WAY TOO EARLY 2023 Tony Award Predictions- Page 9

[JBroadway]

Posted: 1/24/23 at 2:36pm

I've spent the past 5 years advocating for gender-neutral categories on this board, and one thing I've said multiple times:

The Tonys could've and should've seen this coming from miles away. It was so obvious that they were going to end up in this exact situation, and they just plowed forward with a willful lack of foresight. Like walking into a hurricane with their hands over their eyes. 

Even if you ignore all the logical reasons for it, and all the inclusivity-based reasons for it - at the VERY LEAST they should've known that it would be a PR nightmare for them, the moment a non-binary person came into serious contention for a Tony nomination. 

Since this conversation has come up so many times before, and we keep going over the same few points, I'll go ahead and copy/paste a post I wrote a few years ago on this topic: 

--There is no qualitative artistic difference between a male performance, a female performance, and a non-binary performance. They are all doing the same craft. We don’t separate between male and female directors. 

--We’re seeing more and more non-binary actors on the stage, it’s only a short matter of time before we get a non-binary actor in a big, meaty, awards-bait role that can’t be ignored. And WHEN that happens, they need to be prepared to avoid the inevitable backlash. 

--One argument we’ve heard before is “non-binary people don’t mind picking one side or the other when they have to” – that may be true for some, but not all, and in any case it’s not fair to make them do so. 

--People also complain that this means fewer winners. I agree that’s not ideal, but I think it’s a worthy trade-off. There are also plenty of other ways to divide a category, but it doesn’t seem like the Gotham Awards or the Lortels have quite figured that out yet. Remains to be seen, but it’s a kink that can easily be worked out with some minimal creative thinking. 

--People also worry that we will end up with more men getting nominated than women. A worthy concern in theory, but if you look at our current landscape of the industry, I just don’t see that becoming a regular issue. There are so many amazing female performances every year. In many years, the “actress” categories at the Tonys and Oscars are often much stronger and more exciting than the “actor” categories. We obviously still have work to do to remove barriers and unfairness for women in show business, but the availability of meaty, award-bait roles does not appear to be the main problem area at this time. But I’m open to hearing other perspectives on this. 

[Nicticorax]

Posted: 1/24/23 at 2:42pm

There wouldn't have to be fewer winners, though? Why couldn't they just give out 2 awards, but from a single category? Obviously no other category does that, but you could argue making an exception based on historical precedent.

Updated On: 1/24/23 at 02:42 PM

[MayAudraBlessYou2]

Posted: 1/24/23 at 2:44pm

Nicticorax said: "MayAudraBlessYou2 said: "And they were even presented with a study which showed that the feared outcome of only awarding men in all-gender acting categories has not come to pass in awards organizations which have adopted all-gendered categories."

Oh, I'd be interested to read about this! All the anecdotal evidence I've heard has been along the lines of the 13-6 split mentioned above. But even if evidence did point to this change causing an uneven split, I feel like there are guidelines that could be put in place to help account for and remedy that.

"

A non-binary member of the critics group put in an IMMENSE amount of work to create the study themselves. They researched every awards body (across film, tv, and theater) in the US who have adopted gender neutral acting categories. And then they reached out to them all personally, to inquire about the process and the results of subsequent awards. ALL groups reported the same biggest fear: the concern that this move would result in the under-representation of women in nominations and/or wins. But in every case, this fear has not come to pass. Usually, the results are fairly evenly split, and in many cases slightly more women than men wound up winning the eventual awards. Granted, the data set is not perfect because gender neutral acting categories are, by and large, a new thing. So some of the groups don't have that many years of historical data to base trends upon. But the data we do have suggests that we will not suddenly see men dominate the awards, the evidence just isn't there to support it. It was fascinating to be presented with the information and made the most compelling case I've ever seen for gender neutral categories. But still with all this evidence presented there were a ton of people who were very afraid to go there. That's why I am not expecting such an announcement from the Tonys. But who knows, maybe they havent released eligibility decisions yet because they've been arguing about gender neutral acting races for months! haha

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 1/24/23 at 2:57pm

As a correction, the Drama League Awards are more of a 17-11 disparity (I missed a bunch of them when counting the first time since Wikipedia formats the older awards differently), so it's not quite _as_ bad (though this also includes a couple instances where both male and female actors were awarded in the same year).  Though I don't think this would necessarily be the same disparity in something like the Tonys because it's a very different system and I think the types of performances that are awarded are also different (also no differentiation between musical/play, leading/featured, etc).

I'm wondering if they decide to abolish gender categories that they would want to add something like comedy vs drama categories.  Of course, those genres are also becoming a bit fuzzy, but it could provide another way to keep the same number of awards without needing two awards in one category, which I could see people grumbling about ("how could they be the _best_ when there's two of them?"

[Nicticorax]

Posted: 1/24/23 at 3:11pm

I do think Sweeney Todd is an interesting example here. Both Lovett and Sweeney are roles that almost ensure an acting nom in the right hands. If they're put into one category, do they then split the vote and neither gets in? I can think of a few similar examples, like Sally/Emcee in Cabaret. Granted, this issue already comes up a lot, but this would cause it to happen a lot more.

But I do think dividing up the categories in different ways or perhaps altering how votes are ranked could help that.

[wickedwitch2]

Posted: 1/24/23 at 3:31pm

I think musicals could be okay.  (I like the idea of splitting into comedies and dramas.)  But plays are heavily slanted to male roles. Plus, some people are just misogynistic. I think we could see a lot of years with 80-100% of the nominees are male.  And that helps nobody.  Furthermore, having the separate genders encourages the best playwrites to write roles for women.

An example this year in music: https://www.varsity.co.uk/music/24846

This is a problem with no good solutions, and for that reason, I'm not completely opposed to going to gender-less categories.  But let's not pretend there isn't a serious drawback to that.

[Dylan Smith4]

Posted: 1/24/23 at 5:07pm

I wanted to get everyone's opinion on this idea. I think the Best Direction of a Musical award should be named after a legendary director. Maybe Hal Prince? I just thought about this as the Oliviers named their director category after Sir Peter Hall. 

[JanMaxwellsBag]

Posted: 1/24/23 at 7:57pm

Dylan Smith4 said: "I wanted to get everyone's opinion on this idea. I think the Best Direction of a Musical award should be named after a legendary director. Maybe Hal Prince? I just thought about this as the Oliviers named their director category after Sir Peter Hall."

Are there any other awards bodies that name competitive awards for a person?* I mostly associate that with honorary awards. 

*Besides examples of the entire awards being named after a person, obviously. Like the Tonys and Oliviers. 

[MayAudraBlessYou2]

Posted: 1/25/23 at 10:16am

I'm not in favor of "naming" awards unless its an honorary award. The names get long and tedious, and with competitive award categories, NO ONE  is ever going to refer to it by the full name. It doesn't matter if its named after a legend like Hal Prince. People will still discuss "who do you think will be nominated for best director?" or "whos going to win best director?"

 

As for the "multiple winners" idea for the gender neutral categories which is mentioned above: I don't think a category should automatically have 2 winners. This would make it feel less prestigious in some folks' eyes, and also you would not be able to dictate that the winners are of different genders. I think a better option would be to expand the number of difference in votes which constitute a tie. The Tonys already did this for the nominations round (forgetting the exact number without researching it, but I believe potential nominees for the last slot in a category have to be within 4 votes of one another to "tie" which is why we've had categories of 6 or 7 nominees. This type of practice could be adopted for the winners round too, making ties slightly more probable. And thus, in years where you have two truly iconic performances, they would be more likely to both be recognized with a win in a single category. 

[bdn223]

Posted: 1/25/23 at 11:49am

Honest question though, why is it not a reasonable accommodation to allow non-binary performers to choose to be considered for the category they see fit?  This accommodation could theoretically give non-binary performers an advantage for example last season there were 13 eligible performances for leading actress vs on 7 for leading actor, or this season where the both leading and featured actress are extremely competitive, but have have clear front runners, while both leading and featured actor are very much a wide open race. But instead of offering such an accommodation, which I believe is reasonable and theoretically advantageous, everyone else must conform to non-binary categories? I don't mean this maliciously, I am very curious as to why what I am proposing is not seen as a reasonable accommodation. 

Updated On: 1/25/23 at 11:49 AM

[MayAudraBlessYou2]

Posted: 1/25/23 at 12:33pm

@bdn223 Because keeping the categories as they are (ie: Lead Actor and Lead Actress) still ties them directly to a gender binary. Actor for men and actress for women. Non-binary/gender non-confirming/gender-queer people have a gender identity that is neither of those distinctions. So in essence they must basically "declare" themselves as confirming to the idea of man or woman if they want to be considered for awards. Not only is this not their gender identity, but it signifies to the rest of the world that their true identity is really "not that big of a deal" and treats it as less valid. 

I imagine you are cisgender, and since you have a man in your profile pic I imagine you might be male (Apologies if this is incorrect, but I'm just using this as the basis for the following example. Please feel free to correct me). So go with me here. Picture that you made your Broadway debut in some alternate reality, are giving a performance that gets great reviews. And then awards season comes along and everyone says: "Ok, if you want to be considered you have to decide what category you want. We don't have any categories for men. You can compete in Lead Actress in a Musical, Lead Non-Binary Performer in a Musical, or Lead Alien in a Musical? Which one do you want!?" Your first thought might be, "well I'm none of those things." And then you might think, "hey directors, choreographers, producers, designers, and composers are never separated this way. Why am I being forced to pick something that isn't me because you decided this is the only instance where you separate a discipline based on identity?" 

Updated On: 1/25/23 at 12:33 PM

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 1/25/23 at 12:58pm

I agree with MayAudraBlessYou2, although I see where bdn223 is coming from. A year ago, I would have said, "They should just pick which acting category they want to be considered for." But as both an actor and theatre teacher I have been meeting more and more colleagues and students who identify as non-binary, and although I personally don't understand why we can't simultaneously acknowledge BOTH one's biological sex AND their gender identity, from my experience, most non-binary people generally want to be identified only by their gender identity and we have to respect that.

I also think that there is no longer any real reason to separate actors by sex/gender in awards categories anyways. If we don't do it for directors, designers, etc., why do it for actors? It will mean less awards - I agree that having two winners makes the award less prestigious, and no one wants to share their award, but that's showbiz. Maybe it'll make it a bigger deal and people will start to actually watch the Tonys again, lol.

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 1/25/23 at 2:12pm

They probably wouldn't do it but if they want more ways to expand categories beyond genders, I'd be interested in seeing things like Best Dancer, Best Singer (or maybe Best Soloist/Featured Singer), Best All-Rounder for musical categories, which could theoretically include play nominees too if those elements are there.  Could also be a way to honor featured moments for a smaller role/ensembleist that wouldn't necessarily merit a Best Featured Actor/Actress nomination

[JudyDenmark]

Posted: 1/26/23 at 8:26pm

I’m not at all an expert in gender studies and trust the outcomes of studies that have already been done. But I will say that just for fun/my Tony party I always make a list of every person who’s eligible for acting categories (obvious in the leading categories, a much much longer list for featured - I usually include someone in the list as eligible if they have any sort of featured role, now matter how much of a long shot).

The leading categories tend to be pretty evenly split between actor/actress in terms of number of eligible candidates. Or vary between the years but it works out pretty even overall. The featured lists, on the other hand, are always skewed very heavily male. There are just so many more male roles than female. And even though I’ve come to expect it, each year it stills floors me.

So I recognize the desire and need for those who are nonbinary to not have to gender themselves for awards, but also recognize the very valid argument that this could really be unfortunate for women. If this conversation was happening way in the future when presumably/hopefully binary gender issues were sorted out and there was true equality, then this would be a no-brainer, but it’s not. And sometimes it feels like we’re pulling the plug on gender for the benefit of a tiny percent of the population before women (a significantly larger percentage of the population) have had the chance to fully catch up. 

Just my two cents. I don’t know what the solution is. Though if gendered acting categories go away, I do think splitting by new/revival could be a way to keep the same amount of winners.

…

Totally separately, and the reason I came to this thread in the first place, what are some of the frontrunners in plays this year (that are still open or yet to open)? I am usually so good about seeing most of the musicals but want to prioritize a few plays this season too and feel so out of the loop. I know I want to see Fat Ham and Life of Pi (love creative stage effects)… what else has buzz for getting Tony love?

[Brave Sir Robin2]

Posted: 1/26/23 at 9:49pm

JudyDenmark said: "I’m not at all an expert in gender studies and trust the outcomes of studies that have already been done. But I will say that just for fun/my Tony party I always make a list of every person who’s eligible for acting categories (obvious in the leading categories, a much much longer list for featured - I usually include someone in the list as eligible if they have any sort of featured role, now matter how much of a long shot).

The leading categories tend to be pretty evenly split between actor/actress in terms of number of eligible candidates. Or vary between the years but it works out pretty even overall. The featured lists, on the other hand, are always skewed very heavily male. There are just so many more male roles than female. And even though I’ve come to expect it, each year it stills floors me.

So I recognize the desire and need for those who are nonbinary to not have to gender themselves for awards, but also recognize the very valid argument that this could really be unfortunate for women. If this conversation was happening way in the future when presumably/hopefully binary gender issues were sorted out and there was true equality, then this would be a no-brainer, but it’s not. And sometimes it feels like we’re pulling the plug on gender for the benefit of a tiny percent of the population before women (a significantly larger percentage of the population) have had the chance to fully catch up.

Just my two cents. I don’t know what the solution is. Though if gendered acting categories go away, I do think splitting by new/revival could be a way to keep the same amount of winners.

…

Totally separately, and the reason I came to this thread in the first place, what are some of the frontrunners in plays this year (that are still open or yet to open)? I am usually so good about seeing most of the musicals but want to prioritize a few plays this season too and feel so out of the loop. I know I want to see Fat Ham and Life of Pi (love creative stage effects)… what else has buzz for getting Tony love?"

Definitely see Leopoldstadt. Most of the plays with buzz were limited runs or have closed, but there are some exciting plays coming this spring!

[KevinKlawitter]

Posted: 3/4/23 at 12:56pm

The Tony nominations predictions are up on Gold Derby now.

Of course, this early out some of the odds are weird (100:1 odds for Room getting a nomination in Best Play?) but that's how you win big.

It also reminded me of how stacked the leading actor categories are this year.

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 3/4/23 at 1:13pm

My early prediction: there won’t be a televised Tony ceremony this year (see the thread on the impending WGA strike).

Best-case scenario, the results are announced via press release and on the awards’ social media pages. 

[BJR]

Posted: 3/4/23 at 2:05pm

EDSOSLO858 said: "My early prediction: therewon’t be a televised Tony ceremony this year (see the thread on the impending WGA strike).

Best-case scenario, the results are announced via press release and on the awards’ social media pages."

Zero chance that happens. They would postpone them before doing that. Look at the ridiculous Covid season awards; they want the TV promo.

[bear88]

Posted: 3/4/23 at 2:29pm

I have no idea what will happen, but it seems like the main reason to have a Tonys show is to promote Broadway musicals and Broadway in general. The winners are of interest to people like us and the producers who can tout awards, but otherwise, wouldn't producers just want to wait?

I realize the obvious problems with waiting: The length of the strike is a mystery. It could drag on for months, and it certainly would be bad news for shows that are counting on Tony wins for a box office boost. New shows will be opening soon, people will move on, et cetera.

But I can't imagine a worse message that Broadway bigwigs would want than to send out a press release. "Broadway's back, come to New York City, but we can't show you what's playing."

[jkcohen626]

Posted: 3/4/23 at 3:19pm

And if it REALLY seems like it's gonna go on so long that it won't be worth waiting, I think they opt for a slimmed-down TV special that still features performances and announcing of winners. No way they give up so completely with how much is on the line. 

[jkcohen626]

Posted: 3/4/23 at 3:37pm

KevinKlawitter said: "The Tony nominations predictions are up on Gold Derby now.

Of course, this early out some of the odds are weird (100:1 odds forRoomgetting a nomination in Best Play?) but that's how you win big.

It also reminded me of how stacked the leading actor categories are this year."

Glad these are finally up, but probably still too early to definitively guess anything (glad they let you edit). 

I think a lof of the potential nominees with shockingly bad odds only have odds that bad because their shows haven't opened yet. I would be SHOCKED if Room still had 100:1 odds on the day guessing closes. Same for Thanksgiving Play (and its entire cast), Alex Joseph Grayson, and Good Night, Oscar. 

I'm also realizing how sparse some categories are! Akimbo, Some Like it Hot, Shucked, and probably Room will all get nominations for Best Score, but that last slot is SO wide open. It's either Bad Cinderella, a Fall flop, or a play. 

Updated On: 3/5/23 at 03:37 PM

[bwaydreamer]

Posted: 3/4/23 at 4:14pm

Any chance we could not talk about gender for one minute and get back to predictions???  I'm all for non-gendered categories, just maybe start a different thread about it.

[JSquared2]

Posted: 3/4/23 at 4:28pm

EDSOSLO858 said: "My early prediction: therewon’t be a televised Tony ceremony this year (see the thread on the impending WGA strike).

Best-case scenario, the results are announced via press release and on the awards’ social media pages."

 

Not a chance.  The odds are better that Karen Olivo will be the host.

 

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 3/5/23 at 7:37am

What way do people think the Best Actress in a Musical race will go? Will Victoria Clark win or does Annaleigh Ashford pose a threat? 

How well do people think Sweeney and ITW will perform overall with nominations? Will Patina Miller be nominated do you think?

[jkcohen626]

Posted: 3/5/23 at 9:43am

Musicaldudepeter said: "What way do people think the Best Actress in a Musical race will go? Will Victoria Clark win or does Annaleigh Ashford pose a threat?

How well do people think Sweeney and ITW will perform overall with nominations? Will Patina Miller be nominated do you think?"

I think Annaleigh is the only one who poses a real threat. I still think Victoria wins, in large part because of how well of a feature for a lead actress Akimbo is, but I think she has some real competition now. 

It is wild how stacked this season is for Lead Actress in a musical though. Sara Bareilles was and Micaela Diamond is also FANTASTIC. Both definitely gave/give Tony-worthy performances. I just think that both are smaller parts than Lovett and definitely Kimberly and that'll get in their way of winning. I know that isn't always the case (see this category and Best Actor in a Play last year), but I think it'll probably hold true because of how competitive the category is. 

And in that vein, I think Patina Miller is unlikely to get nominated. She's duking it out with Phillipa Soo, Lourna Courtney, and Anna Uzele for the 5th (and potential 6th) spot and I think the facts that she was not as well-received as Heather Headly and that her show closed in January and she hadn't even been with it since November will doom her. 

As far as overall, I have Into the Woods getting nominations for revival, director, Sara, Brian, Gavin, and Phillipa.