A theory on the supposed robbery of Raul — Page 3

Okay, I was being diplomatic before and not mentioning Esparza's "technique", but when you start comparing what he does to Garland, and calling it the same thing, I have to say something.

Garland had one of the most glorious voices ever to land on this earth. She also had one of the best voice coaches ever to land on this earth, so put those two things together, along with her acting instinct that was second to none, and the end result was something like we'll never see in our lifetimes.

What I saw Sunday night was horrible vocal technique - really made me tense up with concern for his voice - and the most showy piece of ham acting I've seen in a long, long time. I was appalled, and so were the people with whom I was watching, and everyone with whom I've spoken about it since. All trained performers, some very successful.

He is not and never will be in the same universe with Garland.

---

Good lord, and I thought I analyzed this too much. If you're going to over-analyze, though, hell, at least have your analysis make sense. You say that the award is for best actor and not best vocalist in order to prove that Raúl did not deserve the award, which would be to say that his acting was not up to par with David Hyde Pierce's. But then after reminding us that this award is about acting, not singing, youu make it sound as though if it had been about vocals, then this wouldn't be an issue. That comment insinuates that if it were an award about vocals, then saying Esparza was robbed would be valid.

You then go on to say, however, that the issue here is the overt visibility of Esparza's vocal technique. If his vocals, to you, are the problem, and that's why he didn't deseve to win, then aren't you contesting that the award IS about vocals? It doesn't make sense to say that right after reminding everyone that this is about acting, if you're analyzing vocal technique. What sense does it make to point out that this is an acting award, not a singing award, when you're not trying to prove that the acting is a problem? I understand what you're saying about song needing to seem like an effortless continuation of the rest of the performance, but still, the pieces don't fit together for me. Maybe I'm just exhausted, but it makes zero sense. It looks more like a pretentious attempt to come up with a unique theory than one sensical, to me -- and while I obviously don't agree with the decision, there are an awful lot of theories I'm willing to accept as viable possibilities for why DHP apparently deserved it more.

Past trying to make sense of that, I'm not getting involved in the theoretical dissection. It's not worth it. But with regard to the performance on Sunday, I think it was problematic because there was no compensation for the camera. It was kind of a different manifestation of the same thing Lea Michele was doing, when she sang to the camera. It was pretty clear she didn't know how to perform with it right in front of her like that. On TV, you were watching a chest-up frame of something that Esparza normally performs with the intention of reaching an entire Broadway house. While it works being projected to an entire theater, it's only natural for that to look ridiculous and overdone when you're watching it on television closeup. I think a lot of the problem lies in the basic differences between screen acting and stage acting.

---

Updated On: 6/13/07 at 11:19 PM

Would it were that, Boq. But no, it's the same old crap over and over again in thread after thread after thread.

---

Rath, who was Garland's teacher?



Although I was surprised when Raul didn't win, and although I wanted him to win...I've calmed down and thought back to Curtains. What an awful show. But it's true that David Hyde Pierce did the best he could to carry that. I don't want to say that DHP didn't deserve it...but I do feel as though it was Raul's turn UNTIL I remembered all the awards he has already recieved for COMPANY...and all the parts and shows that are coming his way. It's not like his road has ended. He was already known in the Broadway circle, but COMPANY was a good break for him, and I think that he'll have plenty of other chances to be nominated again, and possibly win.
And DHP is so cute

---

Updated On: 6/13/07 at 11:39 PM

I have said this before so I will try to be short.
Raul is/was not playing the part written on the page, He and the Director decided on a character that is just not there.
Bobby is not angst ridden or an alcohloic manic depressive.
Does he have something "bubbling" underneath his veneer?
Yes, but it isn't a primal scream, it is a chance for a change in his life and BEING ALIVE is an acceptance of that.
I feel the character is actually happy in this song, he has come to a decision that he may try to change his life.
All that emoting and chest beating are from some other play.
Maybe the TONY voters agreed with me on that and on top of other variables decided this was not the Award winning performance this season.

Updated On: 6/13/07 at 11:52 PM

Thank you. I honestly thought maybe I was just THAT wiped out, because when I skimmed over the respones, nobody seemed to pick up on it. I read it like four times, and I was like "... wait, what?"

---

"I was appalled, and so were the people with whom I was watching, and everyone with whom I've spoken about it since. All trained performers, some very successful."
Rath- leaving the Judy discussion out of it, can't it be argued that Raul is a successful and trained performer as well? I mean okay, he didn't receive the Tony this year, but if his vocal technique was that poor, I doubt he would be cast in an above the title role.

---

Updated On: 6/14/07 at 12:36 AM

i could see his bobby doing all of those things, actually. Raul's bobby to me anyway is at least more of a human being than others I've seen. Your post is ridiculous, Just because you've done a show extensively doesn't mean it's the best out of any performance of that show that will ever play.

He lost. Move on.

---

You know why Raul lost?

2 words: MEL BROOKS.

He's responsible for the closing of The Pirate Queen and this, too. He's responsible for the overall failure of Broadway, as well.

It's a conspiracy, I tell you! A conspiracy!

Emcee, my point was more that his interpretation and technique were wonderful if he was looking to win American Idol, but not the Tony. There's a difference between singing the crap out of a song for its own sake and singing the crap out of a song in the context of a musical. Raul seemed to only do the former.

I realize that that was very unclear in the original post. Sorry about that.

---

Updated On: 6/14/07 at 08:42 AM

I already said that I haven't seen the show. My thoughts are based on the Tony performance and not-so-legal videos.

I live in Idaho for the school year and North Carolina for the summer, so it's a bit difficult to get to NYC.

---

free admission is lucky he didn't see the show because he didn't have to experience all of Raul's numbers wherein he tries to bring the emotion right up from the bottom of his soul I felt nothing. The comparison to American Idol is totally accurate in my opinion.