Next to Normal Vastly Improved, But Still Biased

I know that a lot of you have been waiting for my re-review of Next to Normal. As you may know, after I posted my review of the Off-Broadway production at the Second Stage Theater, librettist/lyricist Brian Yorkey contacted me in a series of emails that started out vitriolic but eventually took on a more collegial tone.

I had some problems with the Off-Broadway version, some having to do with the execution of the show, but mostly because of the apparent anti-psychiatry bias that the Next to Normal reflected, at least in my estimation. The show's plot involves the troubles of one family as it copes with the mother's bipolar disorder.

Well, now that Next to Normal has moved to the Booth Theater on Broadway, after an engagement at the Arena Stage, I felt honor bound to revisit the show, partly to see whether it had evolved as a show qua show, but also to see if the apparent bias remained. In short, Next to Normal has greatly improved in terms of quality musical theater. In fact, it's genuinely stirring, heart-breaking at times. But although Yorkey seems to have toned down the show's anti-psychiatry tone -- considerably in fact -- I still saw numerous examples of an admittedly far more subtle bias.

Yorkey, in collaboration with composer Tom Kitt and director Michael Greif, has succeeded in making the relationships among the characters more complex, the emotions less pat. The show exhibits far better exposition and character development. There's also less forced humor: the number in which the mother character, Diana, has a would-be comic manic episode in Costco is thankfully gone, replaced by a far more moving and effective sequence in which she manically makes dozens of sandwiches. Gone too is the questionable act I finale "Feeling Electric," in which Diana has a hallucinatory episode portraying her psychiatrist as a rock star during an ECT (electroconvulsive therapy) session.

As I said, I still perceive an anti-psychiatry message in the show. It's a lot more subtle, but, in a way, that makes it more insidious. There are numerous examples throughout the show that support my contention, for instance a song in which the cast satirically sings the names of various psychoactive drugs to a tune reminiscent of "My Favorite Things." In the song "I Miss the Mountains," the mother character romanticizes the highs and lows of bipolar disorder. But the truth is the "highs" are not refreshing, they're debilitating. And the "lows" are characterized not by wistful melancholy but by active self-loathing and destruction.

But the thing that really solidified the show's bias in my mind was the audience reaction. When Diana's psychiatrist suggests ECT as a treatment, I heard audible gasps from the people around me. When doctor explained that ECT isn't the nightmare people think it is, I heard a number of people snort and tsk. Many of them seemed to me more on the side of the son character in the show, who responds to the doctor's recommendation by exclaiming "It causes brain damage!" In Yorkey's defense, the son character seems to represent a personified version of her disorder. In other words, it's the disease talking. But whether Yorkey intends it or not, the show seems to reinforce the ill-informed prejudices that people have about mental illness and its treatment. 

The show's denouement still comes off as an endorsement of Diana's reckless decision to discontinue all forms of treatment. The scene in which Diana confronts her psychiatrist has a self-righteous tone that had the people around me audibly approving of her decision. "Give me pain," one character in the show says. "It's the price we pay to feel." Yes, pain is part of life, but what's wrong with taking advantage of the treatments available to ameliorate that pain? As the psychiatrist states in the show, "medicine may not be perfect, but it's all we have." There are certainly gray areas in this topic, but going it alone is a dangerous option to advocate.

All that said, I still think Next to Normal is an eminently worthy show, one that I encourage anyone who cares about the future of musical theater to see. There were quite a few times during the show when I was moved to tears, including during the numbers "He's Not Here" and "How Could I Ever Forget." The show received 11 Tony nominations this morning, and deservedly so. It's the most artistically ambitious of all the nominees for best musical. (The other nominees are Billy Elliot, Rock of Ages, and surprisingly Shrek, which beat out 9 to 5 for the fourth slot.) Will N2N stop the juggernaut that is Billy Elliot from scooping up every last award? We'll have to wait until June 7th to see.

Comments

[Andy P.]

Hi Chris, Long time lurker, first time commenter.

I'm glad you revisited the show. Many people would have written it off and gone on dismissing it without reviewing the changes.

I never saw it in its previous incarnations. I've only seen the current one. Twice. From what I've heard/seen on YouTube, I would have hated the Costco number and "Feeling Electric."

I've thought a lot about your views and I still don't see the anti-psychiatry bias. For me, it's implied that Diana is still seeing the doctor at the end, when Dan says, "I know you can't tell me if you're still treating her..." and the doctor, very strategically, indicates he has an idea of how she's doing without betraying a confidence. So she hasn't gone completely maverick. But she knows that current remedies for her condition, severe as it is, aren't working.

I also feel that if there was an anti-psychiatry bias, Dan would have outright refused the doctor's offer for a referral at the end. And though he does initially, he changes his mind, believing that talking to a psychiatrist might indeed help him. If the show were attacking psychiatry, even with insidious subtlty, Dan would have walked away from that invite.

In my mind, the show does what few other dramatic treatments of mental illness does: it acknowledges that science doesn't have all the answers. So often in movies and on TV, we see someone go on a pill and live a much happier life. And while that does help a majority of people suffering from these types of illnesses, we don't often hear about the people for whom treatments and medication have no effect (or, in Diana's case, where she's developed a tolerance to the drugs and their effectiveness is negated). It's not a happy message but it's also not a Scientology-based, 'aliens are using drugs and psychiatry to enslave us' manifesto either.

Just my opinion, of course. I'm glad we agree that, overall, it's a powerful show and deserves a wide audience.

[chris caggiano]

Andy: Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment. I think there's definitely room for interpretation in this discussion. But Yorkey made it pretty clear to me that Diane does in fact leave treatment at the end of the show, although he did offer up the fact that the husband does go into therapy as an indication that he wasn't against psychiatry per se.

Again, I see a lot more balance and ambiguity in the new version of the show. And I applaud Yorkey's efforts to portray to full story about psychiatric treatment. Drugs and ECT are certainly not panaceas, and there are often significant side effects to both.

Ultimately, I want people to see this show and make up their own minds. My fear is that people who are already predisposed to mistrust psychiatry, based on societal misperceptions, will take the show as a reinforcement of the stereotypes. People with mental illness have a hard enough time as it is accepting that there are biochemical forces at work, and that it's not something they can fix simply by bucking themselves up and pulling up their bootstraps.

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.

[Rogue Zentradi]

A commentary worth waiting for. And some ramblings to follow...

Two quick corrections, though - it's Natalie who has the "Give me pain" lyric. Diana has the bit about "you don't have to be happy at all." And second, it's Diana and not Diane (confirmed on IBDB.)

Re: Diana leaving at the end, the finale doesn't have a timeline (we don't know if it's two weeks or two years later) and it's possible that after time Diana returns to therapy. Three cheers for ambiguity, eh?

I'll not even pretend to be unbiased here - I love the show - but I do agree with Andy's take that the show's biggest take is that there's no magic cures. If I recall correctly, the "medicine isn't perfect" bit was cut between 2005 and 2ST and restored but it's one of my favourites. I've had friends go through the endless cycle of drugs for depression and (unrelated) epilepsy and those who have either seen the show or heard the CD say it's spot on. Others who are ill find it an insult.

Either way, it gets people talking and engaging in debate about an issue that many would rather shove aside and ignore - something no other musical has done this season.

[chris caggiano]

RZ: Thanks for the corrections. Duly noted and amended.

[Austin]

I saw the show, going in a blank slate in terms of knowledge of mental illness. My family, luckily, has no history of mental illness and I have never personally dealt with it. I came out thinking the show was fairly balanced in how it handled the treatments, addressing both the pros and the cons. Upon further research into bipolar disorder, ECT, and etc., my opinion on the show's relative fairness only grew stronger. There are many people with bipolar disease who claim that the "highs", the hypomania, was beneficial to them to an extent. As for ECT, let's face it.. there is a vast negative stigma associated with it, due to works like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or A Beautiful Mind. In idea, it is a horrifying prospect. It has a very high success rate, but then there are those few cases in which the patient has lost years of memory forever. There's even a reputable study that links ECT to long-term amnesia. Yet such horror stories can be found in any medical procedure. Is it entirely right for Next to Normal to use the one-in-a-million side effect of vast amounts of memory loss? That is debatable, but it makes for more compelling theatre. At the same time, I feel that the show also makes it very clear that such things are rare.
In the end, I feel the fact that people who do have, or have dealt with, mental illness have responded to the show in such extremes- either extremely positively or negatively- shows how slippery a subject it is, how inherently personal it is, and how much variance it has. Perhaps there will be more people like myself who, having seen the show, attempt to educate themselves about the subject and try to understand it.

[chris caggiano]

Austin: Thank you, too, for your thoughtful comment. I'm actually relieved to receive so many level-headed and considered responses to my review. It's really a potentially volatile subject, one that I personally hold quite dear.

Full disclosure: I myself have suffered from depression for many years, and have undergone various different drug regimens to treat it. So the topic of mental illness is very personal. I debated as to whether I should disclose my own diagnosis, lest it somehow call my critical opinion into question.

I've never undergone ECT, but there's someone who's very dear to me who has. There's not a doubt in my mind that ECT saved his life. He simply would not be alive today had it not been for months of ECT treatments, I'm convinced of that. And I saw his struggles and frustrations with the side effects, with the memory loss. But I also know that this wonderful man is alive today because he underwent this effective, humane procedure.

Do my own experiences color my views of the show? How could they not. But I don't think that makes my critique of Next to Normal any less valid. Quite the contrary.

[Robert]

Just chiming in that I basically agree with your assessment of the show. The changes made for the Broadway run are significant and I have to second the notion that if someone reading this were turned off by the Off-Broadway run last year, they should give Next to Normal another try. It's a very different show.

I'm on the fence about an anti-psychiatry bias. I don't think, in this incarnation, the show takes as clear a stance. I prefer to think that the message is more along the lines of no one treatment will work for everyone.

The fact that the biggest issue we share over the show is potential bias in a show this smart and different is a good sign. The creators cared enough about the show to take the time to get it right for Broadway. That's saying a lot in a theater climate where shows are rushed far too soon into a Broadway run because the theater is empty (imagine how great LoveMusik could have been with more development time, for example).

[Lily Hargis]

im sure im way out of my league here, but i took the show differently. i think maybe one of the things the writer was trying to say in the end is that treatment doesnt work for everybody! by having the father end up in therapy, i think he shows that treatment does work well for people, and not to give up on it no matter how stubbern you are. very impressed that you were moved to tears, i was too.

[chris caggiano]

Lily: you're not out of your league at all. But here's my problem with the "treatment is not for everyone" idea. Would you say the same thing about someone with diabetes? Or epilepsy? Because mental illnesses are just as real. Yes, people with all of these conditions have the right to opt out. But is it smart?

[Chris]

Just adding my views, as I've just seen it.

Initially, I had the same reaction you had. That said, I kind of made peace with it because

(a) At no time in the show is this presented as the "right" decision (by an apparently sane figure). Diana still has to leave her family, and frankly although she talks about the high and all that the disorder gave her, it was hard to tell if her character totally understood the gravity of her decisions and whether or not she realized the consequences of what she was doing. Sure she acts all happy (generalizing) about going off treatment, but I think based on the rest of the show, it's impossible to tell what her true mental state is and whether she totally understands what she's doing.

(b) none of the so called "authority" figures or what not in the show ever acknowledged this as the appropriate treatment path. The doctors, her husband (not an authority figure but I think someone who the audience looks to as a source of steadiness, until the end anyway) are all totally advocating for the proper treatment to be taken, and I think that's incredibly important to have their steadiness contrast.

With those two thoughts I mind I was really able to accept the show as it was.

That's just my take anyway.....

[Marcelo]

Maybe nobody noticed it, but after Diana remembers her son and she confronts her husband and demands to know HIS NAME, she's able to talk about the child's death and she doesn't pretend he's alive anymore. All of this takes place after the ECT erases her memory and she starts to rebuild her memories...
Who knows? Maybe the ECT was the beggining of the healing.
All of these are posibilities

[Anne]

I know this post is ancient, but I feel compelled to comment.

I understand what you mean about the anti-psychiatry bias. While it is unclear what the "right" decision is for Diana, I think we are meant to identify with her choices and her views on treatment.

However, I think "treatment is not for everyone" is a valid statement. Maybe it's more necessary for some disorders than for others. I have OCD, and I flat-out refuse to take medication for it, because I don't want my mental state altered. I had a shrink for a few months once, but I felt that actually worsened my condition. Meanwhile, I have a friend who takes Prozac for her severe depression, and while her personality has flattened somewhat, I think it's good for her because otherwise she might kill herself. As for Diana -- well, it's her choice what kind of treatment, if any, she wants. She may not make the "wisest" choices, but what is right for a particular person may defy conventional wisdom.

As for "I Miss the Mountains" -- I don't think you have the right to determine how Diana's disorder feels to her. She may be romanticizing her illness, but at the same time, the flatness and unreality of her life with the drug regimen are valid complaints. Some people prefer a calm life, others a wild one; that's an oversimplification, but Diana may actually consider her disorder preferable to the medications. Even if her pain is not "wistful melancholy" -- even if it is brutal and self-destructive -- she may actually miss it.

Also: is there something inherently wrong with a musical having a bias? Virtually every work of art has some kind of bias, and it will bother the people who disagree with that bias, but I don't think such views should be neutralized. It's a musical, not a pamphlet or the DSM.

[Chris Caggiano]

Anne,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful response. Yes, I think there's room in this subject for multiple viewpoints. But just as Brian Yorkey has the right to his opinion, so too do I. I've seen too many people's lives damaged if not destroyed by bias and misinformation about mental illness.

I'm not saying that I have the right to determine how Diana's disorder feels to her. But I do have the right to call attention to what I consider to be an overly romanticized view of pain.

It reminds me of the boy who's in the news right now for wanting to stop his chemotherapy treatments. Does he have that right? I suppose so, but that doesn't mean I have to stay silent about what I consider a foolish choice.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond.

Regards,

--cc

[Tay]

Hello. Just found this site and just joined. Thanks to all for your reviews and thoughts.

About N2N, based on hearing the cast "album" cd and reading the both notes therein and this discussion, I get the impression that the bias in the show is not so much against the talk-therapy side of psychiatry as it is against the pharmaceutical and ECT side of it. That troubles me because I stayed away from taking Prozac for years because of my bias against taking "drugs" for my depression. Taking prozac has allowed me to live in a different--and far better--world, and I would much prefer what some might call my "flat" existence to the roller-coaster highs and self-loathing lows of yore. And to the extent that this show does have a bias towards "drugs" or ECT, I think it does a disservice to the truth, and perhaps to people such as I was.

That said, I'm planning on seeing it because I am a big fan of Alice Ripley.

[Tay]

I'm sorry, I should have previewed this before posting it. I meant to say "reading both the notes herein..."

[ccaggiano]

Tay, Thanks for your comments. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the societal bias against medication for depression. Thankfully, this bias is on the wan, but there are still far too many people who eschew medication because they think they should be able to just snap themselves out of it. But the more we learn about depression, and there's still a tremendous amount we don't know, the more we discover that there's very a biological, perhaps even genetic, component.

I've seen too many people deny themselves treatment out of some misguided notion that they should be able to handle it themselves. And it makes their lives immeasurably worse. Yes, meds are no panacea. The side effects can be daunting, and they can take a painfully long time to start to work. But I long for the day when attitudes shift to the point where we view depression like any other biochemical disorder, and the shame associated with the diagnosis and treatment of depression disappears.

Thanks again for sharing your story.

[Abbie]

As both a young woman who has seen the show, and as a young woman activly dealing with a depressive order very similiar to Diana's, I want to give my opinion. Yes, mental disorders are affected chemically, and possibly genetically. But for each and every single one of us it's different. I have friends who have done quite well on medication. On the other hand, I have a friend who committed suicide despite being on medicine for bipolar. I myself don't take pills, despite being part of the at risk category that's usually encouraged to. I'm a lot like Diana- I know pills mean the risk of losing who I am, and part of who I am is those highs and lows, as awful as they can be sometimes. Yes, I have a past history of self harm and suicidal attempts, but for me, the only cure was inside. I'd like to point out that you completely missed noting Natalie's part in all this, and Gabe's. Because if I remember correctly, it was Gabe who encouraged her to dump out her pills, literally most of her "bad decisions" being because the physical manifestation of her illness encouraged her, including the cutting. She only leaves treatment once she starts to acknowledge Gabe as not her son, but as her illness (as someone above pointed out, "What was his name?!" is her finally seperating her son from her illness) and that finally leaving treatment completely was finally her own decision and not the desicion of her illness, showing that she finally has some sort of control over her own illness, which yes, in real life is hard to achieve, but is done. Natalie, too, has to deal with her mother's illness, which is part of the focus of the play. In fact, you concetrated vastly on a slight- anti pharmecutical biad and completely ignored the themes about the loss of children, the dangers of recreational drug use, love gained and lost, how families cope with mental disorder, and familial connections, all of which are integral themes.

Just putting it out there, as someone with a mental disorder. You're still welcome to your opinion, but remember everything is not so black and white- if anything, I'd say they probably did their research. I don't romantisize my illness. Hating yourself so much you want to die? Sucks. And manic periods were you're prone to do stupid and rather dangerous things? Are just as bad. Just keep in my that disorders of the brian ARE NOT like disorders of the body. Insulin works for diabetes, but drugs, ect, even talk therapy don't always work for us. It's not that simple. Diana did what was right for her, and for the people she loved.

[ccaggiano]

Abbie, thank you so much for sharing your experience. Like me, you seem to care a lot about the subject matter, as well as the show itself. Yes, I come to this process with a deep personal bias, which I've acknowledged, and I could argue with you point by point, but that's not really a productive undertaking.

In the larger sense, we have Brian Yorkey and Tom Kitt to thank for giving the subject of mental illness a heart-felt and honest treatment. I disagree with some of the points the show makes, just as you disagree with some of my points. But the good news is that people are talking, and that's a major step forward from the days when mental illness was treated as something to be ashamed of and hidden.

Best of luck with your struggles, and thanks again for taking the time to weigh in.

[Esther]

Hey Chris,
Well I finally saw Next to Normal so after following the discussion for so long, I can finally weigh in.

I do think it's the best new musical I saw this year. It's an original, compelling look at a difficult subject - how one family member's mental illness affects the entire family.

And I don't see it as an attack on psychiatry but rather a depiction of just how tough it is to treat mental illness, despite the best efforts of modern medicine and doctors and a caring, loving family to support you. (If I remember correctly, I think even at the end Diana is still under a doctor's care.)

I think the things that happen to Diana in this musical do happen - some of the drugs that treat mental illness do have side effects. People are overmedicated. And sometimes people - in the throes of their illness - will feel that the side effects are so debilitating that they can just give them up, that they'll do fine without them. And sometimes the consequences are disastrous. Unfortunately, that's what happened to the brother of a friend of mine.

If any group should be upset it's (Spoiler Alert!) the pediatricians who apparently completely missed what was wrong with Diana's son. That's actually the part that rang false for me. I mean, how could they have missed it? Also, I didn't like the way Yorkey's book strung me along for the first act without telling me what happened to the child. I honestly thought Diana was in some way responsible for his death - maybe in a car accident or she turned away for a minute while giving him a bath and he drowned, something like that.

I was a little concerned that the musical also makes a connection between grief and mental illness. I don't think people become bipolar because they lose a child. But they kind of get around that by saying, if I remember correctly, that mental illness ran in Diana's family and the death of her son triggered it.

What I really appreciated is the way Next to Normal show the impact of Diana's illness on her husband and daughter. Her husband has cared for her for so long and is at his wit's end. And their daughter has always felt in her brother's shadow, kind of unloved. She obviously fears that she'll end up like her mother.

I do understand the points your're making. But I honestly didn't walk away from it with the perception that drugs are bad, doing it on your own is good. I just walked away thinking about the complexity and sadness.

[ccaggiano]

Esther: As always, it's great to get your perspective. As I said in response to Abbie above, I think Yorkey and Kitt have opened up a very useful dialog about mental illness and its effects and treatment. There's certainly room for a variety of perspectives, and they don't necessarily need to dovetail. I still maintain that I see a bias in Yorkey's writing, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Many plays and musicals have perspectives that some people may perceive as biases. Part of the role of art is to ask questions, without necessarily providing pat answers.

I'm glad I saw the show in both incarnations, as it gave me a chance to see how the show progressed in becoming more balanced and affecting. And I agree that it's the best new musical of the season. I'm glad that there are people like Yorkey and Kitt out there taking chances and creating shows that do more than insert bland songs into some formulaic movie.

[PATRICK]

As most of the people who have commented here, I also do not get any bias against psychiatry or care for mental patients. I believe you are WAY off the mark with your assessment of the show, which is probably why Brain Yorkey had such strong words for you in your correspondence back and forth. I feel you have taken moments in the show too personally and/or too literally. As a teenager, I too was diagnosed with depression, and I think your own bout with depression may have seriously clouded your judgement of certain moments in the show. The ones I most disagree with are:

"As I said, I still perceive an anti-psychiatry message in the show. It's a lot more subtle, but, in a way, that makes it more insidious." I FIND THERE TO BE NO UNDERHANDED OR TREACHEROUS ANTI-PSYCHIATRY MESSAGE. JUST BECAUSE IT DIDN'T SEEM TO "WORK" FOR ALICE RIPLEY'S CHARACTER DOESN'T MEAN THE WRITERS ARE SAYING ALL TREATMENT IS BAD OR WORTHLESS. APPLYING ONE CASE STUDY TO ALL CASES IS NOT TRULY INDICATIVE OF A PARTICULAR ACTION OR OUTCOME.

"There are numerous examples throughout the show that support my contention, for instance a song in which the cast satirically sings the names of various psychoactive drugs to a tune reminiscent of 'My Favorite Things.'" IT'S CALLED COMEDY AND THE HEIGHTENED "REALITY" OF THEATER. TO ME THIS SONG IS MORE A SOCIAL COMMENTARY OF HOW PATIENTS AND DOCTORS CAN BELIEVE THAT PILLS HAVE THE ANSWERS TO ALL THEIR PROBLEMS. THAT'S NOT SAYING PSYCHIATRY IS BAD, BUT THAT PEOPLE'S PERCEPTIONS OF WHAT IT CAN DO AND SHOULD DO ARE SOMETIMES SKEWED.

"In the song 'I Miss the Mountains' the mother character romanticizes the highs and lows of bipolar disorder. But the truth is the 'highs' are not refreshing, they're debilitating. And the "lows" are characterized not by wistful melancholy but by active self-loathing and destruction." THOUGH I AM NOT BIPOLAR, I DO UNDERSTAND THE EMOTIONAL ROLLER-COASTER OF HIGHS AND LOWS. I HAVE ACTUALLY WISHED FOR MYSELF TO BE MORE EVEN KEEL AND LESS UP AND DOWN, TO BE LESS SWAYED BY THE WHIMS OF MY EMOTIONS. BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT I MIGHT MISS OUT ON THOSE WONDERFUL "MOUNTAINTOP" MOMENTS WHEN THE WORLD IS BEAUTIFUL AND YOU FEEL REFRESHED AND ALIVE TO FACE ANOTHER DAY OR CHALLENGE OR RELATIONSHIP. REGARDLESS, YOUR COMMENTS ONCE AGAIN ARE FOISTING YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE/BELIEF ONTO SOMEONE ELSE. THIS SONG TELLS OF ONE VIEWPOINT AND IN NO WAY SUGGESTS THAT ALL BIPOLAR PATIENTS DO OR SHOULD FEEL THIS WAY.

"But the thing that really solidified the show's bias in my mind was the audience reaction. When Diana's psychiatrist suggests ECT as a treatment, I heard audible gasps from the people around me. When doctor explained that ECT isn't the nightmare people think it is, I heard a number of people snort and tsk." SO YOU ARE BLAMING THE WRITERS OF N2N FOR EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HAVING A CERTAIN STEREOTYPICAL VIEW OF PSYCHIATRY AND ECT? THAT'S LIKE BLAMING LE CAGE AUX FOLLES FOR SOMEONE IN ITS AUDIENCE HATING HOMOSEXUALS AND THINKING ALL THEY DO IS PRISS ABOUT AND SING SHOWTUNES. AGAIN, N2N IS ONE VIEWPOINT AND PRESENTS THE IDEA OF ECT AS A LEGITIMATE PRESCRIPTION FOR THIS ONE PATIENT. THERE IS NO SMIRKING OR WINK-WINK-NUDGE-NUDGE GOING ON BETWEEN THE WRITERS TOWARDS THE AUDIENCE. I HEARD NO SMIRKS AND DID NOT LAUGH MYSELF DURING THIS SCEENE WHEN I SAW THE SHOW FOR THE FIRST TIME.

"But whether Yorkey intends it or not, the show seems to reinforce the ill-informed prejudices that people have about mental illness and its treatment." N2N REINFORCES THIS NOTION NO MORE THAN IT REINFORCES THE IDEAS THAT ALL TEENAGE GIRLS ARE FILLED WITH ANGST, HUSBANDS CAN ONLY LAST A FEW MINUTES IN SEX, TEENAGERS ARE NOTHING BUT POTHEADS, ETC. STEREOTYPES PROVIDE HUMOR JUST AS MUCH AS THEY PROVIDE DRAMA. BUT N2N PRESENTS A SIDE OF MENTAL HEALTH THAT CHALLENGES THE NOTION THAT THOSE WHO DEAL WITH DISORDERS ARE WEAK AND LAZY HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER THEMSELVES OR THOSE AROUND THEM. BUT IT DOES SHOW THE DEVASTATING RESULTS THAT CAN COME FROM DEALING WITH SUCH HEART-WRENCHING ISSUES. LIFE IS NOT PRETTY AND RARELY CAN BE TIED UP IN A NICE, NEAT BOW. N2N ENDS WITH A LOT OF LOOSE TIES AND CAN ONLY FOCUS ON WHAT WE ALL MUST HAVE TO CARRY ON IN OUR LIVES: HOPE.

"The show's denouement still comes off as an endorsement of Diana's reckless decision to discontinue all forms of treatment." I MAY DISAGREE WITH HER DECISION TO LEAVE AS WELL, BUT BEING THAT THIS IS THEATER AND ONLY A "SLICE" OF REALITY, IT IS THE STRONGER, MORE DRAMATIC CHOICE TO MAKE ONSTAGE. STILL, I SEE THE POINT THAT DIANA HAS TRIED EVERYTHING, SO WHY NOT TRY THIS APPROACH. IN HER MIND IT CAN'T GET ANY WORSE THAT IT ALREADY IS OR HAS BEEN. HOWEVER, BASED ON DAN'S FINAL CONVERSATION WITH THE DOCTOR, IT IS INFERRED THAT DIANA IS AT LEAST STILL SEEING THE DOCTOR AND WORKING THROUGH HER ISSUES, IF IT IS ALONE.

[shashinyc]

Hi Chris, Just saw N2N yesterday. And I fully agree with your reservations, adding one more -- the message of crazy women supported by strong, sensitive men who are always there to catch them. Yes, I guess it makes sense on some level that the daughter would be affected by/react to/emulate the same-sex parent (Diana) behaviorally, but to me there's a scary retro sense of the "hysterical" woman syndrome. While the husband acknowledges his pain at the end, agreeing to seek help, he never cracks wide open or acts out the way the women do. So the craziness ends up gender-based. Truthfully, I found the performances outstanding but found the play deeply annoying -- uninformed, superficial and confused while seeking to smugly congratulate itself for being brave and bold.

[shashinyc]

Thanks, Chris, for your re-review. I concur with your reservations about this much-lauded musical, which I saw yesterday. But it wasn't only the garbled messages about mental illness that bothered me. Equally disturbing was the revival of that old stereotype: the hysterical female supported by strong, sensitive, caring men. Yes, it makes psychological sense that the daughter might react to/emulate the behavior of the same-sex parent. But now we've got not one but two crazy, acting-out women supported by two solid, sane, long-suffering men who promise to be there for them always, no matter how nuts they go. OMG.

While all the performances were excellent, this musical annoyed me a lot. While patting itself on the back for bravery and boldness, it came across as shallow, uninformed, reactionary and hugely confused about mental illness and the complexities of its treatment.

Of course, the generic mock-operatic score where I came out unable to remember a single melody or refrain didn't help a whole lot either.

[shashi]

Thanks, Chris, for your re-review. I concur with your reservations about this much-lauded musical, which I saw yesterday. But it wasn't only the garbled messages about mental illness that bothered me. Equally disturbing was the revival of that old stereotype: the hysterical female supported by strong, sensitive, caring men. Yes, it makes psychological sense that the daughter might react to/emulate the behavior of the same-sex parent. But now we've got not one but two crazy, acting-out women supported by two solid, sane, long-suffering men who promise to be there for them always, no matter how nuts they go. OMG.

While all the performances were excellent, this musical annoyed me a lot. While patting itself on the back for bravery and boldness, it came across as shallow, uninformed, reactionary and hugely confused about mental illness and the complexities of its treatment.

Of course, the generic mock-operatic score where I came out unable to remember a single melody or refrain didn't help a whole lot either.

[Sarah]

I am writing a paper on "Next to Normal" and its treatment of bipolar disorder, and I just wanted to thank you because you are the first person that I have found that has had anything to say other than "this musical is amazing." Don't get me wrong, I thought it was great, but you completely articulated all of my thoughts and some of the problems that I had with the play just when I was starting to think that I was the only one that thought them. So, thank you! I just think that there were a few major holes left in the text of the play, they focused more on Diane's delusions about Gabe instead of fully developing the nature of bipolar disorder. Plus, as a person who has a very close relative that suffers from this disorder, it is insane to me to me that the play seems to be so against medication, etc.