Possible new Tony for replacements...- Page 2

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 1:59pm

The problem is that it's logistically impossible. As it is (and as Riedel knows because he wrote a column on it last year), a large percentage of Tony voters (perhaps as much as a third), never bother to see all of the nominated NEW shows before they fill out their ballots (each voter gets a free pair of seats to each nominated show and Reidel reported that HUNDREDS of these comps were never claimed by voters -- so they never bothered to see all of the shows, but voted anyway).

Part of the problem is that a significant percentage (20%?) of Tony voters don't live in New York (road presenters make up a large contingent) and only come into town to see nominated shows once or twice a year (lots of them show up the week before the ballots are due, see what shows they can and vote based on that, word of mouth, what looks like it'll be the biggest hit for them, and "professional alliances" -- they vote for their friends' shows).

If you can't get the 725 voters to even see all of the new shows, you really think you can get them to go back and check out every single new Mark and Mimi in Rent, Belle in Beauty and The Beast, Edna and Tracy in Hairspray, Velma and Roxie in Chicago, Max and Leo in The Producers, Phantom in Phantom et al .... (and remember some of those roles go through three and four replacements over the course of a season). No, of course not. NEVER happen. What WILL happen is that they'll come up with a list of nominees for best replacement, send the ballots out, and the voters will pick the biggest star name on the list and THAT'S who'll win the award. Forget about whoever actually deserves it -- this will all be about stroking the egos of celebrities who come in and do a two or three month stint in a show.

If they want to really have a replacement category and have it be fair, let the nominating committee and maybe a contingent of critics (who have to see everything anyway as part of their job) choose the winner. At least, that way, the person who actually DESERVES the award will have a chance at getting it. Otherwise, if you open it up to all 725 voters, there's NO WAY anybody who's not famous will ever have a shot.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 2:14pm

Why is THIS more important than a BEST ENSEMBLE AWARD?

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 2:15pm

Margo? I leave this one to you.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 2:23pm

To appease the big names? Bah.

Replacements SHOULD be in competition with actors originating roles. The award is "Best Leading Actor in a Play/Musical." That means the person who voters feel did the best acting. If they feel a replacement should be nominated, and was better than an actor who originated a role - then add them in the list of nominees.

Perhaps what they should do is extend how many actors may be nominated to 7.

Now what about the BEST ENSEMBLE AWARD?

Updated On: 1/7/05 at 02:23 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 2:26pm

What many people here are either ignoring or, in fact, may not know, is that, unless you're a big star, your margin for reinventing a role in a major musical isn't really wide.

There are set things an actor must fulfill...things that are based on the originator's performance. It starts to get a little murky about whose performance it really is.

[Dextrous Existence]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 2:40pm

I agree, robbiej. When a replacement is set for a show, they don't create a 100% new character. As is this debate with JLT...I think IF she was nominated for this kind of award, and she happened to win it...I think it would almost be a slap in the face towards Kristin Chenoweth.

And that goes for any other replacement that would win this type of award, and the originator (of the role) did not.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 2:53pm

Very true. Sometimes, still, the actor does do a new and unique interpretation.

I don't see the need for this to be discussed for too long. Discuss the Best Ensemble Award and get that going.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 2:56pm

That's very true, Robbie. I've had a couple of friends take over lead roles on Broadway and be told that they had to do an exact carbon copy of the original actor's performance -- not just blocking, but they had to parrot exact vocal inflections, stylistic singing choices, even the mannerisms of the original actor. In most cases, replacements who aren't stars themselves have to basically do an impression of the actor they're replacing and are discouraged to bring any of their own qualities, ideas or interpretational choices to the role. So if a perfomer is basically just giving another actor's performance, how do you evaluate that vis-a-vis an award?

One of the few exceptions to this was that I know that Michael Bennett used to give lead replacements (famous or not) quite a bit of leeway in taking over roles. A friend of mine was one of Jennifer Holliday's replacements in Dreamgirls and she told me that Bennett specifically said that he didn't want her to do an impression of Holliday and instead wanted her to make the role her own, vocally as well as acting-wise (and because she wasn't overweight and could really move, he added lots of choreography to the role for her, especially for "Move Your Stepping On My Heart"). And it's interesting that I saw Dreamgirls many times and I must say that each Effie really put their own unique stamp on the role.

[ljay889]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 3:41pm

I think it's a great idea, and it's about time a Tony Award like this would be created. Now, JLT, Brooke Shields, and plently of others, have a chance of recognition for being such talked about and acclaimed replacements.

[BWayBoy88]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 3:41pm

Could they perhaps make a seperate group of voters who live in NY and would be able to see every replacement to vote on this award?

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 3:59pm

Though I'm all for deserving replacements getting recognition, this is all-inall a terrible and impossible idea.

As Margo pointed out, it is logistically impossible.

It would turn into a zoo.

Perhaps what they should do is extend how many actors may be nominated to 7.

And I also strongly disagree with that, too.
But I do like the Best Ensemble idea.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 4:05pm

With so few shows and, thus, performances each year, why not just nominate anything and get rid of the facade of the nomination being some big honor unto itself?

[gherbert]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 4:41pm

Thank you Margo.

The award is just not fair at all.

And if we add replacements to the acting categories the Tonys would become the stupidest thing in the history of theatre. A once classy awards ceremony honoring the best of the Broadway season would rapidly become honroing the biggest box office name. The awards would become unfair and awful.

How many Eponines and Mimis and Donnas and Millies can we honor? People work their butt of for a year and a half to originate a role and some person who had a week and a half of rehearsal and played their part for two months steals your Tony?

Who thinks that is fair?

What happened to the joy of just being in a Broadway show? Isn't just being the lead on Broadway enough? Do we need to give them Tony awards to entice stars to Broadway?

And if this happens then what is the point of working hard to originate a role? Just replace and you get everything that everyone who breaks their back to just be eligible for a Tony gets cause you have some television credits.

Look, some of our favorite performers are replacements. But they don't need a Tony to validate the fact that they played in a show.

The award is just impossible to make work logistically. Michael Riedel stirs this up every year and it never pans out. And it never will because it is a BAD idea.

[Joshua488]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 4:43pm

I like the idea of just one special Tony to the most outstanding replacement. I think creating new categories or lumping categories would get a bit hectic.

[kangaroo]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 4:47pm

I personally think that they should honor replacements, but only if they have replaced the original broadway member for a long time. I don't want someone who did the show for 2-months to earn a tony as opposed to the original, who worked for a year. I'll have to think about this some more... because if they were good enough, then shoudln't they be the original cast member? But on the other hand, Lea Salonga was the best Eponine and she wasn't the original.

Basically, maybe but maybe not

[eslgr8]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 8:19pm

Lots of throwing around of the word "stupid," which is really insulting to the intelligence of people who have legitimate reasons for supporting this idea. The fact is that some of the finest performances on Broadway in a given season are not being recognized, simply because they were not the "first" to play the role. And this is simply wrong!

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 9:19pm

To those of you who think adding this category to the Tonys would rid the award of its merit because voters would vote for names...is it just me, or are the Tony awards very much political as it is. How often is the winner the most deserving of the award? Aren't many of these people who are voting touring producers or other people in the business who will vote for whoever or whatever could possibilty benefit them? I think the awards are political to begin with.

And I also don't think it would be a bad idea to get a separate group of voters who could actually see these replacements in their roles (thoughI admit, I see the difficulty here).

I'm not understanding how any of this could ever be called "stealing" a Tony though. If a replacement actor gives a better performance than the person who originated, how is that stealing? It doesn't matter that one person worked for a year and a half and the other worked for a week and a half, but one is giving the better performance.

"And if this happens then what is the point of working hard to originate a role? Just replace and you get everything that everyone who breaks their back to just be eligible for a Tony gets cause you have some television credits."

What do you MEAN what is the point of working hard to originate a role? Is it not a complete gift for an actor to originate any role, even if there were no such thing as the Tonys? Isn't that what we as actors love about our work? Isn't that rewarding? And I'm sure a Tony Award for originating role would hold more weight than a replacement Tony, due to the nature of originating a role compared to replacing an actor. But all I have to say is that if you are an actor who orginated a role on Broadway and you feel like there wasn't much of a "point" in working hard to originate a role, and the honor of originating a role feels like it has been taken away because someoen else can possibly get a Tony for replacing you...you've got issues.

I can see how it would be difficult to make this idea work, but I don't think it's a "stupid" idea, and I don't think it's impossible to make it work and do it the right way.
Updated On: 1/7/05 at 09:19 PM

[CapnHook]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 9:24pm

There is no "Best" - its all opinion. To me, the nomination is more worthy than receiving the award.

[zippyjen]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 9:42pm

I believe there should be a category for replacements. I mean how many actors put their own spin to certain roles that make the characters come alive and such? Just my opinion.

[OrdinaryJukebox1]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 11:12pm

As long as it goes to a deserving actor and not just a big name that was thrown into a show to keep it open longer...

-Vincent

[Dare2DefyGravity]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 11:45pm

I think that all replacements must be considered in order to make this work, and most of them may end up being better than the original. People are saying how great Harvey & Andrea are in Fiddler, Carolee Carmello has gotten rave reviews as Donna in Mamma Mia! (giving new meaning to a show most people loathed), and I also think that despite the hating on it, Jennifer Laura Thompson does a great job in Wicked.

Some may say it's a slap to the face to the original actor, but aren't really the people nominated for making the role their own and adapting from their previous counterpart. And sometimes you may say that the actor's nominated in the category would be giving a "slap in the face" to the originally nominated actors, but those actors lost for a reason, and it was a different year... I say give it a chance, but make sure it's all about talent.

I always wanted to see an award(s) such as Best Ensemble Performance, Best Musical Number within a Musical, and Best Performance by an Understudy or Stand-by...

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 11:48pm

Best Performance by an Understudy or Stand-by

This one would truly be impossible.
How can you guarantee that voters see the Stand-By?
Have them go to every performance until the Stand-By comes on?

[Dare2DefyGravity]

Posted: 1/8/05 at 12:01am

From my understanding most shows tape the production in some way, if not then yes it would be impossible.