NEXT TO NORMAL wins Pulitzer Prize for Drama — Page 5

For a distinguished play by an American author, preferably original in its source and dealing with American life, Ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

Awarded to “Next to Normal,” music by Tom Kitt, book and lyrics by Brian Yorkey, a powerful rock musical that grapples with mental illness in a suburban family and expands the scope of subject matter for musicals. (Moved into contention by the Board within the Drama category.)

Then you don't really have a clear understanding of what is meant by the term "book." Usually, the finest portions of the script are taken and turned into songs, but the bookwriter initially dramatized those moments.

SticktoPriest, you miss my point. My point is that the songs in Next to Normal are all the plot driving forces on their own with nothing connecting them. The development all happens internally, within each song, creating a situation where there is no difference between the book and the lyrics. It all acts as one giant unit, whereas in Rent, there is a very clear separation between song lyrics and book material.

"After Eight, I don't quite understand your vehement stance against theater critics."

I am vehemently against today's theatre critics. They are not doing their job properly. I cited several shows earlier to illustrate my point of view. I don't feel they're competent. I feel they have agendas- political, social, that color their views. This was not the case in the 40's, 50's and 60's. Theatre critics had better taste then, better knowledge. They also didn't have their noses in the air. Now it's all about agenda, ego and snark.



"I simply meant to illustrate that what you're advocating for -- more industry input into awards decisions -- exists in the form of the Tony Awards."

I'm not advocating more industry input into awards decisions. I'm avocating reduction of critics' input, and academics' input. The ultmate Pulitzer Prize decision is not made by industry insiders, but by journalists.

"Though you seem annoyed by this, the Pulitzer Prize has a different pedigree and focus. Books aren't awarded Pulitzers for being fan-favorites; journalistic pieces aren't selected because they're necessarily widely read and appreciated. I think it's fair and, really, positive, to have an award that is based solely on artistic merit and contribution to the current literature in whatever subject as judged by experts in the field."

That's all fine and dandy, except the so-called "experts in the field" have proven to be anything but expert.

I think this is an important quote from McNulty:

Too bad the board doesn't have members who are better able to distinguish the merits of a production from the merits of a dramatic work.

Clearly, he's saying that he enjoyed the production (and even thought it deserved Best Musical), but the Pulitzer is about the written material, and therefore, in his opinion, Next to Normal is undeserving. And while there are many people on here who are absolutely gaga about the book and score, there are many detractors, and not just on this thread. I know many people who hated the show. I didn't hate it, I sort of liked it, but I think the score is kind of forgettable and the book is all over the place. I haven't gotten through the entire cast album to this day. (I, however, love the orchestrations. See, I can separate the merits of score writing and orchestrating.) Opinions are opinions. McNulty is not alone in his opinion and I'm glad he voiced it.

~Steven

while it would not have been my choice out of the finalists (i certainly think Chad Deity is a timely and superior text, while in the next room is a superior text but not as current as N2N) but I will say that it is thrilling to see a new, American musical win the Pulitzer Prize, and I am thrilled for the show and for Mr. Kitt and Mr. Yorkey. What an incredible honor.

Could not be happier for this show, congrats

---

"No TimesSquareRegular, I'm not. I am PERFECTLY aware of what "book" means. YOU are just having difficulty understanding the point I am trying to make....... I am just making a point all of Next to Normal's books IS written through structure and lyrics, and nothing else."

So right, I'm having difficulty understanding the point you're TRYING to make ...... if you're trying to say that you don't like the way they used lyrics and dialogue, fine. I'd disagree with that, but I can't call an opinion "wrong". You've been going on about what is or is not a "book", and I'm sure every knowledgeable reader on this board has a better grasp of that concept than what you have expressed.

---

Personally I think this has a lot to do with acknowledging a very accomplished example of an all but extinct brand - the wholly original American musical. It bucked the trend of where the musical theater is heading, becoming a surprise hit, and it feels justified to acknowledge it in this way. It's a good choice.

It does, however, highlight the importance of popular New York production in winning this award. "Next to Normal" premiered two years ago and the Pulitzer board didn't take notice until it went to Broadway.

It is also a slap in the face to the jury, especially since its happened now twice in 5 years. That's going to make a lot of the more qualified people not want to serve, if they feel their time and effort is going to be wasted.

Of their finalists, I think "The Vibrator Play" is by far the best (also my favorite new play this season); I've only read "Chad Deity" and thought it was just OK, and am surprised it made it onto the list -- it's very un-Pulitzer-ish; I don't know anything about the "Bengal Tiger" play.

It may not be a popular opinion, but I'm also rather happy that Horton Foote didn't win. These are not new plays, have been presented in various other formats and have been transformed and adapted by people other than the author. For me, that is not what this award is about.

Most of all, I'm happy this wasn't a "no award" year. Such a verdict is almost never deserved.

I know it's mostly in verse, Phyllis, but to me it still feels less song-like and more recitative-like. Like you wouldn't hear those sections performed at a middle school voice recital.

But recitative is inherently more song-like than dialogue-like, which is why I disagree that there is a clear separation.

I actually think both RENT and NEXT TO NORMAL go out of their way to musicalize lines or moments that don't need to be sung at all which is one of my problems with both pieces. Another problem I think both pieces have is their simplistic treatment of issues that are much more complex than either show would lead you to believe (though I actually find this to be a bigger problem with RENT and it's Disney-fied depiction of AIDS/poverty/race/gayness than I do with NEXT TO NORMAL). I think, for example, a play like AUGUST: OC, which husk_charmer brought up, does a much better job at shedding lights on the issue of the mentally ill matriarch than NEXT TO NORMAL does. Of course they are two completely different works and whatnot. And I don't understand how they can say they awarded this show for expanding the scope of what can be discussed in a musical when shows like GREY GARDENS and the brilliant CAROLINE, OR CHANGE went completely ignored this past decade.

---

"but it feels to me that N2N basically musicalized what was at the core of August: Osage County. It's about a dysfunctional family with a matriarch addicted to medication."

But the mother in Next to Normal is not addicted to medication. She's mentally ill and should be on medication to keep functional, but chooses not to because she no longer feels human. That is the exact opposite of the mother in August. And if you don't comprehend that very basic fact, then I'm not sure what else there is to say.

And don't get me started on August's problems.