SPRING AWAKENING - 2/19/07 - Review (with Spoilers)

Posted: 2/20/07 at 12:38am

I have absolutely no idea how so much praise has been heaped upon this musical. Even if I disagree with popular or critical opinion, I can generally see where it is coming from (e.g. High Fidelity, for one). I cannot fathom how, in general, people seem to think this show functions as, well, a show. It suffers from underdeveloped characters, pathetic comedic moments, a general melodramatic feeling that made me laugh more than the actual comedic moments, manufactured angst, a lack of emotional connection with the audience, a feeling of forcing a pop/rock score upon a period piece, and a rushed second act.

My main question is why exactly this show exists when it could have been released as a My Chemical Romance album. The book scenes feel so rushed and so undeveloped that I felt no real emotional attachment to any of the characters, save for maybe Moritz. All of the characters are frightfully underdeveloped, especially the girls, and I don't see any reason why some of their subplots exist other than to fulfill certain teen angst requirements. On top of that, I felt that the writers had absolutely no clue how to write about teenage emotion. I was literally disgusted at the way that Melchior expressed his anger about feeling like a social outcast due to his intelligence. I've been in that position before in middle school, I've felt that emotion, and you don't just dismiss it by singing an upbeat song whining about how "nothing is okay unless it's scripted in their Bible!" Many songs seem to fall into this trap of simply expressing superficial emotion or a general mood rather than expressing true and realistic feelings and function independently from the book scenes rather than enhancing them.

Along with containing little emotional depth, I didn't find the songs themselves to be particularly good. "Totally F*cked" had me until it somehow turned into a chorus of "blah blah blah blah" - it's a song that either suffers from extreme laziness on the part of the composer or suffered the fate of the composer believing that it's somehow "modern" and "trendy" to use that "phrase" in a song. "Touch Me" was completely unnecessary and the same result could have been established by one of the characters simply uttering the phrase. The staging was unimaginative as well - the performers running around feeling up their own bodies. That's, uh, really descriptive. Now I really understand what the song is about! I felt like I should be smoking a joint during the song ending act one; it sounded like it was taken straight from the 60s, along with the finale of "The Song of Purple Summer." I was waiting for everyone to start engaging in hair braiding and strumming acoustic guitars. The other songs are unremarkable, except for "The Bitch of Living," "Don't Do Sadness," and "The Dark I Know So Well." These three are truly great songs that I could imagine listening to on my iPod while walking around the city. "The Dark I Know So Well" is a truly magnificent song and actually seemed infused with a bit of - gasp - emotion, but unfortunately, the subplot surrounding the song is pointless and fizzles quickly.

The truly horrendous part of the score is the repeated "I'm going to be bruised/wounded" lines. They fall into the same problem of being extremely melodramatic with no real emotional attachment from the audience to the characters to show for it. The last time the theme is repeated, it's by a pair of gay lovers, and I honestly had no idea whether they were singing it as a tongue-in-cheek mockery of the melodrama surrounding the musical theme in the first act or if they were truly speaking the lines to one another. Turns out that they were actually saying that they were going to be each other's bruises... I think? Of course, how could I be expected to know when both the characters involved in the scene are completely underdeveloped? The scene also suffers from a pathetic attempt at comedy before they sing, making the transition into the "bruise" theme even worse. I was left genuinely confused and horrified that a line such as "I'm going to be your bruise" was somehow allowed into a musical at least ten times. Again, that belongs on a My Chemical Romance album, not in a musical... but then, the creators of Spring Awakening obviously think that bands such as that express and/or connect to teenagers and convey their true emotion.

The second act is even more flawed from the first - a litany of bad events occur to all of the characters with little emotional depth or reflection between scenes. I found myself asking, "well, what's next?" rather than actually caring for any of the characters. Suicide, the guys trying to beat Melchior, Wendla's pregnant, Wendla's dead, Melchior is going to be sent away, Melchior is going to kill himself... bam, bam, bam. The scenes surrounding Wendla's pregnancy and death in particular are not handled with any sense of care. I also found it completely unbelievable that Wendla would have no idea about how pregnancy occurs or that Melchior, who obviously did, wouldn't take any precautions whatsoever. Additionally, Michele's acting made me believe that she really did know the details surrounding sex when she asked her about it in the opening scene. The scene with the ghosts of Wendla and Moritz is ineffective and overly, again, melodramatic. The final song ("The Song of Purple Summer") left me cold.

Lastly, what exactly is the POINT of the setting juxtaposed against pop/rock music laden with modern-day colloquialisms?! WHY was this even necessary? The transitions between the book scenes and the musical numbers are often not smooth at all. This technique has always struck me as completely pretentious when not executed well.

I didn't feel that anyone's acting was particularly superb other than Gallagher Jr., although I'll blame a lot of that on the weak, underwritten characters. I have no idea why anyone would feel Groff stands a chance against someone like Raul Esparza. Michelle had good stage presence and a clear voice, but I didn't find anything too remarkable about her performance. I didn't feel the scenes that were supposed to be humorous were actually funny; I laughed a hell of a lot more at any of the "I'm going to be wouuuuuunded! I'm going to be your bruuuuuuise!" numbers than the actual jokes. The lighting was done well, and about 10% of the staging was spot on ("The Bitch of Living" being a prime example).

Some middle-aged UN ambassador sat next to me, hated the show, and asked me out for drinks afterward, and despite the sketchiness of the entire situation, I wish I would have taken him up on that offer. My feeling by the end of the show was that I really could have used one. Or two.



Updated On: 2/20/07 at 12:38 AM

[OnMyWay]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 12:46am

Oh dear, I'm so sad you didn't enjoy it. I wish I could offer a rubuttal because I couldn't disagree more on almost every point, but I am neither eloquent enough nor do I think I would be successful in reformulating your opinions.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 12:48am

I think I enjoyed the show more than you, but I agree with many of the faults your pointed out.

The fact that Wendla wouldn't know about pregnancy has more to do with the fact that the play is dated.

I think it would have been more interesting if they wrote an original musical INSPIRED by Wedekind's play.

The rock music is really to juxtapose it for today. The lyrics walked a thin line of trying to be too poetic. Wasn't it Sondheim who said that lyrics should not be poetry? Most of the time you had to wonder what the hell they were singing about..and then you miss three verses. But whatever...How many shows have someone wanking to Ethel Merman's disco album?

Posted: 2/20/07 at 12:48am

I suppose I'll just have to accept that I'll probably never see the brilliance so many do in this show. I've honestly never come out of a show feeling quite this disappointed in the show, save for maybe seeing an absolutely horrific understudy in Rent. Thank God I only paid $26 for my ticket.

I think it would have been more interesting if they wrote an original musical INSPIRED by Wedekind's play.

YES! Yes, yes, yes. When I complained about the show to my friend, she replied saying "well, that was included in the original show!" on many points. Well... WHY exactly did they have to follow the source material so closely? I realized they changed it a bit, but the show is just crying out for a change in the book.

The rock music is really to juxtapose it for today.

Right - but then why the hell is the show set in late 1800s Germany when it could have been set in modern times?! Yes, some book scenes would need to be changed, but that isn't inherently a bad consequence. Updated On: 2/20/07 at 12:48 AM

[antiandrewx]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 12:57am

"Totally F*cked" had me until it somehow turned into a chorus of "blah blah blah blah" - it's a song that either suffers from extreme laziness on the part of the composer or suffered the fate of the composer believing that it's somehow "modern" and "trendy" to use that "phrase" in a song.

That's pretty silly to say. I don't understand why you would think that the "blah blahs" are because of laziness. I mean come on, they fit in perfectly with the song and what the song is saying.

I disagree with pretty much everything you said, except for how the characters are really undeveloped and the "dance" in Touch Me, and I think you were a little harsh on the show.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 12:58am

I also think Wedekind's style of writing is quite dated for today's audience.

All I can say is you have the THEN and the NOW.

I was reminded of VINEGAR TOM by Caryl Churchill - which was set during the English witch hunt, but she notes the songs (which are very Brechtian in usage) should be very modern.

But I don't think the music is as dramatic as it needs to be - for a musical theatre piece.

Posted: 2/20/07 at 12:59am

That's pretty silly to say. I don't understand why you would think that the "blah blahs" are because of laziness. I mean come on, they fit in perfectly with the song and what the song is saying.

I was being generally facetious with the point about laziness (although considering the emotional depth of the other lyrics, I wouldn't be surprised). And no, I don't think they fit in perfectly with the song at all. What does "blah blah" have to do with feeling like you're pinned to a wall?

I realize that my thoughts were harsh, but I legitimately despised this show - as a show, at least. I like a few of the songs, but independently of the show. The comparisons to Rent make me want to cry.
Updated On: 2/20/07 at 12:59 AM

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:03am

It has to do with the way the kids hear the adults.

I know I used to tune people out and just hear blah blah.

I think the song went a bit downhill when the adults started dancing around.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:04am

I think the reason the modern songs are used is to contarst the world of 1880's Germany with the world of today, and how in some ways the subject of sexuality is treated in the same way.

I have not seen the show, but I do have the cast recording, and I have to agree with BSo about the lyrics. I enjoy most of Shiek's music, but i most of the lyrics make me cringe. Either they make no sense, or they are, as BSo put it, trying to be poetic.

[antiandrewx]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:05am

The blah blah blah's (to me anyway) are the kids saying that they're fed up with the adults and that's all that they hear from the adults.

I respect what you have to say but I think you might have been a little too critical on some things. Mainly with what you said about TF and TSOPS.

[jg4892]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:07am

The show is set in the 1800's because the issues are still relevant today. The ensemble members singing in modern clothing confirm the fact that the teenagers then and now are still dealing with the same topics that society doesn't always address.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:07am

What the hell is TSOPS?

[snl89]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:07am

wow, I'm sorry you were so dissapointed! There's really not much worse than having to sit through a show that you don't enjoy at all

That said, I do just have one rebuttal to make

The rock music is really to juxtapose it for today.

Right - but then why the hell is the show set in late 1800s Germany when it could have been set in modern times?! Yes, some book scenes would need to be changed, but that isn't inherently a bad consequence.

it's funny, thats exactly what my mom said when I was explaining the story of the show to her. And my reasoning for it is that it wouldn't really work the same way if you put it in modern times. Granted I completely understand that many of the general issues addressed in the show are relevant for today and so they could probably be placed into a play about today's society, but I guess I just felt like that was such a big part of what MADE the show. To me, you have to have that completely strict, old-fashioned, foreign kind of setting to juxtapose the modern day rock or else that entire concept just goes out the window. I mean if you think about it, their purpose for that was to take two very opposite setting and put them side by side, right? well by placing it in modern day, you're making it much less opposite. Its modern day American strict setting against modern day American music as opposed to old fashioned foreign strict setting against modern day American music. So... that's my reasoning there

I definitely agree with you in that the character developement was a bit weak, but it just didn't really take too much away for me personally. I felt like there were so many other strong points in the show that, even WITH the minimal developement, I could still very much care about the characters. But that's just personal opinion I guess :)

But I must say, your review is really strong and I actually see where you're coming from on a lot of your points! (for example, although I didn't have a problem with this, I could see how some people might not like that so many of the songs dont really move the plot along or convey particular characters' emotions, but are rather just general expressions of how the characters as a group are feeling. I can imagine that would turn some people off. And I can also see what you mean about some of the staging, like in Touch Me. Again, I personally felt differently, but it's perfectly logical why you'd feel it was pointless staging)


(oh and, on a side note, TSOPS is The Song of Purple Summer, or the finale )

Updated On: 2/20/07 at 01:07 AM

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:07am

I know I used to tune people out and just hear blah blah.

Right - but I didn't feel that was in any way connected to the song. Melchior obviously is listening to what the adults are threatening him with. I guess one could find how it's somehow related to the scene, but I feel it's a stretch.

At any rate, the "blah blahs" in "Totally F*cked" are so far from being my main problem with the show.

[Anakela]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:07am

I just had to tell you that even though I am one of those who loves Spring Awakening (four viewings now, counting off Broadway), this is pretty much the most well written review of a pov that I totally disagree with that I have ever read. :) Does that make sense?

There are totally little things that bug me about SA:
- I think it takes something away from the Wendla not knowing about sex/pregnancy/where babies come from when the first song is called Mama Who *Bore* Me (although, true story: my cousin has a cousin who has given birth to two children now and has actually said "I keep getting pregnant and I don't know how this happens.")
- The line "the hunger that a child feels for everything they're shown." Ok, it's everything he's shown, everything she's shown, or the hunger that children feel. A child != they're. That line always bothers me.

just random little things, but as a whole I really enjoy it, although I can really see where you're coming from as to why you don't, so excellent review there.

ps- "The Dark I Know Well" is completely my favorite song right now.

[antiandrewx]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:11am

TSOPS = The Song of Purple Summer.

And if it was set in modern times then it kind of ruins the whole show. Cause what 14 year old in our society dosen't know about sex and pregnancy? In the time period of the show, specifically in their community, talking about that stuff was taboo. Updated On: 2/20/07 at 01:11 AM

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:12am

The Dark I Know Well is one of my favorite songs just because it touches an emotional surface in the play and the lyrics, while borderline poetic, fit very well into the show.

Well, I think the blahs are not just tuning out, but not caring what they say - as in it's always the same.

ETA: I agree that the review is very well written. Updated On: 2/20/07 at 01:12 AM

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:16am

The show is set in the 1800's because the issues are still relevant today. The ensemble members singing in modern clothing confirm the fact that the teenagers then and now are still dealing with the same topics that society doesn't always address.

If we're still dealing with the problems today, then why not just set it in modern day? Honestly, I've heard every excuse in the book as to why it's supposedly set in the 1800s, and I just don't buy it. It feels contrived, forced, and pretentious to me.

I mean if you think about it, their purpose for that was to take two very opposite setting and put them side by side, right? well by placing it in modern day, you're making it much less opposite. Its modern day strict setting against modern day music as opposed to old fashioned strict setting against modern day music.

I guess that was their purpose/intent, but I still don't understand why they need to be these two opposing forces.

And thank you, Anakela (and BSo - I loved reading your opinions on Chess a week ago)! I'm happy for everyone who seems to just love this show. Obviously, I'm in the minority with regards to public and critical opinion! If it were just the "blah blahs" or the rock music/1800s contrast or even the lack of emotional depth, I think I could really put it aside and just enjoy the tolerable/good parts of the show. Unfortunately, I found so many problems with it that it just turned into one awful theatrical experience for me.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:17am

I sort of equate the "blah blah blah" lines to the kazoo noise in Charlie Brown cartoons and some of Charlie Chaplin's films. It's a mockery of authority, I think.

I far from loved this show and agree with many of your points, but I don't know that it could take place today. The main plotline hinges on the fact that Wendla doesn't know where babies come from (whether Michele's acting there is believable or not) and that's... not really a concept that *could* be believable in modern times. Yes, a lot of the issues and the umbrella idea of misunderstood teenaged repression do exist today, but still, even if you were to just change the story to adapt it entirely into present times, I don't know that there's anything analogous to Wendla's problem with kids today either.

Rock music has such a strong association with cultural rebellion and dissent; I think that's the main reason I accept the juxtaposition. Yeah, some of the lyrics are ridiculous and completely melodramatic, but conceptually it worked for me. The songs are not inherently theatrical in a lot of cases because they aren't plot/character-driving songs, but I like the intention behind having these kids whip out mics coupled with the drastic lighting changes and a song that completely opposes the setting of the play, even if its execution falls flat sometimes.

Updated On: 2/20/07 at 01:17 AM

[jg4892]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:19am

It's not set today because it shows that the problems STILL haven't gone away since 1891. If it was set today it would ruin the message that we're not as advanced as we may seem.

[Luscious]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:19am

Sorry you had such a lousy time. Sounds like you went into it with a chip on your shoulder. Most of what you're complaining about has been discussed, debated, and dissected, here and elsewhere, ad nausea. You mean to tell me that you actually went thinking you would enjoy it? You're obviously a big fan of Grey Gardens. In regard to a Tony Award for Best Musical, Spring Awakening is Grey Gardens only real competition. Could it be you just didn't want to like it and went looking for everything and anything you could dislike and find wrong with it?

For the record, I thought it was brilliant. Easily the freshest and most inventive musical I've seen in ages. And the cast and performances were perfection. It deserves every award it's nominated for and wins. Grey Gardens, on the other hand, is a very mediocre show with a mostly forgettable score and two outstanding performances. Once Christine Ebersole and Mary Louise Wilson move on, its days are surely numbered.

Updated On: 2/20/07 at 01:19 AM

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:30am

It's a mockery of authority, I think.

To me, it just sounded out of place in the song, and I felt the song (and the staging) went downhill fast at that point. Still, it's a minor issue, and I'm kind of wishing I didn't bring it up considering the "blah blahs" were SO minor compared to everything else I found wrong with this show!

The main plotline rides upon the fact that Wendla doesn't know where babies come from (whether Michele's acting there is believable or not) and that's... not really a concept that *could* be believable in modern times. Yes, a lot of the issues and the umbrella idea of misunderstood teenaged repression do exist today, but still, even if you were to just change the story to adapt it entirely into present times, I don't know that there's anything analogous to Wendla's problem with kids today either.

I don't think that the "Wendla doesn't know where babies come from" plot point is believable at all, period, regardless of her acting (although her acting certainly made it a lot less believable), and I don't even necessarily think that it's vital for her to be so naive and clueless with regards to pregnancy. It could have been an accidental pregnancy and followed the same general storyline. I'm not especially creative in the first place, much less at this hour, but I'm sure someone could think of some modern-day storyline in which the songs could fit. The songs are so far removed from any real emotion that they could be pieced together with a different storyline and no one would know the difference. Obviously the concept is working for most people seeing the show, so it's probably more of a subjective criticism rather than a more objective one. However, again, it was yet another thing that irked me.

Sounds like you went into it with a chip on your shoulder. Most of what you're complaining about has been discussed, debated, and dissected, here and elsewhere, ad nausea. You mean to tell me that you actually went thinking you would enjoy it? You're obviously a big fan of Grey Gardens. In regard to a Tony Award for Best Musical, Spring Awakening is Grey Gardens only real competition. Could it be you just didn't want to like it and went looking for everything and anything you could dislike and find wrong with it?

I actually really, really didn't, other than my friend and I giggling at the awful "I'M GOING TO BE YOUR BRUISE!" lines. (Could we possibly target the "emo" children any more than that?!) I'm actually not a huge fan of Grey Gardens - I just saw yesterday's matinee and thoroughly enjoyed it, although I'm far from a "huge fan" and probably won't return. And I'm honestly not one to put a lot of emotional investment into the Tony Awards, period.

I also wanted to mention that Spring Awakening falls right into the category of shows that I tend to like - shows with a pop/rock score and could easily be considered "guilty pleasures" by theatre snobs. I saw High Fidelity three times; I've seen Rent quite a few times. I listen to Aida often. The execution of Spring Awakening on every single level was so awful that I honestly could not enjoy it. Updated On: 2/20/07 at 01:30 AM

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:38am

I may go back to see SA.

I left feeling empty. But I also was so stoked for EVIL DEAD (could you think of a more different show), so...

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:39am

Oh, I don't think the "blah blah blah" lines are a main issue at all -- just thought I'd throw in my two cents. It's a little moment that bugs me a lot too, but as with many of the things that bother me in the show, I do think I see the intention. It's also something that's come up a lot.

I'm confused -- you don't think it's believable historically? I absolutely think it's a ridiculous notion for a fourteen-year-old in modern times, but back then? Definitely feasible. I'm relatively certain of the historical accuracy behind those ideas. When this is all framed in a time when stuff was completely different, I'm just not sure I understand how you can say it's not at all believable, unless I'm misunderstanding.

I don't know; I think there's something more intentionally sympathetic in total naivete than there is just an accidental pregnancy due to a reckless act. I also think what the show is saying about "this is what happens when we repress our children" (when you can probably substitute greater society for the children) kind of needs that naivete, because she is a very certain, specific kind of repressed. I feel like each of the characters is a very clear "type" or teenager (which was one of my main problems with the show) and very stereotypical. The ones experiencing whatever kind of repression do so on a very specified level. Anyway, if you're looking at repression, Wendla's lack of knowledge, IMO, is pretty important. You just don't get the same statement if she knew what she was doing -- you get rebellion, but that's not her purpose -- her purpose is to demonstrate the consequences of putting your child's head under the blanket.

Updated On: 2/20/07 at 01:39 AM

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:40am

...or apron!