Spring Awakening was a let down- Page 3

[Bri2]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 1:06pm

Yeah, I know I just joined so my opinion doesn't mean much, but I just wanted to say to nymommy Lea Michele is 20 and like just turned 20. Also, that's her acutal voice. If you took the time to meet her at the stagedoor, you would see that some people just have high child like voices. Take Kristin Chenoweth for example. Lea Michele did not dumb down her voice, that's just how she talks

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 1:18pm

If she took the time? You make it sound like going to the stage door and meeting an actor is doing the actor a favor. Meeting actors isn't some courtesy theatergoers do them. Vice versa, they're doing you one.

It's not so much the pitch of her voice for me, but her inflection. There's a difference between accurately capturing an innocent, childlike tone and just overacting. I think Lea has a beautiful singing voice, but her left much to be desired, IMO. Her inflection didn't seem realistic.

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 1:40pm

"Larson created characters that felt deep and real enough that they left room for people to be able to develop what they thought their entire life stories might be, and that people have felt connected to on a very individual basis."

I agree with that statement. Rent has characters who are layered and you can feel for them. I can't comment about SA because I haven't seen the show yet...

[brainpolice23]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 1:42pm

some say lea has "crunchy" diction. it's a musical theatre thing.

Posted: 1/15/07 at 1:44pm

it's a musical theatre thing.

So we'd obviously not know what it means.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 2:00pm

Well, I think he meant it's a musical theater thing and it would work in other more traditoinal shows, but this isn't typical musical theater.

And I don't see the point in comparing the two shows, they're completley different. One's about teens coming-of-age and the others about twentysomethings dealing with becoming adults and AIDS in the 90s. They're both good shows, but I feel like none of SA's music stands out. It all sounds relatively the same, and there aren't many songs that I would consider "show stoppers." They all just sorta serve thier purpose and move on. I think the characters needed more solos, etc. And maybe some big belty number, but I don't know. I still like the show.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 2:08pm

Is it neccessary for a show to have a "show stopper"?

And, when I saw it, "Totalle F***ed" definitely held the audience applause for at least a minute straight before letting the show continue.

[snl89]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 2:13pm

^YES. totally f*cked is just... well, you really cant fully understand (for lack of a better word) that song I dont think until you see it. Because so much of why its so amazing has to do with the point in the show at which it occurs. I mean, i LOVED the song before ever even seeing the show or knowing the story, but its just... its definitely a showstopper. So is Bitch of Living, but maybe a little bit less so. But again, those songs you really need to be IN the theater, FEELING the stomping and general energy going on on stage in order to get it. On the recording, they're just fun songs. In the theater, they're so much more. I mean, I remember looking around and not ONE single person I saw was sitting still. EVERYONE in the audience was tapping their foot and you could feel everyone just itching to jump out of their seats and start dancing with the performers

Updated On: 1/15/07 at 02:13 PM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 2:13pm

No, it's not neccessary, but when every # sounds the same, I think something is needed. The songs and the music are beauitful, but I just think there needed to be some veriation in the music. And I think "Mamma Who Bore Me" is a horrible opening for the show. It doesn't really grab your attention at all.

Foa, I don't see the point in arguing about it. You're never going to get me to think the way you do, so I don't see the point in arguing about it? It's called a difference of opinion.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 2:18pm

Who's arguing? All I was asking is if you felt it neccessary to have a show stopper.

And then I mentioned the audience reaction to one of the numbers.

That's an arguement?

[snl89]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 2:20pm

but what makes it arguing? cant we just discuss it? :) I happen to really enjoy hearing other peoples opinions on the show, even if they greatly differ from mine. Just because I may state my opinion afterward, that doesn't mean I'm trying to convince anyone otherwise. I'm just trying to keep the conversation going and explain my point of view as they did theirs. I cant speak for everyone, but I presume thats the case for most people who like the show, including Foa.

anyway, I also kind of find it interesting that you feel the musics all the same, because I actually was impressed by how varying I thought they were. I mean, sure, Bitch of Living and Totally F*cked are similar, and along those lines are also And Then There Were None and Dont Do Sadness and such, but those compared with Touch Me and Song of Purple Summer? and Mama Who Bore Me? I just thought it was a nice combination of both pop/rock and folk/gospel.

And as for Mama Who Bore Me, I dont know.. I think its pretty, though I do see why some people might find it boring. However, I DO think that the opening of the show over all is VERY effective. Because, That is not the entire opening of the show- it goes into a short scene, and then goes on to Mama Who Bore Me Reprise. And Mama Who Bore Me Reprise is incredible. That's what draws you in- because its your first taste of the high energy, amazing harmony music that's to come! Mama Who Bore Me is just the thing that leads into that.

Updated On: 1/15/07 at 02:20 PM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 2:22pm

Foa, have you read the rest of your posts on this thread? And the fact that you're arguing about you not arguing is an argument....just saying.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 2:25pm

None of the posts on this thread were directed at you, before you included yourself in it. They were a simple expression of my opinion...hence the many "IMO"s throughout them. I'm allowed to do that, you know. If I disagree with you...I'll say why. That's not arguing. That's utilizing this public forum for the sharing of varied viewpoints (which is its purpose, or so I thought.)

And the fact that you're arguing about you not arguing is an argument....just saying.

Now you're just mincing words.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 2:32pm

Yes, I was "mincing" words.

And I never said you were arguing with me in my first posts. Just after reading the thread, you seem to quick to jump on anyone who doesn't agree with you, and I just think that's pointless. We all have different opinions. Obviously you enjoyed the show, that's great, but that doesn't mean everyone does. And I stick by the sentiment that RENT is the stronger show. I don't feel anything towards the SA characters. They all seem very one-dimensional and one note - which maybe be a fault of the score.

Posted: 1/15/07 at 2:37pm

I don't think you read all of FOA's posts because, if you did, you'd realize that he stated more than once how he understands that everyone has their own opinion and he's not going to change that. I think you're mistaking a statement of opinion for agression and misunderstanding. Even Emcee wrote that she know that wasn't FOA's intention.

So, RentBoy, the point you're trying to make is moot.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 2:37pm

Thank you, FYG.

[brainpolice23]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 3:01pm

by it's a musical theatre thing, i meant that it is a style seen more frequently in traditional musical theatre. the interesting thing about this production, is that there is a divide between those more accustomed to musical theatre (say lea michele, and some others) and those who lurk in the straight theatre direction (jon wright, john gallagher jr.) I'm not saying one is right or wrong, however I think in this play, those with more training in straight theatre have the upperhand.

*this is to avoid the definite straight/gay theatre comment that is likely to follow this post*

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 3:07pm

I stand by my point.

[snl89]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 3:09pm

^I def see what you mean, and I tend to agree. I mean, I LOVED Lea and thought she did a great job acting wise, but I definitely could see a difference between her acting and, say, John gallaghers acting. And I do think that, to an extent, John's acting did kind of work more strongly for the show. It really was flawless the entire way through, and it was just very... real. Though, I think that Lea gets major props for scene before Whispering and Whispering itself. That, I felt, was her strongest point acting wise.

there were also some people, though, who I thought were kind of in the middle- like Jon Groff :) I thought he did such a good job with switching modes between the legit acting scenes and the musical scenes

Updated On: 1/15/07 at 03:09 PM

[gman07]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 3:32pm

I found Spring Awakening very entertaining, flaws and all. Actually I've never seen anything perfect (play, musical or otherwise). Of course everything is in the eyes / perception of the beholder. Some love SA some obviously do not. I plan to see it several more times, because I happen to Love it!


p.s. Lea Michelle is a Major Talent in IMO. Updated On: 1/15/07 at 03:32 PM

[bigbigbill]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 4:29pm

BroadwayGirl107...I have hated Rent from the start. It has nothing to do with Spring Awakening.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 6:40pm

About Lea Michele...I think the problem people have with the sound or inflection of her voice is just that she's a little vague in her choices (I think good direction could probably help that). Yeah, her voice is that high in real life, so she wasn't really putting that on...I just don't think all of her choices were specific enough.

But really, considering that she's 20 and she has that voice and was that emotionally available, I was pretty impressed. I think she's a major talent that will see some more growth soon.

[snl89]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 6:49pm

exactly! I mean, you have to remember, these people are only like 20, 21 years old and even younger! And they're in a show that's... NOT very easy acting wise it doesn't seem like. Thats what's so exciting to me is that, if they're this good now, imagine how good they'll be in other shows later on in their careers, once they've had a LOT of experience under their belt! Especially Jon Groff, John, Lilli, and Lea. If they continue in the industry, they're going to be KILLER :)

Updated On: 1/15/07 at 06:49 PM

[Bdwy24]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 6:51pm

"Broadwaygirl107.......Were you also the one laughing uncontrollably with your friend at inappropriate times and talked during the whole entire show?"

Woops, I meant to say that to Lavieboheme3090. There were two girls laughing at innappropriate times and wouldnt stop talking. The glares that everyone around them gave them and the people telling them to be quiet. didnt seem to stop them.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 6:58pm

I think she's really talented, and will go pretty far with some polishing and good direction as she gets older -- and like I said, vocally, she's wonderful. She's also best to watch when she's singing. She is very good for her age, but part of me has a very hard time going "well, she's only twenty, so it's okay if she sounds ridiculous for half the show," and to excuse things on the basis of "well, they're good for their ages." They may in fact be very impressive for their ages, but that doesn't really make disappear the fact that their are major acting flaws. But to compare her to say, John Gallagher (because he came up in comparison), I find him so much more natural and believable, whereas many of her choices seem almost forced. I saw him in Rabbit Hole as well, and would say the same things about his performance there. Very believable. Definitely a talented guy.

Updated On: 1/15/07 at 06:58 PM