Spring Awakening?

[nydirector2]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 10:29pm

Can someone please explain to me why Spring Awakening is this big hit? It's really one of the worst shows (dramaturgically speaking) that I've ever seen. The book is pretty much the equivalent of an episode of Dawson's Creek or 7th Heaven, so it's really not that "groundbreaking" and the music is simply stuff that couldn't get radio play on the air during the late 90's.

I TRIED to like this show, but there were SO many things thta left no explanation. Why were there cast/audience members wearing modern clothing who randomly stood up and sang sometimes. Why did only the adult characters have accents? Why did Moritz's character from being this kid I wanted to beat up to a guy I wanted to hang with when he started singing(his persona completely changed unlike everyone else)? What was the significance of the lighting of the portrait on the back wall during one of the scenes? What happened to the girl whose father beat her...or to anyone else for that matter. The play didn't end. If Aristotle had seen this, he would have probably thought the same thing I did...great climax, but not conclusion. And gosh...some of the lyrics were just cheesy. "We've all got our junk, and my junk is you" "As if she'd return my call" "Looks so nasty in those khakis"

Look...I know it's not Sondheim, but if this is supposed to be the new wave of what Broadway should be...I wanna move.

[Raviolisun]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 10:39pm

Why were there cast/audience members wearing modern clothing who randomly stood up and sang sometimes.

Have you ever seen a musical?

[sundaymorning6am]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 10:40pm

Wow, this topic was necessary.

[purpleprince101]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 10:40pm

I didn't like it but i could see why people loved it. Its just that kind of show that will move people or you will hate it.

Updated On: 3/16/07 at 10:40 PM

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 10:42pm

Do we need another one of these threads? If you didn't like it, then you didn't like it. Nobody can explain to you why you should like it.
*edited for punctuation
Updated On: 3/16/07 at 10:42 PM

[JamesHarvey2]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 10:43pm

Updated On: 7/11/13 at 10:43 PM

[nydirector2]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 11:05pm

I've seen lots of musicals...but usually there's a reason why an audience member stands up and sings. For instance, in Hair...the character of Margaret Meed(sp?) comes up from the audience. In Spring Awakening there are cast members who randomly stand up and start singing and sit back down...and sometimes they stand up on their chairs...but there's really no explanation.

I didn't ask why I should like it. I asked why it's a hit.

[stageagent13]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 11:09pm

The show is very entertaining and the people in the modern clothes represent the mix between old and new plus they add extra vocals.

[nydirector2]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 11:13pm

Old and new what?

[Raviolisun]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 11:15pm

The songs are supposed to be like inner monologues, so that when they sing they are saying what they wouldn't normally be able to put into words. So that would explain the sitting and standing up.

[nydirector2]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 11:17pm

Yeah....that I understood. My question is why have the extra "pit singers" sitting amongst the audience in normal clothes.

[Blue J]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 11:20pm

I think the ensemble members in normal clothes are used to help show the audience that this story, although set in 1891 Germany, is still something that people, especially teens / young adults, can relate to today.

(edited to fix date) Updated On: 3/16/07 at 11:20 PM

[jg4892]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 11:21pm

Because they're supposed to juxtapose modern and olden days. By singing about the same topics in modern clothing, it shows that the issues in 1891 are still present today.

[mlsheehan]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 12:01am

Gee, all those questions without specific answers. To be honest, that's exactly what I liked about the show. It didn't spoon feed you all the connections.

It was provocative and made me think. I got to draw my own connections between the modern vernacular and the older material. It was scary to me to realize how many parallels there are between a show written in the 1890’s and what’s happening in the world today (right in this country and in many other countries as well). I liked the use of modern slang, but there is definitely the risk that this show may not age well because of its use.

I wondered about the portrait myself, but I couldn't quite make out who it was from where I sat. I’d be interested to know who that was.

[nydirector2]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 12:11am

But why is the fact it took place in 1891 Germany such a big deal. Guess what....teen angst has existed since Cane got jealous of Abel back in Genesis and whacked him in the head. The modern connections and questions could work if there were real statements made. That's the difference between say, Rent and this show. Rent actually connected with its source material with a parallel song to ever major part of the opera. All this did was translate an "edgy" play that would barely make it as an afterschool special in our world and throw in some catchy MTV songs. Why is this groundbreaking? That's my question and no-one has answered it.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 12:14am

I think the high energy and singing talent and the beautiful melodies of Sheik make people think this show is better than it actually is.
I enjoyed watching it in the Theatre but once I started thinking about it and listened to the terrible lyrics my feelings changed,
But that shouldn't influence how an audience feels when watching th show for a first time.
I actually feel that the problems those characters were facing are very different than todays, Most 14 to 17 year olds know where babies come from.
The idea of the singers in the audience wearing modern day clothes to tell us that the problems are the same is just ridiculous, if we can't relate to the ideas that does not do it.

[Bobby Maler]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 12:15am

why are we responding and not letting this thread die? There are tons of responses to his questions if he just searches old threads. He obviously thinks that for a piece of drama to be dramaturgically sound, it must follow Aristotelian principles so he missed the whole reason why this show is so fresh and groundbreaking. We're not going to convince him otherwise.

What happened to the girl who was beaten: That's for you to fill in on your own. Martha's whole reason for being is to announce that incest happens even though the other characters in the play believe that such a thing doesn't happen in this day and age. The truth is, people just aren't comfortable talking about it. Ilsa shares the song "The Dark I Know So Well", supported by the "modern" girls in the on-stage seats. It is implied that Ilsa too (and thus these girls, in modern dress) were molested. It's more common than we may think. It's devasting when they each start joining in one by one.

Not every character needs her own arc. They're vignettes, you have to look at the combined effect that each vignette creates.

[nydirector2]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 12:23am

A Chorus Line is a series of vignettes, Company is a series of vignettes, Spring Awalening is not a series of vignettes....there's a plot intermixed with randomness. This show very much reminded me of Hair, which I believe is what "Bobby Maler" believed Spring Awakening to be. Hair has a very loose plotline, if you even want to call it that. It had hand held mics, nudity, sex, naughty lyrics, and classic sources. It even had random authority figures which they made a mockery of....Hair was fresh. Spring Awakening is a mess with catchy music.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 12:29am

I am so sick of people saying "Fresh and Groundbreaking"
It's a good show but hardly fresh or grounbreaking on any level.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 12:38am

"It didn't spoon feed you all the connections."

Those missing connections are instances of poor dramaturgy. I'm not sure what's to love about that. Not spoon-feeding us the connections would be keeping with the same level of continuity that the truly wonderful (and more groundbreaking) original play, but still using modern music to tell the story. Now THAT's something I would have loved to see! The story-telling in the musical is unnecessarily erratic, over-indulgent in some places, and too shy and shallow in others.

Read the play on which the musical is based. It's pretty fabulous, and it opened my eyes to even more flaws in the musical. Not that the musical wasn't a valiant effort.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 12:40am

Do we need another one of these threads? If you didn't like it, then you didn't like it.
Do we need another thread praising Spring Awakening? If someone didn't like it, they have just as much right to express their opinion (as many times as they want) as the hardcore fans that are convinced SA is the second coming.

[Bobby Maler]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 12:43am

Downer, perhaps, for you, something has to completely re-write musical theatre history in order to be "groundbreaking." I'm not going to argue over semantics or degrees. This is a show that I think you either love or pull apart, but what other show can you think of that actually uses the songs to jump out of the time period of the story, and even more so, to jump out of character! When they're singing, they're not even the same character. That's dramaturgically insane! And for me, fresh and groundbreaking.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 12:53am

Both A Chorus Line and Company had dramatic story arcs. I don't think of A Chorus Line as a series of vignettes, at least not the way Company is. A Chorus Line I think has a very clear, tight plot. "God I Hope I Get It".

The thing about Spring Awakening is that it lacks a strong dramatic arc, similiar to the lack of sharply defined lyrics-lots of good lyrics, but really catch phrases rather than theater lyrics. Things happen to the characters and there are situations that resolve but ultimately the show isn't very interested in its plot. I don't know if this is a problem or not--I think it's exactly what the creators intended and I like the finished product quite a bit.

I think that's why it leaves people feeling cold and cerebral. I get the feeling even Stephen Sater doesn't much care about what's going to happen to Melchior or Wendla. The Moritz storyline is probably the strongest in the play and after that ends I feel like Spring Awakening kind of just winds down.

I do think that the power of the show comes from how you relate to it. The show moves me, at least. Maybe it's not a model for musical theater storytelling but it's welcome over an adaptation of a crappy 90s film. If you don't like it go watch Hair.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 1:16am

I have not seen the show. I have listened to the recording dozens of times. To me it is groundbreaking. It makes me weep. I spend thousands each year on theater tickets and if I was in NY I would spend more to see this production.

The voices are young and fresh, but the melodies, harmonies and use of unison singing gives them a depth that I have not heard in years.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 1:29am

BobbyM
Ever hear of the ThreePennyOpera?

It's been done many many times.