Last night I saw a production of Next to Normal...

Unless they had permission from the creatives... they're in trouble.

They didn't add any dialogue or anything, it was purely the staging. That's one reason I was curious. But it was very obvious that in their ending, she decided to come home.

Just reading your description, my hunch is that the director meant to indicate (by bringing Diana back at the very end of the song - ie. as a 'button' to the very last moment of the show) that *eventually* there would be a reconciliation.

If that's the case, the director is probably within his or her creative right.

If they had brought back Diana, for example, *before* the song and the conclusion of the story, that would be considered tampering with the ending, at least in terms of how these things are defined by the licensing house.

And to be honest, the end of NEXT TO NORMAL is essentially a tag -stepping outside of the perimeters of the time/space of the book. The song moves past the conclusion to the story and eventually becomes an after thought and a message of hope - a direct aside/plea/statement to the audience.

It's not a decision I would make as a director, but having Diana 'resolve' her relationship with the others simply by embracing them at the end of the song, isn't necessarily re-writing the linear story of what has transpired.

It's rather like bringing Angel back in the final moments of RENT. It's a symbolic gesture, obviously not to indicate anything beyond that. Probably where the director got the idea.

Updated On: 1/23/14 at 02:10 PM

Last year I saw a production of N2N where rather than smash the music box, Dan slapped Diana in the face- that definitely ruined the production for me. It made me hate Dan, who is usually the most sympathetic in the show (IMO).

If just in the staging, it's not illegal- though it does give the ending a different feel. I like the uncertainty that comes with Diana being away from the family in the end. Diana coming back makes it almost a happy ending, which I'm not sure is what the show needs.

Every director has a different way of presenting every show and something different to say. There is no "wrong" message to send... It does not change the fabric or meaning of the show in any way.
They did not change the text. Directors are under no obligation to follow stage directions.
You didnt care for the way the director viewed the material. Plain and simple. There is no offense to either of you.

This is my problem with many modern and younger audiences. Shows are licensed out and many super fans of the original productions think that the ONLY way to do a show is how the original production did it.. And they attach design, choreography and staging choices to the show as much as the book and score.. "They changed Mimis pants!" "They cut the Delta Nu stairs" "they cut the turntable". No, no they didnt.

But...are we supposed to believe that Diana never sees her family again? Or that some kind of reconciliation is not possible?

Just because the ORIGINAL left a question unanswered doesn't mean that NO production can answer that question.
All that staging says is that they've made their peace. Not that they are a perfect family unit. The entire song is about making your peace.

And yes, since you mentioned it and questioned it, most audiences are stupid. Especially at the community level. Yes, you have smart audience members, but audiences are often STUPID. You'd be surprised how many do mot realize things that you do mot slap them across the face with.. and many casual theatre goers want to leave feeling happy and uplifted.. Not thoughtful and reflective. There is quite a sigmificant number of people who will not see a show that doesnt leave them hapoy at the end. To paraphrase some pld show biz wisdom, ot doesnt matter what haplens through the entire show, but what that final impression is will last.

"And yes, since you mentioned it and questioned it, most audiences are stupid. Especially at the community level."

Wow. Simplemente wow.

---

Namo,
I freely admit to a level of hyperbole there, but let's be frank... in certain settings, you can not expect your audience to be comprised of people who want to actively engage on that deeper level and you can not expect an audience with previous knowledge of material. You have to make it plain for them. You have to keep it direct. At a community theatre, you are not directing for the subscription audience of the Guthrie or the Met.

I'm on the fence about this one. I do think it changes the intent of the authors, therefore, it's 'wrong' (IMO). Technically, could they "sanction" the production? I'm not sure, definitely in murkey water.

---

I always saw Next To Normal as a 21st-century rewrite of "A Doll's House," with a parallel but not identical storyline. Both of them deal with a woman stifling under the burdens of middle-class life, and both end with the woman, having confronted her own weaknesses and strengths, abandoning her family to find herself and become somehow "healthier" at least mentally.

Adding a reconciliation, even at the end, destroys the parallel: these families are KILLING these women.

This change would not be grounds for the licensing agency to revoke the license on their own since it doesn't alter any copyright protected material (ie. score/script/etc.). The only possible outcome is the authors, or majority owner of authorship, request that MTI send a cease & desist on their behalf.