Drama Desk Awards Unfair???

[julesboogie]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 11:56pm

Read this article and thought it was interesting. What do you think??
Drama Desk Outrage!

[SNAFU]

Posted: 5/26/10 at 12:15am

They are of course unfair to a degree. Many of the Off-Broadway Shows that were nominated have long since closed so none of the voters got a chance to see them. However, having been nominated (and well aware of my chances to win were slim to none) with big budgeted, high profile Broadway shows was an honor all in itself. Being a Drama Desk Nominee for my work is a thing at will definitely go into my profile and on my resume.

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 5/26/10 at 12:22am

I love that an article saying Off-Broadway shows went mostly unnoticed had to make 2 factual corrections about off-Broadway.

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 5/26/10 at 12:24am

And then there are the high profile people who will win because they are who they are. A friend of mine who was a double nominee [jokingly] complained that he lost his categories to Kander & Ebb and Sondheim. Well, if he were to lose to anyone, it might as well be those three men!

~Steven

[SNAFU]

Posted: 5/26/10 at 12:28am

Exactly. If you are running against them, is it really losing?

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/26/10 at 9:31am

As one of my friends said, she "lost to the Broadway revival with drag queens, sequins, and feathers. It was a shoe-in, or should I say stiletto-in...?"

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/26/10 at 10:04am

The award for book of a musical went to "Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson," which will finish a run at the well-funded Public Theater on June 27, while the Lincoln Center Theater production of "When the Rain Stops Falling" won sound design of a play. In short, the Drama Desk's three non-Broadway winners were the equivalent of Broadway fare: high profile, glitzy. None of the real off-Broadway or off-off-Broadway nominees triumphed. Rarely do they ever break through.

So the Off-Broadway shows that did win awards weren't Off-Broadway enough?

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 5/26/10 at 11:00am

"2.) Keep the awards as they are, but only permit members to vote if they've seen all nominees. Currently, voters are asked to abstain if they haven't seen everything in a given category, but they're not policed as they are at some other award shows. (The Oscars, for example, only permit voting in races like best foreign film and documentary if voters prove they attended special screenings. The Emmys only permit voters to cast ballots in a few races and are strict with voters about proving they viewed sample video of each nominee.)"

Funny how the author mentions other awards that do strictly follow this policy, but neglects to mention the awards most similar to the Drama Desks (Tonys) that do not enforce this rule any more than the Drama Desks. On the official Tony ballot, in very little print, voters are "asked" to abstain voting in categories where they haven't seen all the nominees. That's all the enforcing this rule gets -- they're not even told not to, they're asked.

O'Neill's had a bone to pick with the DD's for years, and every year he writes the same article.

[julesboogie]

Posted: 5/26/10 at 3:44pm

Hmm i think all the award shows might be in need of a rule revamping. Since so much of the livelihood of this business is tied into the awards season, it would be more fair if every show were given the same consideration. I wouldn't wanna vote on a category of shows if i have not seen all of them. Sounds biased.

[dry2olives]

Posted: 5/26/10 at 10:03pm

I'm a Drama Desk voter. I'm also a member of the Broadway League's press list, which means I get invited to more Off and Off-Off Broadway shows than I would if I were only a Drama Desk voter. While the nominating committee has obviously been given press tickets to every show they nominate, shows with limited runs in small theatres often cannot afford to give tickets to all voters. Some will only give tickets after they're nominated and often nominated shows have closed. So if you're a voter who was never invited to see a nominated show, should you abstain and deny yourself the opportunity to support a show you believe should win? That's the decision many Drama Desk voters have to make.

[julesboogie]

Posted: 5/27/10 at 1:37am

Dryolives, thats completely understandable. However, my question raised to that would be. Should those shows with limited space, run length, and financial ability to paper the house be counted out for those reasons? I can definitely see both sides tho. From an outsiders point of view it just seems like it would be more fair if the voters have seen everything. It could keep article writers happier , and i dont know, maybe make the victories feel a little more pure.

[dry2olives]

Posted: 5/27/10 at 10:45am

I totally get your points, julesboogie, and it does frustrate me when so many of what I would consider to be less deserving nominees from Broadway win Drama Desk Awards over my personal choices from Off-Broadway. Perhaps a weighted voting system where the value of a person's vote is determined by how many nominees he/she has seen would help, but that would require drastic changes that the Drama Desk would have to vote on.

[julesboogie]

Posted: 5/27/10 at 11:11am

i like your thinking.