The Season for Dreaming

Love Until We Die: Random Spring Awakening Play Thought

prosopopeya:

arqueete:

You know, there’s a crazy amount of foreshadowing that happens in the play. In the very first scene Wendla seems to foresee her own death, in Melchior and Moritz’s conversations they seem to predict that Melchior could be capable of beating and raping Wendla, Moritz keeps imagining himself…

Which brings up questions of determinism and destiny, things that can accompany a religious discussion as well. Are our fates set in stone by God? Is that something that Melchior would agree with? I’m inclined to think not, but then it’s entirely possible that the religious community he’s a part of may subscribe to that belief. That raises the question then of what Wedekind has to say about determinism, fates being set in stone, etc. Does the Masked Man represent a chance to change, to break free from all of that?

Does everyone who suffers from a predetermined fate do so because their community boxes them into their fate so that escape is nearly impossible/inevitable? That is, with the way that Melchior and Wendla are taught about sexuality, could there have been another outcome for their story? If they had gone to IHOP with the Masked Man, would things have been different? Theoretically they could have chosen a different path, an enlightened one, had they been shown that other paths exist.

I almost loled in class at “IHOP with the Masked Man.”

I think I’ve mentioned before (I’M SURE I HAVE, YOU KNOW ME) that, you know, the whole English class thing with arguing about what the author meant and if that is even relevant… with SA I think this is especially intriguing because you have the musical, where Duncan and Steven are re-imagining the story based on how they saw the play and what they personally took from it, and then the lingering question/argument about whether the musical is staying true to what Wedekind actually meant.

For example, I read an essay or something where someone was trying to make the point that in SA we’re meant by Wedekind to see Melchior as someone on his way to being an admirable manly man who rightfully has power over women vs the effeminate and ineffectual Moritz who should be pitied if not condemned — this sort of idea that though Wedekind was fighting against sexual repression, what he saw as being repressed was actually the natural right of men to indulge their sexuality (and the right of women… to satisfy men). As a fan of the musical, I see this theory as sort of ridiculous. As a modern woman, I see this theory as sort of disgusting. But the reality is this person made very legitimate points based on Wedekind’s life and other works and that interpretation could easily be true. There were apparently people in Wedekind’s time who saw the play that way — who felt that, say, Wendla got what she deserved in being raped because she was overstepping her bounds and tempting Melchior. While the musical is sometimes  like modern commentary on the past, the play… wasn’t. It was still written in 1891 and still influenced by ideas of the time, even if it disagreed with a lot of mainstream ideas in a way that we find is sometimes surprisingly modern.

But, of course, if the musical is spreading a message which is worthwhile and is meaningful to its audience, does it matter what Wedekind meant? Does the musical have an obligation to stay faithful to the play? Even if it turns out the reality is that the play is a misogynistic mess while the musical is less so?

BUT BACK TO YOUR ORIGINAL POINT, yeah, we have little idea what Wedekind was thinking or what he meant for us to take from it and that’s what makes it both a joy and a little nerve-wracking to analyze. A joy because there is a lot to talk about and these subjects are important and still relevant in modern times, but nerve-wracking because… so many of us are discovering the play based on our love of the musical, and the more we look into the play the more we have to acknowledge that it’s possible this musical we love can be based on a story which was meant to carry messages we disagree with, and may have been written by a man whose personal life was less than admirable. Or maybe not. Hard to say.