Rapp...no Tony???

[DickonDefysGravity]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 12:49am

Why did Anthony Rapp not receive a Tony nod for RENT??? i thought he was better than Pascal.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 12:50am

Why didn't he? You're asking the wrong people. I agree with the nominations as they stand, though.

[Dreamcatcher]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 12:51am

Yeah it is a bit of a mystery but I think Anthony and Adam tied as far as how good they were in the OBC of RENT. I mean they both have such different singing styles and voices, its kind of hard to compare the two. Maybe its because I'm a huge RENThead but I loved them both equally. But yeah it does suck that Anthony didn't get a Tony nod but hey, there is still hope for the future right?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 12:53am

I suppose it could have something to do with the nature of the two roles - Mark is a narrator type, while Roger is the romantic lead type. Or, it could've had something to do with the fact that Roger was Adam's breakout. Anthony had done some theatre before, hadn't he? Maybe the fact that Adam was really shot out of a cannon with the show stood out to whoever chooses the nominees, and that's what they wanted to see. I guess it's not terribly common for a guy who never thought he'd do theatre ever to randomly end up in the lead in such a revolutionary show. I think people could tell he was going to go far.

None of that's to say that Anthony didn't deserve one; I'm kind of surprised, too, to be honest. But, there are only five nominations. Something in Adam's performance must've stood out more, whether it be something about him as an actor, or about the role he was playing.

[Racetrack]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 12:54am

You're asking the wrong people. I agree with Dream that I enjoy both very much, but they are both incredibly different people and played different characters.

[Dreamcatcher]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 12:55am

Yeah the role was Adams literal debut to the world the Theatre and the public was shocked (in a good way) with his unique but powerful voice and energy. I think that "Wow" factor at his very rocker-ish attitude was what got it in the end but thats my opinion. Like I said they both deserve Tonys.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 12:57am

The "hey, who's the smiley blonde?" complex.

A lot of it may have been something along the lines of "holy sh*t. WHERE did this guy come from?!"

Updated On: 3/8/05 at 12:57 AM

[Racetrack]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 12:58am

I agree Emcee. Although I'm partial to believe that Tony nominations, etc. aren't everything so for whatever reason that's what happened. Who honestly knows why some get nominated and others don't. And yes Emcee, Anthony had done theatre before that time.

[Dreamcatcher]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 12:59am

Exactly Emcee. :-P I can relate to that "wow" factor after watching that clip of Glory. I was spotwelded to my computer screen for a good hour watching clips.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 1:01am

That's what I thought, racetrack. I always forget who had done things before RENT and who just randomly ended up on Broadway from it. Anyway, no matter which way you slice it, Adam didn't win either. So, obviously the divider may not be as great as we're making it out to be. Then again, there was Nathan Lane. But it's true, really, what Adam says when he talks about it - a Tony doesn't mean anything anyway in the world outside of theatre. "You can have TEN Tonys and nobody cares."

Updated On: 3/8/05 at 01:01 AM

[Racetrack]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 1:05am

That's very true. At least Adam's role wasn't a revival role whereas Nathan's was. But hey you know they were all great so it's all good. I like the Tony's comment.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 1:06am

haha, it's not my comment. But I like it too.

And yeah, it wasn't a revival role, but it was based on another. I guess nobody will ever really know, but it depends how far you want to take comparisons. I guess what it comes down to is the virtual impossibility of a theatrical newbie beating someone liek Nathan Lane, especially at age 25.

Updated On: 3/8/05 at 01:06 AM

[Racetrack]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 1:11am

Yeah. I know it wasn't your comment, but it's still funny.

I think it would be very tough to beat someone like Nathan Lane.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 1:14am

I'd like to think that in Nathan's absence, Adam may have had a chance.

[LaeloftheLakes]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 1:18am

*sigh*

It's so sad to come upon a thread about a subject I'm very interested in and find that everything you want to say has already been said...

[bjivie2]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 1:44am

I'll tell you why. Let me preface this with the fact that Anthony Rapp is a wonderful performer, and this is not to discredit him or RENT in general.

The fact is, the role of Mark is underwritten. It's not necessarilly good or bad, but it's not a pivotal character, and it isn't HIS journey, it's Roger's. Roger and Mimi are the main characters of the piece.

I can't remember if Anthony was considered a "lead" or "supporting" (my guess is supporting), but here's my take on both. If he was considered a "lead," there really wasn't much for him to shine in, and he was not the center of the plot. Lots of good people get in this position. If he was considered "supporting," he wasn't given enough material to really be remembered as much as another cast member. Supporting Tonys usually go to comic relief, many times, and who's funnier, a crazy lesbian actress, a flamboyant and sassy drag queen, or a guy with a camera and glasses? Nothing against Anthony, I just don't think the part itself really garners itself a Tony nomination. He was in the same boat for Charlie Brown.

[musical medea]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 10:44am

think positively. so he didnt get nominated for a tony.....maybe he will get an oscar nom for rent and that will make him a household name to other people beside theatre people. i personally like his voice so much more than adams. love me some anthony rapp!

[Em-LEE]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 11:05am

I completely agree with bjivie2.

luvtheEmcee- "Hey, who's the smiley blonde?"

Is that a Taye Diggs quote? :)

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 12:26pm

Yes, it is!

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 1:02pm

I agree with bjivie2. I think Roger's part is better written. You can't hardly beat a song like "One Song Glory"

[msutton]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 2:30pm

I actually think that Mark is a more interesting character, from an acting standpoint, than Roger... With Roger, everything is laid out. He's got "baggage," but he's not nearly as ****ed up as Mark is. Mark is much more subtle and I think his amazing complexity is described very well in Goodbye Love "Mark hides in his work... from facing your failure, facing your loneliness, facing the fact you live a lie" and mark responds "perhaps it's because i'm the one of us to survive."

I'm probably alone on this, but that's what makes Mark my favorite character and the most appealing as an actor. And as far as stage time and singing, I do think he definitely qualifies as a lead. In a way, he is Jonathan Larson in the story, as Larson talked about being inspired by so many of his friends' deaths from AIDs, in addition to other things like La Boheme, to write the musical.

Just food for thought I guess... I never saw the original cast, but I would assume that the since of 'holy ****, who's that guy' did probably help to win over the nominators. They might have already seen Rapp do a good job in something else. Or maybe he just wasn't as good in this show as Pascal was.

[LaeloftheLakes]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 3:01pm

Oh, msutton, you're far from alone on that one. Mark has ALWAYS been my favorite character. And as to the "maybe he wasn't as good" comment...in my opinion, although I'm not a Tony voter, he was fabulous. I'm thrilled he'll get the chance to preserve the performance for all time in the movie, because he'll always epitomize the character for me.

To me, the character is far from underwritten. Instead, it's a more subtle part, because while the play is the sort of "climax" for Roger, Mimi, and the others---almost a denoument, seeing as it's the end of their lives, essentially---it's not for Mark, because you know he's going to have to deal with not only much of the stuff the rest are going through, but also the loss of nearly ALL his friends. You know that although things for Roger improve somewhat into a kind of fatalistic acceptance of his own death, and a resolution to live life to its fullest, it's not that simple for Mark. He's going to be the one taking care of all of them, watching his friends die.

That's as close as I can come to an explanation for why I don't think he was nominated---although I think he certainly should have been. Mark's big journey, we are led to believe, hasn't happened yet. He's going through the same torment Jonathan went through, of being completely powerless to save those he loves.



And I thought I didn't have anything to say! Sorry if I rephrased what anyone else was saying...I really didn't mean to.

[GirlforTartaglia]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 4:08pm

I <3 Anthony Rapp!! I'm so sad he didn't get the Tony, let alone win one ..Maybe an Oscar will be for him....

I CAN'T WAIT TIL THE RENT MOVIE!!! !:)