it's interesting that Isherwood reviewed AIP and Brantley Fun Home. But I think that Fun Home is the more experimental piece of theatre, done in the round as well, should be rewarded for the risks it takes.
As for the year it most resembles, I would venture to say that would be Millie vs Urinetown, with a more traditional show and then a more experimental, off broadway transfer.
Isherwood’s picks seem particularly odd. I feel like his “Will Win” categories are also what he thinks “Should Win.” He seems blinded by his love for “AAIP” or his (possible) dislike of “Fun Home.”
My favorite part of the Isherwood article, however, is this correction at the bottom:
An earlier version of this article misspelled the given name of the actress nominated for her role in “The Audience.” She is Helen Mirren, not Melen.
Ishwerwood said on Theater Talk last year that he didn't like FUN HOME. So did that moronic woman who writes "reviews" for the Post. It only added fuel to Michael Riedel's homophobic, tin-eared fire. Thank God for Jesse Green.
Vincentelli likes Fun Home, but didn't love it. They both had problems with the structure of the show. If it were up to me, Theater Talk would just be Suzan, Pattrick, Jesse, and Michael.
"Brantley was really afraid of offending one of his pets. He didn't pick between Kelli and Kristin for the SHOULD win, which makes me roll my eyes a bit. C'mon. If you're a voter, for whom are you voting? You can't pick 2. Also, someone should inform him that John Cariani was not eligible in the Featured category."
While they're at it, they should tell him that some of his predictions aren't even on Broadway…….
Oh of course. Nobody needs that misogynist and homophobic pig on TV. Especially poor Suzan, who I think actually has the most insightful comments on the show. Then again, it's her show and she could fire Riedl at any moment but doesn't, so they must not actually hate each other.
"While they're at it, they should tell him that some of his predictions aren't even on Broadway……."
Or maybe you should read the fine print in the Times articles:
"For the Should Have Been Nominated category, the Times’s critics were allowed to expand the potential nominees to Off Broadway productions, which are ineligible for the Tonys. But they didn’t consider “Hamilton,” which is moving to Broadway."
They put actors in whatever category they feel they should be placed. As with the shows not eligible for Tonys because they are not in a Broadway house, they don't go by the Tony eligibility rules. I remember Brantley saying Aaron Tveit should have been nominated for Leading Actor in a Musical the year Next toNormal was up (he was considered featured at the Tonys).
It doesn't make the Tonys right either. For the Oscars, nominators put actors in whatever category they like despite what the actor/studio promotes "for your consideration." I don't see how it's wrong or any different here. (Like Brantley or Isherwood even care or pay attention to Tony eligibility!)
I remember reading a quote from Isherwood last year around this time that he hates Fun Home. I haven't seen An American in Paris, but I had no idea it would be a frontrunner. I thought Best Musical would be between Fun Home and Something Rotten.