2007 Best Book of a Musical Tony Award Winner Speculation- Page 2

[wickedfan]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 11:58am

Foster- Way to not get what Joe was saying AT ALL.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 12:21pm

I don't know, I actually think without a doubt that the best book of a musical is Curtains, not considering source material. Grey Gardens' book is still quite flawed, especially when considering the first act. The 2nd act is great, but some people still feel that the 1st act is unnecessary or still needs work.

Curtains, on the other hand, may not be the best musical of the season, but I was very impressed with the book. It's a mystery with twists and turns, and may not be the Sixth Sense in which we say well duh the show hinted at this the whole time, but I was immersed in what was going on, and bought most of it. That scene between David and Debra at the end where he points out how much she loves her daughter and the twist that she killed Ernie was great. Honestly, as soon as the show ended, the first thing I thought was that this is going to win the best book Tony.

We'll see I guess.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 12:23pm

What is flawed about GREY GARDENS' book?

[DirtyRottenGirl]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 12:25pm

Curtains, thats all I have to say.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 12:32pm

I also think the characters in SPRING AWAKENING are very poorly developed.
In the first act Melchoir is a stuck up jerk who cares only for himself and hurts whoever he can, then in the second act he is this hero who who actually cares about people even the girl he has seduced as basically a game.

And that is just one example.

And I disagree that the first act of GREY GARDENS is flawed.
it is highly imaginative in creating a back story for the wonderful second act.
WILL YOU? just breaks my heart because of what has preceded it.

And I can't think of another musical that was based on a documentary but I'm sure it won't be the last.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 12:32pm

I am, shock surprise, hoping GG wins this award. absolutely deserving.

having a best play award and a best script award would be the same as having best musical and best score/book. and it's the same as having best film and best screenplay.

one is what you get in the mail when you produce the work. the other is one production of the work.

this is why I value the best score/book awards over best musical when evaluating what musicals belong in the canon.

[Bobby Maler]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 1:13pm

Unlike the Oscars, there aren't separate categories for Original Script versus an Adapted Script. As such, whether or not a script is original or not should have no bearing on the award for Best Book.

Grey Gardens--this poignant show was seared by more than a few critics for having a first half that did not flow well into a second half which by and large was copied directly from the documentary. I'm not saying I believe that, I'm just saying that there is a perception out there that it is disjointed. The dialogue is obviously well written, but I wouldn't say that it's Doug Wright's best work. He also already has a Tony.

Legally Blonde--comedic shows tend to do well with the Book award. This show was definitely fun and witty (mostly because of the lyrics, though), with good character development which made me care for the characters more than I thought i would. It was clear what everyone wanted. This is potentially the only win that Legally Blonde could pick up if voters want to spread the wealth around. As David Spade said, though, "this musical is for those who want to see the movie again and pay $200 for it." I can't say the adaptation added anything that the original didn't already provide.

Spring Awakening--has a 50/50 chance, in my opinion. Those who are not familiar with the original play may bemoan that there are characters which are never fully developed, and that it becomes choppy at times. Those familiar with the play will realize that the creative team actually created much stronger arcs for the main characters than previously existed while being true to Wedekind's Expressionistic style and made an infamous play which was ahead of its time more palletable for a mainstream audience. The main ingenuity in the musical is the juxtoposition of the 19th century world of the play with the 21st century one, and it is the book which must take the most credit for this conceit.

Curtains--again, a very fun and witty book (small penis jokes aside) and will be competing with Legally Blonde for the "We Need To Spread The Wealth Around" prize. It is for show people, written by two of the most influential show people around, and should have been an industry favorite. If the book had not unravelled so disappointingly towards the end, it might have become the industry favorite.

I wouldn't rule Curtains and Legally Blonde out, but they might split the vote, so my prediction goes to Spring Awakening.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 1:28pm

If any vote splitting were to occur, it would happen between CURTAIN and GREY GARDENS, not LEGALLY BLONDE. LEGALLY BLONDE doesn't stand a chance, and shouldn't even be nominated to begin with.

[gustof777]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 1:37pm

I actually found Grey Gardens book to be the weak link of the show. Now even being the fan of Spring Awakening that I am, I know that they sure as hell don't deserve ANY award for that book. Legally Blonde and Curtains I haven't seen but have heard Curtains book is quite good.

[popculture37]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 2:01pm

Doug Wright is one of my favorite playwrights and, while this isn't his very best work, I think the book of Grey Gardens is one of the best things about the show. I actually like it a lot better than the score. But I do have to admit that Act I, while its fun and interesting, does make a mess of the show's structure and is a bit too stretched out. The Grey Gardens book has been the most criticized aspect of the show, so I wouldn't bank on it getting that award. My guess would be Curtains.
I wouldn't completely rule out Spring Awakening though. I don't think the characters are underdeveloped, they're just developed in a completely different style than are the Grey Gardens characters. There are so many distancing techniques at play in Spring, what with the microphones and the jumps between old-fashioned dialogue and contemporary rock, and so we don't get the intimate character details that we do in musicals that are more based on psychological realism. But plenty of amazing playwrights-Brecht, for instance-have used the keeping-the-audience-at-a-distance thing to good effect, and I think Spring pulls it off very nicely. I think Spring Awakening is more likely to be hampered by the fact that so little of the book is new than by the perception that its underwritten.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 2:04pm

The characters aren't developed in a completely different way.

We don't know ANYTHING about most of the cast. NOTHING. How is that development?

[Sondheim Geek]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 2:16pm

I think that Curtains will take the award, simply because the first act of Grey Gardens exists. Having that first act... it would be like, having a first act of Follies where we saw the lives of Sally, Buddy, Ben, and Phyllis in the 40’s. I know that’s an awful example, but it was the first thing I thought of when I saw GG. It's unnecessary, and there are thousands of better ways to get the downfall of each of the characters across.

As much as I disliked Curtains, there is no way in hell that Legally Blond or Spring Awakening would ever get that award.

[popculture37]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 2:18pm

I see Spring as being almost like a fable. The characters stand for different ideas-they're not just people, they're symbols. And, in a fable, you don't get every little personality quirk of everyone around; we don't read about the tortoise's favorite drink or the hare's love affair with the little bunny down the lane. Even though we know few details or quirks about the characters, though, the tortoise and the hare story is one of the most famous stories in the world. (I realize those are kind of ridiculous examples, because most fable-type things are about animals, not people, but you get the picture.) Not every type of literature exists to give us an in-depth view of the working of individual minds. Some literature uses individuals to make a point about an idea, and this type of writing is every bit as valid as others. If you restrict your appreciation of writing to shows that develop characters through psychological realism, you're immediately labeling huge portions of the theatrical repertoire as badly-written, and I don't think it's fair to automatically denigrate a piece of writing just because of its style.
Besides, to say we know NOTHING is an exaggeration. Even some of the minor characters have fairly distinctive personalities and clear wants and desires. We just don't get the amount of depth that we do about, say, Little Edie.

[GYPSY1527]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 2:20pm

I'll be the first to admit that the 1st act of Grey Gardens isn't the strongest but to compare it to Follies' flashback is very odd. To begin with, Follies isn't a show about the rise and fall of the four characters in particular like Grey Gardens is. Grey Gardens is so dependent on one understanding how Edie and Little Edie got to their present (1970's) situation that I honestly can't falthom any other way of expressing it. Would you rather had them do constant flashbacks (ala Follies)? Its just not the right comparison to make.

Concerning best book of a musical, although I haven't seen Curtains yet or Legally Blonde (don't really plan on seeing it either, I'd like Grey Gardens to win. Spring Awakening I feel should win best score while I'd like Grey Gardens to take book , orchestration, costume and leading and featured actress.

Updated On: 5/27/07 at 02:20 PM

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 2:54pm

Well Munk, others already answered some of the flaws of GG's book.

I have heard interesting discussion paralleling the fact that Little Edie leaves at the end of act 1 to just show the difference and let down of Little Edie's life, you think she left, but here she is in act 2 still stuck back at home.

But I still feel that it would be more effective to parallel the end of acts...to make however many changes you need to make to the end of the first act, to have Little Edie about to leave and for some reason stay because Edith calls out to her or something like that. It would make the moment in act 2 when she doesn't leave even more affecting.

And besides, the book should be designed for people not at all familliar with the story, and if you're not, you're lost a good part of act 2. You think okay she's leaving, now we're gonna see what happens when she leaves, and all of a sudden she's back in the house?

I still think there could be more..."cracks" in Little Edie during act 1. Of course not completely crazy, and "Daddy's Girl" does accomplish this, but it's still a bit of a stretch in my opinion to go from Little Edie in act 1 to act 2. Well, maybe if she never left at the end of act 1, that too would be more understandable.

And aside from being able to point out that they were related to Jackie and did stuff with her, I still don't think the little girls serve that much of a purpose or really need to be in the show at all.

Without a doubt, I think the best book of a musical this year belongs to Curtains.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 3:06pm

"to have Little Edie about to leave and for some reason stay because Edith calls out to her or something like that. It would make the moment in act 2 when she doesn't leave even more affecting."

I disagree, I think it would not come off well at all. The moment is fine as is.

"And besides, the book should be designed for people not at all familliar with the story, and if you're not, you're lost a good part of act 2. You think okay she's leaving, now we're gonna see what happens when she leaves, and all of a sudden she's back in the house?"

The only thing they're missing are a few "inside jokes", but otherwise, the dramatic arch in Act 2 is easy to follow, and audiences should be able to identify with every emotion happening on stage. Women won't get the mother/daughter relationship because they didn't see the documentary? People won't get the pain of when we have to separate past and present because they didn't see the documentary?

I think, if anything, Grey Gardens' book is especially ingenius because it manages to make an audience that most of whom aren't familiar with the documentary able to connect with it. I know that I and any person I know who has seen the show had not seen the documentary and really liked/loved it. If anything, once they had seen the documentary, their appreciation for the piece and Ebersole's performance grew even more.

As for Act 1, what I think it suffers from is the same thing that Act 2 suffers from and that is its "inside jokes". It's not so much of a liability, but more a limitation. Not enough people are familiar with the documentary and so some lines that are said don't have the same effect on people who haven't seen the documentary as to those that have. But I do think that it is a well constructed story line, with great character development and manages to have multiple plotlines without dropping one to make room for the other (i.e. Spring Awakening) or making itself confusing by not seamlessly fusing each storyline together (i.e. Curtains).

I also think that any shortcomings that Act 1 might have (and I don't think it has many), are completely forgiven due to the briliant Act 2. I look at the situation as a bit of Sunday in the Pakr with George. Act 1 has a linear story that we follow, while Act 2 does not. And you may ask yourself, "What do the acts have to do with each other plotwise?" And the truth is that they don't. But on a metaphorical and symbolic level, they have a great deal to do with each other about art and relationships and making an impact and connecting. And that's a greater message than any linear story.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 3:12pm

"The only thing they're missing are a few "inside jokes", but otherwise, the dramatic arch in Act 2 is easy to follow, and audiences should be able to identify with every emotion happening on stage. Women won't get the mother/daughter relationship because they didn't see the documentary? People won't get the pain of when we have to separate past and present because they didn't see the documentary?"

No, what audiences don't get for a little while is...wait, didn't she just leave? Why is she back home? Huh? (That's what I honestly experienced for a little while). But I know I have a tendency to easily become confused, so I'm being honest in saying maybe it's not fair to say that would happen to everyone who didn't see the doc.

BTW, I couldn't agree more with your thoughts re: Sunday. I'm not arguing that plots have to be linear; I think Company is brilliant. And don't get me wrong, I like Grey Gardens, I don't think it's bad at all. But can you honestly compare that to Sunday? Of course act 2 has its own connectiosn to act 1, but everything else aside, "Move On" is the finished project of so many of the songs heard in act 1, finally resolving themselves.

And besides, both acts of Sunday end the same way...people walking through the park singing "Sunday." I argued that's what GG should do...be more like Sunday

Updated On: 5/27/07 at 03:12 PM

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 3:16pm

"No, what audiences don't get for a little while is...wait, didn't she just leave? Why is she back home? Huh? (That's what I honestly experienced for a little while)."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Big Edie say that Little Edie's career in NYC didn't work out so she came home (or something like that)? The same was said in the documentary, and I would assume its the same in the show (I haven't seen it yet).

[wickedfan]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 3:17pm

Um, I don't know of any audience members who thought that. There may be some, yourself included, but you obviously then didn't see any subtext. She was out front, right out of the door, ready to leave, but when she heard her helpless mother calling for in panic, she couldn't leave. She didn't have the strength or the nerve. She went back inside, attended to her mother in silence. Clearly miserable, but it was for the good of the one person she loved.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 3:18pm

Wait, are we talking about the begining or end of act 2? Either way, it's clearly explained.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 3:18pm

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Big Edie say that Little Edie's career in NYC didn't work out so she came home (or something like that)? The same was said in the documentary, and I would assume its the same in the show (I haven't seen it yet)."

Yes she does, but not right away--not for a little while, hence my confusion for a little while.

ETA: wickedfan, beginning of act 2.

Updated On: 5/27/07 at 03:18 PM

[wickedfan]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 3:20pm

But then why fault the book, wicked, if it explains why she's back? They don't have to explain right away. It would seem rather tacky if Little Edie came out and said "Here's what's been going on for the last 30/40 years."

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 3:24pm

Those who are not familiar with the original play may bemoan that there are characters which are never fully developed

I've never read the original play upon which Spring Awakening is based. I think the characters in the musical are annoyingly underdeveloped, but from what you're saying, if I read it correctly, I get the impression that the characters are developed to the same degree in the play. That's fine, but poorly developed characters in the source material don't excuse poorly developed characters in an adaptation just because they've stayed faithful and it's the same. That'd be lame defense if I ever heard any. The character development in the musical is really opportunistic, especially with the way it tries to make Melchior a hero. I didn't like that. It took me out of the story, and I thought it was tacky and manipulative.

I certainly hope Spring Awakening doesn't win for book -- I'm hoping it wins for score simply because Duncan's music is beautiful, and I think it sucks that if he wins, that means Sater's awful, awful lyrics will win as well by default. I think the categories should be separated. I think Spring Awakening's book is one of its weakest points, and I think full of trite clichés. I hope Grey Gardens takes this one, but if not, although I thought the book for Curtains was a bit trite as well, I think I'd like to see it win.

Updated On: 5/27/07 at 03:24 PM

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 3:25pm

I wasn't arguing that she should do that, wickedfan. I was arguing that act 1 shouldn't have left me so completely confused as to what happened the last 30/40 years. That's just how I feel, and I totally understand and respect if others feel that it's not a flaw for me to be confused like that. Online tone is hard to detect, but I say that with total sincerity, we all have different ideas about what makes good musicals, books, flaws, etc. For me, I consider that to be a flaw, but it's fine if not everyone does.

Updated On: 5/27/07 at 03:25 PM

[bwaygal1]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 3:29pm

Doug Wright is going to win best book, first off.
The book is excellent.
Also-in the documentary, one gets two different stories as to why Edie left New York and went back to live at Grey Gardens.
(Same in the musical.)
Edith says it was because she needed to come home, wasn't succeeding, etc.
Edie says it was 'to take care of her dying mother' and that she worried about her and Edith pressured her to come home.
Don't know which is true, but those are the two stories. (I imagine the truth is something between the two stories.)