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

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:40am

If it were just a concert performance of the score, I would go back to see it for $20, if only to hear 3-4 of those songs again.

And BSo - yes. I don't understand how a series of truly awful events could leave me so emotionally empty. My friend mentioned that she was offended that I felt nothing for the plight of certain characters, but why should I? They were so underdeveloped and lacked any emotional connection to the audience that I was left feeling just an emptiness.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:42am

Okay, I have to tell this story. I'm sorry I'm threadjacking.

When I was about... eleven, I saw Forrest Gump for the first time. I watched it with my mom and my brother. I spent about a third of the film with my head underneath a blanket, because my mother kept making me go hide out underneath it during each scene she thought remotely inappropriate. Needless to say, I spent years having no clue that many main plot points existed. That kind of symbolized my blindness to a great many things.

Updated On: 2/20/07 at 01:42 AM

[Anakela]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:42am

And thank you, Anakela (and BSo - I loved reading your opinions on Chess a week ago)! I'm happy for everyone who seems to just love this show. Obviously, I'm in the minority with regards to public and critical opinion!

You're quite welcome- believe me, I know of being in the minority when it comes to popular opinion. I absolutely did not like the movie Babel, and have spent the past two months at least explaining how much I didn't like it. Good for those who liked it, but nope, still not a fan.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:44am

I think the music just never built to a dramatic conclusion.

And PURPLE SUMMER is really a missed opportunity. It really makes no sense. If there were some explanation of it in the show, then maybe...but the song itself, like many other songs, is just dry.

The only characters I felt anything for were Martha and Moritz.

ETA: Emcee, I get that. Where was the song? They could have used CHILDREN WILL LISTEN and had more emotional punch... Updated On: 2/20/07 at 01:44 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:48am

Wait, huh?

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:54am

I absolutely think it's a ridiculous notion for a fourteen-year-old in modern times, but back then? Definitely feasible. I'm relatively certain of the historical accuracy behind those ideas. When this is all framed in a time when stuff was completely different, I'm just not sure I understand how you can say it's not at all believable, unless I'm misunderstanding.

I find it unbelievable that a 14-year-old girl who is sleeping with someone who obviously knows about sex and pregnancy would be left completely in the dark, yes. He obviously knew that he'd be, for the lack of a better word, f*cked if she got pregnant, so without getting too graphic, why wouldn't he try to take some precautions? In taking said precautions, I'm sure he would have had to explain it at some point. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that even in a repressed society, word of all things sex-related wouldn't spread at all in school. Anyway, I think we're debating semantics, and I suppose none of this matters if you don't actually believe that Wendla is truly clueless about sex - which is what truly happened to me (and even the person sitting near me). To me, the opening number showed a girl who was trying to get maybe a few more details about sex out of her mother, or perhaps trying to playfully toy with her mother on some level, not a girl who truly had absolutely no idea how pregnancy occurs. It might be a problem with Michele's acting, the staging, the book, the song, or all of the above.

I think there's something more intentionally sympathetic in total naivete than there is just an accidental pregnancy due to a reckless act.

Perhaps a bit, but I would feel equally bad for Wendla if she had tried to take precautions with Melchior and failed. Either way she's stuck in an awful situation. I do understand where you're coming from with regards to needing a stereotypical character. I personally believe a teenager who does vaguely understand her sexuality but still ends up in a bad position because she was never properly educated about the subject offers the same "you shouldn't guard your children" moral, but again, that's my personal belief and probably another semantics debate. Again, I personally didn't feel certain attributes of her character were believable in the first place, and I'd like to see that problem addressed at its source.

ETA: Sorry to bring the thread back to such seriousness again; I'm obviously a bit behind. Updated On: 2/20/07 at 01:54 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:01am

Well, okay, those are two different things. I think keeping kids in the dark is very believably a common historical practice. But I do see where that could fall through once she got involved with Melchior, who was more enlightened than she was. As far as historical evidence, though, there's quite a bit of for widespread sexual repression as part of the Western European identity at that time, to the point that some were often feared to be "sexless" cultures.

And yes, I think what you're referring to is a problem with Michele's acting -- I never saw that as the way the character was written. But I also think she's not much of an actress. I think you're supposed to believe that she is actually almost completely clueless, and I would fault a failure in that aspect to the actress.

I also see what you're saying about feeling equally bad for the characters in one of two given situations; but one serves the purpose of the show a lot better than the other, I think, and emotional manipulation (for lack of better phrasing) isn't the only thing to consider in creating a plot or choosing between two options.

Updated On: 2/20/07 at 02:01 AM

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:11am

Right, I don't doubt your historical knowledge, but she's banging some guy who is obviously extremely knowledgable about sex. It's a reasonable assumption that he probably spilled some of his knowledge at some point, or at least that she'd ask. Based on the book scenes, their relationship was obviously more than purely sex.

I think you're supposed to believe that she is actually almost completely clueless, and I would fault a failure in that aspect to the actress.

I do think that the reason I mentioned above is a slight flaw in the book, and I don't think that the fact that she's supposedly clueless is made as explicit as it should be. But yes, Michele's acting was not as direct or effective as it could or should be.

I think the "clueless" storyline makes the moral more explicit, sure, but the moral is there either way, and what does it matter if the fact that she's truly clueless isn't made explicit itself or necessarily believable? Additionally, I don't think the "not really clueless but precautions failed" is the only way to remedy this problem - I was just throwing it out there. Give me a week and I could probably come up with an alternate idea, or at least I'd hope that the actual writers could. I think this entire idea is just... weak, and a skilled writer could fit the emotionally vacant songs around another plot. They do it with Chess all the time (did I just call Chess emotionally vacant? Awful comparison on my part!).

Anyway, I think this is a lot of circular arguing - you buy the plot point for various resaons, I don't buy it for various reasons. I do think that we can agree that it's so far from the only problem with this show, though, and not even the main one (in my opinion, an emotionally vacant show is). Updated On: 2/20/07 at 02:11 AM

[stagegrrrl]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:23am

wow. there's so much to argue with i don't really know where to start.
well first off i am sorry that you didn't like the show.
i do take issue with a couple of things.
however it is late and i have to go to bed.
maybe i will argue with you tomorrow.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:23am

I wouldn't call Melchior "extremely" knowledgeable, though. He knows more than she does, but if the intent is that she knows nothing, then how much can he possibly know? There's still some level of naivete within him, though, because he does have that whole notion of wanting fairly innocently to be with her -- it's "I love you, let's be together," not "I might be putting you at risk." He may be aware of the latter, but I think the former is much more present in his mind, and probably what he's had more conditioning toward. The way the male characters talk about the girls kind of indicates that their "knowledge" is about what sex is emotionally and psychologically and only biologically or physically on the very basic level of... what you stick where. When the parents say that Melchior knew what he was doing, I'm not sure I believe that to be "he knew he could get her pregnant," but rather that he knows what sex is, how to do it and that it gives them pleasure -- all that. I don't know, though, since you're not looking at the explicit elements of the story. I think she literally does not know what they are doing -- that's very concrete because you're working with nothing and there's fairly little wiggle room within the idea of zero. Figuring out what Melchior knows is a little bit harder because... does he know there's a risk of pregnancy? (That could be mentioned in the book and I'm just not remembering.) Or does he just know what sex is in terms of what he is doing to her (i.e. penetration). I think he sees it as a way to connect with her, in addition to something forbidden -- but does he know why it's forbidden? This gets messy because there are probably a million interpretations, and now we're dealing with implications as opposed to explications, you know?

Anyway, I have to go write something about Company (totally switching gears) and get to bed. But this was interesting.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:27am

I stopped reading when the posts got long.

I think the play has inherit problems that are hard for a modern audience to grasp.

Then you have a score which sort of takes you out of the moment, without really advancing the plot, but instead it advances character.

It would have been interesting if they developed other characters and gave them their own character type songs, varying the tone.

THE DARK I KNOW WELL really is my favorite song, though.

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:33am

maybe i will argue with you tomorrow.

I don't know if this was tongue-in-cheek, but I'm not here to debate every single point about Spring Awakening with its numerous fans, despite what it might look like I did tonight. I don't have the energy to debate every single point with every fan; my opinions about this show are obviously pretty strong and likely won't be changed, but of course you're free to give an opposing opinion. Please don't expect me to nitpick every point, though.

Anyway... okay, whoa, big paragraph. I guess we could debate the semantics of the word "extremely," but the guy was drawing diagrams of female sex organs from the "top to bottom" of the margins of his essay. He obviously has quite a bit of intimate knowledge about the female body. As for whether Melchior knows only about the visceral elements of sex while not knowing about pregnancy, I honestly don't think anyone can answer that question for sure. Personally, I think the reasonable assumption would be to think that he does, based on his character's rebellious disposition combined with his thirst for intelligence. I'm sure you could make the argument (well, I guess you have ) that he doesn't. I personally see more in the way of supporting the argument that he does know about pregnancy. While he does seem very "I love you, let's be together" in his attitude, it's not exactly a leap to assume that the guy wanted to get laid and wasn't giving enough thought to potential consequences, either.

I really, really think this is starting to get too much into in-depth assumptions rather than what's given to us as an audience, though. There are completely valid arguments for any potential scenario with regards to all of this, but I suppose it's interesting if nothing else. Anyway, I'm heading to bed as well. Hope you have a good night!

ETA: Just thinking about this a bit more - Melchior doesn't exactly act altogether confused when Wendla's letter mentions that she's going to have a baby - shocked, sure, but he doesn't say anything like, "wow, how did that happen?!" I really do think that the natural assumption is that Melchior knows about sex and its potential consequences. Updated On: 2/20/07 at 02:33 AM

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:36am

Well, in the original he rapes her.

And it started with her saying no, so...

[kgallo]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 7:11am

There are 2 points that I'd like to make:

1. Let's not forget that Wendla is not the only character who is clueless about sex. Moritz is so confused by it that it is affecting him on a daily basis. This is the way Wedekind wrote the play (for both characters) so that it what was translated onto stage.

2. Both in the past and present days there has been much sexual repression in other societies. Currently there are several countries that have either restrictions or bans on condoms/condom use. What would make us all think that "precautions" would be readily available to Melchior. I think that is the way that we think today and in our society (and rightfully so) but I think if we put ourselves in 1890 Germany than we are way off base.

Posted: 2/20/07 at 8:42am

2. Both in the past and present days there has been much sexual repression in other societies. Currently there are several countries that have either restrictions or bans on condoms/condom use. What would make us all think that "precautions" would be readily available to Melchior. I think that is the way that we think today and in our society (and rightfully so) but I think if we put ourselves in 1890 Germany than we are way off base.

Um. I didn't really feel like getting into this specifically, but ever heard of the pull out method?

ETA: I feel like those trying to defend this show are picking out the most minute points. My overall dislike of the show stems from overarching issues with the show, not nitpicky details. I don't think that Melchior deciding to pull out on Wendla has too much of an impact on one's enjoyment of the show. Updated On: 2/20/07 at 08:42 AM

[snl89]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 9:08am

^to be honest, I think you're probably right- and thats probably because there really ISNT much rebuttal for the bigger problems you stated that made you dislike the show. Like I said before, many of those points I can completely see where you come from- I just dont happen to feel the same way :) I think that a lot of it is just personal opinion. Some people are bound to like it and other people are bound to think its poorly done. I personally thought the show was extremely well crafted, well acted and, despite some flaws, I really cared about the characters in the end. There seem to be a fairly good sized group of people who didn't feel that way though, so you're def not alone

I still find it kind of interesting though- in all the reviews I've read, I've read plenty of people say they were left cold by the show, but no one's said it's too depressing or anything. Not that I feel it is, it's just funny because you'd think people would feel a variety of different ways about it, whether they like it or not. But the main ones I've heard are that they either loved it or where left cold by it (but maybe still liked some of the music- at least a few songs)

Updated On: 2/20/07 at 09:08 AM

Posted: 2/20/07 at 9:12am

but no one's said it's too depressing or anything

Really, you'd be hard-pressed to find an intelligent theatre-goer who would write something off as "too depressing." I think finding that a series of emotionally awful events happen to the characters while one feels little to nothing for the characters is a much worse - and intelligent - criticism.

[Lauren_T]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 9:15am

All I have to say is that rave reviews, people going to see it 4-5 times within weeks, Magazine and News paper articles, Television spots, radio interviews, tony buzz, and live poerformances don't happen because a show is "horrendous." I guess you are in the group of the very very few people who dont like spring awakening. The show is brilliant, fresh, new, and exciting. The music is best Broadway score in an very long time. Its the best show on Broadway in a long time!!! And hey, people hate Wicked! lol I love SA a lot and it's Broadway life will be a very very long one! :)

[Princeton78]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 9:23am

Siamese Dream...
I say "Good for you!" This board has been taken over with SA love to the point where the Wicked threads seem to have all but dissapeared. Your points are valid, and your writing is eloquent. I had a very similar reaction to the show. I did not go in with a chip on my shoulder and I really, really, REALLY wanted to like it because I had heard so many wonderful things about it, but in the end it failed to move me and I honestly can't see why it's recieving all the critical and audience praise that it is.

Posted: 2/20/07 at 9:25am

Lauren, I'm glad you liked the show, but what is even the point of a response like that? Because you have to immediately combat any negative energy that I stirred up by my post? I openly acknowledged that I'm obviously in the minority with regards to my opinion about the show, given the critical and popular response, although the fact that you call it the "best show on Broadway in a long time" worries me.

And thank you, Princeton78. Sadly, I think Spring Awakening is turning into the new Wicked. Even sadder? I think Wicked generates more of an emotional response than Spring Awakening, and that's saying a lot. A main problem I had with the show overall is that it's trying to be something that it's not. If it were just a fluffy show with a pop/rock score and wasn't pretending to be anything more, I could accept it as that. However, when you stick all these very emotionally charged themes (beating, suicide, pregnancy, etc.) in the show without treating them with the amount of respect and care they deserve, it feels forced and leaves the audience cold rather than moved by these traumatic events. Updated On: 2/20/07 at 09:25 AM

[MotorTink]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 9:38am

I saw SA and thought it was ok. However, I would put it at the bottom of the list out of all the shows I've seen, but that's just my opinion, we seem to be forgetting that word. There were things I did like, I bought the play, read it, and bought the CR, however, I still feel nothing real for the show (except that I love gallagher's voice). Maybe I should see it again, but I don't have much of a desire. I don't think it should close or anything, I'm glad it is successful, I just don't have any further use for it at this time.

Siamese - thanks for your review.

[Princeton78]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 9:41am

Agreed SD. Every time the Oscars come around, certain films come out and the press dubs them as "Oscar Films," meaning that the film seems manufactured soley to win awards. SA felt that way for me. Everything felt forced.

In an attempt to change my opinion, I invested in the cast recording and I still can't get into it, even though I have given it a fair amount of play time at home.

Posted: 2/20/07 at 9:44am

I will definitely admit that there are 3-4 good songs in the show. I don't think they're good within the context of the show or musical theatre in general, but rather songs that I would consider pop/rock/"punk" guilty pleasures and almost sounded like radio-ready Fall Out Boy or My Chemical Romance singles. Personally, I'll be downloading those songs and leaving the rest. I'm not sure how anyone over the age of 15 could enjoy those bruised/wounded songs, especially with the awful cheesy backup singers! I really don't. Updated On: 2/20/07 at 09:44 AM

Posted: 2/20/07 at 9:45am

(Double post, sorry.) Updated On: 2/20/07 at 09:45 AM

[educator06]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 9:47am

Were you not entertained?