How to make Be More Chill a good musical
Be More Chill is a show I have a huge soft spot for- it’s a fantastic premise (both the idea of the Squip and the elements of parodying all the shitty tropes we have in stories about youth) and there’s some pretty clever and fun music.
However, in the transition to Broadway, the producers of the show compounded on the flaws of the original, while moving farther away from what made the Two River version likable- most notably, trying to pander to the fans of the show that boosted it into popularity on social media. Not even a bad idea, but they did it really poorly. The way they ought to have gone was to rewrite the leading characters, among other stuff.
But first, I’ll quickly go over what works about Be More Chill that spoke to me when I first stumbled upon it- defining the paradigm of the concept makes it easier to understand why I’d change what I’d change.
Be More Chill, in a lot of ways, is/was a deconstruction of the School Musical- think Mean Girls, Legally Blonde, Dear Evan Hansen, and, to an extent, Heathers. That deconstruction is pretty half baked because it focuses too hard on being funny, but all of the pieces are there. For example, Jeremy being the stooge that he is allows for some commentary about the nature of the milquetoast, inherently relatable protagonists we’ve gotten too used to. Michael, the stereotypical best friend who would do anything for the protagonist, is a vessel for the show to ask us to think about the plot-devicey nature of these characters- are they people with feelings, or do they exist for the protagonist to bounce off of? The ever-present trio of popular girls seem to be bratty queen bees, but we get to peek into the dysfunction and insecurities that drive that behavior. (This is the pretty much the only aspect the Broadway show nailed almost perfectly.) You get the idea for the other archetypes- the immaculate Love Interest, Dorky Dad, Jock, Bully, etc.
Keeping that in mind, the way to make this a good show is to reframe Be More Chill as a revision of the cultural staple of those tropes into a modern context. Those rewrites I mentioned start to really fit into a more cohesive and satisfying narrative when you do so.
Character rewrites: Michael and Christine, as they are now, exist as characters that enable Jeremy to develop- realistically, yes, that is the job of every supporting character, but that doesn’t exclude them from having their own arcs and development.
Michael: Michael in The Bathroom is so effective- not only is it a punch in the gut, but it’s a big moment where the archetype is ripped open and the audience realizes that Michael actually matters and how harmful Jeremy’s actions are. However, the show does nothing with that- Michael goes right back to existing solely for Jeremy. For Michael, I’d suggest that his ending isn’t just straight up forgiving Jeremy unconditionally- Michael is willing to take the shot, to come in and save the day, perhaps in a reprise of MITB where he decides that he’ll be brave enough to confront his friend’s stupid actions. After working with Jeremy in the Play, he is reassured that he and Jeremy are good friends who work well, but he makes it clear to Jeremy how hurt he was by his treatment and that Jeremy needs to be a better friend. As such, Michael learns that he is worth being treated well by others and most importantly himself. That gives him an arc- he starts dependent on Jeremy, anxious, and using his love for his friend as an excuse to ignore his own issues, and ends having learned how to healthily give and take in a relationship and to respect himself.
Christine: Christine, on the other hand, is an object on a pedestal for Jeremy to attain and literally almost nothing else. There’s a little bit to her- Christine is afraid of life skipping her by, and wants “things to be easy”. So, instead of being the cardboard cutout she is, Christine should be motivated by finding the easiest way to meet her self-imposed standards of being fulfilled- successful at Theater and in a happy relationship. This characterization displays the problematic nature of the generic love interest for love interest’s sake. Christine dates Jake not because Jeremy needs a motivator to embrace the squip, but because she’s afraid and lonely. “A Guy I’d Be Into” and “Upgrade” would feel disingenuous and artificial, which both explores how wrong Christine’s forcing a relationship is, and the trope-y teeny bopper song. At the end of the show, she fights to break put of the trance, which leads the Squip to bring up Jake, offering Christine the chance to become that fulfilled person she dreams of. Christine refuses, and she becomes the one to deactivate the Squips. That way, both Christine and Michael’s decisions to do the best thing allow them to be heroes alongside Jeremy. (Jeremy’s moment of redemption comes anyway, when he decides to try and break the Squips hold on the school, but fails because of his previous surrendering of control to the machine.) When Jeremy finally gathers the strength to ask her out, she declines, saying that she doesn’t really know Jeremy all that well and that she just isn’t ready for a relationship- but she won’t close the door. So, her arc goes from feeling helpless and needing to meet arbitrary standards to finding the independence she wants for the rest of the world in herself.
Jeremy: Christine and Michael’s new arcs, of course, both define the growth Jeremy needs to undergo perfectly. Jeremy needs to learn how to expect respect from others and for himself, and he needs to learn that dating Christine and being popular aren’t the keys to his happiness. As a result, the supporting cast enables Jeremy’s development by teaching him by example while still being relevant and alive characters. However, Jeremy doesn’t deserve the happy ending he gets. I addressed that he shouldn’t magically become all chummy with Michael and Chrstine already, but Jeremy’s decision to decline the Squip only earns him the chance for redemption. It makes no sense that everything is perfect with his dad and the rest of the school all declaring themselves his unconditional friends. Brooke should be rightfully upset at being used by Jeremy, Mr Heere should be furious at Jeremy for his misbehavior, and so on. Jeremy made the mess, and it will be a lot harder for him to earn forgiveness. At the end of the story, Jeremy should instead come to the conclusion that he has a long way to go to become happy, and begin the climb to self improvement- the current resolution is only half of that. (“Of all the voices in my head, the loudest one is mine/So I guess I’ll start the uphill climb/It might be hard but that’s just fine! [Im no lyricist, but you get the idea.]) So, the story ends on a high note, with the people who did the right thing succeeding, and Jeremy repairing the damage he’s done and to earn his happiness- a modern refinement of the ending of these kinds of stories, thus completing the deconstruction.
Transitioning away from character fixes, the show has an awful flow from song to song- numbers like Halloween and the Smartphone Hour are vestigial little criticisms of youth culture that jack up the pacing of the thing and rip you out of the story. You know something is wrong when someone burning down a house is irrelevant to the plot. The way I’d fix that is to more closely involve Jeremy in those parts of the plot. Jeremy should immerse himself fully in the party, singing his own lyrics about his transition into the lifestyle the Squip wants for him. The audience can be aware of how dangerous this is- the drugs and alcohol at the party, the gossip loop about rich, Jeremy’s awful treatment of Brooke, and so on, but Jeremy is invested in it and loving it. That makes his decision to fight the Squip after seeing Christine’s disgust at him taking one that much more impactful- it’s the turning point of the show, and yet it is irrelevant in the plot compared to the Play.
The show tries to be too much to be liked by its younger fans- Loser, Geek, Whatever is the worst example of this. Just because a line makes someone go “SKDKSDSKDJSKDS MICHAEL IS SO GAY I CANT” or “JEREMY IS SUCH A GOOD PORTRAYAL OF G.A.D. OMG” online doesn’t mean it’s good writing. Some other examples where pandering ruins stuff: the “Do you love him?” joke in the Pants Song, “My mothers would be thrilled!”, that god awful ADD joke in Play Rehearsal, Rich coming out as bisexual.
I love the idea that the squip adopts the persona of someone it knows the victim will trust and idolize- it’s great worldbuilding that lets the viewer participate in the story by thinking about who theirs would be. However, that doesn’t mean you go all in on the Keanu Reeves joke! Jason Tam’s quip is so bad! Stop the stupid Keanu/Surfer voice! Please!
yousharknotpass
germansingergirl
2087
jacobvanloon
titsay
dailybridgerton
ellievsbear
areudirty
