Topics not addressed in the musical Dear Evan Hansen
One Show, One Topic
While examining successful musicals, we can identify a common thread that is dictated by the medium: A good show is about a single central topic, using all other topics to support it. This common thread can be seen in almost any successful musical: Hamilton is about the American Dream, about immigrants “making it” in America. Wicked is about reputation and the gap between one’s actions and how they are perceived. Book of Mormon is about the concept of organized religion.
What is the one central topic in Dear Evan Hansen? Dear Evan Hansen is about social isolation and acceptance.
Focusing on the Main Topic
The characters in Dear Evan Hansen are designed to show different aspects of social isolation and acceptance. Jared is a “family friend”, who doesn’t want people to know of his friendship with Evan, showing us a self-preservation mechanism of social status, keeping Evan isolated and himself accepted. Alana is displaying another variant of social isolation, where everyone is an acquaintance, and no real relationships are formed. Connor, whom we don’t actually get to know, shows yet another variant of social isolation, with an attempt to escape through drugs. Zoe is socially accepted, but that only serves to show us that being socially accepted just isn’t enough. Heidi embodies the role of the person who comes from a home with insufficient social support, with a hardly-existing family. Cynthia and Larry (and Zoe) are the opposite, but only superficially, displaying a functioning family that provides a social environment at home, while still experiencing isolation, on the verge of alienation. Evan himself is struggling with social isolation, only to later struggle with being accepted by others while not accepting himself.
The analysis of how Dear Evan Hansen addresses social isolation and acceptance can go on to cover every song and every line of dialogue. Benj Pasek, Justin Paul and Steven Levenson formed an accurate text that addresses this topic thoroughly, while perfectly matching the medium’s requirements and constraints.
Topics Not Addressed
The choice to focus on a single topic implies that no other topic will be extensively addressed, as that would take focus away from the single main topic. Other topics may be used, but they are mere tools. They may be displayed, but in the same way a frame is displayed with a picture: it must fit, shouldn’t clash, and support the experience, but it mustn’t steal focus from the piece itself. So far, I came across criticism of Dear Evan Hansen not addressing two specific topics, which were used as tools but not fully addressed: Mental Health and Sexual Orientation.
Mental Health
It seems that the show refers to mental health both with Evan and Connor. We do not know if Connor was diagnosed or treated for any form of mental health condition. We assume that he is (or was) mentally ill because he commits suicide. I encountered some complaints and concerns regarding not getting to know Connor as anything more than the character in the made up story that Evan tells about their friendship.
Connor is simply not the focus of the musical, and that is a valid creative choice. We are not concerned with such choices when the character doesn’t do something as extreme as committing suicide: Have you ever wondered why we don’t get to know Boq in Wicked? Or maybe Yitzhak in Hedwig and the Angry Inch? And what about Washington or Madison in Hamilton, how come we don’t get to see their personal lives?
There is a distinction between a main character and a supporting character. We usually accept it. We don’t accept it when we see ourselves in a supporting character. This is perhaps the flaw in the way the character of Connor was designed: Connor is developed just enough to make some viewers see themselves in him, but not enough to feel like a “full character”. Those viewers would probably want to see another show that is all about Connor. While this can be presented as criticism of Dear Evan Hansen, it is not relevant criticism. A demand to focus on Connor implies less focus on Evan, and most likely replacing the topic of social isolation with the topic of mental illness. This is a wish that requires another show, on another topic, inspired by Dear Evan Hansen. The musical Dear Evan Hansen cannot also address this issue without losing its focus.
Evan is, clearly, the focus of the musical. So why is the issue of Evan’s mental health not addressed? According to Wikipedia, “Evan Hansen, is a high school senior with a social anxiety disorder”. This diagnosis does not appear in the show itself. We see that Evan eventually stops taking his medicine (side comment: According to Wikipedia, social anxiety disorder is usually treated with medicine only with patients who are not interested in therapy, which is not the case here), and we have every reason to believe that Evan’s recovery had nothing to do with the medicine. Was he suffering from a mental health condition?
We are left confused regarding the issue of Evan’s mental health. And that’s fine. The decision not to focus on mental health is a legitimate one. The justification for involving mental health at all, is simple: Both Connor’s suicide and Evan’s therapy are required for the plot’s premise. A reference to mental illness is unavoidable with this premise. The single decision I’m having trouble justifying is that Evan is treated with medication (Pasek, Paul, Levenson — if you happen to read this, please let me know why you made this choice; also, hi :) love the show!). As mentioned, the medium dictates a choice of a single topic to focus on. If the show would have addressed mental health, rather than just referring to it, it would have had to focus on it, rather than on social isolation and acceptance. It would have had to be a completely different show.
Sexual Orientation
The topic of Sexual Orientation is lightly referenced. The only direct reference is Evan making it clear that he is not gay, and claiming that Connor is not gay either (“But not because we’re gay” — Sincerely, Me). Some other concerns are added by viewers, questioning the need for a heterosexual relationship (between Evan and Zoe), and even a romantic relationship, as part of the plot. Some also question Evan’s sexual orientation, claiming that the character is closeted. Both types of references are a form of reflection or projection, either where the show reflects on society or where the audience projects on to the show.
The direct reference to not being gay is a reflection of the way society, and specifically teenagers (and specifically in rural areas), are treating LGBT+ people. In this social environment, being anything but “straight” is considered not normal (as implied by the term “straight” itself). When addressing social acceptance, sexuality has a role: society is more welcoming to people in heterosexual relationships. This is reflected not only in Dear Evan Hansen, but in almost every piece that involves social acceptance. For example, in some political fiction TV shows characters are expected (by other characters) to be in a heterosexual relationship, and even get married, in order to become more popular with the public. While this topic is referred, it is a minor reflection of society that does not take a significant role in the show, and by no means should replace the main topic of social isolation and acceptance.
Any reference to Evan maybe “sending signal” of being gay can be attributed to projection done by a viewer on a character. Some viewers confidently claim on social media that Ben Platt is gay, and claim that the “signals” that they’ve noticed are actually Ben’s. To be clear, there is no official word regarding Ben Platt’s sexual orientation. Any such claims are an attempt to out him as gay, which should be frowned upon. In any case, this is the same sort of projection, but this time with a viewer projecting on the actor, rather than on the character. There is nothing concrete in the show for this claim to rely upon, and speculating about the sexual orientation of both characters and actors seems to be a popular, albeit somewhat harmful, hobby among Broadway fans.
We are left with the claim that the heterosexual romantic relationship between Evan and Zoe is a reference to the LGBT+ topic, as it refers to Evan’s sexual orientation. The inclusion of a romantic relationship as part of the plot must be justified. Without such justification, this part of the plot would be forced and would not support the main topic. To justify this relationship, we must examine the progression of relationships throughout the show.
At the beginning of the show it seems that Evan has personal (non-professional) relationships with only two people: Jared and Heidi. The relationship with Heidi is forced by Heidi being Evan’s mother. Their conversations are not about them, but revolve only around Evan’s social isolation. It seems that neither of them chose this relationship (later, in ‘So Big/So Small’, we realize that Heidi chose, and still chooses, this relationship: “Your mom is staying right here / No matter what / I’ll be here”). The relationship with Jared is forced on Jared by his parents. Jared seems to be driven by the need to protect his social status, and the relationship with Evan is required in order to get his parents to support his social status. This drive persists throughout the entire show and the relationship between the two does not seem to progress. Evan’s starting point is characterized by a lack of personal relationships and a lack of acceptance.
Throughout the show we hear about Evan being socially accepted, but we get to actually see only a few new relationships being formed. The relationship with Alana is initiated by Alana and has all of the characteristics of Alana’s other relationships: professional; not friends, acquaintances; most importantly, this relationship is not personal. It may reduce Evan’s social isolation and lift him from solitude to professional interaction, but there is no social nor personal acceptance. The relationship with Cynthia and Larry is a mirror to the relationship with Heidi. It shows acceptance, but by adults, by another generation, not by “peers”. The only newly formed personal relationship we see that Evan has with someone his age is with Zoe. ‘Only Us’ is a display of acceptance. Evan feels, for the first time, that someone likes him, and not his story (“But if you really see me / If you like me for me and nothing else”). This is the justification for the relationship. But why romantic? And why heterosexual?
Why romantic? In ‘Only Us’ Zoe provides a statement of personal acceptance and requests Evan to accept both her and himself. This interaction requires emotional intimacy. A romantic relationship is characterized by expedited intimacy, both physical and emotional. It allows reaching this intimacy without forcing it. Such interaction within the context of a platonic relationship would, in any case, make us wonder if one party is romantically interested in the other, providing an open end. A romantic relationship is the most straightforward plot device that would allow this display of personal acceptance.
And why heterosexual? Let’s generalize: Why should the relationship be between two cisgender individuals, one man and one woman? The simple answer is that (unfortunately) this is (still) the only form of romantic relationship that is considered normative, that does not automatically open a discussion about sexual orientation or gender. This avoidance from a discussion on those topics makes sense. The show’s focus, the one topic it is about, is social isolation and acceptance. To keep this focus, other discussions should be avoided.
Within the context of sexual orientation and social isolation and acceptance, it is worthwhile mentioning that there is a strong connection between the topics. Sexual orientation is, in some cases, the background for social isolation, but not always, and not in this case. As I see it, the topic of social isolation backed by sexual orientation is significant enough to be considered a separate topic. It should either get full focus, or be avoided, in order to make sure that the topic is properly addressed when referenced.
Epilogue
Both the reference to mental health and the reference to sexual orientation are justified. The choice to refer to them while not focusing on them is a legitimate one, and is one that is in the core of the theatrical work. It is clear to me that some people will continue to criticize Dear Evan Hansen for not focusing on some issues, each with the issue most close to home. I can only request of you to refrain from forcing topics on Dear Evan Hansen, or on any other show. There are shows that focus on mental health (e.g. Next to Normal), there are shows that focus on aspects of LGBT+ (e.g. Fun Home). If you can’t find a show that focuses on a topic close to you, ask around, contact creators and ask that such a show be created, or better yet, take part in the creation of such a show.
In the meantime, please let each show be what it is; distinguish matters of personal preference and taste from matters of artistic excellence. A show can be well done and not to your liking, and that’s fine. And remember, today is going to be a good day, and here’s why: because today, today at least you’re you and — that’s enough.