I do not revel in reporting on the negatives, especially when those negatives are found in something that I hold dear to me. I have been an avid Melbourne Theatre Company goer for many years, and have rarely been disappointed. But their newest production, ‘Next to Normal’, although dripping in potential, and although comprised of a wildly talented cast, wasted an opportunity to truly affect and provoke its audience.
‘Next to Normal’, a story told in musical form, portrays a mother’s chronic and debilitating struggle with bipolar disorder. The effect that this disorder has on the family unit, rather than solely on the sufferer, is at the heart of the play, as is the tension surrounding the ethical treatment of such mental disorders.
I acknowledge that ‘Next to Normal’ received acclaim elsewhere, in the form of multiple Tony Awards and a coveted Pulitzer Prize. These achievements, however, do not exempt future interpretation of the play from critique. After all, a script and score can flourish under the direction of one creative team, and flounder under the direction of another. This is most definitely the case in Melbourne Theatre Company’s interpretation of ‘Next To Normal’.
It was as though the director, Dean Bryant, held no confidence in the subtleties of the play. Instead of showing the rawness – the guts and the contradictions – of bipolar disorder, drug addiction and inconsolable grief, these themes were thrust upon the audience in a contrived and at-times clichéd manner. Costume design, set design and lighting design were laden with convoluted symbols, as though the creative team didn’t trust that the score, script and lyrics would convey the full meaning by themselves. These decisions not only belittled the original premise of the musical, and indeed the nature of the illness, but they also belittled the audience’s capacity to understand the issues being raised. We don’t need Doc Martins and fishnet stockings to understand a sixteen year old girl’s demise into depression and anxiety; we don’t need a fragmented set to understand the fragmented nature of the human brain; and we don’t need that many bright flashes of intense light in our eyes to understand Electroconvulsive Therapy.
To be fair, the majority of the first act was immensely powerful and reduced myself, and those around me, to tears. The remainder of the musical, however, served to explain that moment. The psychopharmacologist in the musical stated that the character’s condition was chronic. Why then, was the resolve so neat and final, and the music accompanying the curtain call so chipper? Did the director, or even the writer and composer, feel it necessary to restore the audience to the same mindset they had when they entered the theatre?
When tackling such real, intrinsically untidy, and chronic issues, surely it would have been more effective to leave the audience questioning; leave them grappling and pondering along with characters, rather than being told that everything will be fine.
Melbourne Theatre Company’s interpretation of ‘Next To Normal’ would have benefited from a great deal of paring back. Stripped of the excess symbols and explanation, it would have been a raw, heart wrenching and immensely human experience. Theatre doesn’t always have to be readily accessible; sometimes the experience is strengthened by the need to struggle for understanding. It is only then that audiences are left thinking about, and mulling over, the subject matter. If all the work is done – if everything comes to a close – then what is left to ponder?
Next to Normal is playing at the Melbourne Theatre Company until June 4th.
