Next to Normal: Shaky Show, Irresponsible Message

[SPOILER ALERT: In order to fully express my views on Next to Normal, it is necessary that I reveal some key plot points. If you plan on seeing the show, you might want to read this review subsequently]

In my Boston Conservatory course, I continually exhort my students to distinguish between the intent of a show and its execution. To wit: bad shows can have good messages, and vice versa. I encourage them to see beyond the solid intentions of a musical like Side Show and focus on how well the show executes that message. (In the case of Side Show, not very well.)

So I'm going to try to do the same myself in reviewing the new Off-Broadway musical Next to Normal, now running at the Second Stage Theater until March 16th, and treat the show and its message as separately as I can in this review. In short, I found the show's intentions admirable, its execution periodically inspired, and its message reprehensible.

THE SHOW: Next to Normal is essentially about how one family copes with the mother's bipolar disorder, known popularly as manic depression. Now, I'm all for musicals with off-beat subject matter, but for me N2N fell seriously short of doing this worthy topic justice. I knew I was going to have a problem with this show from the opening number, which was riddled with clichés. I tried to keep an open mind, but the trite phrasing just kept coming. Among the many hackneyed lyrics in this show were the following:

- "catch me I'm falling"
- "let there be light"
- "tender loving care"
- "cuts like a knife" (There oughta be a law against this torpid phrase.)

On a more substantive level, Next To Normal has a maddeningly inconstant tone. Librettist/lyricist Brian Yorkey tries to enliven the show's dark subject matter with forced, obvious attempts at humor, for instance in the number early on in the show that represents one of the main female character's manic episodes. (The Playbill doesn't list the names of the individual numbers. God, I hate that.) It was obvious from the staging that the creators meant this number to be funny, but there wasn't very much that was actually humorous about it. It could have been funny, but it wasn't.

There was some genuine wit in evidence in N2N, but it got lost amid pedestrian writing and some rather overwrought performances. That said, there were moments of absolutely sublime, heartrending drama, particularly in act 2. So, in at least one sense, Next to Normal reminded me of The Life or [shudder] Lestat, both of which also failed to strike the proper balance between pathos and comedy. (There's also a plot twist that seems borrowed from Edward Albee, whose most recent play, Peter and Jerry, was the previous tenant at this theater.) 

At its core, N2N has the seeds of a very good musical, but somehow that promise gets lost in the actual execution of the show. With the exception of the central couple, played by the wonderful Alice Ripley and Brian d'Arcy James, most of the actors in this show seem to think they're in a much bigger theater and need to play their emotions to the second balcony of the Palace.

Librettist Yorkey and composer Tom Kitt have attempted to craft some ambitious, extended musical sequences, and sometimes their efforts are quite stirring. But whatever lofty intentions the pair may have had haven't really translated to the stage, which is partly Yorkey's and Kitt's fault, but also a function of Michael Greif's overly broad direction. N2N traffics not in the realm of subtlety or ambiguity. One of the admirable things about the other show I saw that day, Passing Strange, is that for the most part it doesn't settle for pat explanations and resolutions. (Until the very end. See my review here.)

At the start of act 2, Next to Normal begins to reflect what the show could have been. Here, the writing becomes complex, emotionally intuitive, and heartbreaking. The show develops a much more consistent tone, with fewer ham-handed attempts at humor. The number "How Could I Ever Forget?" (I'm guessing at the title here, again because the program did not list song titles. Grrrr...) was absolutely stirring, enhanced by the restrained and nuanced performances of Alice Ripley and Brian d'Arcy James. Ripley was particularly haunting during this part of the show. Unfortunately, after this brief period of inspiration, the show returns to the bad habits of oversimplification evident in act one. That's the tragedy of N2N: too much clumsy development masks what is in fact an extremely moving story.

THE MESSAGE: It's at this point that I feel I must get up on my soapbox. Again, I've tried to separate my thoughts about the show itself from the fact that the message it seems to be espousing is, I feel, thoroughly irresponsible. But ultimately, whatever dramatic weight the show might have carried for me was robbed of its meaning by a recklessly misguided message. I've never left a musical so angry.

In the course of the show, the mother character, Diana, played by Alice Ripley, struggles with bipolar disorder, and undergoes a variety of treatments for it, including psychopharmacological drugs, talk therapy, and ECT (electroconvulsive therapy). In act 1, we see Diana dealing with the negative effects of the drugs, deciding to stop taking them, and ultimately attempting suicide as a result. Fair enough: Yorkey shows the downside of this misguided decision.

But after the suicide attempt, the doctor suggests that Diana and her husband consider ECT. There's a lot of misconceptions and stereotypes about ECT, and unfortunately N2N seems to buy into that misinformation. Admittedly, Yorkey does have the psychiatrist character explain that ECT is not the horror show that many people paint it to be. But then, Yorkey, Kitt, and Greif proceed to portray ECT as a complete horror show in the act one finale, a monument to bad taste that reminded me of something out of the recent Off-Broadway disaster Frankenstein, a musical that was horrific for all the wrong reasons. After undergoing ECT, the Diana character suffers from complete amnesia. ECT patients certainly undergo memory loss, but total amnesia, as Yorkey explains, is extremely rare.

OK, so far, everything seems pretty balanced on Yorkey's part, right? But then, at the end of the show, Diana confronts her psychiatrist and says she doesn't want to take drugs, undergo ECT, or do any talk therapy any more. Which is bad enough, but then the show launches into a "You're Gonna Make It After All" kind of vibe that seems to be sanctioning the fact that Diana has given psychiatry the middle finger. Effectively, Yorkey and company are saying that Diana is better off without the "interfering" hand of science and medicine.

Throughout the course of the show, Yorkey consistently emphasizes the downside of the treatment of bipolar disorder, noting the muting effects of the drugs, the extreme side effects of ECT, reinforcing outdated and deleterious stereotypes about mental illness and its treatment. But manic depression is a disease, not an alternate lifestyle. Was this show financed by Tom Cruise or the folks at his crackpot religion? Yorkey's apparent stance amounts to nothing more than warmed-over pop-psych proselytizing, along the lines of '70s iconoclast Thomas Szasz, who notoriously romanticized mental illness, calling it essentially an individual difference to embrace and cultivate rather than a devastating condition to be addressed and mitigated. Szasz's stance has since been thoroughly discredited.

Would Yorkey counsel diabetics to stop taking insulin because of the inconvenience? Would he suggest that heart patients forgo their nitroglycerin because it's not organic? Or propose that cancer patients stop chemotherapy because of quality-of-life issues?

Why can't I simply review the show on its own terms, ignore the message I so heartily disagree with and simply focus on the show itself? I'm sorry, but I'm not the kind of person who can watch "The Birth of a Nation," admire the cinema craft and ignore the fact that it praises the Ku Klux Klan. Some messages are so reprehensible that it's no longer about the medium but the message itself.

I don't believe in censorship or boycotts. Yorkey has every right to his opinion, and to use the medium of musical theater to express it. But I also have the right to denounce his message as uninformed and dangerous. Because the premise of this show is ignorant, in the purest sense of the word: lacking the correct information. Mental illness is a biological reality. It's not something Yorkey can dismiss as a fictive construct. That does a woeful disservice to the millions of people who suffer these ailments.

So is Next to Normal any good? Not really, although it has bouts of brilliance. But even if it were a masterpiece, I'd still feel honor-bound to speak out against its message.

UPDATE: A note to any visitors from Wikipedia. Please note that this is my review of the Off-Broadway version of Next to Normal. The show underwent considerable changes prior to its Broadway bow. Click here to read my review of the Broadway version. In short: It's a much-improved show with a far more subtle but still perceptible bias. IMHO.

Comments

[Steve On Broadway (SOB)]

Chris, Great review. What I like best about your critique is that it cuts like a knife (just kidding), I mean it cuts through the crap in a very honest way.

[Esther]

Chris, How do you feel about fits like a glove?

Seriously, I share your view of "Birth of a Nation." And for the same reason, I feel a little uneasy about the musical version of "Gone With The Wind." It's still about slavery, no matter which way you slice it. I hope my fears are totally unfounded and it won't present stereotypical views of African-Americans. But the whole thing makes me a little queasy.

[Esther]

And one more thing, I even felt a little uneasy about "Grey Gardens." I really felt that Big and Little Edie were mentally ill. I mean, if you've seen the documentary, it's not normal to leave food for the raccoons in your attic! I think in the movie and in the musical, Little Edie was portrayed as more of a sad, eccentric figure whose life was ruined by her mother, rather than as someone who needed serious medical help. While I loved Christine Ebersole and Mary Louise Wilson, I am a little uncomfortable with the way both projects reduced Big and Little Edie to misunderstood, charming eccentrics rather than seriously troubled women.

[chris caggiano]

Esther: Interesting perspectives on Grey Gardens and Gone With The Wind. GWTW doesn't seem to praise slavery so much as portray historical attitudes toward it. The movie does, however, traffic in outdated African-American stereotypes.

As for GG, I think there's a case to be made that both Little and Big Edie suffer from some kind of mental imbalance, if not illness. And I'm all for portraying mental illness, as long as it's balanced and sympathetic, which GG assuredly was.

My main gripe with Next to Normal was that it seemed to be advocating a go-it-alone, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps approach the treating bipolar disorder, and that's just dangerous.

[SarahB]

Oh wow - I waited to read your review until after I saw the show. I agree with EVERY POINT YOU MAKE. Ugh. I think I'm going to have to see something today in order to get this show out of my head. Maybe some ECT will do the trick.

[chris caggiano]

Sarah: If you haven't seen Passing Strange, it would make a great palate cleanser. And it shows that adventurous musicals can be successfully executed.

[molly marinik]

chris, check out my apparently controversial review of the N2N broadway production on popdose.com. let's just say yorkey was NOT happy.

[Deb]

I saw Next to Normal on Saturday and thought it was excellent. I did not view the message as "You're Gonna Make It After All" or as totally discrediting treatments for mental illness. Rather I was left with a feeling that to loss and grief and serious mental illness, there are no easy answers. Diana has suffered the greatest loss imaginable and counselors have determined that grieving for over four months is "not normal." I am haunted by Diana's words, "what if it's not my mind, but my soul?" To such a loss as Diana has suffered, what is normal?

[chris caggiano]

Deb: Thanks for taking the time to contact me. I appreciate your input.

The particular post you responded to was my review of the Off-Broadway version of N2N. The show has changed considerably since then. I re-reviewed the Broadway version and found it to be a vastly improved show, although I did still detect a subtle anti-psychiatry bias. Many people disagree with me on that, so feel free to do so yourself. You can read my re-review on my blog. I'm typing this on my iPhone, or else I'd provide you with a link to my review. But there's a search box on my blog in the left-hand column.

Thanks again for contacting me.

[Ray]

Great review! I just saw the Broadway version Saturday night and left quite upset at the horrid message the plot seemed to imply. Glad to see I wasn't the only one to be offended.

[ccaggiano]

Ray: This was my review of the Off Broadway version of Next to Normal. Here's my separate review of the Broadway version:

http://ccaggiano.typepad.com/everything_i_know_i_learn/2009/05/next-to-normal-review.html

The title sorta says it all: "Next to Normal: Vastly Improved But Still Biased." Also, be sure to check out the comments, in which readers bring up a lot of very valid points about the show.

[Akash Kumar]

As a psychiatrist, I hated this message with at least as much passion as you.

As an uncultured person, I loved everything else, including the cliche lines. Too bad about the message. GAH!

[Josh]

I saw N2N in Kansas City a few months ago and loved it. I've got the soundtrack and I keep listening to it over and over again. The only parts I don't really like are the cheesy electric guitar-driven songs. Sounds hokey. I've come to love the story and the music.

About the message, I believe it's a compelling story. The highs and lows of this life are to be treasured. We should not try to avoid the valleys; those add to the landscape of our existence. Instead, we should seek to make sense of them and seek healing. Diana's song "I Miss the Mountains" captures this thought, along with the number "Make Up Your Mind/Catch Me I'm Falling".

[Forrest]

I definetly agree with that. I saw it in North Carolina when it toured with Alice Ripley, and it is stunning. It was one of the first Broadway musicals that I really loved, and now my iPod is filled with nothing but cast albums.
I, like Chris, don't nessicarily agree with their take on the subject matter, but that's not what I judge musicals off of. It has an amazing score, and a deep, albeit depressing and draining, book.
I don't agree with the subject matter in The Book of Mormon, but I can't deny what a funny, satirical musical it is, and how well-written it is. Next to Normal is the same way.
Next to Normal is one of the few places I think I don't see eye to eye with Mr. Caggiano although i respect and adore his opinion.

[Colleen]

I saw the show today and I actually agree with the message. Psychiatry isn't for everyone. It is one avenue of treatment. I started taking heavy doses of psychiatric medicines at age 13 and 7 years, 70 pounds, and hundreds of symptoms later, I realized that my medicines were actually making me sicker. So I stopped them with a doctor's care. And now I am taking nothing. And yes, some days are horrible, afterall, I still have a mental illness. But at least I can feel something, and overall my life has improved. I don't think it is a crackpot idea to say that people can live without medicine. Medicine is one of many treatment options for mental illness and it works for some people and doesn't work for others. There is no need to resent the fact that a character in the play defied cultural norms by choosing to not go down that path.