Julie Andrews declined Tony nomination?

[Okayfine]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 4:29pm

I'm sorry if someone already posted about this - I couldn't find it.

The poll on BWW says Julie Andrews declined a Tony nomination. Can anyone tell me a bit about this issue? I can't remember it all all - see what happens when you get old?!

Thanks.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 4:34pm

VICTOR/VICTORIA. The entire show was ignored and she was the only one to receive a Tony nomination. In respect to the show and its ignored creative team and cast, she declined the nomination.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 4:35pm

It was for VICTOR/VICTORIA, back in '96. Basically, she was upset that the Tony committee didn't nominate anyone else in her show. Here's a clip:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=D3-DcIlDW98

Posted: 7/7/08 at 4:36pm

The show wasn't ignored, it was "Egregiously overlooked." Damn, she is one classy broad!!!

[Okayfine]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 4:38pm

Thanks - I had a feeling you'd be the one to fill me in! :)

I also had a feeling that it would be Victor/Victoria. I'm a little surprised at her, though. She always struck me as more elegant than that. Turning down a nomination to show solidarity with one's production is like holding the subway door for one person & inconveniencing the other 500 people on the train. Pat yourself on the back all you like, it's still a tacky thing to do.

[americanboy99]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 4:52pm

I think it was a beautiful statement by Ms. Andrews.

Rachel York, who should have won in the Featured Actress category, was stupidly left out.

[philcrosby]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 4:53pm

Okayfine, in this case, those "egregiously overlooked" included her husband, Blake Edwards who wrote the book and directed.

In retrospect, I think Andrews had a point.

Victor/Victoria should have easily been nominated for at least Best Musical (instead of Chronicle of a Death Foretold or Swinging on a Star) and Best Book (instead of Chronicle), and Tony Roberts for Best Featured Actor (easily over the nominees from Big and State Fair).

You could even argue that V/V's "new" score (lackluster though it was) was more worthy than the three "new" songs from State Fair.

But the show had the most trouble try-out period since The Act and the critics hated everything in the show but Andrews.

[jennyish]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 4:54pm

Except that no one was inconvenienced by Julie's declining the nomination. The show was all but entirely snubbed; I assume she felt that she was being unfairly singled out due to her years of amazing performances and lack of Tony Awards.

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 5:21pm

"...the critics hated everything in the show but Andrews."

Not true. They LOVED Rachel York, and I seem to remember them having great things to say about Robin Wagner's gorgeous set, too.

IMO, York, Wagner, Roberts, and Rob Marshall as choreographer should have been nominated along with Andrews.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 5:45pm

I have to say that I did not approve of Andrews's gesture.

I love her as much as anyone else (well, as much as most people), but I didn't find it a "classy" statement. I think the fact that she was nomninated at all for what was, let's face it, not the greatest show in the world should have been considered a good-will gesture toward the entire production.

Just, of course, my opinion.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 6:00pm

IMO, it makes her look bad. The Tony Awards haven't been taken seriously since the 80s.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 6:15pm

I was absolutely stunned York wasn't nominated when I saw the show, though there was no way she could have beat Duquesnay, who delivered the performance of the year in Noise/Funk. Andrews was probably one of the least deserving noms the show could have received. Her performance was very uneven and she struggled vocally throughout the show (I actually got some inside dirt regarding this when it was running). It was not a great show, but certainly deserved a Best Musical nom over Chronicle (which was mostly described as a train wreck) and Swinging (which was forgotten the day after it opened). V/V wasn't a great show, but it was pretty and it was an enteraining evening. But without Roberts, York and its gorgeous sets, it would have deserved the treatment it received from the Tonys.

I did return for a second viewing to see Liza in the role and I have to admit, she greatly improved the show with her energy and charisma, though I hated the changes in the score (especially the cut of Louis Says).

[broadwayjules]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 6:37pm

I disagree. I don't think this was tacky or made her look bad. She stood behind the cast and the production and graciously declined in an act of solidarity. I'm sure the cast more than appreciated the gesture. What's not classy about showing the people you work with how much they're appreciated and overlooked?

[Roscoe]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 6:55pm

I think Rachel York wasn't nominated because she basically lifted her performance from Lesley Ann Warren, down to line readings. It was pretty shabby to see.

On the other hand, as shabby and virtually plagiaristic as it was, her performance was the only amusing thing about the show. Weak, drab new songs. That "Paris Makes Me Horny" thing is a bold new low in musical comedy writing.

Updated On: 7/7/08 at 06:55 PM

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 7:17pm

It would be classy if she honestly felt the entire production (cast? creative team? just whom did she have in mind?) had been unfairly denied nominations.

I could even understand if Rachel York had declined a nomination if Andrews--a legend, returning to the stage--had not gotten one.

Again, just my opinion, but it seemed peevish.

Though I'm fairly certain that her intentions were of the best. I'm just not certain what point she was making.

[BroadwayBuff4Life]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 8:14pm

This just goes to show what kind of person Andrews is..... she was great in the production though!

[broadwayjules]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 10:06pm

""It would be classy if she honestly felt the entire production (cast? creative team? just whom did she have in mind?) had been unfairly denied nominations.""

Ok, so how do you know what she was feeling? And her point seems clear...she said she wanted to stand with those who were overlooked. I don't know why this is so debated, it's not like she got anything out of it by not accepting a Tony nom. But like you said, just my opinion.

[Patash]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 10:17pm

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 10:27pm

I don't know what she was feeling, Jules--any more than you do.

And again I ask the (rhetorical) question: what would have made the nomination acceptable? Another nomination? Nomination for all the actors? For her husband? Whom, exactly, was overlooked?

I suppose I just don't see Tony nominations as package deals--"love me, love my company."

But I reiterate that I cannot imagine Ms. Andrews's motives were anything other than pure in her own mind. I simply don't agree her decision.
Updated On: 7/8/08 at 10:27 PM

Posted: 7/7/08 at 10:32pm

The Tonys pull crap like this all the time. They didn't like it for whatever reason and wouldn't nominate it because HAD they nominated it, it would have won a few awards. Aida anyone?

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 10:34pm

In that case, Joe, I could only have assumed that the Tony nominators saw a drastically different show than the one I saw.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 10:37pm

As if being nominated for a Tony meant anything. Julie Andrews declined because the cast and creative team were snubbed by a Hollywood-hating Tony committee. V/V was better, creatively, than most things on Broadway that year. It had the best set of any show on Broadway. No nomination for it? Outrageous! She was right to decline it. Julie Andrews certainly doesn't need a Tony Award.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 10:48pm

And her full speech:

https://www.broadwayworld.com/videoplay.cfm?colid=25034&a=on

[Not Barker, Todd.]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 11:04pm

I thought it was a classy and honest thing to do.

[broadwayjules]

Posted: 7/7/08 at 11:24pm

You're right Reg, I also don't know what she was feeling, nor do I know under what circumstances she would have accepted the nom. I don't think she felt any one person was overlooked, in my opinion I believe she was just passionate about the project she was working on, and perhaps felt some of her hard working cast were missed. Whether the show was good or not is irrelevant, it's what she felt. We agree that her motives were pure, her reasoning however may be unknown. Either way, I admire what she did.