Posted: 6/13/16 at 6:37pm
If only Hamilton had a better set, then it could have been a REALLY big hit...
Updated On: 6/13/16 at 06:37 PM
Posted: 6/13/16 at 6:56pm
I am actually quite happy Hamilton did not win scenic design, as there is nothing special or unique about its set. Its simply a brick wall, with a wooden staircase and platform. Many Off-Broadway transfer's sets athough simplistic are also sybolic. Once's mirrior (which i detested, but they meant something), Spring Awakening (the duality between 19th century germany and the present), and Next to Normal (Diana's mind). Hamilton's set was created out of pure functionality, which is not a bad thing, but when you have inventive and ornate sets like She Loves Me, American Psycho, and Shuffle Along, it should not be recognized.
I also don't think it should have won Best Costume Design should have gone to On Your Feet!, American Psycho, or Shuffle Along, but 2 of the 3 weren't nominated. There were no fantastical/ornate that "Screamed" costumes this year though like Cinderella, Kinky Boots, Shrek, Beauty and the Beast, and Pircilla Queen of the Desert.
Posted: 6/13/16 at 9:40pm
I wasn't necessarily rooting for it to win set design (and thrilled that She Loves Me did) but you are way off base with your assumptions that the set means nothing. Here's just one of the several articles I've read about it:
http://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/news/a8772/hamilton-set-design/
Posted: 6/13/16 at 10:20pm
bdn223 said: "Hamilton's set was created out of pure functionality, which is not a bad thing, but when you have inventive and ornate sets like She Loves Me, American Psycho, and Shuffle Along, it should not be recognized.
"
Shuffle Along's set didn't strike me as "ornate" or "inventive". It too seemed pretty ordinary.
I'm glad She Loves Me won for scenic design, but I disagree with people who think Hamilton's set is "bland" or "boring". It's simplistic, sure, but it completely works for the show.
Posted: 6/13/16 at 10:33pm
It's so easy to think 'best' means 'most' in these categories - shows with flashy sets and costumes, lots of dancing and even more music often have an edge over more creative or less obvious ideas. It's why I was bummed way back when The Scottsboro Boys walked away empty handed.
Posted: 6/13/16 at 10:55pm
Agreed with that, but Hamilton is a product of its circumstances. It was at the Public, which has a brick wall. Road Show used it, Fun Home used it, etc. I just wish they had had enough time to re-think the design concept when it moved to Broadway. But it moved quick, so I get it.
Psycho had the best design musical wise. Just ingenious with how it worked in that space.
Posted: 6/14/16 at 1:22am
mc1227 said: "asmith0307 said: "One thing that bugged me a little, and what some people don't think about when they hear "16 Nominations" is that they were only able to actually win 13 (barring any ties) since there were 5 people competing against each other in 2 categories. When they lost scenic design (which if I remember correctly, was the second category announced for musicals after costume design last night), they weren't going to break the record as Phillipa wasn't going to beat Cynthia.
Good observation but I don't take the amount of wins vs. nominations to heart. The Producers, if I recall correctly, also had multiple nominees in Best leading and featured actor categories, so they could only win so many as well. The point of all the nominations/wins is that the shows were/are tremendous. Not that it matters, but Hamilton had much stiffer competition this year than the Producers did in 2001. Hamilton has solidified itself in the Broadway history books, and rightfully so. Both shows have had tremendous impacts on the industry and that's what I think really matters in the end.
Sorry but Hamilton's competition was not at all 'stiffer' than The Producers. Had The Producers not been around that year, critic's darling The Full Monty would have swept as well. Had Hamilton not be around this year, I can't think of one musical that would have taken it all; it would have been spread more evenly than the two main contenders back in 2001.
Posted: 6/14/16 at 9:45am
I think there would have been many more nominations, especially in the acting , directing and choreography categories if Hamilton was not around this year. Unlike 2001, when the only competition was the Full Monty. I don't think Jane Eyre or A Class Act were strong competition at all. I think Waitress, Shuffle Along and Bright Star would have received many more nominations and awards than either of those two shows and maybe even On Your Feet and SOR..
Posted: 6/15/16 at 7:46pm
it is impossible to compare a given year or show with another. Theater changes just as society does. Audience tastes change, etc. Both shows changed Broadway and theater in their own way.
Posted: 6/15/16 at 7:56pm
SamIAm said: "it is impossible to compare a given year or show with another. Theater changes just as society does. Audience tastes change, etc. Both shows changed Broadway and theater in their own way.
I'm in total agreement that both shows had huge impacts on the theatre world which is what prompted my question about the awards.
"
