Yeah, and it had NOTHING to do with the lesbian subject matter or that you and the Mrs HATE things with good word of mouth that aren't struggling at the box office.
No, I am still waiting to hear something specific that addresses your issue with Fun Home. We know you've said it "didn't grab" you but it's the lesbian subject matter, right? You've never been very good with homosexual themes or depictions. Remember how you said so many straights were turned off Broadway because they saw Marc and Scott kiss after the Hairspray win? REMEMBER?
In the spirit of Fun Home, tone down the hate and accept everyone (which I do) for their differences. I know I am probably wasting my time here but hope springs eternal. I can guarantee your response had nothing to do with the points I made but it was just another reason to attack me. I am going to eat lunch now and relax. You have a good day now.
It has everything to do with the points you made. And you can't say you "accept" everyone if you have discussions with people and you only "imagine" what they're are saying to you. It's like something is seriously wrong in your cabeza.
Having seen both shows, if I had to choose only one....I would go with King and I. The CD recording of Fun Home gives snippets of dialogue as well and captures the feel and emotional power of the show. I thought the staging was brilliant but my friends who have only heard the CD were still greatly impressed. King and I is visually sumptuous. Not only the stunning opening boat scene but gorgeous costumes, choreography and creative staging of the ballet "Little House of Uncle Thomas," and the chemistry between Anna and the King. Yes, there have been many productions of The King and I over the years and I have seen several. This (to me) ranks as one of the finest and Ken Wanatabe (who doesn't shine as a singer on the cast recording) is a wonderful actor and very charismatic on stage.
Maybe Fun Home will become the greatest classic ever on Broadway, but for now The King and I is the better show because it was good 60 years ago and it is good today.
But that's a false comparison because you're saying that the sole criterion for which the shows should be compared is established longevity, so even when you admit that Fun Home does not meet the required criterion, you compare them anyway and claim that the apple is a better apple than the orange. It's like saying that the oak is a better tree than a rose.
I was always under the impression that awards were given out for excellence and not to send messages.
Perhaps the message of Fun Home is what the voters viewed as its excellence. It is entirely possible (and mostly probable) that the voters do not share your opinion of the show or your definition of "excellence".
All those nominated will have future chances. The team of K/E will not.
The team of Kander and Ebb had 50 years. The others have not. Should the award only go to the oldest established team in the category? If so, then we can just eliminate the nominations and voting process entirely.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
Future news update: The Tony Awards broadcast suffered an historic low number of viewers last night, perhaps after initiating a Timeless Classics That Have Stood The Test of Time Policy for award winners. Ratings overnights revealed a total of 39 viewers tuned in to watch statues being handed over to Oklahoma!, The King & I and Sweet Charity. The viewers were identified as After Eight, Fantod and 37 sweater queens and their cats.
I have to agree with Fantod re: Charity. It contains some classic, classic songs, but the show as a whole is not great. Classic shows are always able to shine, even in subpar productions; Sweet Charity needs a real star turn in the title role, excellent directorial vision, and incredible choreography. Or else the audience will be looking in the Playbill to see when the next song they recognize is coming up.
As to the actual topic: I dunno. Listen to both recordings and see which you prefer. Fun Home is a now a historic and landmark production, in a wonderful and intimate staging (in the round!- a rarity for a musical), with pitch-perfect performances.
The King and I is a sumptuous revival of a classic but not groundbreaking, anchored by two excellent female performances.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Having directed Sweet Charity for a community theatre - I found myself wanting the next musical number to start. The book scenes were wildly inconsistent - and the scene between Charity and Vittorio in his apartment before If They Could See Me Now, goes on and on and on and on. I tried to speed it up, but it just felt artificial no matter what we tried. Even the movie version of that scene - directed by Fosse - is pretty dry and tedious.
That said, I think it's a classic. And yet, despite two revivals and a film version - when we announced our community theatre production, we had supposedly knowledgeable people ask us "What's Sweet Charity?"
And Phil - the Fosse choreography is iconic. You mess with it at your own box office peril. And I don't see Jerry Mitchell being willing to mess with it.