Reviews

One of the reasons I choose this play is because every time I think about it I have a distinctive feeling. Reading this play, finishing this play, writing this presentation, and obsessing over it (for years at this point) has only developed my feelings towards it. Specifically, the feeling of anger. Anger. Anger is this feeling that this play leaves me with. That is why this play is so successful, I think. It’s a rare emotion that I don’t often find myself feeling when experiencing theatre or art of many kinds.

Frank Wedekind was a very successful German Playwright. He was very critical of the bourgeois society, and this was partly why many of his plays were not performed uncensored in his lifetime. Wedekind was not afraid to write about exactly how he felt, and I think some of the anger I feel comes from Wedekind’s voice. Spring Awakening was his first major work of theatre and he paid for its publication in 1891. It wasn’t staged until 1906 though and public performances of Spring Awakening were banned in England until 1963. However, over one hundred years later it is now a play (and musical) that is still performed. Including more recently the Broadway musical adaption in 2006 and a London revival in 2021. This work has retained a longevity and the fact this play remains current one hundred years later is part of what angers me.

This play opens at its most typical. It takes place in a provincial town in Germany, with a scene between a mother and daughter, Wendla and Frau Bergmann.

Wendla: ‘ Why have you made my dress so long, Mother?’

Frau Bergmann: ‘You’re fourteen today.’

Wendla: ‘I’d rather not have been fourteen if i’d known you’d make my dress so long’

Frau Bergmann: Your dress isn’t too long, Wendla. What’s next?‘

Their bickering is familiar to audiences of all ages, this is a common, ordinary scene which automatically situates audiences in a world they are familiar with, a world like the one they are living in. It also establishes the relationship between the mother and daughter, FrauBergmann never answers Wendla’s questions, instead making a statement of ‘you’re fourteen today’ as if that answers everything. It does introduce the main conflict of this play though: children aging into adults and how the children’s and adults views are conflicting.

Frau Bergmann: ‘who knows what you’ll be like when you’re grown up?’

Wendla: Who knows- perhaps I won’t be anything anymore

Frau bergmann: Child, Child, where d’you get these ideas?

Wendla is astute, she foreshadows her own death here but most importantly it shows that she has mature thoughts. This conflicts her mother’s views of her, where she is simply a child who shouldn’t have these thoughts. Frau Bergmann assumes Wendla will stay her ‘precious’ forever and ignores the fact Wendla is growing up. She is shown to be straddling the world of childhood and adulthood as we are presented with Wendla and her mother at their most typical. Frau Bergmann chastising Wendla about the length of her dress, a conversation I have overhead many, many times between children and parental figures. Wedekind does successfully depict a realistic conversation, but its characters are almost too typical. There is nothing distinctive of these characters in this scene and thankfully it is short and simply serves its purpose of introducing them. In the next scene between the two female characters Wendla appears to be more adult like, we see her developing as she is persistent and determined to know exactly where babies come from, as she refuses to believe they come from storks. Her mother continues to brush it off and the closet answer she received is this:

‘ To have a child- the man- to whom you’re married- you must- love- love, you see- as you can only love your husband. You must love him very much with your whole heart’

The conversation between the two here is good. There is an eventual yes from Frau Bergmann who has previously been attempting to end their conversation. I think this is a great introduction to the play, we see them at their most typical but also see how their relationship is already changing.

This play does not follow the classic stranger who comes to town narrative with all these characters knowing each other much better than we know any of them. However, in some ways this is still a stranger who comes to town. The strangers are the adults these children are becoming. This complicates the classic narrative because the adults aren’t aware the ‘strangers’ are ‘coming to town’. This is where the conflict arrives and we as the audience are privy to this because of our objective perspective. We are not immersed in this performance and are left to piece together what is going on in the present but also what has happened before this and exactly how these characters all fit together. We are spectators to the events that unfold, helpless to watch as these children grow up.

In some ways the characters are too simple in this play. This may be simply because of the time we are given with them. With so many characters their stage time is significantly shorter, there isn’t time to subvert our expectations of these characters because we have hardly got to know them. Maybe they are simple and vague to represent a type of person but Regardless, I think they are authentic[cr1] . The writing of the play is done really well in my opinion, in such a short amount of pages Wedekind creates a multitude of tragedy’s, no easy feat. Part of what is really successful, in my opinion, is subtext, conversations the characters have are not always particularly dramatic. Of course there are moments such as that between Melchior and Wendla but the majority of this play presents ordinary conversations between ordinary people. A lot of the time the kids are simply kids and just act as kids. But even in the more serious scenes we are shown, not told, what is happening. A2S1 is a conversation between Melchior and Moritz. They don’t just talk about feeling alone and depressed and how Moritz has thoughts for suicide. Instead he talks about a ‘beautiful queen, as beautiful as the sun (…) but she couldn’t eat, or drink, or see, or laugh.’ It is quite an obvious hint but the fact it’s coming from a child means it could be a childish made up story and we are left wondering for the rest of the act what it really meant. How sad Moritz really is. The next time these 2 characters meet one on one is when Moritz is dead. We see another side to him when we met Ilse. He is confused and stressed about his work and we are left wondering exactly what he is going to do. Every scene is purposeful. There are no filler scenes and this scene is a great way to develop Moritz and introduce Ilse. She is a foil to Moritz. Also unable to survive in society she accepts it and separates herself. There interaction is painful, two children desperate for a connection but Moritz is too depressed to accept Ilse’s offer to just be children and forget the pains of adolescent life.

Ilse: To drink warm goat’s milk. I’ll curl your hair and hang a bell round your neck. Or there’s a rocking-horse you can play on.

We see Moritz reject her invite and walk towards his suicide instead. Tension is high throughout the scene but the conversation starts as simply one discussing small talk about the past. We learn more about the characters but none of this really informs us on why the characters are as they are know. They have been friends for a long time but know so little about each other. When Ilse reveals why she is on her own it gets darker. We realise even more children are suffering. Ilse is sexually abused. We really know nothing about what is happening around us, what is happening to our friends and would it make any real difference if we knew. These questions that are introduced are tale as old as time and yet still so hauntingly familiar. It’s written so well and seamlessly transitions into Moritz’s last panic as he realises there are three options in this world. Accept the society and become a part of it, live on the outskirts- scared and abused, or end it all and leave in the only true way- suicide.

The three scenes that were cut from the first production were Act 2 scene 3, Act 3 scene 4 and Act 3 Scene 6. These scenes are some that depict some of the most authentic dialogue. To be able to write dialogue that is censored as opposed to deleted shows something really powerful about the fact people felt threatened by it. Act two, scene 3 features Hanschen Rilow, a character with little previous dialogue. He has a sort of monologue where he lusts over venus of palma vecchio, a painting of a naked woman lying on her side. It is a bizzare scene, but I think it breaks up some of the heavier, more intense scenes which sandwhich it (wendla’s conversation about how children are conceived and the scene in which she is raped). He references how her ‘inhuman modesty is too demanding’ and how he would die for her. His obsession is most certainly eccentric as he admires her ‘girlish, budding breast’ and it compares him to Melchior in the next scene. Where Hanschen is satisfied to fantasise over paintings Melchior takes his desires further. This comparison encourages a moral criticism from the audience. Sometimes delaying key moments in the play make them more shocking when it happens.

Act 3 scene 4 is a scene in which many of the young boys gather together and the main conflict of leaving childhood is displayed. The boys are still acting like children, playing with coins and calling each other ‘pig’ and ‘animal’. This scene is haunting. Only two scenes ago Moritz was buried into the ground. We are reminded of Moritz’s youth and feel an anger that he isn’t with them. Melchior is melancholy in this scene as he reflects on how he raped Wendla. He has remorse for his actions and the fact he is surrounded by the other boys reminds us of his youth. He is a boy, like the rest of them despite having done an adult sin.

Melchior: Whatever I do now, it’s still rape.

He takes ownership for his actions. Which is far more than many of the adults have done in response to Moritz’s death.

Act 3, scene 6 was probably seen as scandalous for audiences in the 20th century. But the irony is this is probably the purest, most innocent scene in the whole play. It pictures Hanschen and Ernst, 2 boys who discuss their possible futures with a childlike optimism.

Hanschen: When i’m a millionaire

Ernst: In thirty years when we look back to this evening, I suppose it could seem incredibly beautiful.

In this tragedy there is a small glimpse of pure love. This scene ends with the two boys kissing and talking about how ‘everything is beautiful’. Whilst it did not make it into the original production I think it perfectly represents the criticism of the bourgeois lifestyle. The fact that two boys sharing an innocent kiss was censored for audiences as opposed to real triggering scenes depicts the attitude Wedekind was critical of. Playing with and challenging people’s views is part of theatre. It is an opportunity to show what is going on in the world and humanity.

I’m not sure the overall structure of the play is why it remains so popular or even why I love it so much. This play has 37 characters. In 60 pages. I think the enormity of the project takes away from the core value, Wedekind wants to showcase society, but he doesn’t need to replicate so many versions of people in society. In focusing on displaying his many criticisms of society he has lost much of what is truly important to plays. The conflict between characters. His drama seems to come out of nowhere and has a short life. This is inevitable when there are so many plots and characters. For example, Wendla’s plot is so simple and focused. It has a beginning where she playfully argues with her mother about where babies come from and shows her childlike elements. The climax is when she is raped by Melchior and the resolution is her death through backstreet abortion. Her character and plot Is simply used as a tool by Wedekind to criticise parents infantilising nature of their children. I feel myself wanting more, wanting to feel like Wendla is a real girl and maybe if she had more features and personality which people could relate to there would be an even more emotional connection to her plot.

Wedekind intertwines many of the plot lines and presents mans aggression through Melchior’s rape of Wendla. He has been brought up to become this man. But this action doesn’t necessarily link Wendla’s ignorance about sex to the reasons she becomes pregnant. This is an act of sexual assault and the consequences come from Melchior’s actions, not Wendla’s ignorance.

In the broadway version the act is one of curiosity from both and Wendla consents as well as any fourteen-year-old can. In this version, It is because Wendla is unaware that sex is what produces a child it is her mother’s actions that eventually kill Wendla. Not Melchior. Whilst both plots have the same outcome I think it shows the importance of having scenes run off of one another and seeing the affects of the conflict previously set up. I think this also shows the importance of having one, possibly two central plots that run through.

The real antagonist’s in this play is the society which has created the adults. This same society which is going to recreate these same adults out of the current children. Moritz recognises this. He tries to change this future and begs the adults for a way out, he reveals he cannot live in this society as Frau Gabor writes back:

‘the threat hinted at in your letter- that if your escape were not made possible you would take your life’.

This society which puts the stakes of exams so high to prepare them for a world in which they need to play their duty is a world in which Moritz cannot live. He wants to escape it and if this is not possible there is only one other way out.

This is what angers me, the truth Wedekind is revealing. The fact his play is set in a pre- nazi germany where the industrial revolution was on the move and people were becoming a type of robots. Following orders, assisting the greater good over the individual needs and teaching their children to do the same. The fact that all of these issues: suicide, abuse, sexual assault, mental health issues, youth pregnancy are still present one hundred years later is horrific. The fact this play is still appreciated shows these issues resonate with modern audiences in a way they shouldn’t. Many of Wedekind’s characters and plot points are underdeveloped but at the core of this play he touches our humanity.

Our desire to protect our children.

Most people in the world have connection with children and teens. If not them themselves then their siblings, family friends, , and they themselves were once children. I think this is personally why this play hits me. I have younger sisters and I work in a secondary school. I have seen so many of these issues play out in recent years. But, I am now one of the teachers in this play, not the children. I survived my own childhood but not everyone did. Children the same age as the ones in Spring awakening may have survived their childhood to die in wars over the next 50 years. People my age and younger have died and are still dying, unnecessarily every day.

What will happen to the children of today? Are they going to survive their childhood? And if they do what type of adult will they become?

For as long as there are children in the world Spring Awakening will be relevant. It’s not just a play about children sexuality and growing up. It’s about who they are forced to become by the adults. It’s the irony that we, modern audiences, probably see ourselves as better than the people of the 20th century. But are we really? Children are products of their environment, and we are also products of the society that the children in Spring Awakening inherited, and that is what this play analyses. So often we are told to discover our characters physche through delving into their childhood. Some of the questions on our character worksheets are:

- Education

- Home life

- Relationships with parents and authority figures

To understand our characters, we delve back into their childhood. Spring Awakening takes this and shows us people in the making. Maybe these characters are not fully developed because they are not fully developed people? We see not only the trauma of the past but we can see a repetition as future trauma unfolds in front of our eyes.

such_a_fellow's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark funny reflective sad tense fast-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

5.0

keepthisholykiss's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional funny sad fast-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

5.0

federicabeccherini's review against another edition

Go to review page

emotional reflective fast-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

3.75

emmadilemma01's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional reflective medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? N/A
Loveable characters? N/A
Diverse cast of characters? N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

5.0

Content Warnings

esthersucksatlife's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.0

wtf (war beim zweitenmal irgendwie noch ein bisschen besser)

tnt307's review

Go to review page

3.0

Ich kannte Frühlings Erwachen nur zum Teil, da ich in der Uni was darüber gehört habe. Als eine Lektüre für meine 9. Klasse kommt das Drama nicht in Frage, aber ich bin froh, dass ich es gelesen habe. Ich würde es sehr gerne allen Kindern zeigen, die sich heutzutage über die Schule beschweren... :)
Ich fand das Stück gut, wenn auch hin und wieder etwas schwierig - sowohl inhaltlich, als auch sprachlich.

More...