Hair

With an almost non-existent plot, I watched this film to see/hear the music. After seeing it on stage and buying the album, I know just about every word to every song. There is an energy to this movie and I enjoyed that very much. The title tune sets it off. Then, we have "Easy to Be Hard" and on and on. Each is placed in a kind of contrived setting to make it work. If there is a weakness, the movie is somewhat disjointed and lacking a kind of flow. Still, there is that whole tribal thing going on. The kids of the counterculture strut their stuff. See it as a sort of latter day period piece. Sometimes song and dance give us the jot sensual connection to a bygone era.

I saw "Hair" in the theater (Bellerose, NY) when I was fifteen years old. There are parts of this movie that have never left my consciousness. That's not an exaggeration. However, I don't find myself watching all of "Hair" all that often. I usually bail out about half way through. Tonight, I watched the whole movie. The first hour is excellent. One great song after another. The cast is very good, especially Treat Williams. "Hair" is also a beautiful looking movie. The second half, however, is not nearly as good. It has one clunker after another. It becomes a burden to watch. The LSD wedding scene is brutal. After the boot camp scene I felt like I went through boot camp. Then it picks up and the last fifteen minutes are great. Overall, "Hair" is a mixed bag. Dishonorable mention: Treat Williams' wig.

Yes, HAIR came out in the late 70's. But please don't call it a "disco-era" musical; there isn't a single thing in it that would suggest any detraction from its 1968 period. Judge it on its own merit; too often, a movie is compared to its stage roots and is inevitably crucified. As it is, the film plays out like one long, fantasy trip (whether that trip is substance-enhanced or not is your call)- starting with the "Aquarius" sequence and continuing on to the marvelous set pieces for "Manchester England," "Ain't Got No," "I Got Life," and best of all, the "Electric Blues"/"Hare Krishna" fantasy which shows lovers John Savage and Beverly D'Angelo literally flying through their own wedding ceremony. (BTW, the woman singing "Aquarius" in the film's opening is not Melba Moore, but Ren Woods- a wonderful singer-actress seen a lot on TV in the 70's, and star of the Los Angeles production of "The Wiz.") The opening Twyla Tharp corps-de-ballet shot right on the Central Park grounds- with Woods' solo in a dizzying 360 camera pan- is an awesome start to a rock-infested musical. Ms. Moore (who performed in the original Broadway HAIR) appears later in the film singing "3-5-0-0" with Ronnie Dyson in the war protest scene shot in Washington, DC. And there are moments- like the "Walking In Space" basic training sequence or the simple close-up on Cheryl Barnes's torch solo "Easy To Be Hard-" which are just plain astonishing.

I first saw this film in the early 80's on cable. It was unique as a statement about the sixties, culture, war, music, race, and a bunch of things I'm certain I missed. However about a year ago it came back into my life as I started enjoying it with my son. He's a little young (9) for a lot of the themes in it, but he understands dancing hippies are fun to watch, and he gets the idea that end is ironic. While I can't think of other films in this genre, it does have a stand alone genius I love. It also does a unique justice to Central Park. Most musicals are lost on me, one way or another. "Tommy" was over the top and heavy handed in direction, "Oliver" seemed like crowd control on the silver screen, "The Wall" was so much abstract self important and indulgent dribble, but listening to "Failure of the Flesh" from Hair sounds right for our times today, as it did in the eighties, as it must have in the sixties...truly Timeless.

The first time I ever saw this movie was when I was four years old. I remember loving it and everything about it. 13 years later, I am now 17, and decided to watch it about a month ago because I am taking a 1960's class in school. I didn't really know what to expect, since it had been 13 years since I last saw it, but I was completely blown away by it. The actors were amazing, the music was so fun, and I now find myself singing along to every song. Treat Williams is great as Berger, the "leader" of the hippie group, who always gets what he wants, one way or another (except for at the very end, of course). John Savage is actually very convincing as Claude, the Oklahoma draftee who falls in love with Sheila (Beverly D'Angelo). D'Angelo is lovely as the prim and proper rich girl who eventually rebels against her upbringing and joins the hippies. The other hippies are played by Annie Golden, Don Dacus, and Dorsey Wright. Annie Golden is just adorable as Jeannie, the girl who is pregnant but still as cute and innocent as a child. Don Dacus and Dorsey Wright are good as Woof and Hud, the other two members of the group, and Cheryl Barnes, who plays Hud's fiancée, has an amazing voice.

The only problem I have with this movie, however, is that the relationship between Claude and Sheila is not very convincing. They are barely ever shown together, and when they are, they fight (remember the skinny dipping scene?). It seems as though their relationship is very weak, and by the end of the movie we are supposed to believe they are madly in love, only based on the few meetings they had. I also see that many people writing reviews here are upset by the PG rating this movie has. I personally would raise the rating up to a PG-13, only because there is some drug use... but remember in 1979, PG-13 didn't exist. I don't think the nudity is bad at all, it is in no way sexual (in fact, there isn't really any sex at all in this movie), and it is only to show the childlike innocence that the group maintains. In most European countries, nudity isn't regarded as something bad, and I don't see why it is here in the US. Anyways, I give this movie a high rating, and I'm glad it was made back then, because in the insanely "politically correct" world of today, they wouldn't even think of making it, and even if they did, it would be a very "watered down" version, and I'm sure you wouldn't get the full effect.

In conclusion, this is a very underrated film that is definitely worth checking out.