In the musical Next to Normal, now onstage at North Coast Repertory Theatre in Eureka, Diana is a wife and mother who is being treated for mental illness. The story follows her treatment and how it affects her husband Dan and her teenage daughter Natalie, as well as Natalie’s relationship with her boyfriend Henry. Then there’s Gabe, the son Diana sees as a teenager but who in fact died as an infant.
So you should know going in that this is not exactly Anything Goes.
Next to Normal (music by Tom Kitt, book and lyrics by Brian Yorkey) was probably the most celebrated new musical in New York since Rent. It began in 2002 with workshops and eventually opened on Broadway in 2009, where it ran for almost two years. It won multiple Tonys and the Pulitzer Prize, a rare honor for a musical.
Though the play is billed as a rock musical, in this production especially it’s more of a pop music opera. The script is mostly sung, with the arias and various vocal combinations of an opera. With a small instrumental ensemble backstage, no body microphones for the singers and low-keyed lighting, this NCRT production takes a subdued approach. Without the raucous qualities of rock, there’s a contemporary pop feel, with catchy melodies and incisive lyrics (plus some bathetic ones).
So the emphasis falls on the singers, who were remarkably accomplished already on opening night. Their voices soared and blended with apparently effortless dexterity. Music director Dianne Zuleger prepared them well, especially since director Tom Phillips set a brisk pace for the action.
Andrea Zvaleko plays Diana with a strong voice and understated passion. Her mercurial moments meet the solid guardedness of Kevin Sharkey’s Dan, until his feelings quietly erupt. Brandy Rose is the teenage daughter Natalie, who moves swiftly through adolescent responses, at times mirroring what her mother is going through.
Gino Bloomberg plays a dangerously charismatic Gabe, an illusion who insists he is real, and in terms of being a crucial character to his mother and in this story, he is. In smaller but still important and well-sung roles, Luke Sikora is the sweet stoner who becomes a rock of stability for Natalie, and Alex Moore plays the two doctors who apply modern medicine and psychotherapy with mixed results.
As a story, this play is mindful of predecessors both in depicting a family under stress (suggesting that society is itself insane), and in addressing mental illness. Nailing Diana’s illness to a specific precipitating event is dramatically efficient, though it may also be oversimplifying. It’s a delicate dance between touching the typical bases and portraying an individual family, but that seems inherent in the subject.
The play ends with decisions but refuses easy resolution. Even in terms of what came before, not everyone will find the ending satisfying, though it does include affirmation (the last song promises “there will be light”) with the determination to live “close enough to normal to get by.”
The subject of mental illnesses and treatment in the family are probably resonant for many members of an average audience. Those who take the emotional journey of this play will likely have a lot to talk about.
The excellent backing instrumentalists are Jonathan Webster (piano), Charlie Sleep (guitar), Bobby Amirkhan (electric bass) and Melissa Gussin (percussion). Kyle Handziak designed the effective set, Calder Johnson the lighting, Jenneveve Hood the costumes. Next to Normal plays at North Coast Rep Fridays and Saturdays through June 22.
North Coast Rep has announced its upcoming 30th anniversary season, one that shakes up the usual format. It begins in September with the classic Kaufman and Hart ensemble comedy You Can’t Take It With You. The first of the traditional two musicals in a season is You’re A Good Man, Charlie Brown, which is also the holiday show in November. But then there’s something different. A pair of Greek classics play together in January: the most famous tragedy of them all, Oedipus the King by Sophocles, and a new translation of a political comedy by Aristophanes, Women in Congress.
Then for the first time in a while, there’s no Shakespeare in the spring — or rather there’s The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged) (Revised) in March, followed by the musical Les Miserables and what’s been called a lost American classic, the 19th century drama The Poor of New York by Dion Boucicault.
Brad Hills, the new executive director of Ferndale Repertory Theatre, has announced that its new season will have a common theme: “Family, Friends, Ferndale!” First there’s a trio of classics with a small town setting: Thorton Wilder’s Our Town in October, Meredith Wilson’s The Music Man in November, and another Kaufman and Hart comedy, The Man Who Came to Dinner in January. Then the musical Monty Python’s Spamalot opens in March, and the comedy The Dixie Swim Club in June.
With these selections, Hills is reportedly responding to dissatisfaction among longtime Ferndale Rep financial supporters. These “MainStage” shows may be augmented by smaller-scaled productions, though how that might work has not yet been announced.
This article appears in Intern Unrest.
The nature of Gabe’s character is a MAJOR dramatic reveal. It isn’t explained properly until the end of the 2nd act. The audience’s initial confusion is fully intentional. This review gives it all away in the first paragraph, robbing audiences of one most compelling aspects of the musical. Truly embarrassing that this reviewer would fail to get that. If a movie critic included a spoiler of this magnitude, they’d get fired.
That said, it’s very correct to say the production avoids the “raucous qualities” of a rock musical. It has indeed been transformed into a chamber musical, for better or worse.
I just can’t get over this. Not knowing that Gabe died as a baby is half the dramatic interest of the show. Giving that away is colossally stupid. Zero understanding. Brain-dead.
In M. Night Shyamalan’s new movie, now in theaters, Haley Joel Osment sees dead people. The story follows his relationships with his mother the various apparitions he interacts with. Then there’s Bruce Willis, a child psychologist who was actually dead the entire time.
So you should know going in that this is not exactly Anything Goes.
-a review by William Kowinski
Gabe as illusion isn’t explained until the end of the second act? That’s the end of the play. Gabe as an illusion is made clear in the first fifteen minutes or so (the birthday cake scene), and is hardly the crucial plot point that the Bruce Willis character was in that movie. In fact the dramatic power of Diana’s illness depends on knowing pretty early that Gabe is an illusion. Her difficulties in letting go of the illusion is partly what makes Gabe insist he is “real.” So while the review does reveal this, I don’t think it detracts at all. Especially if audience members know it before the end of the second act.
While it is relatively early in the show that we learn of Diana’s delusions, (Jonathan misspoke), it is definitely not as early as 15 minutes. There are seven full length songs beforehand, with lyrics are structured to make the audience believe Gabe is alive. I feel the composer/writer did not intend for the audience to know until the birthday cake and I have honestly been a little heartsick that this was exposed. It’s a moment that is supposed to take the audience’s breath away. It’s the moment when the atmosphere shifts from cautiously lighthearted to dark in one, quick moment. I do really appreciate the positive spin of the review, and have very much appreciated prior reviews, I just wish less detail was exposed.
That last comment was by Andrea Zvaleko. I didn’t mean to be anonymous behind my user name.
As mentioned, the first 7 numbers allow the audience to believe Gabe is a living member of the family. And unless I’m mistaken, the fact that he died as an infant isn’t revealed till the 4th to last song. That information is in your FIRST paragraph. Glad you don’t think it detracts Bill, most people I’ve spoken to disagree adamantly, as do all but one of the reviewers found on the first page of Google hits for “next to normal review”, most of whom actually imply that he is alive.
Jonathan is correct. The exact amount of time he has been dead and the full explanation is not revealed until the end of the 2nd act. It’s implied somewhat but the complete story doesn’t come to light until much later. I realize now that’s probably what Jonathan meant by “It isn’t explained properly until the end of the 2nd act”. These are plot points that are hinted at throughout until the full explanation, which, if we’re doing our jobs, the audience is piecing together as the show progresses.
“So while the review does reveal this, I don’t think it detracts at all.”
The original reviews from the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, and others deliberately didn’t mention this reveal. These reviewers understood the power of Gabe’s reveal.
http://theater.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/thea…
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-04…
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemon…
What I don’t understand is why these reviewers were able to see the same importance our cast sees.
I’m glad I saw this show, before I saw this review. Just…wow.
I hope it’s obvious that I didn’t intend to detract from anyone’s experience of this play. And while feelings may be strong on this point, it is factually true that the birthday cake reveal occurs fairly early in the first act (it is in the third paragraph of the 12 graph Wikipedia summary, for instance) and it is very soon obvious that Gabe can’t be “real”, especially when he’s “present” in Diana’s consultation with Doctor Madden.
The matter of spoilers for a play that has been around for four years is debatable. The first reviewers write about it in a particular way, but even though the play is new to the North Coast, my responses to its strengths and weaknesses were predicated on the two-thirds of play in which Gabe’s importance was as a powerful delusion. In the end, it is how it all plays out–and how it is played–that is most important to audiences. That Hamlet dies in the end is well known, but people still go to see it happen.
I offer some solace to those who feel the experience of others might be spoiled: not everybody who sees it will read the review before going, if they read it at all. And even those that do will probably not remember this “reveal” until presented with it during the show, as is often true of “spoilers” for movies and books,etc. (This discussion has probably done more to draw attention to Gabe’s status than the review did.) And that’s without counting the readers who read reviews but who never intend to see the play. There might even be those whose curiosity is piqued enough to see it because they’re intrigued by the idea of a woman captivated by a delusion to such an extent that it seems physically real to her, or that the play chooses to make the delusion real to the audience in this way.