Fela will win best musical — Page 3

posters on this thread keep saying the tonys (no apostrophe people) will lose credibility if 'fela' wins. but exactly what merit does the tonys have outside of theatre people? even some theatre people consider it a joke.

'fela' is actually bringing people to broadway that have never been before. isn't that something we should support? just because the bww community is so up in arms because 'fela' doesn't fit the typical musical theatre mold, doesn't mean it's a bad show. hate to break it to you people, but critics and dramaturgs know A LOT more about theatre than the majority of people on this board (including myself), and they LOVE 'fela'.

'fela' has more artistic merit than another musical based on a cartoon and the revue of a composer's work (as much as i love me some sondheim). why can't you people be open to new things? it makes me really sad that whenever something different comes along, everyone attacks it. i promise, if shows like 'fela' are successful, it doesn't mean your beloved 'wicked' will suffer. there will ALWAYS be the type of cliche musical theatre that you guys love on broadway. can't you give the rest of us something that's ours?

end rant.

---

I don't think Fela will win but it will most definitely be nominated. I saw it and didn't hate it but didn't like it. Not because it wasn't the "traditional musical" but because the way the story of Fela's life was told failed to grab my attention.

Yes he/it/they would have. The show and the boys got arguably the best reviews of the season, including a rave (for the show and performance) from Ben Brantley. Sure, he preferred Next to Normal and Gavin Creel in the end, but you can't say that the show and the performances were not loved across the board.

~Steven

Not to drag this argument up again, but no, he/it/they didn't. Brantley (and others in the press) made it quite clear what their preference was, but the road voters spoke and awarded the bigger touring show, as they usually do. And the little boys who can't sing or act winning was a travesty, but how can you not vote for cute little 11 year olds?

Not to drag this argument up again, but no, he/it/they didn't. Brantley (and others in the press) made it quite clear what their preference was, but the road voters spoke and awarded the bigger touring show, as they usually do.

Or perhaps those that weren't "road voters" chose Billy Elliot as well. When I saw the show in London, my very first reaction was, "This is going to win Best Musical". I loved Next to Normal and I'm not sure which way I would vote. I think there were pros and cons to both shows, but ultimately, I was floored by Billy Elliot, which exceeded my expectations. It's not unlikely voters were impressed by the show as well.

And the little boys who can't sing or act winning was a travesty, but how can you not vote for cute little 11 year olds?

I didn't see the Broadway cast, but I've a feeling they might have been strong enough to land the role to have been cast out of thousands who auditioned. It's just a theory. The Billy I saw in London Could sing, act and dance. He was immensely talented for his age.

---

followyourbliss,
by your rationale of a show "bringing people to theater who have never been before and that show should be supported", i guess we should all support Rock of Ages as well seeing as it is bringing a WHOLE demographic to theater who never even knew it existed before.

So let's celebrate ROA! :) seeing as it's bringing the other 250 million people in this country to musical theater and not just the 50 million who actually care about it. :)

^ agreed. 'roa' is drop dead funny. one of the wittiest books to hit broadway since 'avenue q'. i'm all for celebrating it. great idea massofmen!

---

Not to drag this argument up again, but no, he/it/they didn't. Brantley (and others in the press) made it quite clear what their preference was, but the road voters spoke and awarded the bigger touring show, as they usually do. And the little boys who can't sing or act winning was a travesty, but how can you not vote for cute little 11 year olds?

You're making it sound as if Billy Elliot had no fans from the critics or anyone else, only road voters and tourists. I will reiterate that it got the best reviews of the season, as did the boys playing the title role (again, Ben Brantley was one of those critics that gave it a rave review). So to say that Billy Elliot has no artistic merit is completely false. It's like saying August: Osage County, which got similar reviews, has no artistic merit. Clearly, Billy Elliot was loved by the critics. There were critics who were rooting for the show and for the boys all the way, including Charles Isherwood (wasn't he also hoping for David Bologna to win?). One person's opinion isn't everyone's. The consensus among critics, and voters apparently, is that Billy Elliot deserved to win. In no way was anyone in the media sour by this fact.

And not to bring this up again, but singing well isn't a prerequisite for winning a Tony. I dare you to strip Elaine Stritch's Tony and various nominations from her. Do you think Christian Hoff or Dan Fogler or Rex Harrison or John Lithgow or Martin Short or Glynis Johns or Boyd Gaines or Dick Latessa or Harvey Fierstein or Marissa Jaret Winokur gave the best sung performances those years? The role of Billy Elliot was written so the actor playing him does not necessarily have to have the best singing voice. Smart choice on the creators' part. Please go find me 11-year-old triple threats who can sing, dance, and act that role better than those three original boys and then we can discuss merits. There are Broadway actors who publicly voice their opinion about the tremendous job those boys did, saying that the role is similar to Hamlet in terms of difficulty and that they were up to the task. Was there any other performance that season that demanded multiple standing ovations throughout the show? Can you do a better job or name anyone else who can do a better job than they did in that role? To me, no one else stood out among the other nominees, including Gavin and Brian, who did admirable jobs. Please, if people were voting for "cuteness," how could they not vote for Gavin?

~Steven

Agreed. Alice Ripley can't sing to save her life. But I love the "cast recording" regardless.

---

Updated On: 3/17/10 at 07:26 PM

HeyMrMusic - was that entire reply directed at me? Because I don't recall ever bringing up Billy in this entire thread - you must be thinking of somebody else.

And clearly my Alex/Alice typo was just that... a typo. Why on Earth do the members of this board feel the urge to correct every typo on every page. I never realized posting on a forum was as important as a term paper!

---

It could win ... then again it may not.

it's a perfect example of how some purists & fanatics can't except any different types of music and narrative on a broadway stage. god forbid broadway evolve and experiment...

Exactly.

"can't you give the rest of us something that's ours?"
What does that even mean?

It means God help us if there's a critically acclaimed show on Broadway that isn't made to appeal to the upper middle class white theatre nerds posting here.

---

it's a perfect example of how some purists & fanatics can't except any different types of music and narrative on a broadway stage. god forbid broadway evolve and experiment...

I agree, except that it should be "accept" if you truly want your point taken seriously.

It means God help us if there's a critically acclaimed show on Broadway that isn't made to appeal to the upper middle class white theatre nerds posting here.

Didn't you get the memo? Broadway should only ever represent the Golden Age, a brief period of its history that represents an anomaly rather than the norm. We should all forget the origins of Broadway and the majority of its history and claim that all shows should be produced for a teeny minority of the American population (international audiences/artists really shouldn't be allowed in NYC in the first place, much less in Broadway theatres). Nothing should ever be produced for strictly entertainment value or with the intent of commercial success, and no target demographics representing families, the lower and middle classes, or anyone without a 4-year college degree or better (that should take care of the riff-raff who pollute Broadway theatres and BWW in general). And all revivals should only be produced in their original form, regardless whether it was successful or not, so that creativity can be properly stifled and every single show can become a living relic in order to placate the most obsessive enthusiasts.

Broadway's goal has always been to alienate the public, reduce audiences, lose money, and appease the smallest percentage of theatre-goers in the hopes that Broadway will wither and die as quickly as possible. Only true musical theatre fans agree.

---

Updated On: 3/18/10 at 11:52 AM