Did the Tony's get it right? 1988- Page 3

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 1:37pm

I believe Into the Woods should have won. Now, I will admit that I love POTO. I do. "Music of the Night" is so gorgeous and I love the finale of the show. It was pretty much my first musical.

However, ITW is smarter, not as literal as POTO, and much subtler. Into the Woods is one of the most perfect musicals I've ever seen or heard. POTO is gorgeous to look at and I really love listening to it, but Into the Woods goes beyond spectacle and beauty. It talks about human relationships of all sorts, all the while being interesting AND funny.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 2:11pm

I believe that at the time, The Phantom of the Opera was the right choice. Back then, the mega-musicals were still new and were therefore groundbreaking. Likewise, the show wouldn't last as long as it has if it doesn't deserve such merits. In the same way, Cats was groundbreaking when it opened. We have lived with these shows for so long now that they have become cliche and much maligned but they brought something new to the stage when they began.

[ErinDillyFan]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 2:46pm

He has said that was ashamed of West Side Story in a Fresh Air interview. He only did the lyrics anyway, same with Gypsy.

Maybe he is ahead of his time. There is obviously a very strong fanbase within the Bway community that keep bringing back the shows, but they don't last and most of the time don't make money. I really like Sweeney Todd, ITW, Company, and Frogs, but most people don't. I think almost everyone recognizes him as a genius, the Tony's are also about loving something not just admiring it.

[Elphaba3]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 2:53pm

That's tough. POTO and ITW are two of my all-time favorite shows. I think I like ITW a tiny bit more.

[Julian2]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 3:01pm

I actually addressed this in a recent "Tony Question" thread.

"In my opinion, I think the categories themselves need a little re-tooling. For instace, since the Best Musical award goes to the producers, it makes sense for it to go to Spamalot. But in my opinion, the show awarded the title of "Best Musical" should be what is considered the greatest piece of art for the season, i.e. The Light in the Piazza. In order though, for this to work, they should have a Best Production of a Musical award that goes to the producers [which revivals would be eligible for], seperate from Best New Musical of the Year. The Laurence Olivier Awards have it set up this way, and I think its a great way to work things. Its a way to reward the intricate pieces like Caroline or Piazza, while still giving producers a "Best" to put on the marquee."

I use Spamalot/The Light in the Piazza and Caroline, or Change/Avenue Q, but the same idea can easily be applied here.

[ErinDillyFan]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 4:05pm

Julian2

So best = most difficult musically. Regardless of appeal.

I would put Spamalot at the bottom of the nominees.
I think Spelling Bee should have won and would have put DRS 2nd.

I haven't seen or heard "Caroline, or Change"

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 4:24pm

Were Serafina and RomanceRomance's scores really that fantastic? I know that it's all really subjective, but I think that Chess's score is gorgeous, and the lyrics on the whole are very strong. Cheesy '80s in many instances? Absolutely. But there are just as many lyrics that are brilliant and appropriate to the subject matter.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 4:25pm

I love Chess and wonder what would have happened with Bennett.

Had it not been for CARRIE, CHESS probably would have disappeared.

[Julian2]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 4:27pm

I didn't mean to say appeal is nothing. I just think that what are considered the biggest screw-up's by the Tony's [best musical wise] can be explained when you consider they go to the producers. I think that Best Musical should go to the collaborators with Best Production going to the Producers. I think that the title of Best Musical should go to the BEST new musical of the year, not the most expensive or impressive production wise, whether you think that DRS, Spell. Bee, Piazza, or Spam. Its mainly a matter in my opinion of who gets the awards. Musical Theatre is a collaberation, and Best Musical should represent and award the best collaboration of the year. See what I'm saying?

Updated On: 10/19/06 at 04:27 PM

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 4:47pm

Chess' book was ruined for NY, overly pro american. The show was so terribly directed, you couldnt see much of what was going on.

for Pity the Child, there was a camera in front of Freddy half the time.

Kuhn and Carroll were great.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 4:55pm

"That's exactly why producers shouldn't be the only people that vote. The process is truly stupid. They should have an "Academy" like they do for the Oscars. The people that vote for the Tony Awards should be actors, actresses, composers, lyricists, directors, stage managers, lighting designers, choreographers, writers, etc.

The results would be so much better."

But, Munk that IS who votes for the Tonys every year. You apparently have a misconception that it's only producers who vote, when in actuality, they make up a small percentage of the 750 voters -- most voters already are, as you suggest, "actors, actresses, composers, lyricists, directors, stage managers, lighting designers, choreographers, writers...."

From the Tony website:

"When the Tony Awards were established in 1947, voting was limited to members of the board of the American Theatre Wing and of entertainment industry performer and craft unions. In 1954, voting eligibility was expanded to include other theatre professionals, and today there are approximately 750 eligible voters, a number that fluctuates slightly from year to year. These include the board of directors and designated members of the advisory committee of the American Theatre Wing; members of the governing boards of Actors' Equity Association, the Dramatists Guild, the Society of Stage Directors and Choreographers, United Scenic Artists, and the Association of Theatrical Press Agents and Managers; those persons whose names appear on the first night press list; members of the Theatrical Council of the Casting Society of America; and active members of the League of American Theatres and Producers."

So you see, MOST of the voters are NOT producers. That also holds for the Tony administration committee and the nominating committee (in fact, it's rare that more than one or two of the 25 or so people who come up with the nominations every year are producers -- they are everything else including actors, playwrights, designers, casting agents, choreographers etc...).

So, while there are odd choices every year at the Tonys, don't just blame the producers for that -- the whole community is involved with the voting.

[ErinDillyFan]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 4:58pm

I understand your argument, but if its a logistical issue.

The producers pay the bills and want the credit. I have a feeling they think the current system works in their favor. I think they see it as the BEST.

I don't think production value out weighs content. Take "A Chorus Line" winning over "Chicago" or "Forum" over "Oliver!" (I think Oliver! should have won), "Passion" over "Beauty & the Beast", "Sweeney Todd" over "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas"

I think there are years that are did reward production over content "Lion King" over "Ragtime". But, it is inventive production that should be rewarded. It is one year I wish they had a tie. How could "Fiorello!" tie "The Sound of Music" that is just wrong. (I think someone had their own little tin box)
Updated On: 10/19/06 at 04:58 PM

[Ciaron McCarthy]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 5:00pm

Whatever will do best on tour will win Best Musical (except of course PASSION).

[Julian2]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 5:09pm

I see what your saying, but as a fundemental issue I think Best Musical should go to the group of people that made that musical possible. That could include the producers. I think my main issue is that, in my opinion, the best musical award's place is with those that created it, that's where the focus should be. Not just who paid for it. Content isn't always on the the losing end, your right,but I feel it needs to be with those who gave it life [Which, as I said earlier could possibly include the producers].

[jasonf]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 5:11pm

"Sure too: GRAND HOTEL, FOLLIES and THE SECRET GARDEN were all the best musicals of their respective season: but there is no denying that at the time, audiences preferred CITY OF ANGELS, TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA, and WILL ROGERS FOLLIES (all of which are still quite good musicals)."

Ummm -- who says the first three shows were the "best musicals of their respective seasons"? I happen to like all six shows mentioned here but I'd be hard pressed to say Grand Hotel is a better show than City of Angels (and to be fair, my ipod is currently in the middle of playing Grand Hotel, so I do love both).

This whole argument is ridiculous, as it is with any argument about awards. What's "best" is purely subjective -- there's no way to actually measure what a "best" musical is. There's a "favorite" -- ie critic's or audiences -- but how can one truly say that art can have a "best?" Why is it necessary for our entertainment to be awarded with these false accolades anyway - no one is deciding which is better - Mona Lisa or Starry Night.

One might prefer ITW to Phantom, one may even say that as a whole one show holds together better, is organically a more complete show, but to subjectively say that any piece of art is without merit is ludicrous. To continue the example above - comparing Secret Garden to Will Rogers Follies -- I personally like Secret Garden better, but I can certainly see how someone could argue that the music bores them and they were excited by the score and production values of WRF.

Phantom/ITW -- I don't begrudge the success of either, and to say one deserved the Tony over another in this case is an exercise in futility.

If you want to question these awards, go after the years something like Jersey Boys, Fosse, or Contact won -- THEN you might have a case to make...

[americanboy99]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 5:29pm

I think it makes sense that PHANTOM won. Just because its such wonderful entertainment. And that's what Broadway is all about, right?

I also feel as though WICKED should have won BEST MUSICAL, even though I do understand that there are so many wonky things about it. But when you are watching WICKED, you are just so entertained. Same with Q. BUT I feel the performances were better in WICKED and the score is a close second along with the book. Sets of WICKED beaut out Q definitely along with costumes. And other aspects I feel are won by WICKED. So, my point is there will always be argument. MY FEELINGS!

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 5:44pm

I saw Chess right before it closed on Broadway, yet I don't remember much about it. I saw the tour a couple of years later (with Carolee Carmello as Florence) and I really liked that production. There were some book changes to that production as well.

I was rooting for Patti Lupone to win Best Actress for Anything Goes.

I saw ITW while it was still in previews, and vividly remember Danielle Ferland's performance, and part of the tree on the procenium broke during one of the set changes.

[americanboy99]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 6:31pm

bump!

[jv92]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 7:45pm

Absolutely not. Into the Wood's score is far more intelligent than the dull piece of slop called Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the Opera. It's book is far more successful as well. Into the Woods is a rather serious show, but the seriousness was balanced with plenty of humor. Every Sondheim musical is like that and that's one of the many reasons why they succeed. Phantom took (and still takes) itself way to seriously. I didn't laugh once. I know it's a drama, but I've laughed more in shows about far more serious things than a strange ghost that haunts an opera house.

Posted: 10/19/06 at 8:25pm

"Whatever will do best on tour will win Best Musical (except of course PASSION)."

and except...

Mamma Mia! over Millie
Wicked over Q.
Miss Saigon over Will Rogers Follies

I'm not sure I ever bought that theory

[ashley0139]

Posted: 10/19/06 at 8:40pm

I'm surprised to hear all the negative opinions of Chess. I adore that show so much (and I'm not a fan of ALW). Sure there's the occasional 80s techno song (One Night In Bangkok, please), but I think the show has so much heart and you care about the characters so much. Plus, all the songs are amazing! (Heaven Help My Heart, Nobody's Side, Pity the Child just to name a few)