Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Anybody else think the film version of "HAIR" is an overpraised turd?

I don't see what's so great about the choreography by Twyla Tharp, it looks like they're making it up as they go along.

Why cut Annie Golden's one song?

And the film, coming ten years too late and about 15 years too early, just drains all the politics out and makes the hippies seem to have no reason to be how they are. Even Ragni and Rado didn't like it.

by Anonymousreply 5910/12/2012

I loved it but agree they need to restore Annie's song.

by Anonymousreply 108/14/2012

I think it's one of the best movies ever made. Seriously. Perfection from beginning to end, and Treat Williams was amazing and SEXY.

Even Ms. Beverly D'Angelo was excellent.

by Anonymousreply 208/14/2012

Another fan.

by Anonymousreply 308/14/2012

I met a boy named Frank Mills....

by Anonymousreply 408/14/2012

Yet another fan. If anything, it's underrated. It is true about the timing, but that only goes to it's box office at the time, not the quality of the movie.

Like "Dreamgirls" (dare I say "Chicago" too?), it's one of those occasions where the movie works better than the show.

by Anonymousreply 508/14/2012

D ‘Angelo riding the horse with her hair flying through the air and with a sense of entitlement and privilege was absolute perfection.

by Anonymousreply 608/14/2012

Great film--one of the best filmed musicals ever.

Love Cheryl Barnes going all out on "Easy to be Hard"

by Anonymousreply 708/14/2012

Didn't like it.

Pretty much flat, needed volumizing shampoo and conditioner.

by Anonymousreply 808/14/2012

"Hair" - the play or movie - is only for eldergays (and others) who were never really hippies in the first place.

by Anonymousreply 908/14/2012

Another one here who loves it really overpraised? It wasn't a hit, and not may people seem to know about it.

I agree about missing Frank Mills. Was it filmed, and then cut? Or was it never filmed?

by Anonymousreply 1008/14/2012

r9, speaking of old, isn't it time you gave "eldergays" a rest? It's so worn out you're beginning to date yourself...

by Anonymousreply 1108/14/2012

Didn't we already do this thread?

by Anonymousreply 1208/14/2012

I want Charlotte Rae's "My Conviction" restored.

by Anonymousreply 1308/14/2012

I don't know who Ms. R11 thinks she's fooling.

by Anonymousreply 1408/14/2012

Another massive fan. And loved seeing Treat in the buff! Swoon.

by Anonymousreply 1508/14/2012

I don't see why the film being released too late should effect how good the film is now seen to be. It's not like Forman updated it to the late 70's with orchestrations by Moroder.

by Anonymousreply 1608/14/2012

I read a lot of film reviews back then, and the general consensus was "meh". No stars, and people thought it was filmed too late- there was no '60's nostalgia yet.

by Anonymousreply 1708/14/2012

Punks hated hippies (still do) and sneered at the release

by Anonymousreply 1808/14/2012

Yeah, I remember this movie getting bad reviews when it was released.

by Anonymousreply 1908/14/2012

D'Angelo was too nice for the spoiled rich girl although Miles Chapin was great.

John Savage thought he was filming Billy Jack or something, they should have had someone with actual emotions and facial expressions.

Dorsey Wright was more like Bill Cosby than Eldridge Cleaver.

by Anonymousreply 2008/14/2012

Hate it and hate what Forman did to Cuckoo's Nest and Amadeus too.

by Anonymousreply 2108/14/2012

This film enchanted me when it first came out, largely because Treat Williams was so damn sexy.

I've seen it several times over the years, and while it's not a great musical film, it can be very effective if you're in the right mood. But it's not good enough to rise above its own defects, or to be included on any list of classics.

by Anonymousreply 2208/14/2012

Amazingly, not only had Cheryl Barnes never done any previous film work but she was uninterested in moving back to NYC although Milos Forman was so impressed with her talent he tried to get her to move back there so he could promote her. She stayed in Barstow (where they filmed the desert scenes) and taught piano there for years.

They did get her down to LA to record that song for "American Gigolo," but she felt she was mostly done trying to make it as an entertainer. When she auditioned for Forman in NYC, she had been working at a hotel in Maine after doing some work for the NYC stage.

by Anonymousreply 2308/14/2012

There's got to be more to that story R23. Drugs? Trouble with alcohol?

by Anonymousreply 2408/14/2012

Annie Golden told me that "Frank Mills" was not actually filmed, thought it was initially planned to be included, and (if I recall correctly) she said they were going to film her singing it on the Roosevelt Island tram.

by Anonymousreply 2508/14/2012

The orchestrations and filming style now seem so 1970s. If it had a more 1960s sound it would have been better. But I think it was made so close to the 60s that there was no perspective of what gave the music of 6 years earlier a unique sound.

by Anonymousreply 2608/14/2012

No drugs on Cheryl Barnes' part, just a lack of ambition. Whenever she did anything, she made an impression. She won "Star Search" and was Michael Bennett's original choice for Effie, which she did in workshops. Bennett simply could not see Obba with Holliday. Barnes later did Effie in Long Beach to great acclaim.

She later said that fame scared her and when she was on the verge, she had to run away.

by Anonymousreply 2708/14/2012

Why don't you talk about something that was made in the last 50 years grandpa

by Anonymousreply 2808/14/2012

I love that Cheryl Barnes song "Love and Passion" used for the disco scene in AMERICAN GIGOLO - she could have been a real diva if she was ambitious enough.

by Anonymousreply 2908/14/2012

I like it when they walk around NYC and one of the members sings "Day By Day." That was a great song

by Anonymousreply 3008/14/2012

That's "Godspell," R30.

by Anonymousreply 3108/15/2012

I think too many of the songs were orchestrated and filmed poorly.

"Black Boys" looks like they cast rejects from a NAIR commercial (their disco hair totally takes you out of the moment) and "White Boys" is even worse. It could have been funny with the guys singing but it all looks flat.

The jailhouse fight during the title number is clumsy.

The only scene that really has the power of the stage play (which I love) is "The Flesh Failures/Let the Sunshine In" but it's a long wait for that final scene.

by Anonymousreply 3208/15/2012


"I don't see what's so great about the choreography by Twyla Tharp, it looks like they're making it up as they go along."

Uh...that's the whole idea.

The singing and dancing in the film for the most part has an improvised, slightly ragged feel. It, by design, lacks polish. If you saw a bunch of hippies dancing in Central Park, chances are they WOULD be making it up as they go along.


"Why cut Annie Golden's one song?"

See below.


"And the film, coming ten years too late and about 15 years too early, just drains all the politics out and makes the hippies seem to have no reason to be how they are."

Excuse me?

I'm not sure if you realise this, but the film, despite being released in 1979, was set in the late 1960s. It existed in its own little retro galaxy. It's perfectly clear why the hippies "are how they are". Drains all the politics out of it? Hardly. It's all pretty damn obvious to anybody with at least half a brain.

A lot of people use the argument "ten years too late" (I don't agree with the argument but I can see why some make it), but 15 years too early? I'm not certain why you would've wanted this film to be made in the year 1994. I don't see the logic in that at all.

1979 was probably the best time for the movie to reach cinemas. It was wedged between the last days of disco and the dawn of the 1980s, the "greed is good" decade. Its appearance must have been like a wake-up call: "the Age of Aquarius is drifting deeper back into the past, and we can recapture it before it's too late. This is what can fill the void left behind by disco culture".

Of course, along came the 1980s and that hardly ushered in a revival of the Woodstock era. But there has never been a golden rule that a film adaptation of a stageplay must be made in "this" period or "that" period. Anyway, it's been such a long time since the 1979 movie was first released, the difference between "the late seventies" and "the late sixties-early seventies" period is marginal at most.

"Even Ragni and Rado didn't like it."

So what?

I'm tired of all these people who complain about how the movie is so vastly different from the stage musical. Cinema allows one to do things that would be totally impractical on stage. Milos Forman had the ability to do things on celluloid not permitted to Ragni and Rado, and the fact is that if Rado and Ragni were filmmakers rather than playwrights, they would've done things very differently themselves. Whole scenes and characters would've been rearranged to better fit a narrative designed especially for cinema.

(They may even have cut a few songs).

If you want to watched a filmed play, go watch a filmed play. Don't rag on Milos Forman for exercising his cinematic capital and showing some imagination.

By the way, the film is not "overrated". From all of the "great film lists" that I've read in books and mainstream press and various websites (you know, those Top 100 Film lists and the flicks that you must see before you die, etc), it's never once been mentioned. Dozens of musicals are ranked ahead of it by the big critics. The film is miles away from being in the IMDB Top 250, plus it didn't win a single Oscar.

So I don't know what colour the sky is in your world, but if you think that "Hair" is overpraised, you need to lay off the hard stuff. If anything, it's relatively obscure as a film ("relatively" considering the popular nature of its stage origins) and is discussed/praised/revived nowhere nearly as often as films such as "West Side Story" and "Singin' in the Rain".

"Hair" is a great motion picture, one of my all-time favourites, a treasure on the big screen.

by Anonymousreply 3310/11/2012

Twyla Fart is a self-aggrandizing and self-centered bitch. If you don't believe me, read her autobiography.

by Anonymousreply 3410/11/2012

They should have filmed the movie like 1970, 1971 or 1972.

by Anonymousreply 3510/11/2012

[quote] I love that Cheryl Barnes song "Love and Passion" used for the disco scene in AMERICAN GIGOLO

Really? I hated it, and Giorgio Moroder had a far more talented diva, also a Hair alumni, just not from the crappy movie.

by Anonymousreply 3610/11/2012

I'm not a fan but never realized it was praised, let alone overpraised.

It's dishearteningly sanitized, has that airbrushed look so common to Forman's American films, and has no soul.

But to be fair a decent film version of HAIR would be an impossibility.

by Anonymousreply 3710/11/2012

R33, it sucks.

by Anonymousreply 3810/11/2012

People like r33 defending Hair as if they're defending the 60s hippie culture are ridiculous. Actually hippies know what a fraud the musical is, a square's idea of what the 60s were all about. It's fake hippie lyrics set to Rogers & Hammerstein type music, get a clue.

by Anonymousreply 3910/11/2012

"Its appearance must have been like a wake-up call: "the Age of Aquarius is drifting deeper back into the past, and we can recapture it before it's too late. This is what can fill the void left behind by disco culture".

Must have been? But it wasn't, Blanche. It wasn't.

by Anonymousreply 4010/11/2012

R5, you've clearly never seen Dreamgirls or Chicago OM stage if you think the film versions are better. Sorry.

by Anonymousreply 4110/11/2012

Loved it when it came out but it hasn't aged well. The arrangements sound too electronic and overproduced.

Still a fun movie that has its moments. The way the camera pans in Aquarius is pretty amazing.

Also fun hearing Betty Buckley's voice coming out of the mouth of an Asian woman in Walking in Space. Cool to see cameos by Nell Carter and Ellen Foley too.

by Anonymousreply 4210/11/2012

[quote]It's fake hippie lyrics set to Rogers & Hammerstein type music, get a clue.

You are the clueless one if you think the music of HAIR was the same kind of music Richard Rodgers composed. HAIR was camped up when it transfered to Broadway to make it more audience friendly. And yes, it did become a handy way for tourists to see "hippies" without having to risk getting mugged in Washington Square. But it was universally recognized as containing authentic rock music.

by Anonymousreply 4310/11/2012

No it wasn't r43, you're a clueless cornball.

by Anonymousreply 4410/11/2012

I've seen three different versions of HAIR produced- one thing that gets me is that the play itself seems to be a sly indictment of the hippies as lazy, sexist dropouts. They aren't really portrayed in all that positive a light.

The music is great but not Rodgers and Hammerstein at all.

by Anonymousreply 4510/11/2012

Who could not like a film where you get to see Treat Williams' bare ass?

by Anonymousreply 4610/11/2012

I'm a little at a loss here. When I saw the film when it first came out, "Frank Mills" was in it. It is also on the soundtrack.

by Anonymousreply 4710/11/2012

It was never in the film, R47.

by Anonymousreply 4810/11/2012

Yes, this was a huge disappointment. Somehow it manages to make no sense in any way, when the stage show does. Plus it's boring, when the stage show isn't (or the version I have seen wasn't).

by Anonymousreply 4910/11/2012

I saw Hair many years ago on cable one night and thought it was just ok. Compared to the shit Hollywood cranks out now, however, it would look like a masterpiece.

by Anonymousreply 5010/11/2012

Treat Williams talks about his nude audition and a lot more in this recent interview.

by Anonymousreply 5110/11/2012

Praised? Who praised it?

by Anonymousreply 5210/11/2012

I remember seeing it as a teen because of all the good reviews.

by Anonymousreply 5310/11/2012

It's not overrated, it's underrated. Not nearly as bad as some said it was when released. Yes some songs are cut. But the remaining score is well performed (music by the great and VERY UNDERRATED Galt McDermot). Also, Treat Williams it hot as hell in this.

by Anonymousreply 5410/11/2012

I'm also wondering where all this supposed "praise" is coming from. I didn't see the film version until relatively recently (within the past decade) specifically *because* I'd heard it was a hot mess. While it certainly wasn't as bad as I was expecting, and I thought the rejiggering of the ending (starting with the whole desert sequence) was refreshing, it's not a *great* filmed musical by any means. That said, I did think it had impressive production values in terms of authentically recreating NYC circa 1969 instead of 1979, and also filming over a broad-enough span of time to encompass both summer and winter in Central Park.

I disagree with most of R34's assessment, but agree about the complaints about the film coming "too early or too late" are stupid. The late '70s also saw some of the best films to date about the same era ("Apocalypse Now," "The Deer Hunter," etc.) -- none of *those* was criticized for "coming out too early." Ditto "All the President's Men," which came out a mere four years after Watergate started.

by Anonymousreply 5510/11/2012


by Anonymousreply 5610/12/2012

Siskel and Ebert. That's where many people got their movie reviews from and they both praised the film to the heavens. I think Gene Siskel might have even named it the Best Picture of the Year, which, in retrospect, is quite the joke.

by Anonymousreply 5710/12/2012

Well, I absolutely love it. Never have seen stage version (litle before my time - the original.) I understand that the "story" of the film was invented and doesn't exist in the stage version. I thought it was great; thought Treat Willliams very affecting, John Savage too (WEHT his career? after this, "Deer Hunter" - what much else?)

But I'm cheerfully willing to believe the stage musical is better...

by Anonymousreply 5810/12/2012

Ebert loved it too. And I have read several reviews that said Tharp's choreography was great.

It was just dirty people who looked like cavemen (not even hippies) taking big leaps.

by Anonymousreply 5910/12/2012
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!