2005 DRAMA DESK Nominations - Reactions??? — Page 6

This Morrison thing is an interesting debate: Should an actor be in the category where he could win or the category he should be in. I don't think he is a lead, I think he's featured, and has a better chance there. But if his stagetime is the most of any other male in that show, does that make him a lead? ANd would he even want to be a lead in such a fierce year?

" But if his stagetime is the most of any other male in that show, does that make him a lead? "

This idea would also make Sara Ramirez a lead in Spamalot.

Do you guys think Applegate has a chance of winning?

---

Yay for DHP! Glad he got a nomination :)

If it's about the same thing I'm pissed about, ME TOO! Not surprised, but pissed.

---

"Surprised that Curry and Ramirez didn't get noms. A lot of people say Curry doesn't do anything in the musical...but his part is that of the straight man...he's not supposed to be flashy. IMHO he plays Arthur very well and is like the glue that holds it all together."

Thank you. I am, admittedly, biased, but I think his role in the show is harder to pull off than it may appear. His reactions to the lunacy swirling around him were wonderful. Being the straight man in a cast full of broad comic performances can be a thankless task. I'm so sorry he was overlooked, and hope the same thing won't happen at the Tonys. Not saying I think he'd win - nor even necessarily that he *should* win - but I think he deserves the recognition.

Hey, other people can repeatedly post their support of their faves, so why can't I? At least I'm not bashing any other actor in order to support him.

ok.... so i guess its time to shill...

IMO, All Shook Up should have gotten a few more nominations. Cheyenne Jackson? Orchestrations? Choreography? Musical?

I was this show in March and it was one of the most fun experiences I have had on Broadway. The cast is loaded with talent, the music is beautiful, and the book, although cheesy in that Shakesperian Comedy way, is enjoyable.

This show, which i believe is Leaps and bounds better than Mama Mia and the rest of the Jukebox genre should get some recognition.

I think Ramirez has a lot of talent, but dont think her role in "Spam" is that great.

Bobby: "This Morrison thing is an interesting debate: Should an actor be in the category where he could win or the category he should be in. I don't think he is a lead, I think he's featured, and has a better chance there. But if his stagetime is the most of any other male in that show, does that make him a lead? And would he even want to be a lead in such a fierce year?"

I am particularly reminded of the 1998 Tonys, in which Peter Friedman was nominated as a lead actor for Ragtime. I thought he was splendid at Tateh, but it wasn't a leading male role, and the competition was ferocious (Brian Stokes Mitchell, Douglas Sills, and the winner Alan Cumming). If he had been nominated in the featured category (against winner Ron Rifkin, Gregg Edelman, John McMartin, and Samuel Wright), he probably would have won.

So in Morrison's case, I think there are at least three issues: 1) which is the correct nomination?, 2) which is the more prestigious nomination, and 3) which does he have a greater chance of actually winning? I think the answers are Featured, Leading, and Featured. So ignoring prestige, I hope the Tonys remedy this and nominate him as a featured actor where he has a much better shot at getting the award.

The Tonys, at least, have ruled that The Frogs and its score are both new. This isn't the same show that played in the Yale swimming pool all those years ago.

Anyway, so far, the noms seem to be following the same pattern as last year- the OCC being completely ridiculous and the Drama Desks being better but not all the way there. The Tonys actually did a good job with nominations last year, with the Featured Actress in a Musical category being the most notable exception. Hopefully they'll show good sense this year, too.

The Frogs was overlooked because it was a highly competitive year. The Broadway community is still, rightly so, enamored with Sondheim. I do think that Pacific Overtures should be recognized. It wasn't a stellar production, but it was much stronger than La Cage.

I think expectations were so high for what would be accomplished Pacific Overtures that it suffered unfairly. It's a difficult show that tackles complex issues. La Cage is essentially a sitcom that probably made a statement in the early 80's but is now just a cute diversion with an okay Herman score.

Billy Crudup was robbed. He is the best thing in Pillowman, which in fact has a great ensemble cast. Why this show hasn't been more embraced by the critics is beyond me. I understand why average theatergeoers are uncomfortable with the subject matter. But critics should be hailing Pillowman as a new classic. An amazing play, production, and cast.