Spring Awakening was a let down — Page 2
#27
Posted: 1/15/07 at 10:28am
Thanks for the script analysis, however, the show is not developed...the characters are poorly sketched. Look, I cry at absolutely everything, and I left shocked that I didn't shed one single tear for these kids. I wanted to, but the staging, the MICS, the book (or lack of book rather) kept getting in the way. Certain performances were stand out, Moritz, yes! Wendla, NO! Why does she put on that baby voice, we are all well aware she is 22 playing a 14 year old. We get it, please don't dumb down her voice. Lots of 14 year olds speak quite grown up. I know you love this show, good for you, but please understand that there are some who for reasons of dramaturgical development don't like it. RENT was better developed, all of the characters were clearly drawn, and most importantly, I cried when Angel died and left Tom a complete wreck, and I cried when Mimi "died" and I cared for Maureen and Roger and Mark and Tom and Joanne. It carrys a strong message about love and the times of the East Village when squatting was the norm and herion was the true villian, and HIV/AIDS began to really sink in that we as a world community had to do something to stop its incidiousness. SA speaks only to the complaining of teenagers, doesn't follow through with the message of SAFE SEX!!! Glorifies boys pressuring young girls into thinking they want sex when they aren't prepared nor ready to go there. They need to fix this, update the show to fit in with the times. I'm still really mad they didn't develop Lily Cooper's role; why didn't she get a scene with her "mother" or "father"? Elsa was the only character, it seems to me, that actually had made peace with her life, and so what? Like the music, like to listen to it as a cd unattached to a show. Duncan Sheik is awesome, but the book is awful. just my 2cents.
#28
Posted: 1/15/07 at 10:31am
"Perhaps you like RENT because it's easier to understand and comprehend. But, you couldn't be more wrong."
Please do not ever tell someone they're wrong in their opinion. The above is just one example of your doing this in this thread. Almost every post you made here contains comments to the effect that YOU are right in what you think, but no one else is.
Please do not ever tell someone they're wrong in their opinion. The above is just one example of your doing this in this thread. Almost every post you made here contains comments to the effect that YOU are right in what you think, but no one else is.
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
#29
Posted: 1/15/07 at 10:33am
the score was great, but the show was okay
#30
Posted: 1/15/07 at 10:35am
a little off topic... does anyone know where i can view a video from the signing? was there one at all?
#31
Posted: 1/15/07 at 10:48am
saw SA last night. i absolutely fell in LOVE with the music, and i think it was one of the best nights i have spent in the theater in quite some time. Electric is a word that comes to mind. The music exploded off the stage and really infused itself under my skin- not all of it, but at least half the score did that. Impressive.
That said, I think some of this "SA IS AMAAAAZING" is a lil ridiculous- why cant people accept that even some of our most enjoyable experiences have other major flaws? Ie the plot. Underdeveloped much? A series of really compelling dramatic vignettes that in NO WAY are re-addressed or connected in any meaningful way. Ilse's story is completely ignored. The homosexual relationship- a big deal in that time- is given 5 minutes towards the end of the show, and is played for comedy- fine by me, but at least develop the comedy into something more lasting than those 5 minutes.
The incest/abuse situation was prob the most powerful moment for me- I thought Lilli Cooper carried herself with a maturiy and an innocence that was truly unique- but it went... nowhere. Melchior beating Wendla was awkward and again, never addressed again as an odd, inappropriate way to begin a sexual relationship.
This didnt ruin the play for me- i had a blast, i loved the staging, i loooved the music, the acting was overall impeccable- at least on the male side, I also thought Lea Michele over-babied herself at times, though she has a stunning voice- but i find it really interesting that people are unwilling to concede that the storyline is way underdeveloped and disappointing.
as far as the performance of the piece goes, though, WOW. The Tony should be very kind on Duncan Sheik, Johnathan Groff and John Gallagher come June, I hope.
That said, I think some of this "SA IS AMAAAAZING" is a lil ridiculous- why cant people accept that even some of our most enjoyable experiences have other major flaws? Ie the plot. Underdeveloped much? A series of really compelling dramatic vignettes that in NO WAY are re-addressed or connected in any meaningful way. Ilse's story is completely ignored. The homosexual relationship- a big deal in that time- is given 5 minutes towards the end of the show, and is played for comedy- fine by me, but at least develop the comedy into something more lasting than those 5 minutes.
The incest/abuse situation was prob the most powerful moment for me- I thought Lilli Cooper carried herself with a maturiy and an innocence that was truly unique- but it went... nowhere. Melchior beating Wendla was awkward and again, never addressed again as an odd, inappropriate way to begin a sexual relationship.
This didnt ruin the play for me- i had a blast, i loved the staging, i loooved the music, the acting was overall impeccable- at least on the male side, I also thought Lea Michele over-babied herself at times, though she has a stunning voice- but i find it really interesting that people are unwilling to concede that the storyline is way underdeveloped and disappointing.
as far as the performance of the piece goes, though, WOW. The Tony should be very kind on Duncan Sheik, Johnathan Groff and John Gallagher come June, I hope.
#32
Posted: 1/15/07 at 10:53am
lawyerman i agree with you on everything you have said!
#33
Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:00am
lawyer, that was a great assessment of the show; I very much agree.
#34
Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:05am
I just felt that the shows flaws were so apprent and abudent that I didn't find it enjoyable.
#35
Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:05am
Three cheers for Jane2! You go, girl!
Salve, Regina, Mater misericordiae
Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra
Salve, Salve Regina
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Eva
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
O clemens O pia
Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra
Salve, Salve Regina
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Eva
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
O clemens O pia
Updated On: 1/15/07 at 11:05 AM
#36
Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:06am
lavieboheme- to each his own thats ok. you have your own opinions.
#37
Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:08am
at first i thought that it was sater and mayer's fault, for having those bleak discontinuities in the play which become subplots or vignettes. however, upon reading an actual translation of Wedekind's play, you can see that they were not the first to jump around with vignettes and subplots. the ernst and hanschen scene is very similar in length to the one in the musical, however they at least try to establish some kind of cohesiveness by including the "word of your body (reprise)." also in the play, the "beating" vignette jumps out of nowhere.
so, i "believe" that some of the choppiness of the production results from the choppiness of the original source, Wedekind's play.
so, i "believe" that some of the choppiness of the production results from the choppiness of the original source, Wedekind's play.
#38
Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:10am
I know MamawhoBore, thats why I started the thread.
#39
Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:15am
I guess my problem is that since the faults are in Wedekind's play, it doesn't really seem like a play that calls for musicalization, especially if they didn't intend to fix what Wedekind does badly. I had the same problem with High Fidelityl
broadwayunderstudies.com - most underrated performers on broadway
#40
Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:23am
broadwayfan3..why do you still hold such sour grapes with this production? You didn't get involved with it.. move on. I wouldn't be mean and go into Drowsy,Wedding Singer/other threads of the shows you produce/invest and write negative things.
If you don't like a show, stay out of the thread. Not that hard of a concept...
If you don't like a show, stay out of the thread. Not that hard of a concept...
Updated On: 1/15/07 at 11:23 AM
#41
Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:46am
Jane2...it's easy to take snippets of a post and twist them to make them seem bad.
If you'd read on the VERY next sentence was: IMO, Spring Awakening in vastly superior.
Perhaps I should have made those two sentences into one because I NEVER state my opinion as a fact. I always preempt with an "In my opinion..." not a blank "You are wrong..."
I should have stated it more clearly. But, do NOT put words in my mouth. Thank you.
If you'd read on the VERY next sentence was: IMO, Spring Awakening in vastly superior.
Perhaps I should have made those two sentences into one because I NEVER state my opinion as a fact. I always preempt with an "In my opinion..." not a blank "You are wrong..."
I should have stated it more clearly. But, do NOT put words in my mouth. Thank you.
"I love talking about nothing. It is the only thing I know anything about." - Oscar Wilde
Updated On: 1/15/07 at 11:46 AM
#42
Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:58am
This is probably not the time, but, MamawhoBoreme, I first read your name as MamaWhore. (I know, I know, get my mind out of the gutter.)
Salve, Regina, Mater misericordiae
Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra
Salve, Salve Regina
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Eva
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
O clemens O pia
Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra
Salve, Salve Regina
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Eva
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
O clemens O pia
#43
Posted: 1/15/07 at 12:06pm
"Perhaps you like RENT because it's easier to understand and comprehend. But, you couldn't be more wrong."
The above statement of yours is pretty clear. You put the words out, I didn't. I noticed you have updated almost all your posts. Hmmm.
anyway, I don't care much about this discussion-I care very much about telling people their opinions are wrong. It's one of my pet peeves.
Carry on.
And thanks, SM2
The above statement of yours is pretty clear. You put the words out, I didn't. I noticed you have updated almost all your posts. Hmmm.
anyway, I don't care much about this discussion-I care very much about telling people their opinions are wrong. It's one of my pet peeves.
Carry on.
And thanks, SM2
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
#44
Posted: 1/15/07 at 12:08pm
"Wendla, NO! Why does she put on that baby voice, we are all well aware she is 22 playing a 14 year old. "
Lea Michele is 20.
"a little off topic... does anyone know where i can view a video from the signing? was there one at all?"
It's on Broadway.com.
For once, some people are coming up with valid reasons for not liking the show.
Lea Michele is 20.
"a little off topic... does anyone know where i can view a video from the signing? was there one at all?"
It's on Broadway.com.
For once, some people are coming up with valid reasons for not liking the show.
#45
Posted: 1/15/07 at 12:17pm
"Perhaps you like RENT because it's easier to understand and comprehend. But, you couldn't be more wrong."
its funny you say that, actually. simply because...I definitely thought that SA was much easier to follow than RENT. I know "follow" is a little bit different than "comprehend", but its just, that happens to be one of the things about RENT that I think maybe turns off some people- that so much is going on and, until you get to know the story well, its hard to tell what's what. In SA, I fealt like the plot was a lot more clear. There was never a point where I was lost or didn't get what was going on
Anyway, honestly I dont have too much to contribute to the conversation I dont think, mostly because I really really loved the show (and I adore RENT too) :) Yes, I DO happen to agree that the book is a bit underdeveloped, but at the same time, that didn't take away anything for me. I think its because 1)like in RENT, I fealt that the music was so powerful that it MADE you feel things even if they weren't written in the dialague. and 2)the performances made up for any lack of feeling I may have had for the characters from the writing alone. They all played them so innocently that I couldn't NOT feel bad for them when something bad happened to them! Now, if you didn't like the acting, that would probably explain a large portion of why you didn't like the show. For me at least, they very much went hand in hand :)
(and yeah, Lea's 20, for the record
)
its funny you say that, actually. simply because...I definitely thought that SA was much easier to follow than RENT. I know "follow" is a little bit different than "comprehend", but its just, that happens to be one of the things about RENT that I think maybe turns off some people- that so much is going on and, until you get to know the story well, its hard to tell what's what. In SA, I fealt like the plot was a lot more clear. There was never a point where I was lost or didn't get what was going on
Anyway, honestly I dont have too much to contribute to the conversation I dont think, mostly because I really really loved the show (and I adore RENT too) :) Yes, I DO happen to agree that the book is a bit underdeveloped, but at the same time, that didn't take away anything for me. I think its because 1)like in RENT, I fealt that the music was so powerful that it MADE you feel things even if they weren't written in the dialague. and 2)the performances made up for any lack of feeling I may have had for the characters from the writing alone. They all played them so innocently that I couldn't NOT feel bad for them when something bad happened to them! Now, if you didn't like the acting, that would probably explain a large portion of why you didn't like the show. For me at least, they very much went hand in hand :)
(and yeah, Lea's 20, for the record
)
I don't need a life that's normal. That's way too far away. But something next to normal would be okay. Something next to normal is what I'd like to try. Close enough to normal to get by.
Updated On: 1/15/07 at 12:17 PM
#46
Posted: 1/15/07 at 12:36pm
Perhaps you like RENT because it's easier to understand and comprehend. But, you couldn't be more wrong.
I'm sorry, you know I adore you FOA, but that's kinda lame. However, taking into consideration that you posted that the statement wasn't well-phrased, this isn't a slam to you individually -- the sentiment has come up several times before, and other posters have meant it quite literally. I understand that people want to defend the merits they see in Spring Awakening, but how does going on about how it's difficult to understand highlight those merits? I suppose you're trying to insinuate that it's a smart show, and therefore possibly hard to comprehend, but really, I found nothing incomprehensible about Spring Awakening. It's not confusing or hard to understand at all, and I think that's ridiculous grounds for saying that it's so great. Your comment doesn't really help your case because instead of talking about Spring Awakening's strengths, you're implying that if people don't like it, they're merely stupid.
I agree with a lot of what's been said so far, especially several of lawyerman's comments, and with those who said that they felt nothing for the characters. The music is great, and I really enjoy listening to the CD, but the characters are dreadfully underdeveloped. For me, that's the biggest problem. They're caricatures, and very hard to feel for, IMO. Again, look at Rent. It's generated ten years worth of speculation and fan fiction, etc; Larson created characters that felt deep and real enough that they left room for people to be able to develop what they thought their entire life stories might be, and that people have felt connected to on a very individual basis. As much as I dislike a lot of fan fiction, the fact that there's room for it speaks a lot to the characters, I think, because it's not made up out of the blue -- it has basis in the source material, and there's enough already there to allow people to expand upon it. I don't get the impression that Spring Awakening's characters are nearly as powerful. Whereas I think Rent's characters are well-layered and very much the reason so many people feel close to the story, Spring Awakening's are very thin, and hard to latch on to by who they are as opposed to what they are.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
I'm sorry, you know I adore you FOA, but that's kinda lame. However, taking into consideration that you posted that the statement wasn't well-phrased, this isn't a slam to you individually -- the sentiment has come up several times before, and other posters have meant it quite literally. I understand that people want to defend the merits they see in Spring Awakening, but how does going on about how it's difficult to understand highlight those merits? I suppose you're trying to insinuate that it's a smart show, and therefore possibly hard to comprehend, but really, I found nothing incomprehensible about Spring Awakening. It's not confusing or hard to understand at all, and I think that's ridiculous grounds for saying that it's so great. Your comment doesn't really help your case because instead of talking about Spring Awakening's strengths, you're implying that if people don't like it, they're merely stupid.
I agree with a lot of what's been said so far, especially several of lawyerman's comments, and with those who said that they felt nothing for the characters. The music is great, and I really enjoy listening to the CD, but the characters are dreadfully underdeveloped. For me, that's the biggest problem. They're caricatures, and very hard to feel for, IMO. Again, look at Rent. It's generated ten years worth of speculation and fan fiction, etc; Larson created characters that felt deep and real enough that they left room for people to be able to develop what they thought their entire life stories might be, and that people have felt connected to on a very individual basis. As much as I dislike a lot of fan fiction, the fact that there's room for it speaks a lot to the characters, I think, because it's not made up out of the blue -- it has basis in the source material, and there's enough already there to allow people to expand upon it. I don't get the impression that Spring Awakening's characters are nearly as powerful. Whereas I think Rent's characters are well-layered and very much the reason so many people feel close to the story, Spring Awakening's are very thin, and hard to latch on to by who they are as opposed to what they are.
Updated On: 1/15/07 at 12:36 PM
#47
Posted: 1/15/07 at 12:45pm
Em, I want to make it perfectly clear that I don't want to insinuate that anyone is stupid for not liking or understanding this show. I like RENT, but I prefer SPRING AWAKENING because I find the music far more alluring and lingering and I actually feel something for the characters. Not to say I don't feel for the characters of RENT, but I wasn't nearly touched by the story I suppose. It's a wonderful take on LA BOHEME. If you find the story or characters underdeveloped then that's your opinion and you're more than allowed to have it. But while you see the characters of SPRING AWAKENING as underdeveloped I see the characters of RENT as supremely one-dimensional. I see no depth. But, that's just me. If we all thought the same the world would be quite a boring place. I just want to make it clear I never try to make people feel stupid for disagreeing with me.
I noticed you have updated almost all your posts. Hmmm.
Yes, Jane. I edit my posts when I notice spelling or grammar mistakes. Call me a nit picker, but that's how it goes with me.
If you want to continue thinking there's a deeper meaning to it than more power to you. Carry on, gumshoe!
I noticed you have updated almost all your posts. Hmmm.
Yes, Jane. I edit my posts when I notice spelling or grammar mistakes. Call me a nit picker, but that's how it goes with me.
If you want to continue thinking there's a deeper meaning to it than more power to you. Carry on, gumshoe!
"I love talking about nothing. It is the only thing I know anything about." - Oscar Wilde
#48
Posted: 1/15/07 at 12:48pm
I agree with a lot of what's been said so far, especially several of lawyerman's comments, and with those who said that they felt nothing for the characters. The music is great, and I really enjoy listening to the CD, but the characters are dreadfully underdeveloped. For me, that's the biggest problem. They're caricatures, and very hard to feel for, IMO. Again, look at Rent. It's generated ten years worth of speculation and fan fiction, etc; Larson created characters that felt deep and real enough that they left room for people to be able to develop what they thought their entire life stories might be, and that people have felt connected to on a very individual basis. As much as I dislike a lot of fan fiction, the fact that there's room for it speaks a lot to the characters, I think, because it's not made up out of the blue -- it has basis in the source material, and there's enough already there to allow people to expand upon it. I don't get the impression that Spring Awakening's characters are nearly as powerful. Whereas I think Rent's characters are well-layered and very much the reason so many people feel close to the story, Spring Awakening's are very thin, and hard to latch on to by who they are as opposed to what they are.
^but see, I think that just kind of depends on the person, doesn't it? :)
because, for me at least, the characters were def as powerful as the ones in RENT (and that says a lot, because I am DEEPLY connected to the characters in RENT). Or maybe with SA its not even the characters themselves, but its just I really fealt for them. Sure, I probably dont love Melchior as a character as much as I love Angel, but I still fealt horribly for him in the end. Actually, I'd be curious to do a poll or something and see how many people DID feel for the characters and left the show emotionally satisfied and how many people left emotionally cold and not feeling much for the characters. It seems so 50/50 from everything everyone's been saying. So it'd be interesting to see
^but see, I think that just kind of depends on the person, doesn't it? :)
because, for me at least, the characters were def as powerful as the ones in RENT (and that says a lot, because I am DEEPLY connected to the characters in RENT). Or maybe with SA its not even the characters themselves, but its just I really fealt for them. Sure, I probably dont love Melchior as a character as much as I love Angel, but I still fealt horribly for him in the end. Actually, I'd be curious to do a poll or something and see how many people DID feel for the characters and left the show emotionally satisfied and how many people left emotionally cold and not feeling much for the characters. It seems so 50/50 from everything everyone's been saying. So it'd be interesting to see
I don't need a life that's normal. That's way too far away. But something next to normal would be okay. Something next to normal is what I'd like to try. Close enough to normal to get by.
Updated On: 1/15/07 at 12:48 PM
#49
Posted: 1/15/07 at 12:49pm
FOA, most of what I said in that paragraph is editorial "you." Like I said, not you in particular; I don't think you meant to say that anyone is stupid for not liking it. Your statement just made me think of how many times similar things have been said, and actually been meant the way your clarification indicates you didn't mean them.
And yes, snl, it does. What I posted is obviously just my opinion, and it does depend on the person. I see the Spring Awakening characters as very... unitary -- as a group of teenagers. It's hard to just write them off by saying they're cliché, because I know the exact same thing could be said for the Rent characters. It's probably a combination of the acting and the writing in the book, but for me, they just lacked enough individuality or personality. Yes, it's there, but it's not demonstrated well enough to be moving, for me. I also think it has to do with the fact that the show's structure seems to allow the issues it presents to take precedence over the plot, which needs to be better developed in order to get me to care. It's very surface; there's the main triangular storyline with Melchior, Moritz and Wendla, but the other characters more or less pop up just to be like "look, domestic abuse! Look, bohemians! Look, homosexuality!" and then go right back into the background. I wasn't moved by those kinds of characters. I just didn't find anything to connect to with them. It's very hard for me to understand how people feel deeply connected to any one of them, but that sort of thing is very emotionally based, so to each his own, I suppose. I want to understand what people see in these characters, but I know it's a difficult thing to explain, so it might be tough to gain an understanding of where those people are coming from. So far I haven't seen much very convincing.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
And yes, snl, it does. What I posted is obviously just my opinion, and it does depend on the person. I see the Spring Awakening characters as very... unitary -- as a group of teenagers. It's hard to just write them off by saying they're cliché, because I know the exact same thing could be said for the Rent characters. It's probably a combination of the acting and the writing in the book, but for me, they just lacked enough individuality or personality. Yes, it's there, but it's not demonstrated well enough to be moving, for me. I also think it has to do with the fact that the show's structure seems to allow the issues it presents to take precedence over the plot, which needs to be better developed in order to get me to care. It's very surface; there's the main triangular storyline with Melchior, Moritz and Wendla, but the other characters more or less pop up just to be like "look, domestic abuse! Look, bohemians! Look, homosexuality!" and then go right back into the background. I wasn't moved by those kinds of characters. I just didn't find anything to connect to with them. It's very hard for me to understand how people feel deeply connected to any one of them, but that sort of thing is very emotionally based, so to each his own, I suppose. I want to understand what people see in these characters, but I know it's a difficult thing to explain, so it might be tough to gain an understanding of where those people are coming from. So far I haven't seen much very convincing.
Updated On: 1/15/07 at 12:49 PM
#50
Posted: 1/15/07 at 1:05pm
yeah, see I really would try and explain it.. except I'm really bad at explaining these types of things and it would be SO repetitive because the only way I can think to describe it, I've already mentioned haha
I'm sorry, I wish I could help more!
I'm sorry, I wish I could help more!
I don't need a life that's normal. That's way too far away. But something next to normal would be okay. Something next to normal is what I'd like to try. Close enough to normal to get by.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $95
Tickets From $101
Tickets From $235