PARADISE SQUARE WHAT AM I MISSING ?

Think something that's missing from this conversation is that the industry is keenly aware that so many were out of work for so long and the company at Paradise Square is BIG and would put many out of work should it close. Not saying that should be a consideration for awards based on the merits of the show, but I do think it could be a factor in nominator considerations.

Typically the show will either take out a priority loan that gets paid back before investors or they bring in an angel investor that bankrolls the losses for the weeks they're prepared to run. There's almost always zero chance either scenario gets paid back. If I remember correctly, Bright Star had to take out a second priority loan post-Tony nominations to keep the show running long enough to make it to the ceremony. And in a year they had no chance at winning, they were banking on a Tony performance giving them a lift. I'm sure PS is hoping for the same with showing a big production number, but it's a self-fulfilling prophecy more times than not.

carolynbrooks said: "I am sure that those more attune to Broadway history and Tony voter eccentricities can weigh in - BUT, a show that is not selling , has horribly dated and invisible marketing, dim prospects for touring and was hardly a critical darling garners 10 nominations? Perhaps it's subject matter, or Drabinsky style vote courting, guilt or just a plain weak season, regardless, who will now pay for subsequent weeks of limp grosses and print ads, not to mention lightbulbs for that lamp post? Is it just me, or Drabinsky and LeDonne the only one making money here?"

First, you are confounding voters and nominators. Second, none of the things you mention factor into the nominations. Third, the question of who will pay is not a new one since the show has been without funds since the get-go so the answer is both that whoever has been presumably will continue to, and it's a mystery. Fourth, while Drabinsky is presumably being paid the producer fee, it is not enough money to attract the attention of a fraudster. Finally, no one else is or could be making money on the producer side. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

This show has always had two nominations on lock (lead actress, choreography). The choreography is pretty well done, mostly fun and interesting. I'm agnostic on it winning but it very well could. Joaquina Kalukango was incredible. She has tough competition in Clarke and she may not take it this year, but she has multiple tony winner written all over her if given the opportunity. Lighting was also excellent and unsurprising.

Otherwise it's competing against a relatively weak field for those 4th/5th technical spots and a lot of them aren't surprising. Costumes and set were fine. Even score, which sounds ridiculous for it to have received at first, it only beat out Diana and Doubtfire. The one that is egregious is book. The book was bad.

Other than book, Supporting Actor is the slot that is most surprising. Clayborn Elder, Jefferson Mays, Chris Fitzgerald, maybe David Paymer, Shuler Hensley, Christopher Sieber, most of whom already have nominations or awards and are in better shows, well, they all probably thought if they lost out on a nomination it would be to another of them. I'm very surprised by both nominations. What DuPont and Shivley have going for them is probably their strength in the strong choreo. They do pull it off. Was Sydney's dancing better than Fitzgerald's comedy? I mean, no, but I'm not the most upset about it. Company men have not historically gotten featured Tony noms (1 across the last 3 productions, although with the gender swap it gets a little muddled). Critically, MM has not done much better than PS, although I would probably go Sydney/Mays if I was picking two from those two.

After all of that, a musical nomination just follows. The people who took Sydney over Clayborn Elder clearly liked PS more than those other shows in that last slot. I'd imagine if there were only 5 nominations in the category that PS misses out.

To answer your original question, what you seem to be missing is seeing the show. It's poor reviews are unsurprising and largely deserved, but where PS shines it shines bright, and it was just lucky that there was a lot of weak this year.

Let It Burn will be the best performance at the Tony's.

I was initially surprised by all the nominations, but now I’ve realized that it’s not TOO shocking. I walked out thinking that if the show was just the sun of its parts it would be incredible, but as a whole it just doesn’t come together at all (and that can largely be blamed on its book, which I’d guess is being awarded for concept more than content). So it seems the overall quality didn’t drag down the strength of the individual components. And as for the featured actors, although I didn’t expect any to get nominated, I walked out thinking both who were plus Nathaniel Stampley all could have a shot.

and with a gross of $196,000 last week - who is ordering what shiva meal ?

carolynbrooks said: "and with a gross of $196,000 last week - who is ordering what shiva meal ?"

I almost spit out my coffee!! Oh my that’s hilarious!

carolynbrooks said: "and with a gross of $196,000 last week - who is ordering what shiva meal ?"

I’ll take a bagel and tuna.

But really… something’s got to give regarding this show and these numbers. If 10 Tony noms - including Best Musical - won’t entice more people to see this one, I don’t know what will.

I swear, if Joaquina does not close their Tony performance with (a portion of?) “Let It Burn”, it would be a big mistake - the same one Jagged Little Pill made last year by shying away from “You Oughta Know.”

Updated On: 5/10/22 at 06:20 PM

The Cast is one of the best on Broadway. Anyone male or female from the cast could be plunked into Funny Girland ad Fanny Brice and Funny Girl would improve 10 fold. That is how talented that cast is.


And it shows.

The set is lovely and it works.

The material not so much----- but there is so much good work on that stage.

The singing sounds great. The performers are great. They sing the songs superbly. Unfortunately, the songs they are singing are not great.

Some of the dancing (although there is too much of it and i have never said that being a dance lover) is wonderful. So much clogging.

The plot makes no sense. There are two interacially couples circa 1866 but interacial couples were illegal in New York City until 1888. This already sinks the plot.

Too many book writers and the show goes in too many directions with too many characters each
given a song. Not a good song but a well excecuted mediocre song.

One character, a runaway slave needs to run to Canada to escape but instead of running he comes down stage and sings a song with an awful ballet in the backround! He also comes back to win a dance contest instead of going to Canada.

The plot and book are so unbelievable and convoluted

But the talent on that stage is undeniable. I think the Tony Nominators are awarding talent. And Awarding an underdog. So it won't win for best musical but a nod to that wonderful ensemble is nice.

Updated On: 5/10/22 at 09:59 PM

EDSOSLO858 said: "carolynbrooks said: "and with a gross of $196,000 last week - who is ordering what shiva meal ?"

I’ll take a bagel and tuna.”"

And skip the lox? Now THAT'S offensive.