2007 Best Book of a Musical Tony Award Winner Speculation- Page 3

[wickedfan]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 3:34pm

I wouldn't say that Grey Gardens has Best Book in the bag, though I think it most certainly deserves it. I wouldn't be upset if Curtains won the award, though I don't think it's book is all that wonderful. It gave me some good laughs and I liked the twist at the end with Monk's character. I must say, though, my initial reaction to who the murderer was, was "WTF?" I didn't think it was justified well.

Emcee-The category for score used to be separated. Lyrics and Music were two different categories, but it ended in I think '72, after Sondheim had won both awards for Company. I think it was a bad decision to bring them together for one category because of situations like this. If Spring Awakening could win for Best Music and Grey Gardens could win for Best Lyrics, I would be content.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 3:36pm

I know, I think it should have remained that way. How often do the best lyrics and the best music each season really come from the same show?

Updated On: 5/27/07 at 03:36 PM

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 3:49pm

I definitely agree that the same show does not necessarily have the best lyrics and best music. In 2004, Ave Q certainly had the best lyrics, but I don't think the best music. And in 2005, there is no doubt Light in the Piazza should have won for music, but I think Dirty Rotten Scoundrels had the best and most creative lyrics that season. I'm still pissed that Spamalot took the Drama Desk for that. Just some examples.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 3:50pm

Right, I agree; I think Avenue Q is one of the most best examples. I think it won based on its lyrics.

Updated On: 5/27/07 at 03:50 PM

[Sondheim Geek]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 3:51pm

I know the Follies thing was an awful comparison, but they do something flashback-y in “Around the World”, don’t they? They have Erin Davie walking down the stairs or something… I really don’t remember.

When I saw Grey Gardens for the second time, the ONLY thing I heard at intermission was "So wait, how is she related to Jackie O?" "Which one's is the mother?" and variations on such ridiculous questions.
Because of Act I, which doesn't catch your attention, it's harder to hook on to Act II. To have the first song where everyone in the audience turns around to say "what was that?" at the top of act II... that says something about Act I.
The other problem is, the audience doesn't know what's going to happen in Act II, so they're sitting through this drab Act I, not knowing that it's going to knock them off their feet in Act II.
Personally, I think that Grey Gardens would have been damn near perfect as a one act. Does the documentary need half of to be just telling you about Edith and Little Edie? Nope. You get it through the picture scene… which is what, 10 minutes, not an hour and a quarter.

On another topic, I entirely agree with you Emcee/Wickedfan about the Tony award. Does anyone know why they brought them into one category?

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 3:52pm

I really hope Curtains gets it, the only other award it has a chance of getting is one for Karen Ziemba but there is a tiny chance she will get it (and one for David Hyde Pierce).

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 3:56pm

I'd be shocked if Karen won. Wilson not only turns in a phenomenal performance (she impressed me more than Ebersole), but she's up there in years and doesn't yet have a Tony. She couldn't be in a more prime position for the win.

[bwaygal1]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 3:57pm

Sondheim-
First off, the people asking how the Beales are related to Jackie-O need to read the playbill-there's an explanation in there. (I had to do this the first time I saw it.)
Also-the flashback is during "Another Winter in a Summer Town". It lasts all of one minute. (if that)
I think Act I was necessary because if they had tried to do a one act with the documentary based material, it would have given them less humanity and no explanation for how they ended up the way they did. It would have made fun of them in a sad way. I doubt it would have the impact it does. It is well-written, IMO. I think it is very well done and material from Act I carries over into Act II.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 4:02pm

I definitely agree Rath.

And I'm not even making a statement; I'm really asking this question: if something like that is written in the playbill, is the book no longer held responsible for giving you that information? (And I'm asking this generally, you could make arguments that GG does explain that, so I mean for any show...)

[Sondheim Geek]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 4:03pm

bwaygal- People don't read playbills. Ever. Except for like... the nine people on this board who do, the audience are going to be expecting the material to serve them. It was hilarious, actually... "wait, the one who was talking in the beginning was the guy who was playing the piano?" (Little Edie -> Gould).
Again, I said it was an awful comparison, it was just the first one that I always thought of.

Even if the material carries over, it still drags, and it still becomes a boring, not as important, part of the show. There is not one minute of the first act (Will You included) that is as good as the second.

I'm not saying the second act as it is could go independently, but edited, it definitely could make the piece a hundred times stronger.

That makes no sense, but I hope you understand what I mean.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 4:08pm

I know what you mean, Sondheim. After seeing the show at Playwrights, I, as well as many others, thought that your solution was the best way to go. If I recall, back on a thread discussing Grey Gardens' off-Broadway reviews, MargoChanning and I discussed numerous ways it could work. The main idea benig that Act 2 be kept almost entirely intact with a few songs and a few scenes from Act 1 inserted to give it a "Follies" feel, making the show a 90 minute one act.

However, that being said, since they decided to stick with their original idea, I think that they managed to work out MANY kinks that were making Act 1 a complete mess at Playwrights. Believe it or not, Act 1 runs much smoother and faster than it did at Playwrights. I think it's fine, if not nearly as great as Act 2, as is.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 4:10pm

Wickedfan- The problem with the Follies concept is that it would not allow Ebersole to play both roles.

[bwaygal1]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 4:16pm

I think there's a certain symbolism in having the same actress play the mother in act 1 and the daughter in act 2. That highlights connection between the two characters. It also allows us to 'see' their fall. (makes it more real and more tragic.)

[wickedfan]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 4:20pm

Neddy- that was an issue we talked about on the previous thread. I think Victoria Clark's name came up to play Big Edie in the past if they decided to go with the "Follies" concept. Although, most of us agreed that Ebersole should really be playing both characters and that Big Edie in flashback would be too small of a role for Victoria Clark.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 4:25pm

Oh, other problems I have with the book aside, I love that Ebersole plays both roles. Edie's mother largely contributed to her being the way she is...Ebersole shows in act 1 how Edith panicks at the thought of losing her daughter and can't be around, and shows in act 2 that Edie can't get away from her mother.

And I do agree act 1 is better at the Walter Kerr than it was at Playwright Horizons, but still flawed.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 4:26pm

I thought the book for Grey Gardens was very boring.

I'm thinking Curtains was at least fun and I enjoyed it.

Haven't seen Legally Blonde or SA (except in excerpt) yet.

[Sondheim Geek]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 4:29pm

Wicked- even if it's smoother, it still doesn't work that well. I'd love to see your concept played out.... it won't.. but it would be amazing.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 4:41pm

Responded to something that wasn't for me here. Oops.

BTW, I don't know, because not only on BWW but in so many aspects of life, it's difficult to maintain intelligent discussions that involve arguing, but those of you have certainly done that. We haven't resulted to personal attacks, and I respect that everyone has made effort to support their points. It should always be this way, but we all know it's not, so just wanted to express my appreciation, I've very much enjoyed this discussion

Updated On: 5/27/07 at 04:41 PM

[wickedfan]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 4:47pm

I agree, wicked, although I think Sondheim's post was referring to me. Hence the "it's smoother" part.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 4:48pm

Oops, very good point. I'm sure you'll forgive me for responding to a point that was addressed to "Wicked"

[wickedfan]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 4:51pm

No, wicked! I hate you for it and will now go all Rosie on your ass!

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 4:54pm

But, but...I'm small and fragile! Poor little wickedrentq! You're such a bully!

[Sondheim Geek]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 4:59pm

I was actually refering to wickedfan (didn't see you there, wickedrentq!), but it can be both of you, if you'd like

[wickedfan]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 5:00pm

I've been here longer, wickedrentq, you'll have to suck it up! This is my playground now!

[Sondheim Geek]

Posted: 5/27/07 at 5:02pm

Too bad for that whole "mature, adult, conversation" thing we had going on a bit ago...