Actually, I think it does say what Ragni and Rado were trying to say, or at least some of what they were trying to say. Back in 1967 it was a lot more jarring for an audience to hear that song sung strait out, but now days those stereotypes are well known and lots of plays/ tv shows/ movies / books, have used those slurs and terms. So how do you slap an audience in the face they way the 1967 musical did?
Thats what this version was trying to do, to get you sit forward and pay attention the way audiences did back then. To make you think about that image and its continued truth in 2006.
I also think this song makes more sense in the context of the show as a whole, which I got to see, and while it had its issues, I think that the intent behind it was very similar to the intent behind the 1967 version. The only way to tell the same story though was to update it.
1967 Hair was about saying this is who we are, this is what we believe in, you should join us as we strive for love and peace and some kind of freedom. In 2006 this production was saying is this who we are, is this what we believe in, what the hell are we striving for, and what should we be striving for, because unlike 1967, we as a generation havent declared anything.
This waa, something other then just a nostalgic celebration of what was, and weather this production was completely successful or not, it was interesting, it made you think, and it was worth creating. Oh and Galt MacDermot and James Rado came and saw it and they were really excited by it.
I guess my argument is that a more identifiable (but still imaginative) metaphor would've been more effective especially considering the role this show played in the time it was written. A play on blackface not only seems too literal, but too easy and too posterior.
I certainly see your point and agree that SOME of the message was maintained but I suppose that using the antiquated imagery of minstrel shows doesn't seem to me at all effective when the modern community doesn't personally recognize or identify with such a metaphor. Most young people don't know what minstrel shows are and the role they played in vaudevillian society.
The director was playing on early black stereotypes. Hence also the noose. From Wikipedeia's article on "Minstrel Show":
"The minstrel show was an American entertainment consisting of comic skits, variety acts, dancing, and music, performed by white people in blackface or, especially after the Civil War, black people in blackface. Minstrel shows lampooned black people in mostly disparaging ways: as ignorant, lazy, buffoonish, superstitious, joyous, and musical."
well duh. but it's still a silly idea. the song is already impactful enough the way it is; it doesn't need a blatant costume added on top of it. there is almost nothing more irritating than a director who feels the need to hit the audience over the head with something like that.
I liked the costumes with loose white clothing, the minstrel makeup, and bare feet, but nothing will ever compare to Lamont Washington's original rendition of this song.
I grew up having racial slurs thrown at me (n addition to rocks, sticks, and spit) and having to fight almost every day yet this is one of my favorite songs of Hair. Hud lists all the labels and stereotypes slung around by the establishment while celebrating the openness and love felt by the counterculture.
Because hippies were a phenomenon of the 60s and don't have an easily paralleled modern counterpart, the director chose instead to give the tribe qualities that are considered deviant by modern standards. I mean, in a nutshell, more or less.
"considered deviant by modern standards." The Hippies weren't about being deviant, but about rebelion and escape (drugs, bumming around America lifestyle) from society and the establishment. There are young people like that today, but they may or may not be formed into groups.
I didn't say hippies were about being deviant. But they were VIEWED as such by the majority of society, and since theater is largely about the audience VIEWING something on stage, the choice still makes sense.
They could have called it "Generation X" or something and wrote songs about a generation that witnessed 9/11, where being gay is not seen as wrong, Wall Street greed, protesting those hurting the environment. Song title maybe : "Work Hard to Go to Jail" and instead of "Sodomy" song how about "Diversity"?
No, Hud isn't a boy in the movie. He is a young man. And Hud was singing about the racism his baby would face, how he would be looked at when grown, I believe. Now what can you like about this video here? Love hearing racial slurs? Without the Hair explanation, this is just offensive to everyone but racist.
Mixed cast Of "Hispanic, Asian, Jew, Christian, Buddist,"? Did they sing "I'm a spic, gook, kike, bible thumping, little boy humpin' Christian..." (Get my point? If you are too dumb to get my point, put a negative numbered mark there. If not, I know you understand what I am saying)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It can't be called "excellent" or "amazing" (exept "amazingly racist") Without the explanatiion, it's just a string of racial slurs set to music, a minstrel show more racist than the southern ones.
In the movie the point seems to be made that the baby would face racism and hate and be called these things. There was no black face makeup. This video above, by itself sucks as without the explantion, it is just a minstrel show with a series of racial slurs.
Sometimes I feel this way.
raynarayskye 1 day ago
WEIRD!!!!!!!!!!
GleekGirl1234 11 months ago
...........im confused, this is kinda wierd
braxtonioan 1 year ago
PERFECT PERFORMANCE
jarvisbmanningjr 1 year ago
ive never seen the show, can someone tell me what this is all about?
Seston 1 year ago
Comment removed
balletsouth 2 years ago
Actually, I think it does say what Ragni and Rado were trying to say, or at least some of what they were trying to say. Back in 1967 it was a lot more jarring for an audience to hear that song sung strait out, but now days those stereotypes are well known and lots of plays/ tv shows/ movies / books, have used those slurs and terms. So how do you slap an audience in the face they way the 1967 musical did?
justwhatimthinking 2 years ago
Thats what this version was trying to do, to get you sit forward and pay attention the way audiences did back then. To make you think about that image and its continued truth in 2006.
I also think this song makes more sense in the context of the show as a whole, which I got to see, and while it had its issues, I think that the intent behind it was very similar to the intent behind the 1967 version. The only way to tell the same story though was to update it.
justwhatimthinking 2 years ago
1967 Hair was about saying this is who we are, this is what we believe in, you should join us as we strive for love and peace and some kind of freedom. In 2006 this production was saying is this who we are, is this what we believe in, what the hell are we striving for, and what should we be striving for, because unlike 1967, we as a generation havent declared anything.
justwhatimthinking 2 years ago
This waa, something other then just a nostalgic celebration of what was, and weather this production was completely successful or not, it was interesting, it made you think, and it was worth creating. Oh and Galt MacDermot and James Rado came and saw it and they were really excited by it.
justwhatimthinking 2 years ago
Comment removed
balletsouth 2 years ago
I guess my argument is that a more identifiable (but still imaginative) metaphor would've been more effective especially considering the role this show played in the time it was written. A play on blackface not only seems too literal, but too easy and too posterior.
balletsouth 2 years ago
Comment removed
balletsouth 2 years ago
I certainly see your point and agree that SOME of the message was maintained but I suppose that using the antiquated imagery of minstrel shows doesn't seem to me at all effective when the modern community doesn't personally recognize or identify with such a metaphor. Most young people don't know what minstrel shows are and the role they played in vaudevillian society.
balletsouth 2 years ago
ummm.... wtf was with that makeup? what a dumb director.
misslizzybennet 2 years ago
The director was playing on early black stereotypes. Hence also the noose. From Wikipedeia's article on "Minstrel Show":
"The minstrel show was an American entertainment consisting of comic skits, variety acts, dancing, and music, performed by white people in blackface or, especially after the Civil War, black people in blackface. Minstrel shows lampooned black people in mostly disparaging ways: as ignorant, lazy, buffoonish, superstitious, joyous, and musical."
TheHomicideRocker 2 years ago
well duh. but it's still a silly idea. the song is already impactful enough the way it is; it doesn't need a blatant costume added on top of it. there is almost nothing more irritating than a director who feels the need to hit the audience over the head with something like that.
misslizzybennet 2 years ago
she fucked the damn song up... shit!!!!!
Speech831 2 years ago
I liked the costumes with loose white clothing, the minstrel makeup, and bare feet, but nothing will ever compare to Lamont Washington's original rendition of this song.
I grew up having racial slurs thrown at me (n addition to rocks, sticks, and spit) and having to fight almost every day yet this is one of my favorite songs of Hair. Hud lists all the labels and stereotypes slung around by the establishment while celebrating the openness and love felt by the counterculture.
ImaniOU 3 years ago 4
WORD
MrLomaLoma 3 years ago 2
She messed up my favorite song in the whole movie. I'm half black and that song doesn't offend me. I find it pretty fun and humorous to listen to....
Nativechica 3 years ago
I'm still trying to understand the costume design. Did they decide not to do it about hippies?
tony
tlyoung88 3 years ago
Because hippies were a phenomenon of the 60s and don't have an easily paralleled modern counterpart, the director chose instead to give the tribe qualities that are considered deviant by modern standards. I mean, in a nutshell, more or less.
snarkmistress 3 years ago
I get your point, but all it actually proves is that you're an idiot
000266617 3 years ago
YOUR BITING WIT. IT WOUNDS.
snarkmistress 3 years ago
"considered deviant by modern standards." The Hippies weren't about being deviant, but about rebelion and escape (drugs, bumming around America lifestyle) from society and the establishment. There are young people like that today, but they may or may not be formed into groups.
000266617 3 years ago
I didn't say hippies were about being deviant. But they were VIEWED as such by the majority of society, and since theater is largely about the audience VIEWING something on stage, the choice still makes sense.
snarkmistress 3 years ago
They could have called it "Generation X" or something and wrote songs about a generation that witnessed 9/11, where being gay is not seen as wrong, Wall Street greed, protesting those hurting the environment. Song title maybe : "Work Hard to Go to Jail" and instead of "Sodomy" song how about "Diversity"?
000266617 3 years ago
isn't Hud a boy????????
adyzel95 3 years ago
No, Hud isn't a boy in the movie. He is a young man. And Hud was singing about the racism his baby would face, how he would be looked at when grown, I believe. Now what can you like about this video here? Love hearing racial slurs? Without the Hair explanation, this is just offensive to everyone but racist.
000266617 3 years ago
A Job For A Job - The Wisdom of Non-Violence
oneworks 3 years ago
Is that a real black woman or a white in make up covering her body? The rest of the cast?
000266617 3 years ago
Elli's black. The rest of the cast is a mix of white, black, Hispanic, Asian, Jew, Christian, Buddhist... The performance was stunning.
snarkmistress 3 years ago
Mixed cast Of "Hispanic, Asian, Jew, Christian, Buddist,"? Did they sing "I'm a spic, gook, kike, bible thumping, little boy humpin' Christian..." (Get my point? If you are too dumb to get my point, put a negative numbered mark there. If not, I know you understand what I am saying)
000266617 3 years ago
I get your point, but all it actually proves is that you're an idiot.
snarkmistress 3 years ago
Mixed cast Of "Hispanic, Asian, Jew, Christian, Buddist,"? Did they sing "I'm a spic, gook, kike, bible thumping, little boy humpin' Christian..."?
000266617 3 years ago
Might as well finish the song.
"Im a spic, gook, kike, bible thumpin, little boy humpin christian!
I'm a wetback, cheatin Hebe, slant-eyed, yellow budda belly Jap!
I'm a lazy mex, trailer trash, saved but damned christian, Yid!"
000266617 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It can't be called "excellent" or "amazing" (exept "amazingly racist") Without the explanatiion, it's just a string of racial slurs set to music, a minstrel show more racist than the southern ones.
000266617 3 years ago
Excellent interpretation!
tweedsocks 3 years ago
In the movie the point seems to be made that the baby would face racism and hate and be called these things. There was no black face makeup. This video above, by itself sucks as without the explantion, it is just a minstrel show with a series of racial slurs.
000266617 3 years ago
Amazing performance!
justnicknet 3 years ago
And the Angel Fioravante spoke thus
lucyjetson 4 years ago
i love the song but this just sounds fucked up
niggtalian 4 years ago 2
Its from Hair - thats why anyone watches it.
Because Hair is amazing.
Claymade 4 years ago
Who the hell favors this song
luberdude 4 years ago
People who know that context makes a difference.
kerVelfarre 4 years ago