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

[CallbackKing]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 2:50pm

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

[jo]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 8:14pm

Hugh received his nomination, not because he is " a name" and will host the TONYs but on the basis of his outstanding performance in the show. Have you seen it? Perhaps you will agree with practically all the critics and the theatre community ( fans included) that it is considered legendary. It is appalling to consider his situation ( his performance and contribution to Broadway) in the same light as Pia Zadora and the Golden Globes.

Isabel and Beth both deserved their nominations. Isabel gave an excellent portrayal of Judy Garland in voice and poise. Likewise, Beth showed us a very sensitive portrayal of Peter's Mum - something I did not expect but was surprised to see when I saw the show. Both are excellent theatre actresses!

Some may have issues with the show itself, but the excellent performances by the cast ( including performances from Mitchel Federan, Stephanie Block, Jarrod Emick and Michael Mulheren) were generally conceded. In fact, the show received the most number of acting TONY nominations. It should have been 4 nominations if they had not overlooked Mitchel Federan.
Updated On: 5/10/04 at 08:14 PM

[thirdrowcenter]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 8:37pm

What Jo said

[Plum]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 9:26pm

Look, you can argue that the Best Book and Best Musical nominations are filler, but you absolutely can't say that about Isabel Keating or Hugh Jackman's nominations. Both of them got glowing reviews.

Beth Fowler, admittedly, was a surprise, but I think that her case is more of an acknowledgement of her past work than a case of excessive BFO-nominating. If they really wanted BFO to look good just because Jackman's hosting the Tonys, they would ahve given it a nomination for orchestrations, and possibly choreography.

And so what if they got filler nominations? Filler means that BFO was just as good (or bad) as any other choice for that slot. So why not go with the show that's been steady at the box office since autumn, and yes, the show that happens to star the host of the Tonys, who also happens to be a ratings-boosting movie star? Why not?

[Duo]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 11:42pm

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.

[CallbackKing]

Posted: 5/11/04 at 1:27am

I totally agree about Hugh Jackman and Isabel Keating being nominated. I was referring to all the other noms. Best book? C'mon, the book is horrible, I found myself cringing at time during the show. And I honestly believe that Ann Harada should be in the spot that Beth Fowler has. And obviously, the Best Musical nom is the lesser of 2 evils, when compared to Bombay Dreams -- although it could be argued that Taboo is better than both Oz and Bombay.

[Plum]

Posted: 5/11/04 at 1:46am

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.

[HotTicket]

Posted: 5/11/04 at 8:36am

It is totally unfair to compare Hugh Jackman to Pia Zadora. Hugh has made it soley on his own talent.

[wickedrawbrt]

Posted: 5/11/04 at 11:32am

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.

[Sunfish]

Posted: 5/11/04 at 11:58am

I would have loved to see Taboo in the fourth slot for Best Musical, but it really doesn't matter as one of the other three will win, probably Wicked. Having the movie star host of a still-running show perform makes a lot of sense. I hope they do an over-the-top production number, as long as they are there.

Hugh is outstanding in Boy from Oz, truly the performance of a lifetime, and no one who has seen him would ever suggest he doesn't deserve every nomination or award that he wins.

And I am not what you would call a Hugh Jackman fan...I've never seen any of his movies. But I surely was impressed with his Boy from Oz.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/11/04 at 12:14pm

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

[Ruffian]

Posted: 5/11/04 at 12:22pm

Hugh is talented, Pia is not

No comparison

[jo]

Posted: 5/11/04 at 10:12pm

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

[magicfingers]

Posted: 5/11/04 at 11:14pm

Reidel can eat my shorts...He is making this crap up ( believe me, know nominators said that) because he is PISSED Bombay Dreams is doing so well....money talks (look at the grosses), theatre gossip queens walk!