Most Tony Nominations without a Win

The Scottsboro Boys got 12 nominations and no wins.

I love Kelli so much and it breaks my heart that such a wonderful performer keeps getting denied a Tony. She should have gotten one for The Light in the Piazza. Truthfully, though, at times, I feel that she performs all of her roles in a similar fashion. Most of the roles she has gotten (except for Clara in Piazza) are such "Kelli O'Hara roles," if that makes sense?

So much politics goes into anything. I think Scottsboro Boys was pretty astounding and should have swept the awards, but it didn't. So oh well. But O'hara is great, but she has yet to deliver that performance. She's great in the sense that I know that I'm going to get my money's worth, and she'll sound beautiful. But she hasn't delivered that performance that I'm like This is it.

http://www.tonyawards.com/en_US/history/facts/

Kelli O'Hara is just the ultimate bridesmaid because she does seem to go up against that one person who just seems to be better even though she herself was worthy of a Tony.

The biggest instance of this was SOUTH PACIFIC for me and I would argue PIAZZA as well, but I debate between her and Ramirez sometimes because she certainly did steal Spamalot from everyone and her facial expressions alone were hysterical....it just hurts because I really didn't care for Spamalot.

I would say her only nomination where I felt she was an "also-ran" of sorts was for Nice Work If You Can Get It.

I still say she should have won for BRIDGES and perhaps for PIAZZA as well.

And this year, while it wouldn't be a record or anything, I could see Something Rotten going 0-10.

Updated On: 4/30/15 at 08:13 AM

I agree that O'Hara is always lovely, always adept, always committed, and never surprising. And she's never made me laugh (particularly in that exceptionally unfunny Encores production of Bells Are Ringing). She's kind of like Doris Day (who I love), but without any of the wackiness.

I feel the same, I admit, about Audra McDonald (except for the Day comparison). But I admit that I place a higher priority on being surprised (I think) than most audience members do.

I can see the argument that Kelli's Anna - which I personally enjoyed very much - is of that respectable-but-lacking-that-certain-something mold.

But I can't say that about any other performance I've seen her do.
And I vehemently disagree that "she performs all of her roles in a similar fashion."

Her exquisitely underplayed and so lovably warm Nellie battling her own bigotry, her scrappy, pratffalling Billie showing an unexpected gift for physical comedy, her heartbreaking and brightly charming Amalia (in concert) and her stalwart Anna, gutsily skirting (sorry) the edge of imperious overreach, for instance, are utterly distinguishable women.

O'Hara clearly brings a great deal of herself to all of these portrayals. But so do all great actors in their triumphs.

Ironically, its not Kelli but Kristin - who, I agree, deserves this year's Tony because as Lily she's giving the performance of her life as well as the performance of the season, in a role that suits her like a glove - who, while just as prodigious an artist as Kelli, has a far more limited range.

That's not at all the slight so many might quickly believe it to be. Or even a left handed compliment. Range is a wonderful thing but it's far from everything. It's an impressive but not necessary ingredient for a star.
Some of the greatest talents in history - and Chenoweth is doubtless one of the greats - have limited range.

***

Yes, I can honestly say that both O'Hara and McDonald are great actresses.

***

Yes, it's ultimately a subjective art form.

Updated On: 4/30/15 at 09:03 AM

"Kelli is clearly your favourite, and you are not going to like or accept anyone disagreeing with you. Anyone who thinks the opposite in your eyes is just 'wrong'. And in that respect, I feel sorry for you that you cant accept others opinion"

Well that's simply untrue. Yes, Kelli is A favorite of mine (though I have many), though that is because she has EARNED my respect. I don't go into a new performance of hers expecting to love it. In fact, I often go in afraid that I'm finally going to be disappointed. But her ability to constantly thrill me time after time with varied performances and versatility is what puts me in awe of her. It's not a blind devotion but rather a well deserved one.

But I would never say someone who has an opinion contrary to mine is wrong. I am very accepting of others' opinions. In fact, I'm one of the most objective fans you will find on these boards. But allow me to explain my point on this topic another way. If you don't enjoy Kelli's performances because they are unappealing to you, fine. If they don't satisfy your expectations, fine. But to call them "bland" is absurd. As far as I'm concerned, "bland" is not subjective term, but rather an objective one. To classify something as "bland" is to call it unseasoned or emotionless. So by calling Kelli bland, you are essentially saying that she puts no thought into her performances, that she has no highs and lows, and that she doesn't exhibit character traits appropriate for those whom she is playing. This is simply untrue. Maybe you don't like her performances, but any fool can tell that she puts a lot of thought into each performance, as so brilliantly laid out by henrik above (beautiful post, by the way, henrik). So again, if you don't happen to like the way she performs, that's fine. I have no problem with that. But if you ACTUALLY think that Kelli is bland, then I will repeat my original claim, which is that you wouldn't know a nuanced performance if it bit you on the nose.

Oh I don't disagree that she was phenomenal in both of those shows! Again, I love her. But having emotional range doesn't make you a GREAT actress. It makes you an actress. You should be able to convey a range of emotions if you're going to star in a Broadway show. And just think of the number of actresses from past eras who would have killed all of the roles Audra has done from an acting standpoint. I'm not saying Audra isn't wonderful, but she certainly isn't one of the greatest actresses of all time.

I wonder if there is truth to the rumor that Kelli was overlooked last year in favor of Jessie Mueller because it was assumed that she would win this year for The King and I?

What's the use of wond'rin'? We'll never know and it's the same BS speculations from fans and/or Riedel we get every year when a beloved actress doesn't win. Mueller won because she got the most votes. The only way to know why is to ask every voter. Personally, I find it pretty silly to believe the voters were checking their ballots thinking, "Eh...she'll win it next year anyway, so I'll vote for my second choice". Is that really more plausible to believe than the fans drum up delusions to make themselves feel better?

"I am not sure that I am able to get past Audra winning over Cristin Millioti."

Wow, I've honestly never heard anybody say that before. Did you see Audra's performance in Porgy and Bess? It was incredible. It was such a tour-de-force performance from both an acting and singing perspective. Millioti was good, and definitely deserving of her nomination, but the idea that she had a snowball's chance in hell against Audra's Bess is unimaginable to me.

Updated On: 4/30/15 at 11:38 AM

"I'm not saying Audra isn't wonderful, but she certainly isn't one of the greatest actresses of all time."

That's a pretty high bar to set and a distinction that could be applied, without hyperbole, to maybe like 10 actresses in the history of the profession. I wouldn't rank Audra as one of the best actresses of all time, but of actresses currently working--especially those working primarily in theater? Absolutely.