Best Leading Actress in a Play - Who gets the TONY? — Page 2

"btw- What does IMO mean?"

IMO=In My Opinion

But she's absolutely revelatory in this role. Turner is a wonderful Martha, don't get me wrong, but Cherry is awe-inspiring in Doubt.

But sustaining is, in my opinion, rather different than being revelatory.
I just give Jones the edge because she's creating an entirely original character, one we haven't seen before and who, admittedly, there is no previous performance to compare her to and find her wanting.
I think Turner resorts to "Turner" far too often to sustain Martha throughout the evening.
For my money, the far-better performances in Woolf belong to George and Honey.

Don't be defensive. I did just say Turner was really great. And these are, again, my opinions. Jones chews the stage apart in Doubt while remaining fully in character. I think Turner goes "Turner" often, in her mannerisms, delivery, etc. I couldn't shake it.
The Tony voters might agree with you more, who's to say?

But you're right about Honey. And it's incredibly unfortunate, because Mireille Enos is WONDERFUL in the role.

Actually, I have heard awful speculation about just why the amazing Enos had her part reduced...there's been a lot of people falling victim to diva fits on Broadway this year...

oh, no, not Enos. She was apparently EXTREMELY upset about the loss of that pivotal scene (which reveals everything about her character).
She was a victim of a diva.

She still manages to steal a LOT of moments, pivotal scene or not.

OH, ah...since we're talking leading actress nominees, anyone notice that Parker is in an upcoming Showtime series?

I don't understand why Rashad winning last year makes her any less deserving this year.

Not sure how much "diva fits" had to do with anything. Albee was the one who made the revisions in consultation with his long time producer Liz McCann BEFORE the cast even went into rehearsals (anybody who thinks Edward Albee would cut so much of a comma out of one of his plays just because a leading lady -- whom he hand-picked -- had a fit, doesn't know Edward Albee). The concern was chiefly about the three hour-plus running time of the show.

Because of Broadway union rules, if a show runs one minute past 11pm, the entire crew gets an hour of extremely expensive overtime that adds greatly to weekly running costs (even without the George-Honey scene, WOOLF still runs two hours, 50+ minutes). "Angels In America," for example, was nicknamed "The Cash Machine" by stagehands because of the three-hour-plus running time of each part. Despite Kushner making cuts to the play later in the run to reduce the running time, the Broadway production nevertheless lost $1.6 million.

WOOLF is struggling to even break weekly even at this point. Imagine how much it would be losing if Albee hadn't made the cuts that he did (which is why he made them at McCann's request). The unfortunate economic realities of Broadway are that sometimes commerce and business trumps art and forces compromise. Anyway, Albee seems to be able to live with the changes (though I think it DOES damage the play to some extent), so what right does anyone else have to quibble?

---

O'Byrne is certainly a contender and perhaps the favorite, but don't count out James Earl Jones.

---

Actually margo, I read an interview w/ Enos who said that a great deal of the cuts came after they had been running the show in Boston. And not just her stuff was cut, but a few other things here and there. How much of her "original" stuff was cut during the Boston run, nobody, not even you could possibly know.

---

thank you, bway

---