“Spring Awakening,” a musical written by Steven Sater with music by Duncan Sheik, follows the lives of a group of adolescent students during the late 1800s in Germany as they navigate their budding sexualities and come to terms with the realities of adulthood.
My introduction to “Spring Awakening” was a poorly filmed performance of the original Broadway cast, starring Jonathan Groff and Lea Michele. I came across it scrolling the depths of YouTube when I was not much older than the characters themselves.
Not only did I immediately become obsessed with the soundtrack, I fell in love with the witty characters, finding their innocence relatable.
Wichita State’s School of Performing Arts put on “Spring Awakening” from Feb. 21-22, piquing my interest almost immediately. I appreciate that the director, Jacob McGlaun, decided to bring the joys and tribulations of teenage angst to Wichita State’s student body.
Overall, McGlaun’s rendition of the coming-of-age rock musical was reasonably entertaining. It adhered to the original Broadway production fairly closely, not taking many outlandish creative liberties.
However, McGlaun did make some questionable casting decisions that, I think, led the mood of the show to feel sloppier than I’d expect for a college-level production.
Solomon Puckett made his Wichita State performing debut starring as Melchior Gabor, an intelligent yet perverse schoolboy.
I was optimistic during the beginning of his first song “All That’s Known,” impressed with the quality of his tone. However, Puckett’s performance quickly fell flat when the music faded and dialogue ensued.
What was confusing to me was how haphazard much of his performance was. While Puckett is undeniably vocally talented, his acting between numbers could have easily been improved upon by providing more interesting facial expressions and body language.
There are multiple scenes where Gabor is sitting by a stream, monologuing about his extremely pensive thoughts on society.
I wasn’t impressed with Puckett’s unchanging face throughout these monologues. It didn’t feel like he was acting; it simply felt like he was reading out loud.
There were a couple of outstanding scenes, though, that I felt truly encapsulated Puckett’s acting potential.
There is a moment toward the end of the performance where Gabor discovers Wendla Bergmann has died. Gabor falls to his knees, sobbing over her fresh grave.
Puckett’s portrayal of this scene was gut-wrenching and I think is further evidence that he could have put that much energy into the rest of his performance.
Hayley Loya played Bergmann, Gabor’s naive and melodramatic love interest. The reality of Bergmann’s innocence is that it makes her slightly obnoxious at times, but Loya’s strong vocal performance brought a deeper tone to Bergmann’s usually meek character, which I was not expecting to enjoy as much as I did.
Once again though, the decision to cast someone with a dark and rich vocal tone didn’t quite match the vibe of Bergmann. Despite this, I enjoyed Loya’s performance.
Admittedly, the standout acting performances in this production did not come from the two lovebirds, but rather the supporting actors.
Jack Wilson’s depiction of Moritz Stiefel, Gabor’s high-strung best friend, was beautifully heartbreaking, and Zoe Phillips’ wonderful portrayal of Ilse Neumann, Bergmann’s free-spirited classmate, came as a pleasant surprise as her character stayed in the background for much of the first act, only stepping into the spotlight in the second.
Even though McGlaun was not spot on with casting this production, I think he got away with those decisions thanks to the alt-rock and folks-y influences of the score. The vocal performance doesn’t have to be perfect.
“Spring Awakening” exposes almost every part of a teenager’s overly hormonal psyche, both the bad and the good.
It addresses sexual assault, abuse and suicide, but it also takes the emotions and actions of these repressed students very seriously, refusing to dwindle their feelings down to the immature thoughts of children who don’t know how the world works.
“Spring Awakening” was the perfect choice for the School of Performing Arts to put on because its message is a universal truth, fresh in the minds of Wichita State students.
While I believe McGlaun made a risky decision casting two individuals with very little professional theater experience as the leads, it ties in the innocent and transformational spirit of “Spring Awakening” masterfully.
JW • Mar 5, 2025 at 3:37 pm
It appears the author shared her opinions of how she wished the WSU production of “Spring Awakening” was more like the Broadway one. Why would the author expect any creative person to attempt to mirror how someone else performed a role? A creative person wouldn’t do that because it clearly would be inauthentic and thus the performance would be much less meaningful.
I saw the show twice and was impressed even more the second time. Congratulations to the cast who poured their authentic selves into these very difficult roles. They should be proud.
I hope The Sunflower is less proud that they chose to run this article. It truly felt like the main point was to pick on one actor and the directors for their creative decisions. I haven’t noticed this same theme when reading about the sports teams. Luckily I haven’t seen reporters taking paragraphs to critique one player or call out the coach for which players they chose to put in the game. Instead I see quotes from the athletes or the coaches that give their own perspective on a game.
WSU is an educational institution that has the opportunity to promote themselves so that students’ efforts are noticed and supported, or they can do the opposite. I think of prospective students reading your articles and how that could contribute to their decision to attend WSU… or not. Or perhaps a current student deciding it’s not worth trying out for a role, team, or club.
I look forward to more supportive articles in the future that highlight all the wonderful, varied activities going on at campus.
Z • Feb 28, 2025 at 7:30 pm
While I appreciate your passion for the show and the time you took to write an article highlighting it, the manner in which you did so was completely inappropriate and unprofessional. These are student actors who put months of hard work and dedication into this performance. As a student in the College of Fine Arts, criticism is normal and expected, but the way it is phrased in your article is borderline bullying. There are real people behind the characters you saw perform on stage who have real feelings and emotions. I do not think that you, as a student journalist, would appreciate it if this is how someone critiqued your writing. I hope that this serves as a learning experience for you, and that you learn how to voice opinions constructively and professionally in the future.
To The Sunflower, how was this published? As a student news outlet, I would expect the goal is to highlight and uplift our community as a college. Why would we approve of an article that openly bashed students for putting themselves out there and putting on a phenomenal production? Where is an article applauding the performers and production? Spotlighting the College of Fine Arts in this way hurts our students and shows us the lack of support & care you hold for us. I implore you to consider the implications of an article like this and how it affects others.
Sarah Guillard • Feb 28, 2025 at 10:12 am
I’m curious where the mentors/editors were in this process. And whether they are now examining ways to help young writers share balanced and informed opinions while still preserving freedom of self-expression. I also wonder whether this piece could be revised (with guidance) and re-printed. This could help both the student (who is developing their voice) and the Sunflower (who could benefit from further examination of best practices).
Lennon Mcarthy • Feb 27, 2025 at 9:57 pm
I am dumbfounded that a university is allowing a public review of student work. What is even more shocking is that a review of a performance by an obviously uneducated person in regards of theater and the performing arts. To be given the task of reviewing something that one has very little to no knowledge of and/or experience in the area that is being reviewed. An example that is easy to compare in hopes the “author” understands is a blind person review the light show. To the university, I’m shocked you haven’t removed this hate provoking story.
Alan Held • Feb 27, 2025 at 5:17 pm
I do not believe it is proper for a “student journalist” to be reviewing fellow students in a public manner such as this. This presentation, by the School of Performing Arts, is an educational experience for the performers…some doing their first MainStage production and most, if not all, undergraduates…some being very young Freshmen and Sophomores. It is great for the Sunflower to cover the production process of making a performance come to life on a college campus. However, to critique the performances of beginning performers is not a good move…just as it would not be fair for me to critique this beginning writer. Further, what are the qualifications of this writer for reviewing music theater or other aspects of the arts? Are those in any other college departments allowed to review the writing of this writer in a public manner? There is much that could be said. I’m not sure that is anything that anyone would like to see or read.
Sky Duncan • Feb 27, 2025 at 9:27 pm
The Sunflower, as far as I know, has always reviewed the School of Performing Art’s productions. I’m a BA Theater major, I was in Twelfth Night this past fall. I read the review for that, especially the parts that mentioned me in particular and my fight scene. In fact, I have the physical newspaper sitting on my desk at home. As a theater student, I believe it is both fair and valid to be critiqued. I invite critiques of my performances because it tells me what I could work on, but if I don’t agree with the critique, I don’t have to take it. We are told throughout our classes, take what you like, don’t take what you don’t like.
I do find it funny that you say it would be unfair to critique a “beginner writer” (a SENIOR in a Journalism major) then critique her by questioning her qualifications. She states at the beginning, she has taken the time to search for, and watch, a recorded performance of the Broadway production of the show and has listened to it’s soundtrack “obsessively”. This, alongside being a journalism major, shows knowledge of writing and investment in the show in particular. I would say she is well qualified to comment on, and critique, the show. Critique of someone’s work can be conducted in a public manner and can help people to learn what they could work on.
As a side note, this is an OPINION piece, on the website you click “Opinion” then “Reviews”. You don’t have to agree with their opinion, but they are allowed to have their opinion.
Also! They praised a lot of things about the show. They liked Solomon’s singing, they liked his gut-wrenching mourning scene, they liked Hayley’s singing, they liked Jack and Zoe’s performances. They only had two negative critiques really, the facial expressions/body language of Solomon, specifically during the monologues, and feeling like Hayley’s voice was too rich for Wendla.
The only thing was the wording about casting, that came across more harsh than it may have been meant.
That is still no excuse for the comments to be bullying the author of the article by any means.
Alan Held • Mar 1, 2025 at 1:59 pm
Her own bio says she is a “first year reporter”…that, alone, is a self description of inexperience. Because she is a senior in journalism does not mean that she is training to critique artistic presentations. I have a son with a degree in journalism. He certainly would not be qualified to review arts presentation (and he was always active in plays, musicals, band, and choirs…he even had theatrical experience in college). I don’t have training in medicine and so certainly wouldn’t want to review the work that goes into the “New England Journal of Medicine”. I do, however, have two degrees in the arts and a near 40 year career as a professional in the arts. I have never seen a college student “journalist” call out fellow students like this. Opinions are free for the giving. But the opinions should have some learned activity behind them when critiquing others. What classes and training has she had in the arts? What qualifies her to judge the quality of singing and acting? By what standards should someone who has no training as an arts critic be allowed to judge young arts students? There is no “bullying” in my post. For you to call it that is simply to ignore the original opinion piece at hand.
Nicholas Porter • Mar 1, 2025 at 2:16 pm
Hey Sky. College Level Actor here. Clearly you’re not thinking about the actors and how they might perceive this. Clearly somethings wrong, because Alan here is not the only one with this complaint. You say this is an “opinion piece”, but a review is a review. This is a review in bad faith. There was nothing constructive about this article. I don’t wish ill will for this writer, of course, but clearly we arent the only people who think this. Singling out an actors performance is inherently harsh and not fair to the actor.
Jose Lopez • Feb 27, 2025 at 4:54 pm
I must sincerely disagree with the author’s opinion on the casting of the two leads. It seems she may have preconceptions about what the leads should sound like. Some may benefit from viewing this production from a fresh perspective. This was my first time experiencing this musical, and I LOVED it! It does not matter how it is “supposed” to look or sound like, a production is successful as long as it invokes a powerful emotional response. This production achieved that for entire audience and the leads definitely contributed to this success. Please do not diminish their, or anyone’s, hard work.
Much love to the entire cast and production team!
Thomas Mayer • Feb 27, 2025 at 4:45 pm
This article not only shows a lack of empathy towards the actors but also a lack of knowledge of the performing arts.
You claim that Puckett’s performance was “subpar” and your reasoning is of him not having enough energy in his acting. The role of Melchior is one that is not only difficult but as nuanced as it gets in musical theater and Puckett’s performance was just that, nuanced. The scene you reference with him at a stream was one of the moments that drew me in the most when I went to see the performance. Puckett’s acting in the scene was raw, human, and full of real emotion. As humans we don’t show our emotions through big energetic displays but instead through the nuances of how we choose our words and the inflection with which we speak them. Puckett’s speech pattern and inflection to go along with his facial expressions was extremely profound and showed a complete understanding of his characters goals throughout the scene.
I understand that in musical theater we have come to expect larger than life characters that help us escape from reality but a show like Spring Awakening that covers these REAL and harsh realities of life requires raw, real acting. From an audience member’s perspective Puckett and Loya’s nuanced and professional acting only served to deepen the show’s complexity and make its themes hit that much harder.
Your comments on loya’s vocal quality also show a lack of vocal training and knowledge. I recall a moment when there was a problem with her mic during a song where even then she was still heard very clearly over the music. to achieve that level of resonance in her sound there has to be a certain level of “brightness”. You are mistaking her choice not to use the childlike nasally sound often used by older actors to portray younger characters for a dark tone. And that nasally sound used is often extremely harmful to the voice and Loya’s choice not to use it shows her level of vocal training.
Also to say that either of them do not have professional experience or training in acting is just blatantly false. When doing very surface level research not only do each of them have years of amateur experience but both have had years of professional training as well.
I acknowledge that the show was not at the broadway level but the blatant disrespect you showed to these young talented actors while having no professional performance training is just not right.
Anonymous • Feb 27, 2025 at 4:22 pm
I see how deeply you love this show, and I understand where you are coming from. That being said, this type of criticism is inappropriate in an educational theater setting. Comparing young actors and artists to the experienced performers on Broadway is unnecessary and unhelpful in this context. In the future, please choose your words more carefully. These are people who put themselves into vulnerable places to make these characters real. We are all entitled to our opinions, but the way we share these opinions is important. Whatever relevance and credibility you had in your first lines was dismantled by the word choice that was aimed at these young artists to tear down. I hope that you can see this style of critique is misplaced in an educational setting, but especially from peer to peer.
José • Feb 27, 2025 at 4:19 pm
This some subpar journalism.
The leads were AMAZING, not at all “risky”.
Ryan Pilosof • Feb 27, 2025 at 2:56 pm
After reading your article, it is evident that your understanding of ‘good’ acting is deeply flawed. While I disagreed with many aspects of this production, your critiques lacked relevance and insight. First, you claim that Solomon Puckett’s performance lacked facial expression and body language—an assertion that completely misunderstands the craft of acting. Actors are not simply vessels for exaggerated gestures; they are real people with genuine needs, wants, and struggles. Your praise of his ‘energy’ in the final scene ignores what truly set it apart—a clear and powerful choice of objective. In this moment, Melchior has lost everything; his collapse to his knees and his weeping are not about heightened energy but about a desperate search for meaning.
Secondly, your description of Ms. Loya’s ‘deep, dark’ tone is equally misguided. Her voice was not dark but bright, resonant, and technically refined. What you mistakenly attribute to ‘darkness’ is a reflection of her maturity and strong vocal technique. Before critiquing young actors, I urge you to educate yourself on the nuances of performance. As you are neither an actor, director, technician, musician, nor scholar, your authority in this matter is extremely questionable. It is evident you are basing your judgment on the Broadway production rather than engaging with this performance on its terms. Your article does not offer insightful criticism but rather a shallow comparison that fails to recognize the depth and intention behind these performances.
Riley Moore • Feb 27, 2025 at 2:46 pm
I understand that as a reporter you have to share your honest opinions, but did you even watch the show. This show, and the performers in it, displayed a perfect representation of teenage emotions and carried the deep and impactful meaning of this show throughout the entirety of the performance. Saying that casting the two leads was the wrong choice was ill-mannered and entirely wrong. Puckett and Loya, as freshman, are new to everything at WSU and took on two very DIFFICULT and DEMANDING characters and handled it with grace, responsibility, and provided deep meaning behind every song and scene. I see you are also a first year reporter, seems very hypocritical. They spent months upon months preparing for these roles and giving all of their energy into a very emotionally draining show just for you to belittle them. I do not think the lack of professional theater experience, which neither of them actually lack, matters in any scenario. They delivered the characters perfectly and showcased all of their RAW emotions that came with them. Spring Awakening is a laborious show. It is a very scary show to dive into at such a young age and everyone up on that stage did fantastic. I think constructive criticism is very important, especially in musical theater, but this article is very inconsiderate to these performers who worked so hard to deliver this show to an audience. There was endless amounts of great work on that stage and you barely hit it. Please be more thoughtful and considerate on your next writing.
E.P. • Feb 27, 2025 at 2:11 pm
Do you know the leads personally? I think it’s a little unprofessional to assume that the leads had “very little professional theater experience” simply because they’re first-year students at the university. By the looks and the wording of this review you gave, it is clear that you have almost no understanding of how difficult this show, rather, any show, is to produce, technically and emotionally. Word choice is important when giving an opinion, and through reading this, I am quite disgusted by how negatively you portrayed the actors who spent months working on this production, not to mention the title stating that the acting was “subpar”? Learn how to be compassionate and empathetic for those who put in the time, effort, and work into this show. Be mindful of your words. This was so disheartening to read, I’m disappointed that this was even allowed to be published.
Anonymous • Feb 27, 2025 at 1:59 pm
I appreciate that the reporter is a student and in the process of perfecting their craft just as these actors are but I wonder how she would feel if someone commented publicly on her work and said “I wasn’t impressed” and that their craft “could easily be improved upon”.
Jack Wilson • Feb 27, 2025 at 1:38 pm
Thank you for this article! It’s clear that a lot of thought and deep analysis went into this review and I can always appreciate committed journalists like yourself. However, your relentless critique of several young actors disturbs me. As difficult as this show can be for the audience to digest, it is even more difficult for the actors, especially the two leads. MONTHS of dedication and intense vulnerability went into the show you witnessed, and no one worked harder than these two. Your nuanced acting critiques are noted and appreciated, but to attach the labels “subpar” and “haphazard” to these performances is not only incorrect, but disrespectful and inappropriate. Were this a normal show, your comments would not bother me. Actors, especially students like us, should welcome criticism as we look to grow in our abilities. However, Spring Awakening is not a normal show. The two actors that you decided to go in on did unbelievably challenging things on stage to tell this story, and your criticism of their performances showcases a simple, one-dimensional perspective that the rest of your article does not reflect. Thank you for coming to witness this show, we hoped we could change the perspectives of our audience with this story. Clearly there is still some work to do!
Aj Corbett • Feb 27, 2025 at 12:03 pm
Personally as someone who stage managed and watched the progress made by actors I do not agree. This show was impactful and perfectly casted. These people put months upon months of effort and you have just dehumanized them. Freedom of speech can be impactgul and voicing your opinions is important, but when you go out of your way to just judge another person’s performance without thinking of the time and effort out in, you are loosing the effect and impact this show has made to many people. Next time think of all perspectives.