#26
Posted: 9/12/08 at 4:43pm
I would bet a large sum of money that SA will be gone by the end of 2009 (if not sooner).
One last attempt to keep SA open? — Page 2
#27
Posted: 9/12/08 at 4:51pm
The stupid thing on the part of the producers was who they chose for their 1st attempt at stunt casting. Hunter Parrish is a supporting actor on a high-end cable channel show that's watched by the PARENTS of SA's target audience.
Maybe they cast Hunter for his talent and because he's right for the role, not his name.
Novel, I know.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
Maybe they cast Hunter for his talent and because he's right for the role, not his name.
Novel, I know.
#28
Posted: 9/12/08 at 4:57pm
Did it recoup yet?
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
#30
Posted: 9/12/08 at 5:32pm
Oh well, everything after that is just icing.
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
#31
Posted: 9/12/08 at 9:01pm
I saw it last night for the first time, and while the physical production (directing, lighting, choreography, etc) is beautiful - the actors were pretty awful. Hunter Parrish could indeed sing alright, but his acting was so stiff and boring. He looked very uncomfortable and was concentrating so much on singing. He didn't remain in character when he sang because he was so concentrated on breath support, etc. Also, the girl playing Wendla was so small and unnoticeable. I would often forget she was onstage in the bigger numbers. She should have an attraction. She looks far too young. The supporting cast was better, but I felt like the casting directors shot themselves in the foot. They set the bar too low. All the actors are young, yes, but are totally unexperienced. I felt like i was watching a high school production. All the really dramatic moments got laughs from the crowd instead of shocked silence. I kept thinking, why would they make Melchoir - the lead - the most boring character? Then I realized it was just how Parrish was playing him. I thought Matt Doyle was the best of the bunch, and the only one to actually finish school - go figure. The cast didn't seem to connect with the material at all. The "rocking out" in "mamma who bore me" seemed staged instead of organic. They're too young to understand what they're saying at times, and even if that's not true, then they at least need to go back and read the lines. I mean, I have a feeling if I asked them "what the hell is Purple Summer about?" They'd say "I don't know" or give me some cutesy generic answer. And what is that song about? And what does "...snowballs go blind" even mean? I think at times that the lyrics are far too poetic to understand. What is "The Mirror Blue Night" about? Sex?
#32
Posted: 9/12/08 at 9:27pm
Alexandra Socha looks too young? You know Wendla is supposed to be about fourteen, right?
The actors are all several years older than the characters they play -- some of them are in their early 20's. So I doubt they're "too young to understand what they're saying." I think it's a matter of going through the motions more than it is not getting it. You repeat something so many times, eventually you're just saying it, not really breathing life into it -- unless you really keep your momentum up. But I do agree that some of the energy has gone stale. That was one of the things I enjoyed about it the first time I saw it (I liked the show much better overall the second time though, go figure). I just felt like seeing it now after only seeing it before at the second Broadway preview, I really knew I was watching what happens to a show during that transition from hot new phenomenon to long-running staple.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
The actors are all several years older than the characters they play -- some of them are in their early 20's. So I doubt they're "too young to understand what they're saying." I think it's a matter of going through the motions more than it is not getting it. You repeat something so many times, eventually you're just saying it, not really breathing life into it -- unless you really keep your momentum up. But I do agree that some of the energy has gone stale. That was one of the things I enjoyed about it the first time I saw it (I liked the show much better overall the second time though, go figure). I just felt like seeing it now after only seeing it before at the second Broadway preview, I really knew I was watching what happens to a show during that transition from hot new phenomenon to long-running staple.
#33
Posted: 9/12/08 at 9:39pm
Wasn't Vanessa Anne Hudgens rumored about joining the show?
#34
Posted: 9/13/08 at 12:57am
Maybe "too young" was the wrong word, but she doesn't seem to fit her character's description. When her mother says in the beginning, "you've just begin to blossom" - I didn't see much of anything blossoming. I don't know, it just feels different. With Leah Michelle, Wendla was "bah-damn" on the hotness scale. She was like the girl next door, innocent, but sexy. Whereas Alexandra just didn't seem to have the stage presence to captivate me. Her voice was so soft, and even her singing voice would get lost in the theater. Just not my cup of tea. Also, I didn't care for the ending - with the graves. I thought it didn't quite suit what happened for the past two hours.
And please explain "Purple Summer."
And please explain "Purple Summer."
#35
Posted: 9/13/08 at 1:25am
The new cast got a highly favorable review from Clive Barnes in Friday's paper.
#36
Posted: 9/13/08 at 1:32am
Why do I have to explain it? I can give my interpretation of it, I'm just confused as to why you want me to do it. 
I liked Alexandra a lot. She was believable as young and naive, whereas to me, Lea Michele had this "yeah, I'm hot" thing about her that just... did not fit Wendla at all. She actually seemed too old, to me, also. Wendla isn't supposed to be "sexy." She's supposed to be innocent, naive and sheltered (which I never bought Lea as) -- but most importantly, curious. Perhaps beautiful, but if she doesn't know what sex is, it's projecting to say she should be sexy -- especially consciously so, the way I felt Lea's Wendla was. And "just beginning to blossom" doesn't mean she has to be played by a girl with a huge rack or something. That's way too literal. She's fourteen! She's growing up, she's not a child anymore. I found Alexandra to be a little bit too unassuming on stage at times, and definitely not as present as Lea, but I think her performance is much more in tune with what the role is supposed to be than where Lea ended up going with it. I seem to be in the minority on that, though, so JMO.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
I liked Alexandra a lot. She was believable as young and naive, whereas to me, Lea Michele had this "yeah, I'm hot" thing about her that just... did not fit Wendla at all. She actually seemed too old, to me, also. Wendla isn't supposed to be "sexy." She's supposed to be innocent, naive and sheltered (which I never bought Lea as) -- but most importantly, curious. Perhaps beautiful, but if she doesn't know what sex is, it's projecting to say she should be sexy -- especially consciously so, the way I felt Lea's Wendla was. And "just beginning to blossom" doesn't mean she has to be played by a girl with a huge rack or something. That's way too literal. She's fourteen! She's growing up, she's not a child anymore. I found Alexandra to be a little bit too unassuming on stage at times, and definitely not as present as Lea, but I think her performance is much more in tune with what the role is supposed to be than where Lea ended up going with it. I seem to be in the minority on that, though, so JMO.
Updated On: 9/13/08 at 01:32 AM
#37
Posted: 9/13/08 at 1:35am
And so, in an effort to keep ticket sales up, Matthew Murray of TalkinBroadway.com has gone and re-reviewed the show:
'...Director Michael Mayer maintained a vague grip on the show when it first opened Off-Broadway at the Atlantic Theater Company just over two years ago, keeping his cast just barely reined in as their teenage characters railed against demanding parents, corrupt teachers, and blossoming erotic impulses in late-1890s Germany. When that production hit Broadway a few months later, Mayer had all but given up, and allowed the cast to devolve into malfunctioning animatronics with grimacing line readings and more mugging than Central Park in the 1980s.
The last time I saw the full original cast, in May 2007, even the two or three actors who had previously resisted overacting had succumbed, completing the show's transformation from countercultural message concert into a repulsive grotesquerie of the absolute worst Broadway had to offer. The only sensible conclusion was that, at some point between the Atlantic and the Eugene O'Neill, Mayer had told everyone to play bigger: They did and they never, ever stopped, even when they started orbiting Neptune.
That message, however, hasn't filtered down to the new folks. Well, not thoroughly: There are still a few cases when someone utters one of Sater's lines or lyrics or executes one of Bill T. Jones's percussive dance moves with two or three times the enthusiasm that is strictly necessary. But such occurrences are thankfully now the exception rather than the rule.
Nowhere is this renewed focus more evident than with Moritz, the overworked and undersexed student John Gallagher, Jr. envisioned as a criminal psychotic A.W.O.L. from the shock therapy ward. Gerard Canonico plays him like - gasp - a sane but confused young man who hasn't yet learned the crucial art of balance, but who nonetheless seems to be fueled by human sensitivity. More important, his frequent complaints about his increasingly overburdened life ring as desperate cries for help rather than merely affected adenoidal whining...'
http://www.talkinbroadway.com/world/SpringAwakening2008.html
'...Director Michael Mayer maintained a vague grip on the show when it first opened Off-Broadway at the Atlantic Theater Company just over two years ago, keeping his cast just barely reined in as their teenage characters railed against demanding parents, corrupt teachers, and blossoming erotic impulses in late-1890s Germany. When that production hit Broadway a few months later, Mayer had all but given up, and allowed the cast to devolve into malfunctioning animatronics with grimacing line readings and more mugging than Central Park in the 1980s.
The last time I saw the full original cast, in May 2007, even the two or three actors who had previously resisted overacting had succumbed, completing the show's transformation from countercultural message concert into a repulsive grotesquerie of the absolute worst Broadway had to offer. The only sensible conclusion was that, at some point between the Atlantic and the Eugene O'Neill, Mayer had told everyone to play bigger: They did and they never, ever stopped, even when they started orbiting Neptune.
That message, however, hasn't filtered down to the new folks. Well, not thoroughly: There are still a few cases when someone utters one of Sater's lines or lyrics or executes one of Bill T. Jones's percussive dance moves with two or three times the enthusiasm that is strictly necessary. But such occurrences are thankfully now the exception rather than the rule.
Nowhere is this renewed focus more evident than with Moritz, the overworked and undersexed student John Gallagher, Jr. envisioned as a criminal psychotic A.W.O.L. from the shock therapy ward. Gerard Canonico plays him like - gasp - a sane but confused young man who hasn't yet learned the crucial art of balance, but who nonetheless seems to be fueled by human sensitivity. More important, his frequent complaints about his increasingly overburdened life ring as desperate cries for help rather than merely affected adenoidal whining...'
http://www.talkinbroadway.com/world/SpringAwakening2008.html
"Y'know, I think Bertolt Brecht was rolling in his grave."
-Nellie McKay on the 2006 Broadway production of The Threepenny Opera, in which she played Polly Peachum
-Nellie McKay on the 2006 Broadway production of The Threepenny Opera, in which she played Polly Peachum
#38
Posted: 9/13/08 at 1:40am
He didn't remain in character when he sang because he was so concentrated on breath support, etc.
...Yes, because 19th century characters pulling microphones out of their pockets to break the fourth wall and sing rock songs to the audience is COMPLETELY in character.
...Yes, because 19th century characters pulling microphones out of their pockets to break the fourth wall and sing rock songs to the audience is COMPLETELY in character.
Like a firework unexploded
Wanting life but never knowing how
Wanting life but never knowing how
#39
Posted: 9/13/08 at 1:41am
And so, in an effort to keep ticket sales up, Matthew Murray of TalkinBroadway.com has gone and re-reviewed the show:
It wasn't just him. It looks like a few other press folks were also re-invited.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/arts/2008/09/12/2008-09-12_spring_awakening_is_still_stirring.html
http://www.theatermania.com/content/news.cfm/story/15243
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09122008/entertainment/theater/awakening_rises__shines_with_new_stars_128670.htm
It wasn't just him. It looks like a few other press folks were also re-invited.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/arts/2008/09/12/2008-09-12_spring_awakening_is_still_stirring.html
http://www.theatermania.com/content/news.cfm/story/15243
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09122008/entertainment/theater/awakening_rises__shines_with_new_stars_128670.htm
"This thread reads like a series of White House memos." — Mister Matt
Updated On: 9/13/08 at 01:41 AM
#40
Posted: 9/13/08 at 4:58am
skittles, that's a theatrical convention that is maintained throughout the show. With the second song, the creative team has set up those "rules," and they follow them. I can buy that. I understand it's suppose to a matched up of time periods. But, I felt like I was watching someone bad karaoke who was forced to go up there and sing. He was better on some songs, but for the most part all of his big solos lagged.
And I disagree with the review posted. Maybe they didn't "overact," but they were stale and lifeless. I didn't feel like any of them connected with the material. They just sort of sang the parts and hit the marks and that's it.
It just seems like the casting directors were trying to be really "innovative" and cast people that were fairly young, but it backfired. The kids are under-experienced. I'm sorry, but I feel like a Broadway show should be the best of the best, and this is def. not that.
And I disagree with the review posted. Maybe they didn't "overact," but they were stale and lifeless. I didn't feel like any of them connected with the material. They just sort of sang the parts and hit the marks and that's it.
It just seems like the casting directors were trying to be really "innovative" and cast people that were fairly young, but it backfired. The kids are under-experienced. I'm sorry, but I feel like a Broadway show should be the best of the best, and this is def. not that.
#41
Posted: 9/13/08 at 4:59am
And Em, I wasn't asking you to explain it, but more of an open question to everyone. After the song ended, I just felt like "Say what?" I didn't think the direction helped to clarify the song to anyone either - as with some of the other songs.
#42
Posted: 9/13/08 at 6:22am
it is not going to close anytime soon.
they have recouped, so everything they make is profit now.
(and the weekly operating cost of SA is no where near what they are grossing even on their bad weeks)
they have recouped, so everything they make is profit now.
(and the weekly operating cost of SA is no where near what they are grossing even on their bad weeks)
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95