Kudos to Jonathan Pyrce -His Response to the Replacement Tony Award Debacle

Replacement Tonys should be annual awards as sometimes replacements are better than the originals

---

Not since the heady days of Beergoggles have I so enjoyed reading the British slang:

"It was really their cock-up, and they should have admitted that."

---

"What kind of criterion is that?" snaps Pryce. "Is this supposed to be an award for Best Actor From Another Planet?"
Fierstein says he thinks the replacement award is "creepy."

That article is HILARIOUS.

---

How shallow and graceless to place such emphasis on such a meaningless award. So much for love of craft and profession. For shame, Pryce.





Newland Archer
Newport, Rhode Island


I feel that he handled it with a lot of class and has every right to be upset...and you're saying all this as someone who signs their posts! For shame to you, Archer person!

Updated On: 5/19/06 at 11:31 PM

Pyrce did not sugarcoat it or dance around the issue. He attacked the topic with just cause and he made some solid points.

"How shallow and graceless to place such emphasis on such a meaningless award. So much for love of craft and profession. For shame, Pryce."

Meaningless to whom? You? Were you up for the award? Who says he doesn't love his craft or profession? And in case you didn't notice, the Tony Committee were the ones to place the emphasis on the award in the first place. There's nothing shallow or graceless in Pryce's response to the double backhanded slap he received from the Committee.

"I don't think Pryce handled it with any class. I much preferred Harvey's response."

I thought what he said was perfectly valid and appropriate.

"I don't think that was particularly tactful of Pryce - it makes him seem incredibly bitter, and also makes it seem that he is only doing the show for an award, imo."

What gives you that impression? I don't think it sounds particularly bitter, but it certainly is a pointed response, which seems entirely appropriate. The committee announced this new category, for which there was much press, and for which Pryce was eligible in a role for which he has gotten positive reviews (as did Fierstein). Then to be told that you weren't "worthy". And then to find that the Tony Committe couldn't even follow their own guidelines, and the entire category, for which there was much hubbub, was not even taken seriously enough by the Committee to bother to attend the performances according to their own criteria. It's an insult with a kick in the ass. I don't think Pryce is obligated to say something tactful and I believe he handled with with as much class as the situation deserved. The Committee is behaving like a bumbling group of Junior High stooges.

---

I agree, he as every right to be upset, as the award seems only to not go nominated nor awarded as the committee messed it up. Shame on them.

I have no problem with Pryce's remarks.

Perhaps "replacements" should simply be allowed to compete for best actor, etc., rather than have their own category or special award. Maybe restrict it to allowing only one replacement to compete in an acting category per season.

Having suggested this, I realize an original performer will have an advantage when the voting takes place simply because they have created a part. A replacement will have a tough time winning the award. But a nomination would at least be recognition.

"Sure, they screwed up, but it's the first year so let's cut them a little slack. People are getting WAY too worked up about this."

what are you talking about? if it's the first year, they should be adamant about the rules and following them, thus setting a strong precedent for future years. if you're not strong coming out of the gate, how do you expect people to follow for future years to follow?

if they didn't want to take this award seriously, they shouldn't have even bothered trying to make it a reality in the first place. you can't raise people's hopes and then just say, "oooops, nevermind"

---

Updated On: 5/20/06 at 01:59 PM

Jonathan Pyrce took on the role as a favor to his friend, John Lithgow. He did not take the role in order to win some award like was claimed and it is insulting to the man to insuate that. That is cheapening his hard work and fine performances.

"if it's the first year, they should be adamant about the rules and following them, thus setting a strong precedent for future years. if you're not strong coming out of the gate, how do you expect people to follow for future years to follow?

if they didn't want to take this award seriously, they shouldn't have even bothered trying to make it a reality in the first place. you can't raise people's hopes and then just say, "oooops, nevermind""

I completely disagree. There is always trial and error involved in creating new awards. Call this the previews and next season opening night. Crtics don't review shows until the opening, so don't criticize the Tony committee for not having all of their kinks worked out. Jonathan Pryce has ALREADY gotten HUGE recognition for being an amazing replacement, he doesn't need the award to prove it. And, p.s., we don't know how many votes he even received. It only said 16 people attended. What if 3 of those people voted for him and the rest abstained? The award rules specify that there doesn't NEED to be a winner each year, so by no means can we assume he WOULD have won had the entire committee attended.

Updated On: 5/20/06 at 05:17 PM

"If you need 66% (16/24) and only 16 people went to see it, they should have just made 11/16 votes necessary to win."

Right, fine, dandy, whatever. But my point is...who is to say that he received even 11 votes? We don't know, he could have gotten 5.