Broadway Star Joined: 11/9/10
A friend of mine asked if the directors of revival should be competing for the same award as newer musicals? He said it was unfair to award newer work against work that has technically been seen before.
He proposed two different categories:
"Best direction of a new musical"
"Best direction of a musical revival"
What do you think?
Technically, a revival is a new interpretation that has not been seen before, so...
Also, if you're gonna go that route, might as well include actors, too, which would be stupid:
"Best Lead Actress in a Musical"
"Best Lead Actress in a Revival of a Musical"
"Best Lead Actress in a Play"
"Best Lead Actress in a Revival of a Play"
You'll end up with twice as many Tony winners for acting. It becomes too cumbersome.
Broadway Star Joined: 11/9/10
Totally agree, SM2. But I think what he was getting at was that if you had a director who directed FIDDLER ON THE ROOF again, compared to let's say the director of the new musical GENTELEMAN'S GUDIE...etc and FIDDLER won, wouldn't that be kind of like upsetting (I guess is the word)?
"Technically, a revival is a new interpretation that has not been seen before, so."
So if it's new, then it's not a revival?
It got me thinking, and I am trying to explain it to him!
Updated On: 5/16/14 at 11:10 PM
Why would it be upsetting? If anything, directing the revival is more challenging as it has to be RE-imagined, and has to work against being compared.
After a quick count, it's happened 8 times for musicals)
Some examples might help: does anyone know of a revival whose director got a Tony for merely replicating the original? It's my (unresearched) opinion that such copies aren't usually nominated.
Do you think best director of a musical should include revival directors?
Yes.
Videos