What's with all the N2N hate?- Page 2

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 12:05am

I am out as a hater of this show. We were 3 friends that saw it and we all hated it.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 12:13am

Well, he's basically having a conversation with a metaphor, but that could be the case, too. Stress induced hallucination perhaps. Either explanation could make sense. I just loved it. I thought I had the basics of the plot going in. I am glad I didn't.

I ended up losing one of the most important people in my life two days later. She was 18. So many elements of the show stuck with me for that reason. I am sure it's not everyone's cup of tea, but it was mine.

[ActingIsLovee]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 12:39am

"The only thing I hate are 14 year old kids who WANT to be depressed and get on medication so they can be more like Diana since they feel that "they are her". THAT is what aggravates me about this show. These kids don't need shock therapy, they just need to grow up and learn that simply because your BFF likes the boy you like or the cheerleaders are mean to you, that doesn't mean you suffer from an actual medical condition. You're just growing up. MUCH DIFFERENT THING KIDS."
/quote
While I 100% agree that wanting mental illness to be "like Diana" is ridiculous, I do feel the need to remind you that many adolescents do suffer from serious mental illnesses and they are about a lot more than "a boy doesn't like me." I speak from experience, as someone who's been seeing a psychiatrist from a young age.

I personally loved the show. While I'm not delusional, "seeing" Gabe hit so close to home. The message I took away was kind of that treatment is bull**** and we need to take charge of our own mental health (ironically enough, I saw Next to Normal the day before I went to a residential center.)

[Elphaba3]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 12:47am

People can take charge of their own mental health by finding a treatment that's right for them. That's what I like to assume Diana does.

[Spacedog78]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 1:39am

muscle23ftl


but WHY?!??
Updated On: 4/13/10 at 01:39 AM

[ActingIsLovee]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 2:02am

Why what?

and Elphaba3, I agree that often the best way is to take responsibility by seeking appropriate help, but even the best treatment center wont help someone who doesn't want to change.

[Elphaba3]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 2:17am

Very true.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 2:38am

I'ved never thought that the show PROMOTES the choices that Diana makes. It is what SHE needs to do, or at least what she believes she needs to do. Her future is uncertain...but the rest of the family needs to get on with their own lives...and in Dan's case take care of his own healing over Gabe. I always took the final scene to show us that Dan never did either, because he needed to take care of Diana so never dealt with his own grieving...now he can attend to that.

As far as NOT knowing what Gabe is: the creative doesn't even agree about that. But I do agree he's never a "memory". How could he be when he died as a baby but is only visualized as an 18 year old. However, you have to admit, if you are going to be dillussional about your dead son, conjuring him up to look like Tviet OR Kyle is a great way to go!!!

About the hate? People just love to complain about any award: the Tonys, the Pulitzer -- it doesn't really matter. A similar thread would have started about any show that rec'd it. I don't mean to say that these people are manufacturing their dislike of the show, only that awards dredge up those feelings.

It's art...it's subjective.

[Harpz2006]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 2:52am

I think the message of the show is that you can find some beauty and meaning in life even when your life is in shambles. I feel like the line "you find out you don't have to be happy at all, to be happy you're alive" captures it. Diana's pain wasn't something that could just be helped by meds... she had to have this revelation and realize life was still worth living despite the deep pain she'd been dealing with by herself for so long. I can understand why SporkGoddess came away with the impression she did but I think the show is much deeper and more universal than she realized.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 2:56am

Because every show has people who don't like it?

Truer words have rarely been heard in these parts!

I rated NEXT TOR NORMAL * * * 1/2 (OUT OF 5) liking the production a little more than the show, and giving top marks to the cast. the score was interesting but lacked unity, and was at times needlessly complex. I liked that the book did not try and provide easy answers but ambiguity can be frustrating at times. Still I felt it was good (though not outstanding) material enhanced by tight direction an a spectacular cast of singer/actors.

Updated On: 4/13/10 at 02:56 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 10:00am

Well, since you asked...

I felt that the book was banal and delved no deeper into the issues than an Afterschool Special or a Lifetime movie. I felt that the lyrics were poorly crafted and often from the "anything for a rhyme, even if it doesn't make much sense" school. And the music, although often energetic and/or attractive, was rather generic pop showing no evidence of the skill or craft needed to write music specific to a character, event, or emotion (which is what I value in musical theatre).

Musicals that I have thought better in the last five years: The Light in the Piazza, A Catered Affair, The Drowsy Chaperone, Grey Gardens.

[Spacedog78]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 11:04am

newintown

I just have to disagree. i think the issue didn't have to be "delved" into anymore. I think a musical simply about the struggles of the family, with NO resolution is part of what makes the show brilliant. I am tired of open close musicals. This one left me hanging, emotional and kind of dazed. I am glad this show was not written to explain bi polar or depression, but simply showed what it can do to someone. As for the lyrics, I could not disagree more, I think that the show is one of the best written in the past five years. I personally loved Light in the Piazza but the music although pretty, was unmemorable. Drowsy although was entertaining to watch at times, rather bored me.

[newintown]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 11:20am

No problem in disagreeing - it can be fun. As long as you don't think I'm criticizing you when I say I don't like the show.

[Luv2goToShows]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 1:28pm

As far as NOT knowing what Gabe is: the creative doesn't even agree about that. But I do agree he's never a "memory". How could he be when he died as a baby but is only visualized as an 18 year old. However, you have to admit, if you are going to be dillussional about your dead son, conjuring him up to look like Tviet OR Kyle is a great way to go!!!

That last line is great drama : )

***Spoiler***
Another interpretation is that her mental illness stemmed from loss of her son, the guilt of it tortured her over the years.

I did enjoy the show, the music and performances are great but I did not leave loving the show, probably because of the depressing story line.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 2:01pm

Personally, I think it's richly deserved.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 2:10pm

I have a HUUUGE problem with people labeling this show 'Lifetime'. Are the issues of a woman's grief and mental illness so trivial that any exploration of it must be dismissed as MOW(Movie of the Week)?

I find the execution of this show avoids many of the traps of the MOWs. The ambiguous approach to Diana's decisions about her treatment, the disintigration of the marriage over the illness, the exploration of drug use by the daughter that never actually turns into a 'problem' to be solved. And the fact that, in the end, she is not 'cured' and she has to remove herself from her family so that everyone can find some kind of way to live their lives. None of these things would have been explored in a tyical MOW. And it shocks me that people are so quick to label it as such.

I get having problems with the structure, execution, what have you. But this show, in no way, trades on MOW conventions to tell its story. Save for the fact that it is about a woman and her issues.

[newintown]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 2:17pm

Well, I said it delved no deeper than a Lifetime movie, not that it copied any kind of structure of such. And that's my perception. I fully understand that one man's deep may very well be another man's shallow, and that adjectives are pretty relative things.

I don't find the topic of mental illness trivial; I do find the way the writing of Next To Normal explores it to be banal, however.

No need to have a problem (HUUUGE or small) with it - it's a perfectly valid opinion. So is yours that the depth of exploration is good. We just disagree.

[Kalimba]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 2:20pm

Hate no; strongly disliked yes. I'll reserve "hate" for crap like The Addamms Family, Mamma Mia, Million Dollar Quartet, etc. I praise Next to Normal for its originality, but it just didn't do it for me. I appreciate the work that Alice Ripley put into her character, but her raspy voice annoyed the hell out of me. Also, the photos of the cast on the 45th Street side of the theater creep me out every time I walk by.
Updated On: 4/13/10 at 02:20 PM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 2:21pm

But in what way? I have no problem with anyone thinking the writing was banal. But how? What specifically would you have changed to explore the subject deeper?

It's easy to call something 'Lifetime'. But how would you change it to satisfy your standards?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 2:22pm

I completely agree with RobbieJ. The trivializing of Alice's story as a Lifetime movie is all too reminiscent of Torvald's attitude towards Nora in A Doll's House. Now, if you want to make comparisons of Next to Normal with A Doll's House, I think it is more than appropriate, but I don't see any resemblance to a made-for-cable soapy camp-fest.

[lull89]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 2:30pm

See, to me the fact that the creative team doesn't agree with what is happening in the end is a huge problem with the production. It's fine if you want to leave some things ambiguous and up to the audience to decide about motivations and things like that, but if you are not clear as to the STORY you are telling, you are not doing your job. Theatre like this is a storytelling artform, and Dan's moment at the end is an important part of the story, and by being ambiguous, it just muddles the narrative and draws focus away from the deeper issues of the script.

That scene isn't the only time I thought the character was used poorly. IIRC, there are several times where he sings towards characters and things like that when Diana isn't even on stage, which makes absolutely no sense to me. That might be more of a direction/production problem than a script one, but it really bugged me and took me out of the show when I saw it.

But again, I do stress that because I didn't like it, that doesn't invalidate anyone's enjoyment and emotional entanglement with the show. I just found that these dramaturgical type problems were distracting and prevented me from engaging on anything more than an intellectual level, when they clearly wanted an emotional connection.
Updated On: 4/13/10 at 02:30 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 2:35pm

That's a good question. If I knew what would make it better, I would be a writer, I suppose.

I can say that nothing about the show surprised me, or seemed other than expected (except for the shocker-spoiler, which I was beginning to suspect just before the revelation). I love to be surprised, to see something I don't expect.

I found the treatment of the doctor(s) to be trivial - I've heard that the medical profession was mocked more in earlier productions of the show, but I still found the doctors to be presented as slightly foolish and two-dimensional.

I felt that all 3 family members wallowed in their tragedy; what I find more interesting than tears and screaming is seeing how people try to make their lot better.

The character of the daughter, in particular, was vexing - a stereotypical moody, angry, overly articulate teen. Not that they don't exist, I just don't find them interesting. I didn't see what set her apart from, gave her more texture than any other moody teenage girl from a basic cable series.

And (to me) the worst aspect was that none of the comedy/lighter moments ("I'll be up for sex in a minute") was funny. "Funny," of course, being the most relative term of all. And that made it feel turgid, self-important, and quasi-solemn to me.

[pants2]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 2:45pm

I think Next to Normal is absolutely spectacular for countless reasons, and I think it is wholly deserving of the Pullitzer Prize. Perhaps winners in other years have surpassed N2N in relevance/artistry/appeal, but this show is a real work of art, and was at least more deserving in comparison to this year's other nominees.

IMO.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 3:25pm

N2N must be one of the worst musicals to open on Broadway in the last 20 years, nothing like the excellent 'Rock of Ages', that has brilliant music and lyrics, excellent book and so well acted out, complete opposite to 'Next to Normal'.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 4:11pm

Fail.