Posted: 5/15/19 at 5:17pm
To me, this article cemented my commitment to taking every critical word with a massive grain of salt. I know the the NYTimes is still important in the industry... but the fact that they don't invite more voices into these critical conversation in 2019 is just baffling. Give me Sara Holdren any day, folks. Why wasn't this a conversation between more people?
Posted: 5/15/19 at 5:53pm
ALittleFallofRain said: "To me, this article cemented my commitment to taking every critical word with a massive grain of salt. I know the the NYTimes isstill important in the industry... but the fact that they don'tinvite more voices into these critical conversation in 2019 is just baffling.Give me Sara Holdren any day, folks. Why wasn't this a conversation between more people?"
Huh?? It was a NY Times article and they included the 2 co-chief NY Times critics. Who else would you suggest they have included in a NY Times story?? If you want to know who Sara Holdren thinks should win -- I'm sure you will find it in New York Magazine/Vulture at some point.
Posted: 5/15/19 at 6:52pm
Okay so I need to know.... is it JUST me or does it bother anyone else that year after year they load their "should have been" lists with things from Off-Broadway AKA things that are NOT EVEN ELIGIBLE for the Tony Awards? I get it. There are some GREAT Off-Broadway works out there, but why not give a few moments of attention to the things and people that were ACTUALLY left off the list that COULD have been on the list? It bothers me EVERY year.
Posted: 5/15/19 at 7:04pm
Scarlet Leigh said: "Okay so I need to know.... is it JUST me or does it bother anyone else that year after year they load their "should have been" lists with things from Off-Broadway AKA things that are NOT EVEN ELIGIBLE for the Tony Awards? I get it. There are some GREAT Off-Broadway works out there, but why not give a few moments of attention to the things and people that were ACTUALLY left off the list that COULD have been on the list? It bothers me EVERY year."
Much agreed. There is so much that is snotty and mean about this. 1) release it after voting ends. Really why bother doing it now rather than to influence the results so they can showboat their influence? 2) If you want to talk about off broadway you can easily make another thread. It is insulting to all the hard work that goes into Broadway. 3) Give some context to will v. should, it’s fair to discuss your favorite performances but why belittle the one that “will win”? The implication is that in the eyes of the nytcritics the winners picks don’t deserve it.
The theater section at nytimes is so out of touch and offensive it needs a full review by whatever oversight board they have there. I still can’t get over how after they forced out Isherwood they sent his arch nemesis in to review and reversed accolades for Indecent, Significant other, and Sweat. It’s so transparent and catty that it is straight up gross.
Posted: 5/15/19 at 7:23pm
Posted: 5/16/19 at 12:45am
Someone in a Tree2 said: "As a proud white male theatergoer about to turn 63, I want to proclaim my own abject love for HADESTOWN and all that's contained therein: the score, the cast, the staging, the design, the effortlessly moving story. This show gave us the most satisfying night of musical theater probablysince...well, since Act I ofAN AMERCIAN IN PARIS 4 or 5 years ago. So no, my friends, HADESTOWN is not just a hit with millennials; it's captured the heart of many of us decades past that designation.
(Oh, and I thought Julie White was astonishingly great in GARY, another play unpopular on this board that mace us incredibly happy.)"
Just to clarify -- wasn't trying to say that Hadestown could exclusively be enjoyed by a younger audience by any means. Only that there seems to be a universal consensus amongst younger theatregoers that Hadestown is deserving of the top awards, versus a much more split (from what I have seen) opinion from older ones. I'm not trying to make any sort of statement about it, it was just something I happened to notice.
Posted: 5/16/19 at 10:47am
After Eight said: "I haven't read what either of these two esteemed sageswrote. Bad for the digestion, blood pressure, and everythingelse that keeps a person healthy and smiling.
But I am filled with dread at the dreadest prospectof them all:wins by boththe screed and its author.
The agenda crowd never misses an opportunity toreward itsdarlings, and this would be a double whammy.
That second sentence should be your byline. It’s perfect!
Posted: 5/16/19 at 10:56am
Brantley thinks that the book of THE CHER SHOW should have been nominated.
Well.... I’m at a loss. Of the 250+ shows I’ve seen on broadway over the years, this is one of let’s say 5 where I was not only thoroughly disappointed (How is it possible to make Cher, of all people, boring?!?!) but pissed off that I had spent money to see it. Ive seen shows at Six Flags with better scripts, choreography, design, direction. SJB is not a favorite of mine, but I’d rather she won her Tony for something better. Not this gilded turd with the rhinestones falling off.
Posted: 5/16/19 at 11:02am
IntoTheWords said: "
Much agreed. There is so much that is snotty and mean about this. 1) release it after voting ends. Really why bother doing it now rather than to influence the results so they can showboat their influence? 2)If you want to talk about off broadway you can easily make another thread. It is insulting to all the hard work that goes into Broadway. 3)Give some context to will v.should, it’s fair to discuss your favorite performances but why belittle the one that “will win”?The implication is that in the eyes of the nytcritics the winners picksdon’t deserve it."
This is melodramatic and silly. Should win/will win is a part of all awards show run-up. Award worthiness is subjective. How is it doing it before any different than doing it after, if you're concerned about the feelings of the nominees and winner? "This is who I would like to see win" seems better to me than saying, "They should NOT have won."
Also: if you take a look, these pieces don't have a great track record if there is not an obvious frontrunner in a category. The Tonys can be notoriously hard to predict, since there aren't reliable precursor awards that give insight into what the nominators or voters are feeling. Brantley and Green don't have much sway over these awards.
And including off-Broadway with a heavy caveat isn't insulting to Broadway. This is defensive fan pearl-clutchery. These are all working professionals- they don't care if Brantley wishes a show at the Public could get nominated.
At the end of the day, awards season probably has more emotional weight to the fans than to the people actually in the mix for the awards.
Posted: 5/16/19 at 11:11am
