Spring Awakening: Differences between Show and Musical

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?

---

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.

---

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

---

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

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

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

---

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.

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.

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