I did a search, but no one seems to have really discussed this in detail. I just saw the musical for the first time tonight, and although I really enjoyed it, I was greatly disturbed that the sex scene at the end of the first act did not appear to be consensual. I know from people's previous posts that the blocking where Wendla says "yes" and places Melchior's hand on her breast was added to the Broadway production to make it appear more consensual, but to me it seemed that Wendla did NOT want Melchior to go as far as he did, and that technically speaking, he raped her.
Can anyone support or deny this using evidence from the script/staging? This is really bothering me!
I definitely participated in a heated discussion on the board on this topic. Too lazy to go find it.
Basically, I said he essentially raped her because he knew about sex and the consequences and she didn't, regardless of whether she says yes at that time. And everyone else said that it was ok because Wendla loved Melchior. And I banged my head against the wall. Repeatedly.
ummm... it would've been nice if you didn't include actualy plot points in the subject... i wanted to see this show when i went to new york and i'm assuming you gave away a huge plot point! thanks.... geez
Spoiler I guess, though I don't know how someone could not know that Spring Awakening involves sex at this point, considering that it's on just about all the promotional features and the cover of their playbill.
I haven't read the original script, but my friends who have read it say that it would definitely be considered rape in Wenekind's original version, and they toned it down for the musical.
Well, sorry, but I imagine most people going to see the show would know that it's about sexual discovery, and that therefore characters in the play have sex. I mean, look at the LOGO for the show. I don't think I'm spoiling anything too badly here.
Hahaha...I think factors would be: It is extremely late, aaaand I am currently in Sweeney Todd, which seems to be a major theme in both your name and avatar. The world works in mysterious ways, friend. Anyway...good night.
"ummm... it would've been nice if you didn't include actualy plot points in the subject... i wanted to see this show when i went to new york and i'm assuming you gave away a huge plot point! thanks.... geez"
Well, it is pretty obvious if you look at the picture in the show's logo...it's not a huge plot point that is going to ruin anything for you.
i actually haven't seen the logo... all i know is that it's about sex and is like some new version of RENT... a rape sequence never once entered my mind... when i think of sex i don't automatically think of rape... oh well i guess
oh that and you mentioned names in the actual subject heading... maybe i would have been less upset in not knowing who did what in the actual musical
This occurs a lot in the world today; women in conservative countries are (even now) not told about sex & when they marry, it is essentially legalized rape.
"In the Atlantic version off broadway, it was played more toward the rape side, I thought. It is lessened in the Broadway version "
This is true. The Atlantic version was in fact played as a rape as it is written in Wedekind's play. But I'm assuming the producers and/or Michael Mayer decided they needed to make it consensual for Broadway audiences.
The Distinctive Baritone, please change the title of the thread. It's really disrespectful to people who have not yet seen the show the way you have it titled right now.
Basically, I said he essentially raped her because he knew about sex and the consequences and she didn't, regardless of whether she says yes at that time.
Agreed, totally. Part of consent is knowing what you're getting into, and Wendla obviously had no idea. They might've been the same age, but he's clearly the more informed and experienced of the two, and so it's still predatory on his part.
I also agree that it's a cop-out to change the scene so that she "consents" at the last second. I gather that we're supposed to like Melchior more than we would have if she had said no, but I didn't, and I wish that they had just gone all the way and portrayed it as rape. Melchior would've been a far more interesting character if he weren't shoehorned into being the unambiguous "hero" of the piece.
If Mechoir had clearly raped Wendla you wouldn't feel for him in the end. Off-Broadway was more rape-ish than Broadway. They wanted to make that scene more consensual on Broadway. Micheal Mayer said he didn't want the only representation on sex of be rape. Anyway's I think it kind of is rape because Wendla consents like halfway through.
I thought it was a very big mistake to make the rape in SA ambiguous in any way in the transfer from off-bway to Broadway. A distinct theme in the play (and the musical as well - one of most interesting I feel) is how blossoming sexual energy in a repressed society is bottled up and redirected in unusual ways.
Melchior knows what sex is. He is a smart, if slightly rebellious young man, but he is always in control of himself. He knows that with his knowledge comes great responsibility.
But when Wendla asks him to strike her with the switch, we suddenly see the extent of his own personal emotional repression. He loses control - becomes masochistic, abusive, and enraged. But he is also empowered by it, and that is what leads him to rape Wendla - attaining his own sexual freedom through force and violence. It is part of his sexual awakening - to give in to the base desires of his blossoming sexuality.
Turning the rape into a psuedo-consensual act turns what is a potent analysis of the extremes of sexuality into a simple and boring love story. It also creates a number of problems with his character. There needs to be a justifiable explanation as to how Melchior, in all of his wisdom, would just go ahead and do the deed with Wendla without being wary of the consequences. The act, as currently portrayed, deprives Melchior of the intelligence that was key to his character up to that point. For the rest of Act II, he is turned in to a soppy, love stricken romantic, who is merely jazzed (if a little surprised) at the news of his impending fatherhood. There's a goldmine of thematic potential there that is never even touched.
Nonetheless, no matter what way you put it - it is still rape - simply because Melchior knows what he is doing, Wendla doesn't, and he seems pretty lucid while he is doing it. Returning it back to a moment of sexual agression (as it is in the original play) would both justify the event itself, and I don't feel it would turn Melchior into an unsympathetic character (as it also works out in the play).
We understand that, despite Melchior's intelligence, he is still a young man learning to battle the growth of his sexual desires in a repressive society, and any act of emotional rebellion (yes - including rape) is forgiveable considering the context of the play. He is still our hero, because he has never been, despite his hopes, in complete control of his life/world. It is his battle and journey to find his place in the world and within himself, and the rape is an important part of that.
Making it consensual just makes it boring, and I think really sabotages the second act.
Bea Arthur Nude Sells For Nearly $2 Million At Auction
Drama Desk Award Winners - MATILDA, VANYA AND SONIA, PIPPIN, VIRGINIA WOOLF & More!
Gyllenhaal, Pine in Talks to Join INTO THE WOODS Movie?
John Bantay Talks to Richard Jay-Alexander About Musical Mondays Farewell
BWW TV Exclusive: Prince, Lewis & More Remember Kevin Gray
Blake Shelton & Sheryl Crow to Perform on THE VOICE Next Week
VIDEO: Full Trailer for THE WOLVERINE Released!
Rooney Mara is the Face for New Calvin Klein Scent
EA Announces Battlefield 4 for Xbox One and PlayStation 4
BWW Blog: Leah Edwards - Practice. Perform. Repeat
BWW Reviews: Blue Lapis Light's Encore Engagement of HEAVEN-EARTH-ONE is Heavenly
VIDEO: Must Watch - Mel Brooks AMERICAN MASTERS on PBS May 20!
joined:8/28/04
Posted: 3/23/07 at 03:06am