Spring Awakening: Differences between Show and Musical

[RENT's_Awakening]

Posted: 1/5/08 at 5:31pm

Hey guys, this is my first post on these message boards, and I'm hoping it's on-topic enough...

Has anybody read the original play of Spring Awakening? My school's theater class just did a full, uncensored version of the play (I was Melchior) and I was wondering how unusual it is to see the play, and if you have read it, which you prefer.

I really like the play, and obviously it's wordier than the musical...the musical is much freer in terms of dialogue, the original, when translated directly, feels much more like Shakespeare or something.

Thoughts?

[AnnaK<3LMIP]

Posted: 1/5/08 at 5:41pm

I always thought the play was much more genuine than the musical. The musical just doesn't transfer the message as well as the original play, in my opinion.

[BillFinn]

Posted: 1/5/08 at 6:13pm

I read the play before I saw the musical. It was much darker. I felt the liberties and changes the musical made were valid though. If you're going to market a commercial musical, you have to make it pop. You have to make it sensual and alluring. They stayed away from many of the darker elements and stuck to one main-through line "We are teenagers and we deal with (x) issues: this is how I am feeling" and I appreciated that.

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 1/5/08 at 8:28pm

I performed in a production of the play the winter before the Off-Broadway show opened (I was Ernst Robel and others). I do like the changes in the musical and understand why they were made, but nothing will replace the original play. It's much darker and a lot more tragic I think. The scene that hit me the hardest in the play was the funeral. I played both Professor Knuppeldick and Ernst in that scene. Professor Knuppeldick tells Moritz's father something like, "He probably wouldn't have passed next spring anyway," while Ernst can't take in what just happened and goes right back to his schoolwork. For me, that short scene shows the corruption of Wedekind's society in a nutshell. It's heartbreaking to watch, but none of the characters' heads are ever in the right place.

That said, the play is extremely verbose, even if you perform the most colloquial translation (we did the Hughes translation, which is really hard to find but highly recommended). There is a lot more intensity in the original. The songs in the musical kind of streamline all of the lengthy monologues, which it does nicely. I'm glad the musical is bringing the story to many people, probably much more people than the play would alone. It's also bringing people back to the original Wedekind, which is always a good thing.

~Steven

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 1/5/08 at 8:36pm

I've read just about every translation of the original text (Bentley, Franzen, etc.). It was seeing the musical, and it's so-called "modern" take on the material, which prompted my research and, eventually, my own "modern" translation of the material.

I feel that the musical is highly overrated - the critics latched onto the show and went gaga over it (there's one every year), simply for the fact that it "dared to go there." Many of the critics ignored the flaws in the material in the process. They also ignored the achievments of shows like CURTAINS, because it was too esoteric for them, after seeing Spring Awakening.

The play is indeed very wordy, and even the most basic translation can't cut through the density of many of the monologues. I will say the musical nicely chops bits and pieces, makes it compact, succinct, but many of the scenes are just as choppy as in the play. The beating scene, the gay scene...

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 1/5/08 at 9:33pm

Yes, I like to use the word "episodic" rather than "choppy," but it is indeed choppy. There's just no way getting around that.

~Steven

[geebee889]

Posted: 1/5/08 at 11:32pm

I have read a bunch of different translations of the original, and I absolutely adore them all. I feel like it's easier for people to relate to the situations in the musical better, but I think that's just because they've never read the original.

In my opinion, the original is much grittier than the original, and that's one of the things I love most about it. You really see what is going through these characters' minds.

[brainlessorwise]

Posted: 1/5/08 at 11:39pm

The play, if uncensored is as relevant today as it was when first written. The musical is not as timeless because of the creative decisions they made. I respect the decisions to a certain extent because they are reaching today's audience, but I don't think it will resonate in the future the way the play has.

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 1/6/08 at 12:04am

It's really weird to think that the original is grittier than the one now on Broadway, but it's true. Sure, there are no profanities or uses of the word "like" after every other thought, but it is a little more frank (haha, "Frank").

Brainless, right on about the play's resonance.

~Steven

[jv92]

Posted: 1/6/08 at 12:28am

A play and a show are the same thing. Ditto musical and show.

To answer your question-
The play. Why? Because it's intelligent!

[brainlessorwise]

Posted: 1/6/08 at 12:47am

Good point, HeyMrmusic, I think the profanity is used to reach youth today. It's not really relevant other than for people to say they use the F--- word. They must be cool.

Yankeefan, I'd love to see/read your modern translation.

[BroadwayAbridged]

Posted: 1/6/08 at 10:07am

The biggest differences between the play and the musical, for me, was exemplified in the ending. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

- Ending of musical: Dead Wendla and Dead Moritz sing to alive Melchior and convince him to sorta run away and live on.
- Ending of play: Dead Mortiz tries to convince alive Melchior to consider suicide, and out of nowhere comes the Masked Man who tell Melchior that suicide is why Melchior is stuck at the graveyard for eternity.

An early version of the musical (it took 6 years to write!) had Michael Cerveris as the Masked Man. Apparently many believe that the character of Ilse in the play is actually the Masked Man in disguise.

I've only read the original play, and The Masked Man scene the in play confused me on first reading and I found myself doing research to find more about it. For those of you who've been in it, what does this scene play like onstage?

[RENT's_Awakening]

Posted: 1/6/08 at 11:41am

I believe I can actually answer this. First off, I just would like to say that I actually think the ending to the play is much more to my liking than the musical, which feels very mechanical and cliche. The ending with the Masked Man is much more...I dunno, I guess dramatic, because with the Play, Melchior has to choose between his best friend and death, or a complete stranger, who offers him life.

The way it plays out at the end, onstage, is Melchior runs into the graveyard, looking back and worrying that the boys from the Reformatory are going to catch up with him. He then begins searching for Moritz's grave, and stumbles upon Wendla's fresh one. In the play, he's very aware that he raped Wendla...and he feels a lot more angst and sorrow about it than shown in the musical. He cries over her grave, but makes the decision to leave the graveyard. Moritz appears and holds him back. Melchior can't believe what's happening. Moritz tells him all the wonders of death, how you can look at the troubles of the living and laugh. While Melchior is hesitant, he seems ready to accept the offer, reaching out to take Moritz's hand. The Masked Man appears and accuses Moritz of lying and deceit. Moritz admits he was exaggerating and is lonely and wants Melchior to be back with him. The Masked Man preaches the differences between Melchior and Moritz, and reveals to Melchior that while he impregnated Wendla, he did not cause her death - it was the abortion pills. Melchior debated briefly, and in the end chooses life, saying, "Farewell, Moritz. I don't know where this person is taking me...but he is a person." End of play.

I dunno, I like this ending, although obviously it leaves the audience very confused as to who the Masked Man is, but I think the paradox of Melchior's choice is all that matters, and that's lost in translation to the musical, which is a much cleaner ending.

[hermionejuliet]

Posted: 1/6/08 at 12:13pm

I've seen both, and to be completely honest, I really enjoy both the play and the musical. I think that many points in the musical are relevant to today's youth, and I think those same points are there in the play. You just have to listen a bit more carefully. I love the music in the musical version, and I think that it stands quite well as a creative work.

While it is fine to prefer the play, it is easy to be a snob about it. Spring Awakening the play would not have lasted on Broadway as long, and wouldn't cater to a large, broad audience like the musical does, and that's a fact. So both the play and musicals have different audiences and purposes. Though many are exposed to the play after seeing the musical.

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 1/6/08 at 2:29pm

BroadwayAbridged, when I did the play, the director had the Masked Man in practically every scene overlooking the action and sometimes making the action happen. Kind of like the Broadway version of the Proprietor in Assassins. For example, the Masked Man offered the switch to Melchior, pantomimed the story about the queen with no head, and held the bunches of grapes in the Hans Rilow/Ernst Robel scene, among other things to that effect. That way, when he popped out and spoke in the final scene, it wasn't the first time the audience has seen the Masked Man.

It's interesting that you bring up Ilse being the Masked Man in disguise. I never really thought about that, but looking back at my production, the director had the Masked Man mimic Ilse in her scene with Moritz and even made him echo her lines at times.

I think our director handled the Masked Man well. It can be very awkward for him to just come out in the end and tell the audience the moral of the story. I can certainly see why the Masked Man wasn't used in the musical.

~Steven

[BroadwayAbridged]

Posted: 1/6/08 at 3:53pm

@HeyMrMusic: Thanks for the description, sounds like a good production. Also sounds like, if the director doesn't have a "take" on the masked man or how "literal" or not to play that final scene, it can just plain not work.

As for Ilse: So in Act 1 of the musical, they only use the microphones when they're singing and are in their own angsty heads, but when they're playing out real life they have no mics. In act 2, it had really bothered me that they switched convention and had Ilse and Moritz speak through microphones in that scene. I heard later that they used the microphones because they were trying to keep the Isle-is-not-real idea in the back of their minds. Which explains why the character comes out of nowhere in the original play, but in the musical that character then talks with the other girls in the scenes following...

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 1/6/08 at 4:22pm

Ilse also speaks to the girls at the funeral in the play. But yes, it is odd that they use microphones in that scene with Moritz in the musical, but then again Ilse is an odd character.

~Steven

[jake6970]

Posted: 1/6/08 at 4:28pm

To me, they have Moritz and Ilse speak into microphones because it is still fantasy like to Moritz. Moritz is unable to believe that his long time friend is standing in front of him offering sex, so the microphones show how that's a fantasty world in Moritz's mind. That's just my take on it, though.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 1/6/08 at 7:01pm

I like to think of the microphones as they're trying to connect to each other emotionally but the microphones are the barrier.

[DaneSaw]

Posted: 1/7/08 at 2:34pm

I always saw the microphones in that scene as, well, a way for the audience to better hear what they're singing.

While I do like the idea of Ilse as The Masked Man, I don't think it's anywhere in the musical. Ilse sings with the other girls in the Mama reprise, is at the funeral, delivers Melchior's note to Wendla, and is with the other girls reading Melchior's note right before the graveyard scene.

In the Ilse/Moritz scene, I don't think there is supposed to be any barrier. The microphones are there for performance sake, Moritz wields it like he's at a concert. Any other time that things are sung throughout the show, they're using microphones. To have Ilse holding both the flowers and a haldheld mic would be ridiculous. The only odd thing about that scene is that Moritz and Ilse are supposed to be facing each other in reality, staging which pops up in the rest of the show as well (when Melchior is being confronted by the teachers and is obviously supposed to be facing them, but they're behind him).

[defyingravity11]

Posted: 1/7/08 at 3:00pm

I read the play before seeing the musical. I found the play to be tragic, heartbreaking, and intelligent. The musical never matched up for me. One of the differences between the two is the portrayal of the adult characters. The musical portrays them as a manipulative and evil unit while the play shows that the adults are as varied and trapped as the children.

[DaneSaw]

Posted: 1/7/08 at 3:19pm

Correction, the musical portrays SOME of the adults as manipulative and evil. Only the teachers can be seen as "manipulative" and "evil". Most of the others could just been seen as ignorant. They are part of a society in which mostly everone thinks that way, that children should not be educated in matters of adulthood...sex, pregnancy, etc. It's a world in which those things are still taboo. Weldna's mother only wants the best for her daughter, and as we see her, she doesn't know any better than to do so by shielding her from things like sex. Unfortunately, as the adults learn, ignorance and shielding of children can have the worst consequences.

We even get the other side of the story in Melchior's mother. She's quite the opposite of the other parents. She seems more on the liberal side, more trusting of her son, she doens't seem to force her beliefs on him. However, much like the other parents, it's her line of thinking that makes her ignorant to the world around her and she doesn't realize what her son has done until it's too late. In the end, she conforms to what the others want and sends Melchior to reform school once she learns that he did what he did knowing what the outcome might be.
Updated On: 1/7/08 at 03:19 PM

[MaryMag]

Posted: 1/7/08 at 5:21pm

quoting heymrmusic:
BroadwayAbridged, when I did the play, the director had the Masked Man in practically every scene overlooking the action and sometimes making the action happen. Kind of like the Broadway version of the Proprietor in Assassins. For example, the Masked Man offered the switch to Melchior, pantomimed the story about the queen with no head, and held the bunches of grapes in the Hans Rilow/Ernst Robel scene, among other things to that effect. That way, when he popped out and spoke in the final scene, it wasn't the first time the audience has seen the Masked Man.


I do not mean to say your production was this way, and I apologize if I offend anyone, but I have to say that I am SICK TO DEATH OF THIS GRAND PUPPETEER THING. I have seen it done. to. death. I've seen it done in shows with somewhat obvious storytellers - the Emcee, El Gallo - but I've seen it done in less obvious shows - the Fiddler in Fiddler on the Roof, the husband in a Doll's House. And I'm sick of it. It's not witty. It's been done a thousand times. It's just a bit.

Perhaps your production did it in a meaningful way and my complaining does not pertain to you. But in my experiences, I am growing outrageously sick of this stunt.

[BroadwayAbridged]

Posted: 1/7/08 at 9:38pm

@MaryMag: often (heck, almost always) I agree with that overdone-puppeteer sentiment, but in the case of SA the play, how would you have dealt with the problem of the masked-man-ex-machina?

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 1/7/08 at 9:56pm

No offense taken, Mary. But the Masked Man is a tough character. Really, what's a director to do? I don't blame you for feeling that way, though.

~Steven