Pia Zadora and the Golden Globes, meet Hugh Jackman and the Tonys

Is it possible that Oz got so many nominations (most of them slot-fillers, in my opinion, and one huge mistake in the featured actress category) because Hugh is hosting the awards? Hmmmm, I wonder . . .

Updated On: 5/10/04 at 02:50 PM

What Jo said

IMHO, the nominations were well deserved. Except for the Book one, that surprised me. I love the show but even I can't say it has a book worthy of Peter Allen's life and Hugh Jackman's talent.

Look, I'm not disagreeing with you that Ann Harada should have Fowler's spot or that the Best Book nomination was hilariously off-base, but I do disagree somewhat with your assessment of the cause of those nominations. If they wanted to boost BFO's profile, they could have done it in the Orchestration and Choreography categories. Surely BFO's choreography is better than Wicked's? Not to mention that no one would have objected too much if Mitchel David Federan got a nod for Best Featured Actor. The voters make nominations for any number of reasons, but I'm not seeing a pro-Hugh conspiracy here.

It is absolutely ridiculous to compare the uber-talented Hugh Jackman to the rather horrifyingly awful Pia Zadora. Granted BFO isn't the greatest show on broadway (I'm not a fan of pop song catalogue shows), but Pia Zadora had a very rich husband who pretty much bought the Golden Globe award for her. Having seen Hugh in BFO, imho, he was wonderful (yes, in a weak show) and deserves every bit of attention he is getting.

My feeling about OZ: Had it and BOMBAY been switched in the season, OZ's reviews would've still be dismissive, but more affectionate toward the damned thing's entertainment value. As this season has progressed, and we've faced some dreary stuff (BOMBAY included perhaps) OZ now feels more like an honest to God good time. The book nomination is a surprise, but all of the others? In the eye of the beholder.

Not everybody, by the way, is as enchanted with Avenue Q as some of the posters are. Perhaps one must be weaned on Sesame Street to fully appreciate the milieu and the lexicon that it charmingly employs. Some people can't warm to a show built around puppetry, and somewhat collegiate, skit-styled humor, no matter how clever. For many others, BOY FROM OZ, despite it's "bisexual" hero, is basically good old fashioned broadway. A song and dance man story. A tap dancing kid who gets his name in lights. A loving momma. And Judy and Liza -- as supporting players! I think it's fair to say, there will always be different camps that find different entertainment values in everything they see.

---

Updated On: 5/11/04 at 12:14 PM

From Michael Riedel's NYPost column --

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05112004/entertainment/23934.htm


"The>http://www.nypost.com/seven/05112004/entertainment/23934.htm>http://www.nypost.com/seven/05112004/entertainment/23934.htm


"The fourth slot, which could have gone to "Bombay Dreams," went instead to "The Boy From Oz," as dopey a musical as you are likely to find on the Great White Way, but one that the nominators obviously preferred to "Bombay Dreams."

"'The Boy From Oz' is sheer, unadulterated fun," said one nominator. "I didn't have any fun at 'Bombay Dreams.' "

Updated On: 5/11/04 at 10:12 PM