Spring Awakening
Saturday night, I went to the Denver Center for the Performing Arts for the National tour of Spring Awakening. I tend to buy the soundtracks of the musicals that win big awards, so I was familiar with the music beforehand. I never found the music all that catchy -- I was never left thinking about the lyrics nor was I carried away with any specific tune.
The show was technically impressive. Although only one set was used, they used other features to make it feel as if the scene had changed. For instance, colored lightbulbs on long cords descended (only in the 2nd act, if I remember correctly) to signify the night stars. Changing into multiple colors turned the school setting into chaos in the song "Totally *@#$ed." At one point, a round window turned into a moon.
Another theatrical feature that I have never witnessed before was the use of fragrance. In the 2nd act, smells of spring and summer -- such as jasmine, oranges, ginger and lavendar cascaded through the audience. It was almost an all-senses experience.
Although I was impressed with the staging and technical workings of the production, I am left underwhelmed when I consider the story, plot, and acting skills. Some of the blocking felt awkward and over-stated. For instance, the musical takes place somewhere around the turn-of-the-century. The costumes are done in this period style, and the language typically matches; that is, until they break into song. It is clearly obvious when songs begin that the tunes, instruments and rhythms are modern. The contrast cannot be missed -- because the contrast is so blatant, having the characters produce unnecessarily large American-Idol style microphones from their pockets when they begin to sing is more distracting than it is artistic or profound.
As for the story, I am still not sure what to make of it. It seems to me it's a story about teenagers having sex. I didn't receive any waves of enlightenment and actually left the theatre feeling confused. The actors did not show any depth or rich acting ability (this could be the writing, and not acting skill). I could picture these actors in a coffee house or cabaret production -- but not so much on Broadway. I overheard one astute patron comment at the conclusion of the show, "You know, some of them were singers and actors." Some of them indeed.
What I did gain was a new appreciation for the music. As I listen to the soundtrack I am able to picture the staging of the song; this has brought some clarity. Although I thought it was an interesting and frequently shocking production, I am left thinking "What was the point?" Perhaps it will come as I ponder on it more -- some musicals are like that (Sunday in the Park with George, for example). In the meantime, to quote a lyric from the musical -- it seems the point was totally lost -- and "totally *&^%ed".
The show was technically impressive. Although only one set was used, they used other features to make it feel as if the scene had changed. For instance, colored lightbulbs on long cords descended (only in the 2nd act, if I remember correctly) to signify the night stars. Changing into multiple colors turned the school setting into chaos in the song "Totally *@#$ed." At one point, a round window turned into a moon.
Another theatrical feature that I have never witnessed before was the use of fragrance. In the 2nd act, smells of spring and summer -- such as jasmine, oranges, ginger and lavendar cascaded through the audience. It was almost an all-senses experience.
Although I was impressed with the staging and technical workings of the production, I am left underwhelmed when I consider the story, plot, and acting skills. Some of the blocking felt awkward and over-stated. For instance, the musical takes place somewhere around the turn-of-the-century. The costumes are done in this period style, and the language typically matches; that is, until they break into song. It is clearly obvious when songs begin that the tunes, instruments and rhythms are modern. The contrast cannot be missed -- because the contrast is so blatant, having the characters produce unnecessarily large American-Idol style microphones from their pockets when they begin to sing is more distracting than it is artistic or profound.
As for the story, I am still not sure what to make of it. It seems to me it's a story about teenagers having sex. I didn't receive any waves of enlightenment and actually left the theatre feeling confused. The actors did not show any depth or rich acting ability (this could be the writing, and not acting skill). I could picture these actors in a coffee house or cabaret production -- but not so much on Broadway. I overheard one astute patron comment at the conclusion of the show, "You know, some of them were singers and actors." Some of them indeed.
What I did gain was a new appreciation for the music. As I listen to the soundtrack I am able to picture the staging of the song; this has brought some clarity. Although I thought it was an interesting and frequently shocking production, I am left thinking "What was the point?" Perhaps it will come as I ponder on it more -- some musicals are like that (Sunday in the Park with George, for example). In the meantime, to quote a lyric from the musical -- it seems the point was totally lost -- and "totally *&^%ed".