My friends have started a theatre company, Coffee Black Productions, which will be putting on an evening of monologues (including one by Yours Truly) centered on the theme of addiction. Check out their page for more information on this and other upcoming shows in New York City. You can also follow them on Twitter and Facebook.

The smash hit of the 2007 season, Spring Awakening, walked away with the most statues at last year’s Tony awards. It has been praised as the defining musical of our generation; a fusion of rock and musical theatre with a hearty helping of sexuality thrown into the mix. With a cast of relative unknowns, most below the drinking age, the show has quickly become a staple for tourist entertainment on the Great White Way. But does the show really live up to its own hype or is it just the new critical darling?

Spring Awakening, is based off of the 19^th century play, of the same name by Frank Wedekind. Just as in the play, the musical follows the story of three young teenagers: Melchior, Wendla and Moritz on their journey from the naïve innocence of pre-adolescence to the grim realities of adulthood. The main story is of Melchior’s study of human sexuality, he approaches it almost as a scientist and philosopher, gaining knowledge in the biological acts and dismissing the psychology behind them. With this knowledge of the human body, Melchior is seen as an authority on the subject to his peers which gives him power but at the same time ostracizes him from his more immature classmates. His unstable and academically challenged friend, Moritz, is both intrigued and appalled by Melchior’s “discoveries” in an essay he gives to him. While Wendla, their childhood friend, unwillingly becomes the specimen for Melchior’s quest of understanding his own physical desires. Finally there is Ilse a girl their own age and a free spirit without ties to place or constrains to the society that has a hold over the other three (Ilse’s character is an archetype which found its way into many of Wedekind’s plays). Many of their friends and classmates are also briefly highlighted in the story, often with full scenes, showing different examples of their own sexual awakenings.

The play itself is broken up into a series of vignettes, over the course of about a year in these characters’ lives. The musical follows this rather disjointed structure and throws in musical sequences during and in-between these scenes. As an adaptation the musical sticks very closely to its source material but at the same time suffers from the same problems. We, as an audience, never get close enough to these characters to fully appreciate or even understand them. This is primarily because they are archetypes more so than actual fleshed out beings. Ilse is much like the hippies of the 1960s. She is sexually free, yet still maintains an innocence about her. Wendla, on the other hand, represents the purity, naivety and innocence associated with childhood. Moritz is like one on the brink experience. He portrays the fear of leaving childhood behind and the sexual curiosity of adolescence.

Since characterization is basically absent from the source material, the musical also leaves it by the wayside. The exception to this being Moritz, who seems to be the only one with any sort of story or character arc. Other characters come and go so fast that it seems pointless to have them present in the first place. Some are generally more interesting than the main trio that you are left questioning WHY they weren’t explored in more depth. Some of this does have to do with the actors, but the majority of the problem stems from the libretto. The creative team ended up being too literal in translating a play based in expressionism to the realism of the musical stage. The play is designed to be dissected by the audience as a comment and expression of an idea(s). It was never meant to be performed as an imitation of reality. Granted, a musical by its nature is not entirely rooted in reality, but its presentation is. You are meant to view it as if what is going on is really happening. The point of theatre today is to forget that you’re watching a piece of fiction. All of which is why the show falls short of its goal. The audience can not be grabbed when there is nothing to cling to or care about in the first place.

The score, written by Duncan Sheik (who blew up in the 90s with his hit single “Barely Breathing”), is a wonderful modern rock score; probably one of the best in recent years. However, except for a few reprises, there is no musical continuity to the show. You could take all of the songs and reorder them and the show could still work. Very few of the songs really explain much about the characters, what they’re feeling or that moment of the story in general. Many of them are too interchangeable and could mean something coming from nearly any character in the piece. As a “book musical” the show just doesn’t work. Instead of forwarding the story, 90% of the songs actually stop or interrupt it. The “gimmick” of this show is that these teenagers who are supposed to exist in the 19^th century step out of their world into ours just with the use of a microphone. The songs are supposed to exist in another time. They are not only representative of the character’s thoughts but as a reflection of the youth of today and how, after over 100 years, we haven’t changed. During the group songs ensemble members, sitting in modern day dress within the onstage audience, help to bridge this generational gap by pulling out microphones and singing along with the rest of the cast. This unfortunately gets old rather quickly and has a sense of trying to be edgy without actually being it.

Jonathan Groff carries the show as the quick-witted Melchior. His voice is standard Broadway fair and like the majority of his fellow male cast members the score showcases his talents well. Groff’s acting is good, it’s clear that he has an understanding of the character but Melchior is just so unlikable that it’s really hard to root for him. It’s clear that Groff will be going places in the future, but I still believe that this was not a role or performance that was Tony worthy. As Moritz, John Gallagher, Jr. was able to create a full character despite the limitations of the script not only through dialogue but with his whole being. He steals every scene he is in and his powerful punk rock vocals perfectly compliment the score. The audience feels for Moritz and his struggle. He provides not only the humor but also the heart of the story. Gallagher’s Tony nomination and subsequent win was very much well deserved.

Lea Michele plays the doomed Wendla, a young girl searching for understanding of the changes going on around her. Michele has a rather pretty popish Broadway voice but unfortunately that’s about the extent of her abilities in this show. Her acting is almost caricature of a supposedly typical 19^th century youth. Sometimes her acting choices make you wonder if Wendla is just really naïve or perhaps mentally challenged. The character is pretty much manipulated by nearly everyone she encounters that Michele doesn’t end up having much to do but play dumb. As the other female lead, Lauren Pitchard makes a mark with her unique sound. Her voice is like a cross between Fiona Apple and Nora Jones and much like Gallagher the score suits her. Unfortunately that’s where the positives end with her. Pritchard’s line delivery is “high school theatre” quality at best and her important second act monologue to Moritz is cringing to watch, let alone listen to. She comes off as incredibly flat and lifeless opposite Gallagher’s Moritz; the only character she really interacts with. Subsequent actresses have been able to make these scenes between Ilse and Moritz work but they unfortunately lack Pitchard’s unique and almost character appropriate vocal stylings.

The ensemble of the original cast comes off as very unbalanced. The boys, who make up more of the minor characters and many solo sections in the various group numbers, steal the spotlight. Many of their characters provide some of the best, and much needed comedic relief moments in the entire show. The girls unfortunately are left with nearly zero character development or purpose, except for following around Wendla in a handful of scenes. The exception of this being Lilli Cooper who portrays the abused Martha, a character that unfortunately suffers from a severe lack of development or real purpose. Lilli basically stops the first act with the disturbing “The Dark I Know Well”, her unique voice and great acting chops prove to be another wasted opportunity by the writers for another character outside of the main four.

Spring Awakening ends up being two hours of wasted opportunities and unfulfilled expectations. I didn’t go in hoping to hate it or love it but the fact is it doesn’t live up to its hype. I was entertained and some aspects I was very much in awe. But the problems within the show, unfortunately, overshadow the rather brilliant positives. In my opinion, the book should have been scrapped and the show should have been a revue of Sheik’s music with a vague subplot; i.e. the recent revival of Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris.

This show clearly caters to the younger generation. Its publicity campaign is a testament to that fact. However the general public needs to understand that Spring Awakening is not “God’s gift” to musical theatre despite what its producers and creative team have gone on and on about. In reality there is nothing very new about it. It wouldn’t even exist were it not for rock musicals like HAIR or RENT which paved the way years (and even decades) before and did so without the glaring problems in structure and format. There is no shame in loving this show but see it for what it is, not what it isn’t. Is it entertaining? Yes. Are there good performances? Yes. Is it reason for the rebirth and reformation of the future of the Broadway musical? I sincerely doubt it.

-Lotte