Notes on nudity: Splitting hairs on 'Hair'

July 3, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

On July 5, Bobdirex opens its production of “Hair” at the Athenaeum.

And since producer/director Bob Harbin announced the show (shortly after closing his hit production of “Monty Python’s Spamalot” last summer), I’ve been hearing will-they-or-won’t-they chatter about the show’s infamous nude scene…along with misinformation about what exactly that scene is about.

First of all, for those of you who only know about “Hair” secondhand, be advised that the scene isn’t prurient nor sexual at all—at least not in productions I’ve seen.

Yes, “Hair” is set in a world where “free love” was one of the mantras and traditional partnering was only one option when it came to love and/or sex. And there are plenty of other places in the show where traditional coupling isn’t the only configuration.

But that’s not what the scene is about.

The scene takes place at the end of the first act, during a song called “Where Do I Go.” In it, a young man, Claude, is wrestling with what he should do about being drafted. Is it really worth dying for your county when your country doesn’t seem to care about you and your generation? Whatever you think of the Vietnam War, the musical asks you to identify with the torment of this guy. And when other members of his tribe of friends join in, we see those feelings multiply exponentially. He isn’t alone in asking this question.

Later in the show, the tribe wonders “How dare they try to end this beauty?” and, still later, they morph Shakespeare’s line “the rest is silence,” pleading with the world to understand that this body is all we have here and to waste it is beyond criminal. Those lyrics connects to what we’ve been hearing from the beginning of the play—songs that celebrate and wrestle with the frailty of the human body.

In the midst of “Where Do I Go,” we see those bodies—lots of them—unadorned.

And if the scene works, it’s deeply moving.

The problem with nudity on stage, of course, is that it can distance the audience from the theatrical experience, making us aware of these people as actors rather than characters. But in a good production of “Hair,” that doesn’t really matter. If the moment—and it really isn’t much more than a moment—works, the distinction between character and actor blurs as we see them as people in all their limited, beautiful, searching selfness.

And if you are more shocked by the nudity than you are by the fact that more than 58,000 of Claude’s peers were killed during the Vietnam War, then you’ve missed the point of “Hair” completely.

Note: While I have to miss opening weekend, I’ll be catching “Hair” in its second week at the Athenaeum. Look for a review shortly thereafter.

Oh, and if I see you take out your cell phone camera doing the show, I may upend your seat with you on it. You've been warned.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Thanks!
    Thanks for this, Lou! You said it beautifully. Will certainly share with FB!
  • Right on!
    "And if you are more shocked by the nudity than you are by the fact that more than 58,000 of Claude’s peers were killed during the Vietnam War, then you’ve missed the point of “Hair” completely." That says it all. Great commentary, Lou!
  • Hair
    thanks for the distinctions Lou ... and you're hired as bouncer for the show ... harbin
  • Well said
    Lou, well said. The scene is brief and if you blink you will miss it, but it is also powerful when done right. It is not about "Gratuitous Nudity" -- if you want that, go see "Naked Boys Singing". I will be attending the Sunday show with my in-laws and my mother for mom's birthday. I admit, my opinion of the show will be biased since I know someone in the cast. That said, I am certain it will be spectacular.
  • Thoughtful review.
    Well written Lou...glad to see you'll be strong-arming the cell phone addicts...long overdue. Example: 2012 performance of the "Crucible" at Anderson's Mainstage. John Proctor (on hands and knees, imploring): "You have taken my soul, leave me my name!"...dramatic pause interrupted by the ringing of audience member's cell phone...there oughta be a law...on a better note looking forward to this production of "Hair", thanks again Lou...

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT