The Arts in New York City

The catchy rock score and the energetic, at times spastic, choreography really helped bring the excitement to the stage. However, I am a little confused as to why in the musical Hanschen’s scenes provided only comic relief. If Duncan Sheik wanted to produce a musical whose message was to promote communication in terms of sexuality, thereby satisfying curiosity associated with adolescence, then why portray Hanschen humorously? By responding with laughter to Hanschen’s masturbatory struggle and homosexuality as depicted in the musical, isn’t the audience still admitting its own sense of discomfort towards sexuality? Laughing at Hanschen’s situation leaves masturbation and homosexuality as taboos; is this not counteracting the intended message of the musical? But I give the producers credit because I noticed from last class that there is still some question about whether laughter was appropriate in response to Hanschen and Ernst’s scene in the second half of the play, unlike Hanschen’s masturbation scene which was clearly comedic. Hanschen deserves better!

The catchy rock score and the energetic, at times spastic, choreography really helped bring the excitement to the stage. However, I am a little confused as to why in the musical Hanschen’s scenes provided only comic relief. If Duncan Sheik wanted to produce a musical whose message was to promote communication in terms of sexuality, thereby satisfying curiosity associated with adolescence, then why portray Hanschen humorously? By responding with laughter to Hanschen’s masturbatory struggle and homosexuality as depicted in the musical, isn’t the audience still admitting its own sense of discomfort towards sexuality? Laughing at Hanschen’s situation leaves masturbation and homosexuality as taboos; is this not counteracting the intended message of the musical? But I give the producers credit because I noticed from last class that there is still some question about whether laughter was appropriate in response to Hanschen and Ernst’s scene in the second half of the play, unlike Hanschen’s masturbation scene which was clearly comedic. Hanschen’s character needs the depth he has in the play.

I thought the musical was much better then the actual play. The play itself was pretty dry and the characters were poorly developed. However, allowing the actors to express themselves through rock n’ roll made the characters more three-dimensional. The language used in the play was also modernized and helped me understand what was happening better.

To test if this reply thing works…

One of the best parts of Spring Awakening was its innovation. Rock music is very different from the tradition musical numbers, and using songs as insight into a character as opposed to advance the story line was a very original idea! Although there were some things I didn’t like about the music (For one thing, I felt Wendla and Melchior were a bit too in love for the average 14 year old), I thought they musical was very good and enjoyable, and should also be respected for its strides in the field of musical theater.

Best decision? John Gallegher as Morritz
Worst decision? Cutting out the Man in the Mask at the end, and making Melchior’s mom one of the stereotypical “adult women” when she was the only parent with an identity.

-Christina

I enjoyed the play. By allowing the characters to express their feelings through rock music the audience could really understand the anguish and emotional turmoil the characters felt.
The part of the play that bothered me was the hayloft scene. On stage, the hayloft scene seemed more consensual than it did in the text. On stage, Wendla seemed to want to be with Melchior in the hayloft. In the text, though, Wedekind suggests that Wendla tried to fight Melchior by telling him “Don’t kiss me, Melchior! Don’t kiss me!”
The text of Spring’s Awakening is filled with tension. The stage version attempted to lighten the mood at times. The scene in which Hanschen and Ernst kiss, portraying gay love, was acted with some comedy. I do not feel that this was a wrong choice because even though the matter is a serious one, demonstrating much inward confusion for the two boys, many are still uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality. By giving this particular scene a comic air, the audience could laugh uncomfortably while the message of what Hanschen and Ernst are going through still comes across. The subject matter of Wedekind’s Spring’s Awakening is heavy and serious. Breaks in the tension were needed.
The play’s major themes on teen sexuality, parent to child communication, and the emotional roller coaster teens go through are clearly present on the stage. It was well acted and likeable.

I understand where aherskovits is talking about when it came to the homosexuality scene in the musical, but I still felt it was a bit inappropriate. Wedekin’s play was supposed to expose us to things that make us feel uncomfortable (including the hayloft scene) without a comic or light-hearted air. It was supposed to be very dry and out that, as if someone is just displaying the bare facts without any sugar to cover it up. The musical did have a lot of sugary cover-ups, which, although made the musical a lot more enjoyable, did detract from the overall meaning. I also think Hanschen should have gotten some more respect, but I do understand that, since many of these things are still considered taboo, comic relief was needed in some cases, especially in the case of a musical. In the real play, I’m sure it was much bleaker, which, albeit depressing, would convey the true message much better.

I think that the show was done incredibly well. They took a pretty dull text and turned it into an exciting and electrifying show. It’s true that in doing this they lost some of the strength in the play and some of the messages within the original script, and one looking for an exact production of the text would be disappointed with the show. However, a Broadway Show and a written play are inherently different, so in order to make the show successful, it would be impossible to keep every detail exactly the same. (It is the same when turning any book into a movie. The director is always forced to make changes in order for the movie to work.) But looking at the show as a show, I think they did an incredible job in terms of choreography, the musical numbers, and in conveying the messages of teenage insecurity. The plot itself had a few kinks that weren’t worked out and made the show somewhat unclear, but looked at holistically, it was a fantastic play.

Well, I should begin by saying I enjoyed the show. It was a new concept–rock-and-roll music infused into a rather dull, tense plot. The music added a much needed lightheartedness into a plot that seemed so intense that the reader could hardly, lets say, come up for a breath of fresh air. However, this same cheerfulness at times, seemed to take away from the meaning of the plot. For example, as many before me have mentioned, the homosexuality scene. While in the play this seemed to be a moment of extreme tension and seriousness, during the play the observer could not help but to laugh at the awkwardness brilliantly presented by the actors. The main idea being, that the concept of homosexuality still is perhaps not so widely accepted.
The choreographers, lyricists and directors did a fantastic job of trying to make a successful show– which is by far their ultimate goal. This alone is enough to excuse some overly cheery songs, such as “The Purple Summer,” as well as the overly sensual hayloft scene. It’s obvious that a Broadway musical can’t entirely capture Wedekind’s intense plot, but the attempt (and outcome) is highly commendable.

Although I do not want to take away from the groundbreaking effect of the controversial, daring play, I found the musical to be overdone. The rock and roll music is supposed to be the teenagers’ expression of angst and protest against the adults. Some of the songs convey this expression. Other songs made no sense to me at all. Also the characters’ incessant spastic outbursts made me feel uneasy as a viewer, and I’m sorry to say, they made the characters appear to be mentally compromised.
I find the so-called “rape” scene to be a ludicrous interpretation of the rape scene in the play itself. Wedekind wanted to convey an actual rape of Wendla. I do not think that rape is defined by a reluctant agreement to sex as a result of intense pre-teen romance.

The broadway show was really good and well choreographed. I felt the rape scene was kind of weird because everyone(the classmates) were surrounding them and staring at them while they were going at it. All the songs were good and the singers were amazing. I was surprised at their voices because it held a lot of emotion in it and they had strong voices. The broadway show revealed a lot of details that I overlooked while I was reading the play. The broadway definitely was more interesting than the play itself with all the lights, music, singers, and acting. I felt that the adults were wrong to keep their children ignorant of sex. If they had known the consequences, then they wouldn’t have made mistakes and it wouldn’t have come back and kick them in their … bottom like it did to Moritz. Wendla would probably have stopped Melchior if she knew she had a chance of getting pregnant. In the end, knowledge is power!