Next to Normal Wins Pulitzer Prize (Ahem...)

OK, so I know that many of you have been waiting for me to weigh in on Next to Normal winning the Pulitzer Prize. Frankly, I was stunned, but not for the reasons that most people in the theatrical community were similarly stunned. I've been pretty vocal in my criticism of the show, primarily in my review of the Off-Broadway production at the Second Stage Theater, but also in my review of the much-revised Broadway production at the Booth Theater. 

My criticisms of Next to Normal were initially based on the quality of the show as well as its ostensible anti-psychiatry message. Between the show's Off Broadway and Broadway stints, the show's artistic execution has vastly improved, and the apparent message has been toned down considerably. But more on that later.

Coincidentally, the day of the Pulitzer announcement, I had been talking in my musical-theater history class about how no musical that has ever won the Pulitzer has genuinely deserved it. (The eight musicals that have won the award are Of Thee I Sing, South Pacific, Fiorello, How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, A Chorus Line, Sunday in the Park With George, Rent, and now Next to Normal.) I don't necessarily agree with that statement, but I often use it as a provocative proposition to start a discussion about awards and their relative worth. (For the record, I think that, if any of these musicals genuinely deserved the Pulitzer, it was Sunday in the Park With George.)

After N2N won the Pulitzer, there was a lot of moaning and hand-wringing about the selection process, and how the Pulitzer board members chose to ignore the recommendations of the nominating jury. Well, according to the Pulitzer rules, they're perfectly free to do, so that part didn't really bother me. I figure the board is free to choose as it sees fit. I did have to raise my eyebrows at the revelation that a significant number of the Pulitzer voters had seen Next to Normal the night before the voting. Why is that a problem? Well, N2N is a heart-wrenching show, and it strikes me that the voters may have been responding on a knee-jerk, emotional basis rather than from a considered, analytical viewpoint.

In contrast to the Pulitzer voters, I wanted to take my time in formulating my response to the Next to Normal win, which is why I've waited this long to post about the topic. In short, I don't think the show deserved the award, but that view is not based on the inherent quality of the show. I think it's a very well-crafted show, with a strong score and an affecting story.

No, my objection remains with the show's romanticizing mental illness (witness the song "I Miss the Mountains") and its implicit rejection of psychiatry. The show's main female character, portrayed very affectingly by Tony-Award winner Alice Ripley, suffers from bipolar disorder, and throughout the course of the show undergoes a number of treatment modalities, including talk therapy, drug therapy, and ECT (electroconvulsive therapy). At the end of the show, she rejects all of the above and decides to go it alone. I took great exception to this apparent repudiation of psychiatry, and said so in very strong terms in my initial review. Librettist/lyricist Brian Yorkey contacted me in a series of vitriolic emails, which at first I did not respond to. When his tone became more measured and collegial, I answered back, and he and I engaged in a productive dialog about his right to craft a show that says whatever he wants it to.

Now, is the show condoning Diana's actions or merely portraying them? Yorkey has never specified to me. Are people free to reject all forms of therapeutic intervention? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it, or stay silent about it. In my experience, there are far too many people who eschew treatment for mental illness based on the archaic and dangerous notion that they should be able to just pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Psychiatric disorders are genuine medical conditions, not imaginary constructs. A diabetic cannot through force of will regulate his own insulin levels. Likewise, the power of positive thinking isn't going to help someone with bipolar disorder regulate the amounts of serotonin and dopamine that are available in her synapses.

Is it possible for a show to be worthy of a Pulitzer Prize yet still espouse a viewpoint that I find questionable at best, dangerous at worst? Well, that's free speech for ya. At the very least, Next to Normal provides the opportunity to create some dialog about the topic of mental illness. And, again, it's a very strong show artistically, and one that audiences seem to have genuinely responded to, based on the fact that the Broadway production, defying all odds and predictions, recently recouped its $4-million investment. And the show will launch its national tour in November. I encourage all my readers to see the show, whether on Broadway or on tour, and decide for themselves. All I ask is that you view the show with both an open mind and a skeptical eye.

Comments

[Michael C.]

Well, Chris, I don't think Next to Normal is trying to make a statement about psychiatry, pro or con, it is, as you mentioned, portraying a single viewpoint around one character. It follows a certain dramatic arc for a particular character who doesn't find psychiatry or medication to be a successful method of treatment. Whether she fares better on her own is completely unknown as the show ends at that point. She may end up far worse off than she is now. Still, you're certainly welcome to your opinion.

The one line in your article that makes me chuckle, however, is, "Is it possible for a show to be worthy of a Pulitzer Prize yet still espouse a viewpoint that I find questionable at best, dangerous at worst?" I didn't realize that the the possibility of a Pulitzer had to be determined by your viewpoint. I for one applaud the success of Next to Normal, which I found to be well staged, well performed, rather unique and profoundly moving. And I don't have any problem with psychiatry at all!

Well, as you said, it's free speech. Hope you're not offended, not offense is intended! I enjoy discussing things with people who have strong opinions. I certainly would never fault you for that!

[Encore Entertainment]

The only thing I've seen of Next to Normal is the Broadway excerpt, so I can't judge but I am glad you mentioned "Sunday IN the Park". I definitely feel it deserved its Pulitzer Prize (it is my favourite musical).

[Linda]

I agree with everything in this post, but even if I didn't have a problem with the way mental illness was portrayed in the show, I don't think it deserves to win this award because the Pulitzer is an award for writing and in this case, it seems like they were rewarding the production. I just don't think Next to Normal is very well-written.

[Jackson]

In no way does the show come across to me as a rejection of psychiatric treatment or a glorification of mental illness. I truly think that you are mistaking one character's perceptions with the playwrights' overall arguments. Is it not possible to feel sympathy for Diana's resistance to treatment, and to simultaneously know that she is making poor decisions? I, for one, think that's part of what's so brilliant about the musical. You seem to be suggesting that because WE know that treatment is the proper path, Diana ought to just shut up about "missing the mountains" and get on with her life. But that behavior wouldn't be in line with the character as written. Would you really challenge a CHARACTER's motives in this manner if the production were dealing with a different issue, one about which you perhaps have less forceful opinions?

[Aaron]

My problem with the musical is that it glamorizes everything, leaving very little that's real underneath it. The dead son's cheery song? The mother and daughter's twin songs during the electroshock session? A rockish psychiatrist? Sondheim could turn a happy song into a deviously tragic observation ("Our Time" remains one of my favorites), but the Next to Normal team is entirely out of their depth. To me, this decision was akin to giving the Nobel Peace Prize to the inventors of Prozac.

[Vance]

I was just about to write something until I read Linda's comment which is basically what I was going to say. (Though I'll add I didn't even think the music was excellent. It was good at first until it became one long song for the entire act 2).

[Alex]

I have always thought that the central concept of the show is in fact dealing with loss and not the treatment of Diana's bipolar disorder. This may or may not be true, but it seems to me that Diana's mental illness stems from her inability to grieve over her son's death. I believe Diana's mental illness is a special case and should not be held up to every other person who suffers from a somewhat similar disorder.
I think the show does have some suspect views, but I agree with other commenters who have stated that the show simply dictates Diana's decisions. That does not mean that they are the opinions of the authors. The doctor in the show has his own valid viewpoints and attempts to encourage Diana to continue treatment, so it's not as if the argument is one sided.
In Ragtime, Coalhouse Walker kills people and pretty much becomes a terrorist for "freedom". I believe his cause is valiant, but are his methods heoric and morally correct? Perhaps not, and I do not think that Ahrens/Flaherty encourage others to "make them hear you" by killing people and vandalizing. Nor do I think Brian Yorkey is encouraging everyone with a mental illness to bypass treatment.
I believe that the end of the show is open ended. Diana decides for a time possibly, that she will try it alone. But Dan begins to seek treatment from a psychiatrist (so how can the show be said to represent patients denying treatment?). I think that in the end Diana makes the decision to live her life and not stay rooted completely in her past. She decides to move on and try to get better, rather than rely solely on treatments that had not helped her in the past.
Do I really think Next to Normal should have won the Pulitzer Prize? No. But I still think it's an amazing show.

[winer]

So this is tangential, but you don't think "A Chorus Line" deserved it's Pulitzer? I would like to read more about your opinion on that one. As much as that show is about dancing and singing on its surface, it really is about character and storytelling. To my admittedly less experienced ears and eyes, it sounds and reads like a great piece of writing to me.

[Geoff]

I'm a physician and while I'm not a psychiatrist I work with mentally ill people almost every day of my professional life. I saw N2N on Broadway twice and I found it powerful and thrilling. I did not interpret Diana's story arc as a repudiation of modern psychiatry (although I can see how that conclusion could be reached). Instead, I saw it as an attempt to illustrate the ambiguity and chaos that often governs the lives of people with difficult to control mental disorders. To have Diana conquer her illness and sing triumphant at the conclusion of the piece would probably prove emotionally satisfying to audiences, but would ring false in my opinion. Her decision to abandon therapy is an all too common development in the real world of psychiatry and, as Chris has pointed out, the results are often catastrophic. I found her errant decision to be crushingly poignant, precisely because it is so true to life. As Sondheim would say:

"...People make mistakes.
Fathers. Mothers...
Honor their mistakes...
Fight for their mistakes..."

Of course, this makes the ending of N2N a real downer because I know what Diana's future of "going it alone" holds: greater and greater chaos, homelessness, and probably further suicide attempts. I did not walk out of the theatre feeling enobled, but I did feel somewhat enlightened as there was a core truth presented: namely that mental illness is an extraordinarily common human condition that lives right next door and touches all our lives in one form or another. With or without psychiatry there are no easy solutions to this universal problem, but watching Diana's story puts a human face on that problem. From her struggles we learn, we empathize, and maybe we grow a little bit.

I think the show richly deserved the Pulitzer and I hope the award and the triumph of this production will encourage other writers and producers to take risks and keep the "serious musical" alive and well on Broadway.

[Gina]

I do hear you on it being possibly dangerous. I mean, say a young mind is easily influenced and decides to take this course of action herself/himself or encourages a friend to do so? But as you mentioned, hopefully people are smart enough to really think it over if this very real thing actually does affect them. "Easier said than done." But Next to Normal certainly isn't the first of any medium to do this with a risky subject. I personally felt that Yorkey took such a subject matter to simply relate to those struggling with similar issues but not in the same way Diana does. And we all know, theatre kids are especially emotional/sensitive in certain ways. And these ways are related to in a musical that is really trying to do something special/original. Gypsy's all about show business, starring the stage mom none of us would want. Alas, "Some People" was the reason I picked up a phone and started taking musical theatre classes. And when I listen to "I Miss the Mountains", I recognize its intent for Diana but what I hear and take away is to cherish my ability to really LIVE. (Though, I also feel that's what it is partially about for Diana, too.) It's all about relating to something the way you want; This (along with a great book and score in general) is why everyone's favorite musicals list is different.

I don't say all this because I don't think you recognize it, I actually have no doubt that you do. What Broadway fan doesn't? I just felt the need to point out that it may not be as bad/influential as it may seem.

[M]

Next to Normal presented an extraordinary message in many ways, and I'm not surprised that there is resistance to it. I find it interesting that none of the commenters seem to have considered the possibility that Diana was, in fact, not crazy at all.

[FreddyE]

Very good article and I agree with some of it. The show has a difficult topic and some of its notions might not be correct...but after all its a show and it has to entertain to find an audience.

I linked your page on my blog: http://modulohost.de/freddysblog/