Emcee's Spring Awakening "review"

[luvtheEmcee]

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.

Updated On: 11/19/06 at 01:31 AM

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 2:12am

I saw the show tonight as well. I agree with Emcee on many points, however, I didn't think about everything in as much minute detail as she did

I went into the show only being familiar with two songs, "Bitch of Living" and "Totally F*cked". Overall, I thought the show was fantastic. With this show, I feel like so much of it is just going with the flow and NOT over analyzing every little part. Not to make excuses or to justify, but it just seems appropriate with a show like this, especially, that one would ideally want to soak it in and go with it.

Technically, the show was wonderful. The set, the lights, the sound quality. I agree with Emcee that the neon lights above the boxes were unnecessary - but the use of spotlights and the hanging lights over the stage created beautiful images. I know some people were complaining that the show lost intimacy with its transfer, but the actual playing space was very small, and most definitely intimate.

As someone who wasn't familiar with Duncan Sheik's music, I was blown away. It was refreshing to go to the theater and come out with dynamic, fresh, lively music still ringing in my ears. (Btw, for the Sheik fans out there, which CDs would you recommend?)

I was for the most part impressed with the young cast, although I agree with Emcee that the guys came off stronger than the girls. I felt that the girls (Michele included) played up the naive, young, innocent aspect a bit too much, and therefore came off too sing-songy, and dare I say, ditzy. Basically, it got old rather quickly. The boys I found to be the complete opposite. Spunky, edgey, and energetic - and with some great acting chops, too. Jonathan Gallagher and Jonathan Groff were both excellent, and really held the show together. I don't have enough good things to say about them. They all had such unique voices on them, and as an ensemble, the sound was beautiful and strong.

As far as on the onstage seating being gimmicky and being promoted as this "get in on the action!' thing, the press release announcing the option said:

Observers say the idea of putting the public on stage (in seating that flanks the action) underlines the musical's idea of the watchfulness of the community in the anxious musical drama about teenagers fumbling into adulthood.

And then again, as Emcee said, it is unique. For the daring people around (and as a person who wishes she could be more like them), sitting on stage for a show as high energy as this must be a damn amazing experience.

Updated On: 11/18/06 at 02:12 AM

[broadwaybelter]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 2:23am

Thank you both so much for being detailed with your reviews; they are both very interesting to read. I also loved the way you both offered cricism in a dignified manner. Overall, who would you reccommend this show to and why?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 2:31am

Thanks, Emcee, for such a well-considered, well-written review. You point up one of the main problems I had with the score -- while I thought Sheik's songs were solid, efficiently-crafted rock songs, within the show they functioned more to set the mood and the general feel at particular moments in the show, rather than serving to advance the plot or deepen the understanding of the characters, which ideally should be the function of theatre songs. Without that, the show ends up being a play with music -- an unsteady, unintegrated intermarriage of concert and drama -- rather than a true musical in which the music has not only an emotional, but also a narrative function within the overall piece. Sheik's music too often seemed like mere window-dressing for the play, rather than a fully organic and inextricable aspect of the whole. It's, as if you could remove all of the musical numbers and it would not diminish any of the storytelling -- something that you cannot do in any true musical.

I also felt that the transitions between the 19th century story and the more contemporary music weren't nearly as smoothly executed as they needed to be -- some of the anachronisms were downright jarring and took me out of the story entirely. There's a patchwork quality to the book, where lots of ideas and moments seemed to have been thrown on the stage more for effect than for their intrinsic place in the story.

I haven't seen the show since the Atlantic (I'll probably get around to it soon), but while I thought that it had a good deal of potential, it wasn't a fully realized work at that point. From your review, it sounds like they still have several things to work on.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 2:34am

The word "review" keeps disappearing from the thread title.

I'd recommend it to young people, I think, and to people who aren't bothered by a little bit of risque staging and to people who are willing to open themselves up to something that's fairly unconventional, fans of pop/rock theater, Duncan Sheik fans, etc, simply because of what it is. I think when it does tap into the really great understanding it has of what kids go through at that age, and what it's like to feel things you don't understand how to express, it does so with poignancy and dignity. Like I said, that's really hard to do. And also because the score is quite good. :) In a nutshell.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 2:34am

Interesting. Thanks guys for the reviews. It's nice to hear a review of the show that isn't "OMG!! THAT WAS THE BEST THING EVER!!!" I feel like this show deserves more than that. I haven't been in many Broadway theaters, but I thought the Eugene O'Neil was rather intimate feeling. I sat in the mezz and I felt really close to the onstage action. But Fantabulous, I'm not sure I understand your point. Should a good show be able to withstand minute detail type criticism?

[fengshuihellnyc]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 2:36am

What are they selling for merchandise? Is there a poster they are selling Yet?

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 2:43am

But Fantabulous, I'm not sure I understand your point. Should a good show be able to withstand minute detail type criticism?

Absolutely. My statement was more of a personal experience with the show, which I thought I would point out since Emcee (I think) sat through the show thinking about it. My point was that you don't always have to sit through a show thinking, "what's the point?"; different people operate in different ways. For me, I found the show easy to sit back and experience, rather than critiquing it throughout.

fengshuihellnyc, I saw that they were selling windowcards, shirts (I think), and Frank Wedekind's play. They had an entire table of stuff; I'm sure there was more than mentioned above.

Updated On: 11/18/06 at 02:43 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 2:43am

Thanks, Margo. And I agree with everything you said; some of the gentler anachronisms didn't bother me, but there were some that took me out a bit too much, and it's a fine line to walk. It's frustrating because the songs that work are beautiful, and I wish they were all up to the same standard, but there are songs that feel completely ridiculous up next to the better ones. They're completely out-of-character with the ones that I really came away loving. They felt like they could have been from a different show. Too many times did it go overboard with its modernity, I think.

Yes, there's a poster, but I didn't get a good look at it.

I know you asked Fantabulous, Rentboy, but as far as criticism on minute detail, I think that when a show is good on the whole, it's more suceptible to being critiqued on minute details, because there's more room to be nitpicky when it's not so easy to say the whole thing was awful.

Updated On: 11/18/06 at 02:43 AM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 2:47am

Good point Emcee. I just think it's a good thing to always ask "so what" and to question things. But again, just me. But maybe it's a good thing that you were so captivated by the world of the play that you didn't question things.

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 2:48am

Something mentioned in another thread yesterday was that the majority of the songs start becoming really strong and powerful, and then abruptly end. I agree 100%, and I understand the idea of leaving the audience wanting more, but sometimes I just really wanted more! I also found that a lot of the songs were rather short. Once they got going, they were over.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 2:50am

Well, I think it worth mention that I've begun to train myself to think as critically as I can, with what I hope is mild success. So, yes, I've come to sit through a show and just naturally hammer out exactly what I think of it and why.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 8:05am

Another wonderful read, Emcee. I'm seeing it this afternoon and will be sure to post my thoughts. I know more-or-less nothing about this show (besides the fact that the ticket cost $30 and there's sex on stage).

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 10:22am

Thanks!

Off-stage rush is $25. We got four seats together in one of the boxes, and the view was great.

[leefowler]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 10:32am

As I posted somewhere else, it's hard not to get a little frustrated with a stage full of 22-year-olds who don't know where babies come from.

But to put it simply, the main problem with this show is simply that the story is not very interesting, or convincing. The adults are caricatures, and the kids change character whenever they sing a song. This show will make a great CD, but I'm not sure it makes a great show.

[mijofly19]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 10:36am

Emcee, was the audience laughing during the beating scene again last night? They were hysterical over it when I went on Thursday night.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 10:37am

I was trying to figure this out last night; how old are the characters supposed to be? I was assuming that they were around sixteen. Of course, to be sixteen today and not know where babies come from isn't something many people would buy. But the story takes place over 100 years ago, and in that context, I think it's more believable. I think even if historically, parents didn't really did explain everything in the time and place where the show is set, the point still stands -- look at what happens to these kids living under repressive circumstances. They have no idea what they're doing, and the repression ultimately puts them in danger.

ETA -- I don't think they were quite rolling with laughter, but I did hear some. It's an awkward scene.

Updated On: 11/18/06 at 10:37 AM

[gumbo2]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 11:39am

I'm seeing it this afternoon. I got a $25 ticket on the stage. It should be interesting. Thanks for posting your thoughts.

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 11:41am

There was definitely some laughter here and there. There was immense laughter at Melchior's "I'll make you say please" line - which people who saw it at Atlantic said didn't typically get laughs. So, that was interesting.

Updated On: 11/18/06 at 11:41 AM

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 12:05pm

I saw this last night with Emcee and Fantabulous, and I think that between them they've already summed up everything I thought about the show. It was entertaining, but save for one scene, I didn't find myself emotionally invested at all. It's definitely the case that the show comes across as choppy in the transitions between the period book scenes and very contemporary music. This could have been much worse, though, as I usually find that that sort of juxtaposition to be disastrous. It was, in some cases, well-executed here, but most of the time it was jarring.

The score is quite good (lyrical qualms aside), and it's remarkably well-sung. I completely agree about finding the girls basically insufferable in their naiveté -- it felt as though they were playing much too young when compared with the men. To be perfectly honest, whenever any one of the girls (especially Lea Michelle) was speaking, I was hard-pressed not to imagine cartoon birds braiding her hair. I agree with Emcee that Lauren Pritchard's voice was distinct and interesting, which was a welcome change. The men, it seems to be agreed, fare much better, led by the impressive performances of Jonathan Groff, John Gallagher, Jr and Jonathan Wright. Gallagher and Pritchard's duet, as well as the following song, were the only moments where the show felt emotionally full to me. That scene raised my hopes for the rest of Act II, though they were unfortunately not fulfilled.
Updated On: 4/14/07 at 12:05 PM

[Pippin]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 12:31pm

any opinions of Gideon Glick from people who have seen it?

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 12:34pm

He was very good, although I have to say that Jonathan Wright owns the scene between the two. Glick was by no means bad, but gets a bit overlooked because the audience was eating out of the palm of Wright's hand.

Updated On: 11/18/06 at 12:34 PM

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 1:23pm

To answer LuvtheEmcee's question, 'Spring Awakening' is set 'in a provincial German town in the 1890s.'

And I agree with Fantabulous428: Glick is very good as Ernst, but Hanschen (played by Wright) gets the best lines. Coupled with his dry delivery, Wright really steals the scene.


Playbill.com: 'The Leading Men' - Jonathan B. Wright

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 1:24pm

I knew that; it says in the Playbill. I'm curious about the approximate ages, and if the girls are supposed to be the same age as the boys.

Updated On: 11/18/06 at 01:24 PM

[lady godiva]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 1:27pm

They are, I believe, approximately 14.