I am very happy "Pajama Game" won. I said prior to the award ceremony that the one big upset I would like to see was PJG beating out "Sweeney," but I never thought it would actually happen.
I agree with another poster in that "Sweeney" isn't really a revival. If it's reviving anything, it's John Doyle's London production, but really nothing more. For me (and this is personal opinion here,) I would think the "Best Revival" would be one that does something in the same vein as it's predecessor but changes things and reinvents to the point of improving on it, as "Pajama Game" did. In a sense... modifying an old idea to function even better than it did in it's older format (but they keyword is MODIFYING, and still keeping aspects of the previous product... not changing it completely, as "Sweeney" did.)
"Sweeney" doesn't really attempt to "revive" anything about the previous incarnation in the least, and not just with the actors playing the instruments. Alot of the performances are also complete 180's from their predecessors (Lupone being the obvious one in that area,) When so many things are done SO different, it is hard for me to give a "Best Revival" Tony to Sweeney, because there are so many things disconected from the original. I think it would have been alot smarter to just use an orchestra and at least relate back to the original in some form while still doing new things. I actually prefered the 2001 San Francisco concert production to this one, because I still believe that Doyle lost alot of the humor in the show. "A Little Priest" is a PERFECT example... Hearn and Lupone made it just so hysterical, using alot of really great facial expressions, but Patti is so held back and Cerveris never lets up from his dreary mood that alot of that humor is lost (although both still turn in great work here.) Patti especially dissapointed me, because she was so hysterical in that concert, from her manerisms to her delivery, and although I understand that she wanted to try a different approach to the character this time around, I felt the other one worked much better.
For the people who say "Sweeney" had so many more challenges to face than "Pajama Game," I completely disagree. Yes "Sweeney" had the daunting shadow of the original production, but that was about it. The concept and staging of this production had already been tested with a London run to great success, and they pretty much knew the show would work if they could find an audience. By getting names like Lupone and Cerveris, they could get their audience. "Pajama Game" had a unique challenge that "Sweeney" didn't that I find a little more difficult: could a show so stuck in the past still ring true for modern audiences? For a show talking about raises for "seven and half cents" and just being so old fashioned, "Pajama Game" really had to work to get people to still enjoy it and still find the great things about the show even today. They also got names like Connick and O'Hara to find their audience, but I think the challenge they faced of making this show still relevant and still something audiences would want to see today should be recognized too.
Regardless, as someone else said, we should be happy that we had revivals good enough this year to spark such a fierce debate. Let's hope next years are just as great!
Tonya Pinkins: Then we had a "Lot's Wife" last June that was my personal favorite. I'm still trying to get them to let me sing it at some performance where we get to sing an excerpt that's gone.
Tony Kushner: You can sing it at my funeral.
Updated On: 6/12/06 at 12:27 PM
