SPRING AWAKENING - 2/19/07 - Review (with Spoilers)- Page 4

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:45pm

Emcee, I'm not going to debate this entire same issue again with you, interesting as it might be. Yes, I personally think it's really obvious that Melchior knew about how a baby is conceived. I agree with sweetestsiren; the argument that he knows all about female genitalia but has no idea about pregnancy seems very far-fetched to me, not to mention that he also didn't exactly seem surprised to find out that sex can lead to pregnancy later in the show. If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, I don't see why he wouldn't have tried to prevent pregnancy in any way possible. I don't think that I'm inferring possibilities. I think these are all pretty reasonable and superficial assumptions to make regarding the character, even if I could see why you'd disagree with them. I feel like we're talking in circles.

As I pointed out in various posts last night, I don't think that my ideas are so unrealistic within the context of the story, even if you personally feel that changing the story a bit to make it more realistic would compromise the moral of the show to some extent (I disagree, but that's incidental). And yes, as a sidenote, I think that the songs could be fit around a better story entirely, because I think the current one is weak and somewhat unbelievable. It's not my job to sit around and think of an alternate plot for the songs; I'm just voicing an issue I had with the show.

I also feel that the pregnancy issue is so completely minute with regards to the number of problems that plague this show. Tying up some loose ends in this area might aid the show as a whole, but it would only begin to attack the central problems with the show at their source.


Updated On: 2/20/07 at 02:45 PM

[stagegrrrl]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:54pm

hi guys

[stagegrrrl]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:56pm

how's everyone's day going?
oh good.
it's my day off and i am relaxing in brooklyn with my dog and my boyfriend.
going to see journey's end tonight.

[kgallo]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:56pm

Hello...I would love to hear your thoughts...

[bobbystrong]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:57pm

Reading this thread has been entertaining. I could leave a very detailed, long argument about every single point made in the original post...but it would be pointless.

There is a much easier way to respond:

You just didn't get it.

:)

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:58pm

Enjoy JOURNEY'S END. I'm interested in seeing that someday.

I think the pregnancy issue loses dramatic steam rather fast - and you sort of forget about it. Then it comes back hard and the show ends fast.

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:58pm

Kgallo, stop looking desperate for the Spring Awakening stage manager to come in and defend the show. There are VARIOUS positive Spring Awakening threads, including a "Spring Awakening love thread." There are more than enough positive vibes about the show on this board; your worry over this one thread isn't exactly merited.
Updated On: 2/20/07 at 02:58 PM

[feinstein9]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 3:03pm

bobby, don't you think that's slightly demeaning? I think the basic arguement going on here is that one person is analyzing the show and coming to the conclusion that it doesn't makes sense, another arguement that there is too much of a discord between the book scenes and musical numbers, and another that the music wasn't all together very good. A lot of opinions are going around, which is a good thing. But I don't think there's one person here that didn't "get it," if I were going to be demeaning back to you I'd say, you didn't "see through it." But the reason I'm not going to say that is because I'm glad you liked it. Just don't act like we're from planet 9 just because many of us found fault.

[brainpolice23]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 3:04pm

"how's everyone's day going?
oh good.
it's my day off and i am relaxing in brooklyn with my dog and my boyfriend.
going to see journey's end tonight."

Frances is fantastic. My rant was long because I'm busy today doing a research paper on the relationship between Brecht's theory on theatre and Frank Wedekind. Enjoy your day off.

[kgallo]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 3:04pm

Ummm....sadly I have no idea who the Spring Awakening stage manager is so I could not possiblly be looking desperatley for him/her to come defend the show. You seem to take much offense to anyone who diputes what you have to say. I have no worries over this one thread because I know that the few poor reviews from people like yourslef who just "didn't get it" as bobbystrong said will have no major impact on the show. If you are referring to me welcoming stagegrrrl, then maybe you missed her comment last night that she had many viewpoints on the issues you are discussing and I am intrigued to hear them, as I've always been interested or somewhat entertained by her posts, along with others. I feel sorry you feel the need to attack or insult others when they speak their mind.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 3:06pm

Ah, Brecht. If only HE wrote SPRING AWAKENING.He would have whipped the audience, lights blazing in their eyes, signs all around saying, "THE WHIP SCENE."

If only Brecht wrote it...

Posted: 2/20/07 at 3:07pm

Ummm....sadly I have no idea who the Spring Awakening stage manager is so I could not possiblly be looking desperatley for him/her to come defend the show.

Heh, okay. And I frankly think it's pathetic that people simply try to slap the "you just didn't get it!" label on anyone who dares to actually find fault with the show. That's such a simplistic and condescending argument, and as feinstein said, there's a possible flip side to the argument - would you like it if I just said that all of you "didn't see through it"? I'm sure you wouldn't.
Updated On: 2/20/07 at 03:07 PM

[antiandrewx]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 3:14pm

siamese dream, I respect your opinion and your review was amazingly written, but it seems like you quickly shoot down anyone who dosen't agree with you and anyone who offers a counter argument. Not to mention your tone makes it seem like you feel anyone who does like this show is stupid. I understand that you hate this show a lot but I think you just need to lighten up a little bit.

[kgallo]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 3:15pm

I cetainly wouldn't post insults at him across this board. I don't criticize anyone for their opinions, only for ignorance. As much as I would love to sit here all day and relive my own teen angst by fighting off your comments which seem to have taken a personal turn, I must be off to work now.

[stagegrrrl]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 3:16pm

here's the thing.
every show has its problems and of course we are all entitled to our differing opinions. i do feel however that you may have been a little overly critical of what you saw in SA. i am guilty of the same in other shows. i went in to Aida just wanting to hate it and lo and behold i suceeded. i am not implying that this is the case with you and SA, however i do think that it is feasible that you may have been a little extra harsh in your critique.
firstly, in terms of the plays setting in the 19th century the authors chose to update a classic text and make it accessible to a 21st century audience. wedekind's original piece is not the friendliest read what with its illusions to goethe and its allegory of the masked man. however i feel that sater did an admirable job of taking the story and making it platable to today's youth.
i just can't agree with you about duncan's music. i truly believe (as the ny times did) that it is one of the best scores in years. "Oh you're gonna be wounded. Oh you're gonna be my wound. Oh, i'm gonna bruise you. Oh i'm gonna be your bruise." i really don 't see how you can fault these lyrics. young love is brutal, painful, frightening. these children are treading in waters whose depths and currents are unknown. wouldn't you be frightened.
second. wendla's lack of knowledge about sexuality is central to the play's construct. it isn't that she is misinformed, it is that her mother deliberately withholds the information from her. melchior knows full well what he is doing when he has sex with wendla. hence the decision by his parents to punish him by sending him to a reformatory. the central element of the play is this idea of what we know, what we don't know and what we choose to act on versus what we choose to withhold. melchior is not a hero. he is a flawed character. there are no heroes in SA. only humans with human failings. they make mistakes, they suffer, they bruise.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 3:23pm

Surprise, surprise! A critical debate here has taken a personal turn!

Siamese is welcomed to her opinion, and everyone else can disagree with her. But I am sure stupidity has nothing to do with it...be it not understanding the show, or actually liking the show.

Only stupid people like BKLYN. And I think that is a fact. Now excuse me while I take the tongue out of my cheek.

P.S. Does anyone else want to see a mud wrestling match between stagegrrrl and Siamese? All around good points.

Posted: 2/20/07 at 3:24pm

Stagegrrl, thank you for your insightful post. I realize you're not explicitly accusing me of this, but just for the record, I honestly did not go into Spring Awakening wanting to hate it. I wasn't absolutely itching to see it, but why would I want to hate it? I was with a friend who had seen it once before and thoroughly enjoyed it.

firstly, in terms of the plays setting in the 19th century the authors chose to update a classic text and make it accessible to a 21st century audience. wedekind's original piece is not the friendliest read what with its illusions to goethe and its allegory of the masked man.

I understand that. However, I felt like it was unnecessary to mix the two time periods, for reasons I've mentioned in other posts on this thread.

i just can't agree with you about duncan's music. i truly believe (as the ny times did) that it is one of the best scores in years. "Oh you're gonna be wounded. Oh you're gonna be my wound. Oh, i'm gonna bruise you. Oh i'm gonna be your bruise." i really don 't see how you can fault these lyrics. young love is brutal, painful, frightening. these children are treading in waters whose depths and currents are unknown. wouldn't you be frightened.

That's something that we're going to have to agree to disagree on. I don't believe teenagers would talk in that heightened melodramatic language, and those lines especially strike me as an attempt for the show to identify with the "emo/angsty" teen crowd. I found the delivery of them painful as well. As for the score as a whole, as I said, I found that there were a few quality songs in themselves, not necessarily within the context of the show, and I found the rest of the score incredibly mediocre. Perhaps we have different taste in music; I found myself liking more of the rockish songs, while really disliking the more melodramatic ones, along with the act one closer and The Song of Purple Summer, both of which I didn't feel carried a strong melody and frankly seemed a bit boring and trite.

wendla's lack of knowledge about sexuality is central to the play's construct. it isn't that she is misinformed, it is that her mother deliberately withholds the information from her.

That's fine - but I found a major fault in the fact that her supposed complete lack of knowledge about her sexuality (which, again, I find unbelievable considering the circumstances she found herself in, but I really cannot debate that point without going in circles again) was not made nearly as explicit as it should have been or given justification as to how exactly she could remain THAT completely in the dark.

I agree with you that Melchior is not a hero, and I'm glad someone made that point.

Again, thank you for your opinions. See, I can be nice and agree to disagree when people aren't attacking me for daring to say something negative about their favorite show.
Updated On: 2/20/07 at 03:24 PM

[bigbigbill]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 3:26pm

Hey, uh, Siamese, you're wrong.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 3:33pm

...And you're stupid!

Just kidding.

Read the original text. It's a very stylized way of speaking.

I understand that. However, I felt like it was unnecessary to mix the two time periods, for reasons I've mentioned in other posts on this thread.

Like I said, I thought it worked and reminded me much of VINEGAR TOM. It's a style and a very easy and effective way of showing the through line between then and now. Setting the story in the past lets them work out the more strict views on raising children. The rock music is a form of rebellion that is easily recognizable today.

I know I said it would have been interesting if they made the whole thing modernized. What I meant is that it would be more unbelievable to an audience today that someone wouldn't know where babies come from. Of course, a lot of the story would have to be changed to compensate for that...so I don't think it is necessarily a good idea.

My point was an updated version of the don't repress children theme.

Overall, I really did find it enjoyable and it is easier to criticize the flaws when the work is so close to being an amazing experience. I felt a similar way to GREY GARDENS - which is one of my favorite shows I've seen recently.
Updated On: 2/20/07 at 03:33 PM

[stagegrrrl]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 3:37pm

"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!""


i think you may have misunderstood this particular sequence in the play. melchior is hardly a "social outcast." in fact he is clearly the most popular boy in his class drawing the admiration of peers, faculty, and the lust of the local school girls. his frustration is lies in the fact that his close friend moritz is put down and ridiculed by the faculty for the simple fact that he does not fit into their prescribed mold. and i LOVE the line "nothing is okay unless it's scripted in their bible." i think it resonnates brilliantly and beautifully.


"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."


i just couldn't disagree more here. don't you remember being that age? those feelings that you couldn't understand? craving touch, affection, love. this is my favorite part of the show. when the entire company faces front feeling their bodies as if for the first time and discovering the joy of that touch. i justb think that it's beautiful, powerful theatre. i'm sorry that you felt differently.


"Lastly, what exactly is the POINT of the setting juxtaposed against pop/rock music laden with modern-day colloquialisms?! WHY was this even necessary?"


rock music is the music of rebellion, of youth, of self-discovery. a musical theatre type pop score would hardly have conveyed the desperate longing that these children are dealing with. it's just my opinion but i feel that the rock score is a more than valid choice.

Posted: 2/20/07 at 3:37pm

Of course, a lot of the story would have to be changed to compensate for that...so I don't think it is necessarily a good idea.

See, I would really welcome that, but again... hello circular arguments.

As for the mixing of time periods, I just feel that it's unnecessary in general when the same effect could be accomplished when set in modern-day times. Either way, the rock music conveys rebellion, so I felt the setting was unnecessarily forced and pretentious. I felt like they were juxtaposing the time periods just for the sake of doing so rather than having an truly legitimate reason for it.

[snl89]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 3:39pm

Only stupid people like BKLYN. And I think that is a fact. Now excuse me while I take the tongue out of my cheek.

I like BKLYN *shifty eyes* (though I'm not debating the plot's not good)

but.. ahem.. thats besides the point :)

And Siamese, I still do have to disagree on the concept of two different time periods thing, but I'm not quite sure I've figured out how to explain why I feel like it does have to be that way. So I'll just let it be! haha

And just one other thing- to me it actually is completely plausable 1)that Wendla would be that in the dark and 2)that, even being in the dark, she'd find herself in that situation. After all, Melchior IS the one leading the whole thing- the way I saw it, she really didn't have ANY clue as to what was happening, she was simply putting her trust in Melchior that he did. And I think thats why, even with the way the book is now, some people still consider it a rape situation. I *dont* consider it rape, because I feel like Wendla DID trust him and wasn't hurt (at least not emotionally) by it, but I would consider it seduction for sure. I feel like, even in the end, all she really concluded was that what she'd done with melchior had somehow led to her pregnancy. But even then, I dont think she knew HOW that was the case- only that that was the only thing she could think of that possibly *could* have led to it. So... I dont really feel like its such a stretch that she was really so in the dark. I mean, thinking logically, how WOULD she know anything about it? It's so strange for us to think of because from day one, even if our parents dont communicate well about sex with us, our society is very open about it. But remember, this is a society where NO ONE talked about those things in public. There was no way for them to know if they didn't happen to stumble upon it through books, like Melchior.

Updated On: 2/20/07 at 03:39 PM

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 3:41pm

I think the pretension comes from some of the lyrics, not the concept of modern music, old fashioned book.

stagegrrrl - can you give any major insight into the reverse Riverdance dance (that means arm movement, not leg movement) that Melchior does in Mirror Blue Night - and the other actors do later on?

Posted: 2/20/07 at 3:43pm

Stagegrrrl, I'm not going to go back and forth with you on every single point, but I do think that Melchior felt like an outcast to some extent because of his intelligence. Maybe not a social outcast, but he felt out of place nonetheless, and I felt that the lyrics surrounding this situation didn't accurately describe how one would feel in his position. As for "Touch Me," I felt the staging was unimaginative and, as I said, the song was pointless and done more in an attempt to "shock" people than to convey any real emotion. It's been established by that point that these boys and girls are discovering their sexuality and want to get laid.

SNL and stagegrrrl, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion about the score and the setting. I'm not going to continue to repeat myself as to why I take issue with it. SNL, I REALLY do not want to get into the Melchior/birth control/pregnancy argument yet again, but assuming he does have an idea of how pregnancy occurs (which I think is heavily implied in the story), I don't see why he wouldn't want to try to prevent it by any means possible if only to save his own ass. Also, as I said in a previous post, it's obvious that their relationship was more than simply sex, so I'm sure they talked about sex at some point. I can't buy the "she's completely in the dark" argument on a conceptual OR acting level, but if they're hellbent on making that point, they really should have made it a lot clearer.

Updated On: 2/20/07 at 03:43 PM

[brainpolice23]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 3:46pm

"the central element of the play is this idea of what we know, what we don't know and what we choose to act on versus what we choose to withhold. melchior is not a hero. he is a flawed character. there are no heroes in SA. only humans with human failings. they make mistakes, they suffer, they bruise."

when i asked at that talk-back, "do you feel as if there is a tragic hero in this play" i was looking for a response similar to this. stagegrrl (maybe Frances?) is right that Wedekind's original has flaws as well, and suffers from the same hopping around from one point to the next that the musical does. However, in some instincts the adaptation falls a little short. Mainly, it struggles in how it addresses Wedekind's feelings about the existence of "Love," the attempt to make Melchior seem to be this protagonist "All-American" (or All-German) character, and trying to sum everything up in the end with a happy "look towards the future" ballad, that is not fitting as many critics have pointed out.

THIS IS DIRECTLY FROM SOL GITTLEMAN'S BIOGRAPHY OF WEDEKIND, AND ILLUSTRATES ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE ON WEDEKIND'S CHARACTERIZATIONS AND MOTIVES
"The high school student Melchior Gabor is intellectually more advanced than his fourteen-year-old classmates, and the awakening of latent sexuality instinctively tells him that there is more to life than he has assumed. He is also fortunate in that his mother, an unusually liberal and understanding parent, has not engendered any feelings of guilt and shame; and Melchior is able to acquire a type of sexual education to prepare him for puberty. Partly through reading, but mostly through the observation of animals, he has gained a practical knowledge of sex and is convinced that if man were left untainted by civilization, he would follow the same primitive instincts which dominate the animal world on t he lower orders. Love, marriage, and the other "conventions," he concludes, are not really a part of the elemental laws of nature...(it goes on to illustrate how these animal instincts take hold of Melchior causing him to rape Wendla, which is absent in the musical)
...
[Wedekind] was in no way interested in depicting a world normally motivated by the tragic events of a youth-adult conflict. The characterizations are strictly partial and un-selfconsciously partisan; there are no flawed individuals who might have evoked a sense of pity, even in their villainy. The enemy is the adult world, populated by brutes; and Wedekind's inspired repugnance explodes throughout the play."

Siamese, your argument is flawed in your stating that you wish certain changes were made to the plot line, regardless of their relevancy to Wedekind's concept. The point is, although this interpretation has altered much of what Wedekind wrote, it is still the same basic story, and changing characters to a great extent would create an entirely different production...something that they did not set out to do.

Once again from before:
Siamese, I believe you have a lot of valid points, however, personally I still found the show enjoyable.

Many characters were definitely underdeveloped, not necessarily stemming from Wedekind's original.

Melchior: Wedekind was incredibly interested in illustrating that "love" did not exist, that there was only lust, pushed forward by the animal-like sexual desires of both the male and female. Melchior reads a great deal, given a great deal of leeway because of liberal parents (Wedekind was the same way), however in the original play, Melchior's animal instinct overcomes him and causes him to beat Wendla, and then rape her. The main flaw in Melchior's character, in the original, is that although he reads a great deal, and seems to have a basic understanding of human character, he is nonetheless subject to certain things merely because of his age.

In the musical, I believe Mayer and Sater tried to hard to make Melchior this great protagonist being, who is smart, attractive, and caring. As a result, the plays actions become less cohesive, and Melchior becomes a character that is very hard to relate to.

Wedekind made Moritz and Melchior a combination of himself, and his "arch-enemy" the naturalistic playwright Gerhart Hauptmann. However, it is doubtful that any of Wedekind's lengthy character descriptions, and contrasts between himself and Hauptmann were researched during development.

Moritz: John Gallagher puts on a fantastic show. His stage presence is undeniable, his delivery frantic, and his voice reminiscent of Wedekind from the eyes of Brecht, "[Wedekind] sang his songs to guitar accompinament in a brittle voice, slightly monotonous and quite untrained. No singer gave me such a shock such a thrill. It was the man's intense aliveness, the energy which allowed him to defy sn*ing ridicule and proclaim his brazen hymn to humanity, that also gave him this personal magic."

Gallagher illustrates the beauty of this rock-musical concept...however almost all of the others fall short. If you read a couple of Wedekind biographies, it is easy to see that Wedekind was just as much a "rock-star" as Duncan Sheik, which is why I think this idea works. However, the lyrical execution, and lack of strong character development, both on the part of the writing team and actors, causes the product to fall a bit flat. No doubt though, Johnny Gallagher is a thrill to watch. Yet, due to the placement of him in the "Those You've Known" scene, his character is slightly weakened. In the original play, Moritz attempts to coerce Melchior into joining him in the grave, almost feeling as if it is part of his master plan...show them all through suicide, and manipulate these naive kids (Moritz and Wendla) into having the same understandings that you do. By having Moritz and Wendla come out of the stage, in some hokie Les Mis type action, simply indicates that "hey, it's about time that we wrap up this show," with "Purple Summer" being the "HEY WE STILL WANT A STANDING OVATION, AND MOST PEOPLE WON'T CLAP LOUDLY IF THEY'RE VERY UPSET" number.

comparison of Wedekind to Hauptman:
Wedekind:
EGOIST
NIGHT CREATURE
THINKER
CLUMSY
PEER GYNT
FRANZ MOOR
MEPHISTO
PESSIMIST
THEORETICIAN
GAINS BY FIGHTING
SELF-CONSCIOUS
GENUINE, BUT UGLY

HAUPTMANN:
ALTRUIST
DAY CREATURE
ARTIST
CREATIVE
BRAND
KARL MOOR
FAUST
OPTIMIST
ORIGINAL THINKER
ETHICAL, MAKES A GRAND CAREER OUT OF PLAYING THE "GRAND SEIGNEUR"
SELFLESS, PREACHES UNIVERSAL LOVE, COMPASSION, UNDERSTANDING
CHARMING, BUT NOT GENUINE, ARTIFICIALITY DISFIGURES EVERYTHING, JOY IN THE BEAUTY OF THE EMPTY WORD

anywhom, on to the next character.

Ilse: Being a douchebag, I asked Lauren Pritchard at this Spring-Awakening talk back "Have you drawn any parallels to the character of Lulu, from Wedekind's Erdgeist and Pandora's Box, with your character?" She replied "No, but maybe I should look into it." The sad thing is, that Ilse is Wedekind's model of this unrestrained, sexual, free, nomadic, female, that he uses over and over in his stories to illustrate that females have just as much sexual desire as males. Although Ilse's presence in Spring Awakening is not as grand as the presence of Lulu in the two plays, or even Klara the central character in "Musik," (oddly advised by a character named Else). You can argue that Ilse is slightly underdeveloped, and not really enthralling because most of her time is spent singing "like a rock-star in their bedroom," but the fact is that there are so many resources out there that time on stage should not hinder your ability to develop a strong character. Think of your first theatre teacher that said "Even the Onion in the vegetable patch can impact the audience to a great degree."

Wendla: Wedekind wrote her as this naive girl, who doubted that anyone cared for her, even her parents. She longed for love, while Melchior had the understanding that "there is no such thing as love," making Wendla the perfect target for illustrating his ideology. She asks him to beat her, thinking that may indicate love, and then of course Melchior's lustful desires control him, and push him to rape Wendla. Wedekind plays on the idea of LOVE throughout the play, however he, like Melchior, did not believe such a thing existed. This may be in turn why the Hanschen/Ernst scene is so comical, because of the same interplay between one who is just motivated by lust, and the other who feels as if love truly exists.

Martha: In reality, she should be a really ****ed up character. Yet she is so composed in the musical, that you doubt anything is really wrong with her. You can make the argument that "she is trying to hide her feelings," but still she would show signs of being overly restrained. "Dark I Know Well" is a fantastic song though.

Thea: I guess she looks like she's 12.

Hanschen: Johnny B. Wright clearly put a great deal of thought into this character, and his effort pays off a great deal. However, I was a little confused with his vocal delivery during ensemble numbers. This, I assume, indicates the discontinuity between the script and music that Siamese speaks of as Hanschen has a few different vocal styles, mainly the "Bitch of Living," "Word of Your Body (Reprise)" style, and the "Totally F*CKed," "My Junk" style. This is not really on the actor, as it is evident that some songs act as "internal monologues" while others ...eh, don't really do it.

Otto, Georg, and Ernst: These actors are fantastic, and they do an amazing job with the material. However, I wish that there was a greater amount of material that they both could work with in the show, especially Otto. I feel as if, Sater and Mayer drew the line somewhere and said "the more we play out these various vignettes about abuse, homosexuality, gypsy-love, and masturbation, the further away we may push the audience." So, Otto's story is sort of set aside.



To sort of bring this mess together, I enjoyed "Spring Awakening" thoroughly...though I doubt anyone really cares. The problems in the show seem to lie in poor lyricism, rough restructuring from Wedekind's original, underdeveloped characters, and the lack of cohesiveness between the main plot and the sub-plots, as well as the music and script at points. That's all for now.

Peace.

edited to add: Steven Spinella is weak, and overdoes almost every male character. The worst comes in the hands of Moritz's father, weeping uncontrollably over his grave...instead of the scorn, and disdain shown for his dead son in the original "this boy was no son of mine." Personally, I think it would have worked better.

+

Siamese, I definitely see the Thom Yorke reference. Duncan Sheik during rehearsals told the actors to "sing like thom yorke" and a bunch of others...Gallagher has said he was influenced vocally by Billie Joe Armstrong from Green Day. However, I felt at times they should have been played Talking Heads instead of Radiohead...b/c David Byrne can easily be seen as an influence in some of the music.

The true brilliance of this reinterpretation of SPRING AWAKENING, lies in its bridging of Brecht and Wedekind.

I dare you to read the entire post.
Updated On: 2/20/07 at 03:46 PM