relatable and how we can put the themes into our everyday lives...
I agree with all of this, and even if the message doesn't exactly resonate with people in another 40 years, if the trend continues like it is going now, then people will still love flashy shows, so producers just need to add more sparkle and they are set. I dont know, maybe im a bit pessimistic about the progress of American theater, but we will see.
Post a Comment