Biggest Tony upset of all time? - Page 5

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 5/7/19 at 10:09am

yankeefan7 said: ""The look of shock on Lane's face and in his voice is indeed noticeable and he even does a kind of "Well how about that" raise of the eyebrow before the camera cuts to the audience.Even Sarah Jessica Parker's face is pretty "wait what" beside him as she looked at the winner's name before Lane did. You just see her kind of smiling through ithttps://youtu.be/ypf7DhKWgKs?t=88"

Just a question. Should it have been that much a shock to them since "Avenue Q" had already won "Best Score" and "Best Book" earlier in the evening?"

It definitely seemed more likely than it did pre-ceremony, as most weren't expecting Q to win either.

I remember watching the telecast before the lead acting awards thinking "Q had won Score and Book and Wicked had only won Scenic and Costume, so it's quite possible there's an upset".  But then when Idina won (over Donna Murphy and Tonya Pinkins), it certainly seemed to be a sign that the Tony voters were going for Wicked.

So no, it wasn't as big of a shock as it could have been had Q not won Score or Book, but still quite unexpected.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/7/19 at 1:11pm

Marissa Jaret Winokur who at the time was an absolute nobody, besting a controversial, but still career defining turn for Bernadette Peters in Gypsy. 

I think the only real upset was that people expected Peters to win for simply playing that role (personally, I thought she was woefully miscast).  Marissa received across-the-board raves in the runaway hit of the season while reviews for Peters and Gypsy were wildly mixed.

Matilda's entire Tony campaign rubbed voters the wrong way and made voter feel as though they were expected to bow to the shows greatness.

Did it really?  It sounds more like a speculative Riedel conspiracy theory.  I do think Matilda deserved FAR more awards than it received, but Carvel in the category for Lead definitely made sense for the role.  It was pretty clear that Porter would win for that category, anyway, so it doesn't seem like much of a "ploy".  And I think Gabriel Ebert's win in the Featured category caught most by surprise.  As for the girls playing Matilda, placing them in an acting category wouldn't necessarily put any of them in Lead (as we've seen countless times with child actors).  If they were nominated in Lead and won, Pippin/Patina Miller fans would have been outraged and shrieking their heads off.  Choosing the girl who played opening night for nomination over the other two who equally shared the role seemed disrespectful to the producers (and rightfully so to me), so they went the way of the special award given to the cast of La Boheme, which nobody seemed to take issue with then, so why now?  The rule change after Billy Elliot was something of a kick in the teeth to child actors who carry a show and are contractually forced to share a role.  That they should be treated as adult actors for awards, but not for their casting and performance schedules already puts them in an unfair position from the start.  Thinking that these decisions by the producers were an expectation to "bow to the show's greatness" sounds more like very sour grapes rather than anything logical.  And if that is how Tony voters REALLY make their decisions, then Matilda never really had a fair shot, anyway.  

The KINKY win was definitely an upset and a political situation when the Britishproducers refused to share producing credits with established Broadway producers.

Didn't they share producing credit with The Dodgers?  

but in terms of lead actor, I ebelvie the main argument was that Carvel should've been in supporting and that his role really was not a leading role. 

People often get this confused.  The award is for leading actor, not leading role.  There was no reason why Carvel should not have been considered the lead male actor in Matilda.  Whether he was considered lead or not is about billing and the producers right to petition for lead if the actor is not billed above the title.

Going way back to 1971:  Two Gentlemen of Verona over Follies for Best Musical.  Even the presenters and winners were stunned.  And while I love some of Galt MacDermot, how the hell did that happen?  How many revivals have there been of Two Gentlemen?

Two Gentlemen of Verona was the surprise hit of the season.  A funny joyous romp that delighted audiences.  Though Follies has been revived twice, none of the productions on Broadway recouped.  I thought the Delacorte production of Two Gentlemen in 2005 deserved a Broadway transfer.  I could easily see how it could have won Best Musical in its original season.

Clearly, time has proven that Follies "works" just fine.

Not...really.  I think Suskin was referring to how well it worked in terms of the audience and ticket sales.  Two Gentlemen was a hit in its first production.  Follies flopped three times.  For me, I never saw the original production of Follies, but the latest London revival was the closest it ever came to "working" for me, but I still find it problematic.  Ambitious, to be sure, with some great tunes, but not a show I enjoy seeing.

Once on this Island 

Why? 

Drama Desk Award: My Fair Lady 
Drama League Award: My Fair Lady 
Outer Critics Circle Award: My Fair Lady 

Different voters would be my guess.

As for Will Rogers Follies, I was bit surprised when it took home the top prize, but it wasn't until after the Tonys that I actually saw the show.  Once I saw it, it totally made sense.  At the time, Miss Saigon was considered the front-runner, mainly based on its ticket sales and being the new Boublil/Schoenberg mega-show riding in on a tidal wave of buzz from the West End after Les Miserables.  But keep in mind, even despite the casting controversy, reviews were mixed.  Secret Garden also had mixed reviews and didn't exactly catch on like wildfire with the exception of young girls, some musical theatre geeks and Patinkin fans.  Once on This Island was the little-show-that-could that was greatly admired, but hardly noticed.  Will Rogers Follies snuck in just under the wire as the last show of the season and it had a LOT gong for it:

1. Creative team of beloved Broadway legends
2. Bio of a beloved American personality (James Whitmore continued his popular solo show as Will Rogers across the country through 2000)
3. Witty book
4. Score littered with gems
5. Genius concept executed brilliantly
6. Iconic design and choreography
7. Rope tricks, trained dogs, bare boobs and a mostly naked Jerry Mitchell dancing on a giant Native American drum

Seriously, the show offered generations a spectacular view into a bygone era most never had the opportunity to witness.  Toe-tapping tunes, unforgettable costumes, scenery and dancing, star-turn performances, laughs, poignancy, sex appeal for pretty much everyone...the show really had it all.

I loved all four shows and choosing a favorite among them would be virtually impossible for me, but I can easily see how WRF won Best Musical.

I think that we can all kind of agree that if not for the whole political campaign that Avenue Q ran, Wicked likely would have taken the prize that night as it was expected to.

No, we can't.

I still believe that Matilda lost at least a few votes for Score due to the bad sound design. I know for sure that at least a couple voters said they couldn’t understand the show due to how muddy it sounded in the theatre (a complaint that has plagued the show from the start) and I’m sure they weren’t alone in that regard.

Those would be some really stupid voters.  Most voters receive at least a promo CD of the score (a voter used to give me his copies when he already owned it or didn't want it).  And the original UK cast recording had been available for a couple of years.  Losing Sound Design makes sense, but not Score.

Jersey Boys winning Best Musical wasn't a Tony upset at all, just a disappointment to Drowsy Chaperone fans.  JB was a runaway hit receiving across-the board raves and was the strongest reviewed musical of the season.  It would've been an upset if it HADN'T won.

Winning Best Score and Best Book doesn't usually guarantee a Best Musical win at that time. Just a few years before, Urinetown won Best Score and Best Book yet Thoroughly Modern Millie won Best Musical. 

A few years before that, Parade won Best Score and Best Book yet Fosse won Best Musical.

And Falsettos in 1993.

Updated On: 5/7/19 at 01:11 PM

[Soaring29]

Posted: 6/18/19 at 5:42am

Broadway61004 said: "Soaring29 said: "Was Avenue Q favored to beat Wicked in both the book and score categories? I've seen predictions from back then predicting a split between them for the most part and it seems that odds were tipped in favor of Q winning book but Wicked winning Score?"

I think it was actually closer to the opposite of that. Wicked was favored in both categories, but there was some thought that Q could win Score as a way to recognize the show (presuming that it wasn't going to win Musical). But Winnie Holtzman was heavily favored for Wicked's book, and if there was an upset, many people thought it would be Tony Kushner for Caroline or Change."

That makes sense- I think Q deserved both prizes. 

 

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 6/18/19 at 7:54am

“School Song” alone should have earned Matilda a Tony for Best Score. I will always be bitter that such a brilliant show lost to Kinky Boots.

[aj88]

Posted: 6/18/19 at 9:09am

I agree with quite a few of the ones mentioned. I don’t really want to repeat anything but I do have to comment on one win that truly floored me when it was announced: David Hyde Pierce. That simply felt out of nowhere and at the expense of Raul Esparza’s Bobby. I certainly don’t want to begrudge DHP because he is a wonderful actor and someone who does deserve a Tony but I just felt that there was simply nothing there. It felt like a very average paint by numbers performance whereas Esparza gave Bobby more than I think most people were used to seeing.

I also remember being somewhat surprised by Christian Hoff winning for Jersey Boys. I think it was considered kind of an open race but most predicted Jim Dale to win. I personally think either Danny Burstein or Manoel Felciano were more worthy to win there but I don’t recall them having much traction sadly.

I was admittedly somewhat surprised by Tony Shalhoub winning. I did think all 4 of them had a shot but I still just didn’t think his very subtle role would stand out. I guess the combo of his overdue status and the love of his show won out.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/18/19 at 9:40am

I don’t really want to repeat anything but I do have to comment on one win that truly floored me when it was announced: David Hyde Pierce. That simply felt out of nowhere and at the expense of Raul Esparza’s Bobby. 

To me, it didn't feel out of nowhere at the time.  I think there were a lot of aggressive Esparza fans on BWW who were not only assumed, but pretty much demanding Esparza be given the Tony.  Personally, I felt he was miscast and his performance seemed overly indulgent.  After seeing Hyde Pierce in Curtains, I walked out of the show certain he would win the Tony.  I really enjoyed the show (far more than the awkward production of Company), but recognized that Hyde Pierce pretty much WAS the show.  His performance was effortless...the opposite of Esparza's in Company.

“School Song” alone should have earned Matilda a Tony for Best Score. I will always be bitter that such a brilliant show lost to Kinky Boots.

Me, too (and if you add the song "Quiet", it's loss is inconceivable).  It wasn't so much a shocking upset as it was hugely disappointing.  Matilda deserved at least 4 more Tonys than it received (though I'd probably have given it 5).  I rank Kinky Boots as one of the most forgettable Best Musical winners in recent memory, like Memphis and Fosse.

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 6/18/19 at 9:49am

Matilda's entire score is absolutely brilliant, and incredibly moving. I wish the Fun Home team had the honor of being the first females to win Best Score instead of Lauper. I love her but her work for Kinky Boots is mediocre at best.

I saw the original cast of Kinky Boots and loathed it. Bertie Carvel should have won Best Actor, he was simply brilliant.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 6/18/19 at 10:46pm

Carvel’s performance is still one of the best I’ve seen on a Broadway stage. Just brilliant!

I feel the same way about Kinky Boots. Just pretty bland.

[Tateh]

Posted: 6/19/19 at 8:05am

Definitely Ruthie Ann Miles over Judy Kuhn....

Updated On: 6/19/19 at 08:05 AM

[magictodo123]

Posted: 6/19/19 at 10:13am

The trans community is still furious over this year. The 2018/2018 awards season is over, and people are still saying “guess we don’t have a best actor this year” or “congratulations [anyone other than Santino Fontana]”. Incredibly rude and childish. Get past it. It’s over. 

[JudyDenmark]

Posted: 6/19/19 at 10:21am

Matilda not winning Best Score is a total travesty, for School Song, Quiet, Telly, and so many more reasons... but if you're defining an upset as a jaw-dropper for the audience, I find it hard to call it an upset when there was no way Cyndi Lauper was losing that award.

[Hot Pants]

Posted: 6/19/19 at 3:52pm

I agree that Matilda was robbed of Best Score. The music was beautiful, smart, and hilarious. I also think Bertie Carvel should’ve won, however, now that he has a tony, I don’t mind Billy Porter’s win as much. And it’s worth noting, Carvel really should’ve been placed in supporting. Miss Trunchbull has the showiness and memorable nature of a leading role, just not the actual size of one.

[Thespian24601 2]

Posted: 6/19/19 at 4:35pm

I definitely was surprised that Wicked, the 4th oldest show on Broadway right now, one of the highest grossing of all time, and having a score by Stephen Swartz, a world renowned composer, lost to some show about puppets.

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 6/19/19 at 5:05pm

Hot Pants said: "I agree that Matilda was robbed of Best Score. The music was beautiful, smart, and hilarious. I also think Bertie Carvel should’ve won, however, now that he has a tony, I don’t mind Billy Porter’s win as much. And it’s worth noting, Carvel really should’ve been placed in supporting. Miss Trunchbull has the showiness and memorable nature of a leading role, just not the actual size of one."

I agree. Bertie and Kristine Nielson both should have been in featured categories that year, they would have been instant locks. Such a shame.

[jdrye222]

Posted: 6/19/19 at 11:20pm

Tateh said: "Definitely Ruthie Ann Miles over Judy Kuhn...."

i wouldnt call this an “upset” but I personally found it to be one of the most ridiculous in recent history.  Kuhn was stunning at the Public, and even deeper and more heartbreaking on Broadway.  I think the Fun Home producers made a mistake by emphasizing Sydney Lucas all over town, and this squandered Kuhn winning for what was one of my favorite performances I’ve ever seen.  It was exactly what is meant by “featured” performer.... I think the second half of the show really depended upon her song. 

I personally found Miles to be completely neutral as Lady Thiang. “Something Wonderful” should have moved me but it didn’t at all, I felt like it was a decent understudy.  
 

Updated On: 6/19/19 at 11:20 PM

[broadwaysfguy]

Posted: 6/19/19 at 11:31pm

i never thought mathilda was a great musical
i liked berties performance a lot...
i listen to kinky boots songs all the time have seen in many times over its run and thoroughly enjoyed every cast and performance. i saw mathilda obc once and tour once and wouldnt go back again...

i know everyone has their favorites so respect those of you that loved mathilda more...

the audience certainly voted with grosses and giving kinky boots a 2500 performance run on bway vs 1500 show run for mathilda

i think the tony voters get it right a surprisingly high percent of the time

i was surprised pleasantly that aint too proud won a mild upset for best choreography-most gold derby experts picked kiss me kate

[Skip23]

Posted: 6/20/19 at 3:40am

Def Two Gentlenen over Follies.

Then Ave Q over Wicked.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 6/20/19 at 4:05am

Skip23 said: "Def Two Gentlenen over Follies."

Was that really a huge upset though? It's not like Follies is universally praised or loved even today. It was even more so divisive back when it first opened.

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 6/20/19 at 11:15am

AEA AGMA SM said: "Skip23 said: "Def Two Gentlenen over Follies."

Was that really a huge upset though? It's not like Folliesis universally praised or loved even today. It was even more so divisive back when it first opened."

Follies has a massive cult following with some of the most iconic songs ever written for the Broadway stage. It has had several major revivals. No one even talks about Two Gentlemen these days, except when discussing Follies losing to it.

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 6/20/19 at 1:17pm

TotallyEffed said: "AEA AGMA SM said: "Skip23 said: "Def Two Gentlenen over Follies."

Was that really a huge upset though? It's not like Folliesis universally praised or loved even today. It was even more so divisive back when it first opened."

Follies has a massive cult following with some of the most iconic songs ever written for the Broadway stage. It has had several major revivals.No one even talks about Two Gentlemen these days, except when discussing Follies losing to it."

Today? Yes. But when they came out? I'd hardly say Follies was any more loved than Two Gentlemen was.  Plus, Sondheim had just won the year before (and had several Tonys already), whereas a lot of folks had wanted Hair to win a few years prior, so Two Gentlemen was seen as somewhat of a makeup for it.  So I'd hardly call this an upset.

Updated On: 6/20/19 at 01:17 PM

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 6/20/19 at 1:20pm

You mentioned it not being praised today so I was simply responding to that.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/20/19 at 1:52pm

Follies has a massive cult following with some of the most iconic songs ever written for the Broadway stage. It has had several major revivals. No one even talks about Two Gentlemen these days, except when discussing Follies losing to it.

But that's a rear view perspective.  You could make a similar case for Hair vs 1776 just three years earlier, though usually the academics will justify the win for 1776 as not being an upset at all.  I think at the time of the 1972 Tonys, the top prize was judged based on the sum of the whole rather than the parts.  Yes, Follies has had two Broadway revivals, both of which quickly flopped.  The show seems to have found its most successful production in the National Theatre revival currently running in London, but that's really irrelevant when discussing the 1972 Tony awards, when the "upset" occurred.  Yes, there is a lot of love and admiration among musical theatre academics and Sondheim enthusiasts for Follies, but that's neither here nor there.  I do think particular fans of the show in 1971 felt it was an upset, but after having seen the Delacorte production of Two Gentlemen of Verona, I could easily see how it beat Follies for the top prize.  For me, the immediacy and joy built into the show translated into one of the best and most memorable theatrical experiences I've seen in over 40 years of attending musicals.

I definitely was surprised that Wicked, the 4th oldest show on Broadway right now, one of the highest grossing of all time, and having a score by Stephen Swartz, a world renowned composer, lost to some show about puppets.

"Some show about puppets" sounds like you actually don't know anything about it.  A lot of long-running musicals didn't win Best Musical (Oh! Calcutta!, Mamma Mia, Beauty and the Beast, Miss Saigon, Grease, etc) and being a "world renowned" composer has zero to do with the Best Musical Tony.  Pretty much all of the most famous Broadway composers have had flops.  Not all Best Musicals or long-running shows win Best Score (currently, the longest running musical on Broadway lost Best Score to Sondheim for Into the Woods) and vice-versa.

[Impossible2]

Posted: 6/20/19 at 1:56pm

I finally saw Matilda recently and beyond the staging I absolutely hated every minute of it.

I couldn't understand a single word the kids sang in any of the group numbers and therefore had no idea what was going on and the lead girl was horribly out of tune most of the night.

I'm sure if I went to the trouble of listening to the recorded score I may feel different about it, but why bother when I didn't enjoy the actual show live at all.

Kinky was above average at best, but joyful and at least I knew what the hell was going on.

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 6/20/19 at 2:07pm

"Some show about puppets" sounds like you actually don't know anything about it. A lot of long-running musicals didn't win Best Musical (Oh! Calcutta!, Mamma Mia, Beauty and the Beast, Miss Saigon, Grease, etc) and being a "world renowned" composer has zero to do with the Best Musical Tony. Pretty much all of the most famous Broadway composers have had flops. Not all Best Musicals or long-running shows win Best Score (currently, the longest running musical on Broadway lost Best Score to Sondheim for Into the Woods) and vice-versa."

Actually kind of interestingly, all 4 of the longest-running shows currently on Broadway lost score (Phantom to Into the Woods, Chicago to Chorus Line, Lion King to Ragtime and Wicked to Q). So yes, long runs don't necessarily translate into Tony winning scores.

[binau]

Posted: 6/20/19 at 3:07pm

"The show seems to have found its most successful production in the National Theatre revival currently running in London"

Most successful based on what criteria? The 2011 Broadway Follies was basically sold out for the entire DC run 1.5 months, then ran for 4 months on Broadway with a couple strong months, then another month in LA. The National Theatre Follies hasn't run much longer (if at all longer) between the two mountings, and although it was basically sold out for the first run it struggled on its return - and who knows if it ever was close to making a profit because at those prices with that production it is hard to imagine it could have. And then let's not even get into how poorly sung it was and how awful the loveland sets were. I guess my point is, it's pretty neck and neck in my mind to declare one more successful than another. It's not clear cut to me.