Emcee's Spring Awakening "review"- Page 2

[BRDWYrobb]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 1:36pm

i was at the shows first preview and can i say how much i loved it
there was so much energy and the music is amazing
i love shows that are very deep and so much feeling in them well SA has it all
although it touches on alot of subjects that can be argued about
its message and power is amazing
i can strongly suggest that you see it
The down side... some characters in the show are sort of left out and not really mentioned or parted in the show
and some important things were left undone but its amazing
GO SEE IT! :)

[shiksa_goddess]

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

I'm not sure how old all the girls are, but I do remember from reading the play that Wendla is 14, as Lady Godiva said.

Also, thanks for the reviews guys.

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 2:52pm

In the playbill Leading Men article that Wayman_Wong posted, Jonathan Wright said that Hanschen (and I'm assuming the rest of the boys) are 15. I suppose the year age difference plus the sheltered aspect led to them playing the girls as much younger. Unfortunately, it didn't really work well, as they tend to come off as rather flat and one-dimensional.

Updated On: 11/18/06 at 02:52 PM

[shiksa_goddess]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 2:56pm

The girls in the play really do seem young, but not having seen the musical I can't atest to how well the actresses played "young and naive." Did they have the scene where Wendla asks her mother where babies come from?

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 3:03pm

Yes, that was the opening scene.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 3:03pm

Yup, that's the opening of the show; she says she doesn't believe in the stork and wants her mother to tell her everything, which her mother neglects to do. She tells her that a baby is made if a woman loves her husband, hence Wendla not knowing that she risks getting pregnant by having sex, if she can even put a term to the act.

I think they played the young naivete in too much of an overstated manner. I understand that it has to be clear to get the point of the story across, but again, I just felt like I was watching high school students; and even though these kids *are* young, they're on Broadway. I was disappointed that I felt like I was watching people in my own high school, or something. They all have great voices and this is probably too critical, but that's not enough. They weren't believable, but rather caricatures of naive young girls. That doesn't get emotional investment from an audience.

[uncageg]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 5:02pm

Sweetestsiren, you hit a nail on the head for me. I saw it at the Atlantic. And I remember thinking that even with the very intimate space and as close as I was to the stage(second row), the show did not have the emotional impact I had expected. And this hit me early on in the show. At that point I decided to just sit back and let the show wash over me and pick it apart later. I left the show loving it. Even with its flaws. We saw it the night before it officially opened Off-Broadway and I was sitting next to friends of Mr. Sater and he was talking to them about a transfer to a bigger house. I don't think they were thinking Broadway at the time.(Which he mentioned to me at intermission when I spoke with him) and I thought to mysef, "I don't know. I like it just where it is"! (But I think that the show could only play there for a certain amount of time as it was) My friend and I both agreed that it would probably lose something in a bigger house. I am also wondering if the cast is just adjusting to being on Broadway in a bigger theatre and will get better with time. I really hope this show does well because it has some beautiful music and although the storyline is pretty simple, I think it will go over well with teens. It is different and a bit daring. I think that it is a show that you just take it for what it is, don't pick it apart and you will enjoy it. I understand the comments about the lyrics to the songs not moving the story along, but I just took it as the characters expressing what was on their minds during the scenes in which they were sung. So the songs, for me didn't necessarily have to move the show along, they just let you know what the characters were thinking for the most part. I can't wait for the Cast recording. The final song was one of the most beautiful songs I have heard and it gave me goosebumps having the cast standing right there in front of me singing their hearts out. JMO. Sorry for rambling yet again!

[gumbo2]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 5:43pm

I saw it this afternoon and I really liked it. I agree that a couple of the transitions from scene to song were a little...strange, but it didn't bother me too much. I don't know, I didn't absolutely love it, but I definitely thought it was very good.

[toomeytwopiece]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 6:07pm

agree about the acting... some great - some not so great

the biggest problem is that it didn't seem to be about telling a story... the story suffers because it's a showcase for Sheik's music... which I like, but doesn't tell the story... it makes emotional insinuations along the lines of what the story is about, but the emotions don't build to the songs... they are embodied by them and then dropped...

great singing - Jonathan B Wright steals the show - he's wonderful.... totally envious - NOT jealous... I love when someone is that good and deserves the praise!! :)

-BCR

[inishmore]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 11:46pm

So, I felt very differently than most people about the acting/the girls seeming so young. To me, the heightened sense of naivete of the girls was exactly right for the age group they should be portraying - 14-15ish in 1890s when the play itself takes place, and therefore where the mentality and sensibility come from. The girls would have been so sheltered from knowledge and seem considerably younger than boys of the same age.
Though the show has been updated for an easier feel to audiences and make the point that the issues are still relevant today, its characters are still of the perspective of the 1890s with all the societal restrictions and to me these young actors played that wonderfully.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 12:11am

Well add me to the list of people who loved this show. I saw it the other day and really knew nothing about it so I went in not knowing what to expect. I amazed myself with just HOW much I adored this show. It has perhaps the best new score of any musical I've heard in a very long time and I'm itching for a CD to be released. I'm tired, otherwise I'd write more but I just wanted to chime in and say this truly was an exceptional show. GO SEE IT!

NOW!

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 12:30am

This is what's difficult about the points I'm making; I'm not saying the girls SHOULDN'T be naive or that the naivete doesn't fit the age and time period. It does. But I don't think the actors aren't doing a good job of capturing it without becoming walking stereotypes. There's realism and then there's realistic caricature.

Can't wait for the CD. :)

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 12:34am

I think people are going to walk into this show loving it just because of the expectations...

I personally don't *get* the hype from the clips, not because they aren't good, but because they don't sound like they are part of a Broadway show. Call me a plot mover.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 2:33am

I think that's why teens are drawn to the show. Most people don't realize that musical theater is so much more than just "oklahoma" or "West Side Story." not saying those are bad shows, but its nice to hear something that you might hear on the radio on stage.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 2:53am

I think the music is a big draw, definitely. I also think the concert-like moments work, because it's that distinct world of what they're *really* thinking during these moments of public repression. But I don't think that proving that musical theater can have a contemporary rock sound and not just be Oklahoma! and WSS is an excuse for lack of plot-driven songs, which I do wish Spring Awakening had more of. You can have plot and character driven music that still has a contemporary feel. A true musical, as Margo said, incorporates the music into its plot, as opposed to setting it aside.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 3:19am

Em- That was a very well written out review

[inishmore]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 11:57am

I don't think they intended to have any plot driven numbers. The emotions and ideas and thoughts are what the show is saying transcends time, hence the reason that they are modern and rock numbers and that the book, the actual plot and for most part the dialog are not updated. I think because the story isn't modern if they put in plot-driven songs to advance the story it would ruin the balance of the concept itself.

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 12:09pm

I saw the show last night and loved it. The fact that the songs didn't drive the plot forward didn't bother me at all. In a way it reminded me of Threepenny in that aspect. Maybe she just had a really good night, but I though Lea Michele was great, and Lauren Pritchard had a great voice, but her acting was the worst in my opinion.

[leefowler]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 1:14pm

It didn't bother me that the songs didn't push the plot forward...but it did bother me that the songs seemed to have very little connection to the plot or the characters singing. If these songs were redistributed amongst the characters, it would make as much sense. It's a little like trying to read from a volume of 19th century drama while the guy who lives next door to you is blasting an Alice In Chains CD.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 1:36pm

Thank you, neddy.

Inishmore, no, I don't think they intended for it either, and that's fine. My point is that sometimes that works VERY well and sometimes not so. Leefowler's example is great, and I agree that the show does often very well avoid stepping into that. I think that if the concept is going to ride on the injection of concert-like moments, though, there needs to be compensation for places where the plot feels underdeveloped, though.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 1:39pm

My review, which I gladly shill:

Yes, the O'Neill is one of the smaller houses, but Spring Awakening is swallowed up whole. Perhaps the Helen Hayes would have been a better choice to keep the intimacy that I had been told about. The only people who can truly connect are sitting on the stage. The orchestra was mostly full, the mezzanine nearly completely empty.

Spring Awakening is not a perfect show by any means. Why it transferred is something I'd like to mull over for a few hours longer. It's perfect in an off-Broadway atmosphere. The show tries to be a mix of Rent and History Boys, both via staging (with characters playing the piano) and emotions. In comparing this with the early days of Rent, the emotions aren't even comparable. Rent wins out, no contest. In comparing it with the recent Rent casts, Spring Awakening wins.

The cast is still finding their footing on Broadway, can't really judge them too harshly. They had great voices, which made up for any acting problems some of them have had. Amongst the standouts are John Gallagher, Jr. as Moritz (who I'm boldly predicting will garner at least a Tony nomination), as well as the two Adult figures, Christine Estabrook and Stephen Spinella (in a part that seems designed to have Anthony Heald play it once). Estabrook and Spinella seemed the most at ease with each other and got the bulk of the laughs. Jonathan Groff and Lea Michele are very good, but not great. They have lovely voices, but they, like the rest, just aren't very convincing. As a whole, though, they work their butts off. For that, they should be commended. Kudos, also, to Lea who exposes her breasts on stage. The scene, at the end of Act One, was originally written as a rape; here it appears consensual.

Duncan Sheik's score is, dare I say, one of the best rock scores I've heard on Broadway to date. Amongst the highlights were "The Bitch of Living," and "Totally F**ked," the two songs the producers are banking on to sell the show. Many of the songs, it seemed, can stand alone, and, if the right Boy/Girl band or soloist takes them on, can be an off the charts hit. I believe that is another problem - the music is able to stand-alone too well and rarely connects with the story, which brings Steven Sater's book down.

Many of the scenes are too disjointed, others completely irrelevent, yet you can still seem to follow them. It could be the actors being unconvincing, but it seems that there are too many of the irrelevent storylines - Moritz and Ilse, Hanschen and Ernst. They come out of nowhere, don't further the plot (it seems the latter is there to show homosexual love rather than heterosexual, which is explicitly seen at the end of Act 1), and is severly underdeveloped except for one line here-and-there. I wouldn't have minded it if only it was expanded. Right now, they don't fit. It seems like they're only there because they were in the original version (and seemed to fit in just as poorly in that).

The story, with back-door abortions and teen suicide, is extremely relevent today. Perhaps they should have set the show in 2006. The 1890s Germany thing doens't do anything besides have a few constant jokes about character names. The problem with the modern wording and the setting, as I'm sure many others have pointed out, is the idea of "would they really say "Oh My God" or "You're Screwed" back in 1890s Germany?"

Kimberly Grigsby, as usual, leads a terrificly tight band. She's still dancing to the music and is fun to watch every now and then, perhaps moreso than the cast. The only difference is that she's fully clothed this time. Christine Jones' set is great, as are Susan Hilferty's costumes. Kevin Adams has spectacularly lit the show. They're all bound for award nominations.

The audience had no idea what to make of the show. They were nearly emotionless throughout except for after a few songs. They gave a near 5-minute standing ovation to an empty stage, though. Someone needs to tell the cast that when people applaud, don't leave them hanging.

The cast was extremely friendly at the stage door (didn't stay long enough to see if Stephen came out and Christine Estabrook ran away when nobody was looking). Also very friendly was another Christine, Christine the doorwoman who is always a joy to talk to.

I don't really know what the problems were, or, what I even thought of the show, to be honest. I'm still mulling it over. There was just something lacking. Updated On: 11/19/06 at 01:39 PM

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 2:34pm

Haven't seen it on Broadway yet, I've seen it at the Atlantic. I just wanted to point out that some of the criticisms people are having is what I loved about the show. I am familiar with the play and perhaps I am biased because of it. Even so, the play is episodic and monologue-driven with no clear throughline (or about as clear as the musical's). I think that the musical adapted the spirit of the show amazingly well with the book keeping the choppy episodic feeling and the music replacing the enormous monologues. Maybe this doesn't really translate well on a Broadway stage, but I think it did well in an Off-Broadway space.

~Steven

[TomMonster]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 2:49pm

I agree MrMusic. I haven't seen the B-dway transfer yet, but I felt the same way about the Altantic production. It really follows the tone of the play which might cause some problems for today's audiences...

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 2:52pm

The intimacy of the show is lost at the O'Neill, unless you're on stage or maybe in the first 5-7 rows. The mezzanine was empty yesterday and the space seems cavernous for this tiny show. If anything, they should have transferred to the Hayes.

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 2:54pm

I dunno, I was farther back then 7 rows, and it still felt pretty intimate to me.