Fela will win best musical- Page 3

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 3/16/10 at 3:32am

It's been a while since the Tony was actually based on artistic merit. If it was, that little ballerina wouldn't have taken it last year.

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

[followyourbliss23]

Posted: 3/16/10 at 8:52am

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.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 3/16/10 at 9:18am

I saw FELA. I consider it a bad show. And not just because it's different.

On a similar note, you can't say that it has more artistic merit than another show just BECAUSE it's different. At least THE ADDAMS FAMILY has a new story and a new score. Shouldn't that give it more artistic merit than a biographical show using preexisting songs?

Finally, know your audience. I know you were ranting, but still, WICKED is hardly beloved by this board, as a whole.

[ActingIsLovee]

Posted: 3/16/10 at 9:52am

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.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/16/10 at 11:43am

It's been a while since the Tony was actually based on artistic merit. If it was, that little ballerina wouldn't have taken it last year.

"That little ballerina"? I can see why you didn't like it. Sounds like you didn't agree with the point of the story.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 3/16/10 at 12:28pm

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?

[Trainwreck]

Posted: 3/16/10 at 12:29pm

"it doesn't mean your beloved 'wicked' will suffer"

Generally speaking, Wicked is not loved on this board. I may be the exception. That being said, I've never seen Fela, but it looks sort of boring to me.

"can't you give the rest of us something that's ours?"

What does that even mean?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/16/10 at 1:02pm

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.

[massofmen]

Posted: 3/16/10 at 1:54pm

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. :)

[massofmen]

Posted: 3/16/10 at 1:54pm

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. :)

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/16/10 at 2:00pm

I'm all for supporting any show I've found wildly entertaining, which includes Rock of Ages. I had a great time.

[followyourbliss23]

Posted: 3/16/10 at 2:08pm

^ 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!

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 3/16/10 at 3:53pm

Rock of Ages is great. It's a clever, postmodern, wildly entertaining satire. It absolutely should be celebrated.

It was my second favorite new musical last year, after Billy Elliot. Yep, that means I prefer it to N2N. AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 3/16/10 at 5:59pm

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

[adamgreer]

Posted: 3/16/10 at 6:36pm

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).

Stage Grade gives both shows an average grade of A-, but next to normal received a higher grade (A+) from Brantley than Billy did. So, reiterate all you want, but it's simply not true.

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.

Also not true. Go look at the articles published last June where the critics were asked to debate the "who should win/ who will win question. The vast majority chose n2n as the should win, with all saying BE would win. Big difference.

And not to bring this up again, but singing well isn't a prerequisite for winning a Tony.

I never said it was, so don't put words in my mouth. Look at Alice Ripley from that same year.

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.

That's not my job, I'm not the show's casting director, but neither of the boys I saw in the original company (Alvarez and Kulish) could act at all. It was incredibly amateurish.

Can you do a better job or name anyone else who can do a better job than they did in that role?

Again, I'm not an actor nor the show's casting director, so I don't see how this is relevant.

[Trainwreck]

Posted: 3/16/10 at 7:26pm

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]

Posted: 3/16/10 at 8:41pm

Alex Ripley? Surely you mean Alice Ripley. :)

And I think you're missing my point. Next to Normal was not the only show praised by the critics. An A- review is an amazing grade, just shy of a perfect one. If only other Best Musical winners had that high a grade. You clearly don't like the show and have a bias against it, and frankly it sounds like you take it personally. I was less than enthused about Next to Normal but loved the performances and orchestrations and am super happy it won Tonys for those aspects. But you're foolish to think no one outwardly loved Billy the way you love Normal.

And I know Brantley liked Next to Normal more. We read the same reviews.

~Steven
Updated On: 3/16/10 at 08:41 PM

[Trainwreck]

Posted: 3/17/10 at 3:20am

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!

[tazber]

Posted: 3/17/10 at 7:56am

Lol, I didn't think it was typo, I just thought you were being snarky.

[JMPlayer6]

Posted: 3/17/10 at 8:43am

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

[bjh2114]

Posted: 3/17/10 at 10:07am

Stage Grade gives both shows an average grade of A-, but next to normal received a higher grade (A+) from Brantley than Billy did. So, reiterate all you want, but it's simply not true.

Adamgreer, to be fair that was Stage Grade's prerogative, which I happen to disagree with. Brantley's review for Billy was an all out rave, as was his review for N2N. He DID say N2N should win, but that doesn't mean that his review wasn't a rave. He didn't assign an A- to his own review. A third party did. After re-reading it, it sounds like an A+ review to me.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 3/17/10 at 6:00pm

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.

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 3/18/10 at 2:36am

Trainwreck, only that first line was directed at you. And I was just poking fun, thus the smiley face after I wrote that line. No worries, I ain't no grammer [sic] police!

~Steven

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/18/10 at 11:52am

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

[Trainwreck]

Posted: 3/18/10 at 2:28pm

Mister Matt - You just beat the internet. Grats.