Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

"HAIR"!


rayban
 Share

Recommended Posts

"Hair" could never be one of my favorite musicals.

 

The film is nothing like the stage production.

 

The playwright, Michael Weller, actually gave it a storyline.

 

For a man who had never directed "a musical", Milos Forman did an astonishing job.

 

But the film is too energetically chaotic for me.

 

And my favorite song was not used - "Frank Mills".

 

And a film which builds itself around a John Savage performance cannot really be that good, can it?

 

Still, the rest of the cast, especially Treat Williams, were able to dominate the film.

 

But, as a piece of counterculturalism, it had already seen its' day, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I thought THE ONION FIELD and INSIDE MOVES were very good films centered around fine performances by John Savage.  But I agree HAIR wasn't one of them.  I only watched the film to see if they did that full cast nude scene at the end.

 

And didn't really care much for any of the songs from the play.  Found the movie pretty much a bore.

 

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I thought THE ONION FIELD and INSIDE MOVES were very good films centered around fine performances by John Savage.  But I agree HAIR wasn't one of them.  I only watched the film to see if they did that full cast nude scene at the end.

 

And didn't really care much for any of the songs from the play.  Found the movie pretty much a bore.

 

 

Sepiatone

There's such a big, big difference between the stage musical and the movie version.

 

The stage musical did not need an actual book, it told its' story through a succession of songs.

 

The much-publicized nudity came at the end of the first act (in the Broadway presentation).

 

It was DIMLY LIGHTED, too.

 

If you could see anything, you must've been up-front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's such a big, big difference between the stage musical and the movie version.

 

Oh yeah - I saw the stage production done in Toronto in 1970. Shocking! I loved it.

 

I had this buddy who took a first date to see it and he complained to me (?) about how it was too much. I had no idea he was such a prude - I mean we went to the same school, same class, as kids and everything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I laughed when I saw an almost unrecognizable Treat Williams last night. Was that his real hair? I remember seeing the film and enjoying it at the time (though I knew it was much different than the stage version) I only watched a bit of the film last night. I had forgotten he was in the film. At the time I didnt know who the actor was....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I laughed when I saw an almost unrecognizable Treat Williams last night. Was that his real hair? I remember seeing the film and enjoying it at the time (though I knew it was much different than the stage version) I only watched a bit of the film last night. I had forgotten he was in the film. At the time I didnt know who the actor was....

Treat Williams was very enjoyable in the role of Berger and he even gave us two nude scenes, too.

 

But, no, I do not believe that all of that hair belonged to Treat Williams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Treat Williams was very enjoyable in the role of Berger and he even gave us two nude scenes, too.

 

But, no, I do not believe that all of that hair belonged to Treat Williams.

 

LOL. Sorry, I missed the nude scenes. I was wondering if that was a wig!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. Sorry, I missed the nude scenes. I was wondering if that was a wig!

Hibi, Treat Williams' nude scenes are a must.

 

But my personal favorite in the film is Don Darcus as Woof.

 

I loved his scene with the inquiring female psychologist, to whom he says in defense of his long, flowing BLOND HAIR:

 

"I wouldn't kick Mick Jagger out of bed, but, no, I am not homosexual."

 

Go, Woof!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I laughed when I saw an almost unrecognizable Treat Williams last night. Was that his real hair? I remember seeing the film and enjoying it at the time (though I knew it was much different than the stage version) I only watched a bit of the film last night. I had forgotten he was in the film. At the time I didnt know who the actor was....

Did you catch The Ritz when TCM ran it back in March? Williams is even younger there, and does the whole role in falsetto.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only knew HAIR from listening to my Mom's original cast album. I followed a pretty decent storyline from the lyrics alone. Then I saw the film much later and was rather confused by it. Too bad. I still love the "Black Girls...White Boys" song but can't recall if it was in the movie or not.

 

(same story for MY FAIR LADY...but seeing the movie really fleshed out the "lyrical" story)

 

Geez the way you guys zero in on a "nude scene" you'd think you've never seen anyone naked before. Big whoop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only knew HAIR from listening to my Mom's original cast album. I followed a pretty decent storyline from the lyrics alone. Then I saw the film much later and was rather confused by it. Too bad. I still love the "Black Girls...White Boys" song but can't recall if it was in the movie or not.

 

(same story for MY FAIR LADY...but seeing the movie really fleshed out the "lyrical" story)

 

Geez the way you guys zero in on a "nude scene" you'd think you've never seen anyone naked before. Big whoop.

Yeah that song is in the film. It's a scene that starts in the draft office and intercuts with scenes in the park. There's a few people in that scene that went on to be better known like Bernie Casey, Ellen Foley & Nell Carter. I never saw the stage show so my only frame of reference is the cast album. I think the movie is just fine and Forman hired some really good singers for the movie because I think all of the songs are well done. It's just that the movie screams that it was made in the 70's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you catch The Ritz when TCM ran it back in March? Williams is even younger there, and does the whole role in falsetto.

 

I missed THE RITZ at that time but saw it before.  Williams with that falsetto cracked me up.  A very good movie with a brilliant cast and lots of fine performances.  From F. MURRAY ABRAHAM , JACK WESTON, JERRY STILLER and on down to RITA MORENO as the singer...

 

"EFF-ree ting's CAH-meeng Hop R-r-r-rosses!"  :D

 

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reasons that I mentioned Treat Williams' nudity - there was also Beverly D'Angelo's nudity, which I did not mention - is that the stage production became famous for its' nudity, which, in the original Broadway production, came at the end of Act 1 and was UNDERLIT.

 

Another reason that I mentioned the nudity is that the film has a decidedly homoerotic slant, which is especially evident in the "Black Boys/White Boys" musical number, in which the macho Army men who are "interviewing" the naked draftees are just SO VERY INTERESTED IN THESE NAKED YOUNG MEN.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another good film starring John Savage is The Amateur, in which he determines to avenge his girlfriend's death at the hands of a terrorist. Things get a little more complicated than he expects. Christopher Plummer plays a rather sympathetic Czech agent.

 

But Rayban is really correct: John Savage does not have the instincts of a star. He doesn't have that "Look at me, world, I'm lighting up the screen" attitude that even the nicest and sanest stars have. Savage is a very good supporting actor. He got noticed for his fine performance in The Deer Hunter, and that led to the starring roles already mentioned.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the film, Treat Williams, as Berger, gives a very dominant and very riveting performance.

 

I never understood why he didn't become a movie star.

 

He had the talent - and the looks - to become one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prince of the City was hyped when it first came out. Probable best picture nominee, probable nomination for Treat Williams. However, some of the reviews were lukewarm, and it was too much of a downer to be a box-office success. Unlike Serpico (one good cop against the system), there's not really anyone to root for. The lower than expected box office returns probably ended Treat Williams' shot at stardom.

 

All of which has nothing to do with the quality of the movie. It's a solid, well-made film in the slow-moving 1970s style, and Treat Williams does a fine job. Unfortunately, it did not catch the public fancy, and Williams didn't get a second chance at a big role in a major film.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reasons that I mentioned Treat Williams' nudity - there was also Beverly D'Angelo's nudity, which I did not mention - is that the stage production became famous for its' nudity, which, in the original Broadway production, came at the end of Act 1 and was UNDERLIT.

 

Another reason that I mentioned the nudity is that the film has a decidedly homoerotic slant, which is especially evident in the "Black Boys/White Boys" musical number, in which the macho Army men who are "interviewing" the naked draftees are just SO VERY INTERESTED IN THESE NAKED YOUNG MEN.

 

A few songs from Hair were hits and critics were all aghast at having a rock opera on Broadway, but the main interest in the show was the nudity on Broadway. The nudity is what made it a household word and piqued everyone's interest. Hair was on Broadway one year before Oh! Calcutta! was off-Broadway.

 

Nudity was a big deal in those days.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nudity was a big deal in those days.

 

It's funny that some centuries old nude sculptures and paintings are considered "art" but that nudity today in films and on stage are considered obscenities.

 

An oil painting of a nude woman having sex with a swan is "art" while a modern day FILM of a woman doing the same is called "pornography".

 

This has been a decades old debate.  I'm not taking sides, but all I'll say is that as far as I'M concerned, any gratuitous nudity in films, stage productions and the like for shock value and doesn't relate to what's going on in the story at the point it shows up, or helps advance the plot doesn't work for me.

 

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

any gratuitous nudity for shock value that doesn't advance the plot doesn't work for me

 

In fact, it often ruins the story flow.

I liked in the good ole pre-code days, they "told" you the people were having sex by "showing" a bed in a distant room. Visual clues can be sufficient instead of showing "everything". I'm often embarrassed by explicit sex scenes in movies, depending who I'm watching it with.

 

Heh I just read a "News Of The Weird" that an Argentinian psa for breast cancer self examination could not show a nude woman's breasts so instead filmed an overweight man with moobs doing a self examination!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was disappointed by the nudity in the stage production of "Hair", because, as an interested audience member, I really couldn't see it.

 

As I said in a previous post, it was very, very underlit - but, yes, there were a lot of naked people on stage.

 

Today, on Broadway, "nudity" is a given - and, believe it or not, is often relevant to the scene.

 

As in Douglas Carter Beane's recent play with Nathan Lane, in which Nathan Lane's young male pick-up was taking a bath and then got out of the tub nude.

 

Well, now, he was taking a much-needed bath - and he was absolutely gorgeous - and Nathan Lane's interest in him did seem justified.

 

But people often go beserk at the sight of nudity - seeing it only in terms of the dreaded "obscene".

 

The nudity in the film version of "Hair" is just fine - Treat Williams', Beverly D'Angelo's, and the naked draftees in the "Black Boys/White Boys" production number.

 

It wasn't used for shock value - it was of its' moment, that's all.

 

And it seemed to me to be a sly tip of the hat to the stage production, which brought nudity to the stage in the context of a rock opera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The late: Roger Ebert-(l942-2013) & the late: Gene Siskel-=(l946-l999)-(hard to believe they are already both gone!)

 

Both loved 1979's "Hair" & easily gave it 4 stars! & would later always reference it

 

I think it's well-made (***) but not great stuff, myself (P.S. Why don't the little icons work on here anymore?)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...