#1
Posted: 11/18/06 at 1:31am
Second preview, 11.17.06, hence titular quotations marks.
I think the hype placed my expectations far too high; I was largely unimpressed, underwhelmed and a bit disappointed. I blame much of that on myself for expecting too much, because the show is very good, certainly provocative, and takes a lot of risks in the themes it explores -- sexuality, repression, suicide, love, etc -- as well as its execution of them. It deserves to be applauded for that. But much as the plot is often poorly strung together in being very episodic (granted, much moreso in act one than act two) -- not to mention predictable -- the show itself is a patchy mixture of moments I loved, those of vibrant success, and moments I hated, those played in total misfire.
From a technical and visual standpoint, the show is extremely well-done. I found the neon lights in the back and on the sides of the audience to be sort of unnecessary, but the intricate set is wonderful to look at, and the staging, for the most part, is great. Totally F*cked is one of my favorite songs from the show, but ironically enough, I found its staging to be completely cringe-worthy. It devolves into this manic, rebellious mess that means well, but falls flat -- the adults join in, which is a fantastic moment, but it doesn't save the number on the whole. As an example of one of the most positive staging elements, though, during the final scene in act one, when Wendla and Melchior have sex, they're suspended on a swinging platform, and it perfectly captures the emotion of the moment.
The combination of the historical setting of the story and the contemporary execution doesn't work as well as it could -- however, nor does it fail as miserably as it could have, and typically does. I think it finds much of its success in the structural concept of three very distinct worlds: the adult world in which all adults, be they parents, teachers, etc, are doubled by two actors, the adolescent world of suffocated self-expression and exploration in attempts to break free, and the combinatory public world they both inhabit.
By keeping the modern which is mostly in the music distinctly separate, largely aided by the excellent lighting technique and design, the show doesn't fall into the trap of integrating period with contemporary too much, except in a few moments of poor lyrical judgement. The modernization of the language isn't so much a bother, until you get to the lyrics that are overly colloquial, most notably in "My Junk," or the chorus of throw-away "blah blah blah blah blahs" in Totally F*CKed. The modernization throughout is okay, but one too many phrases and you're screwed, essentially, and some of the lyrics are just too modern. At times, these kids sound like idiots on a sitcom or worse, some packaged pop band. Duncan Sheik's music is gorgeous and evocative, but some of the lyrics are laughable where the context is not the least bit funny. On the other hand, though, I must contest (and really, emphasize) that even with a few songs that don't work at all, many of them have beautiful, strikingly poetic lyrics; overall, the score is very, very strong, especially musically. The closing number, The Song of Purple Summer, is one of the most beautiful in the show, but as the finale to the show, it left me a bit cold. It's very pretty, but not powerful enough to be the finale to such a heavy show.
The biggest problem with the show is that it is very, very difficult to write about teenagers effectively, and taking on the task forces walking the fine line between hitting the nail on the head and writing something that is laden with colloquialisms -- and when the latter, you end up with obnoxious characters who the audience is going to have a hard time caring about. Spring Awakening about half-succeeds. The kids in the show are exploring things that are new to them and discovering things that they do not understand and can't express. There are times when the show captures that difficulty in expression in absolute perfection, but those times are tainted by ones in which it falls victim to resorting to cliché and stereotype. In that sense, the writers of this show may have created something innovative, but they have failed to create something that is timeless; their characters too often fall into sequences of "oh my GOD!!" type language that is emotionally dead and too time-period exclusive even for a show that bends the rules of chronology and does so fairly well while exploring themes that are significantly universal. There are so many moments that exquisitely convey what these kids are going through, and their difficulty in expressing what they truly cannot do easily, yet there are also so many that just made me wonder what on earth they'd been thinking -- again, most of the latter comes from lyrical missteps.
The acting is pretty dull. Lea Michele has a beautiful voice and she's wonderful to watch during song, but her acting outside of the musical numbers was surprisingly amateur -- I felt like I was watching a high school performance. Her inflection is really bizarre and she overacts. I really don't understand the hype with her. I felt the same way about all of the girls, really, though I must say that Lauren Pritchard (Ilse) has a great, very distinct voice. They all played very young and flat. I found the boys to be much more impressive, especially John Gallagher, Jonathan Groff and Jonathan B. Wright, who are all very talented. But on the whole, the cast is young and inexperienced, which shows too much.
I don't really see the point of having people sit on stage. It feels kind of gimmicky to me. I mean, I'm sure it's cool for people who are into that sort of thing to get to sit right in on the action, but it's totally being promoted as this "get in on the action!' thing, and feels like it's just there because it's unique. I see no thematic purpose, and I guess I just wish it had an upstanding point.
As far as the comparisons to Rent, I see it as far as the mixing of musical theater and contemporary rock, but Rent is so structurally different in that it's all sung-through, so it doesn't have the choppy feel that Spring Awakening does. The biggest discrepancy for me is that Rent is consistent with its emotional hits, whereas Spring Awakening is much more thematic -- it has moments of beautiful, deep, open emotional poignancy, but it feels like it exists on its themes, not on its emotional drive. I didn't find it moving or emotionally impactful at all, really, though it certain is daring. It's a strange show to put on Broadway, because it has a very off-Broadway sensibility. The audience went wild for it, so hopefully it will find success even outside of its more appropriate niche.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
I think the hype placed my expectations far too high; I was largely unimpressed, underwhelmed and a bit disappointed. I blame much of that on myself for expecting too much, because the show is very good, certainly provocative, and takes a lot of risks in the themes it explores -- sexuality, repression, suicide, love, etc -- as well as its execution of them. It deserves to be applauded for that. But much as the plot is often poorly strung together in being very episodic (granted, much moreso in act one than act two) -- not to mention predictable -- the show itself is a patchy mixture of moments I loved, those of vibrant success, and moments I hated, those played in total misfire.
From a technical and visual standpoint, the show is extremely well-done. I found the neon lights in the back and on the sides of the audience to be sort of unnecessary, but the intricate set is wonderful to look at, and the staging, for the most part, is great. Totally F*cked is one of my favorite songs from the show, but ironically enough, I found its staging to be completely cringe-worthy. It devolves into this manic, rebellious mess that means well, but falls flat -- the adults join in, which is a fantastic moment, but it doesn't save the number on the whole. As an example of one of the most positive staging elements, though, during the final scene in act one, when Wendla and Melchior have sex, they're suspended on a swinging platform, and it perfectly captures the emotion of the moment.
The combination of the historical setting of the story and the contemporary execution doesn't work as well as it could -- however, nor does it fail as miserably as it could have, and typically does. I think it finds much of its success in the structural concept of three very distinct worlds: the adult world in which all adults, be they parents, teachers, etc, are doubled by two actors, the adolescent world of suffocated self-expression and exploration in attempts to break free, and the combinatory public world they both inhabit.
By keeping the modern which is mostly in the music distinctly separate, largely aided by the excellent lighting technique and design, the show doesn't fall into the trap of integrating period with contemporary too much, except in a few moments of poor lyrical judgement. The modernization of the language isn't so much a bother, until you get to the lyrics that are overly colloquial, most notably in "My Junk," or the chorus of throw-away "blah blah blah blah blahs" in Totally F*CKed. The modernization throughout is okay, but one too many phrases and you're screwed, essentially, and some of the lyrics are just too modern. At times, these kids sound like idiots on a sitcom or worse, some packaged pop band. Duncan Sheik's music is gorgeous and evocative, but some of the lyrics are laughable where the context is not the least bit funny. On the other hand, though, I must contest (and really, emphasize) that even with a few songs that don't work at all, many of them have beautiful, strikingly poetic lyrics; overall, the score is very, very strong, especially musically. The closing number, The Song of Purple Summer, is one of the most beautiful in the show, but as the finale to the show, it left me a bit cold. It's very pretty, but not powerful enough to be the finale to such a heavy show.
The biggest problem with the show is that it is very, very difficult to write about teenagers effectively, and taking on the task forces walking the fine line between hitting the nail on the head and writing something that is laden with colloquialisms -- and when the latter, you end up with obnoxious characters who the audience is going to have a hard time caring about. Spring Awakening about half-succeeds. The kids in the show are exploring things that are new to them and discovering things that they do not understand and can't express. There are times when the show captures that difficulty in expression in absolute perfection, but those times are tainted by ones in which it falls victim to resorting to cliché and stereotype. In that sense, the writers of this show may have created something innovative, but they have failed to create something that is timeless; their characters too often fall into sequences of "oh my GOD!!" type language that is emotionally dead and too time-period exclusive even for a show that bends the rules of chronology and does so fairly well while exploring themes that are significantly universal. There are so many moments that exquisitely convey what these kids are going through, and their difficulty in expressing what they truly cannot do easily, yet there are also so many that just made me wonder what on earth they'd been thinking -- again, most of the latter comes from lyrical missteps.
The acting is pretty dull. Lea Michele has a beautiful voice and she's wonderful to watch during song, but her acting outside of the musical numbers was surprisingly amateur -- I felt like I was watching a high school performance. Her inflection is really bizarre and she overacts. I really don't understand the hype with her. I felt the same way about all of the girls, really, though I must say that Lauren Pritchard (Ilse) has a great, very distinct voice. They all played very young and flat. I found the boys to be much more impressive, especially John Gallagher, Jonathan Groff and Jonathan B. Wright, who are all very talented. But on the whole, the cast is young and inexperienced, which shows too much.
I don't really see the point of having people sit on stage. It feels kind of gimmicky to me. I mean, I'm sure it's cool for people who are into that sort of thing to get to sit right in on the action, but it's totally being promoted as this "get in on the action!' thing, and feels like it's just there because it's unique. I see no thematic purpose, and I guess I just wish it had an upstanding point.
As far as the comparisons to Rent, I see it as far as the mixing of musical theater and contemporary rock, but Rent is so structurally different in that it's all sung-through, so it doesn't have the choppy feel that Spring Awakening does. The biggest discrepancy for me is that Rent is consistent with its emotional hits, whereas Spring Awakening is much more thematic -- it has moments of beautiful, deep, open emotional poignancy, but it feels like it exists on its themes, not on its emotional drive. I didn't find it moving or emotionally impactful at all, really, though it certain is daring. It's a strange show to put on Broadway, because it has a very off-Broadway sensibility. The audience went wild for it, so hopefully it will find success even outside of its more appropriate niche.
Updated On: 11/19/06 at 01:31 AM
I'm curious about the approximate ages, and if the girls are supposed to be the same age as the boys.
