Rembember When Raul Esparza Lost the Tony to David Hyde Pierce...- Page 3

[ljay889]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 1:37pm

Lol, yes, sometimes I can't stop myself. I had to respond.
Updated On: 5/25/10 at 01:37 PM

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 1:38pm

Which one was Desiree again?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 1:50pm

The one who I am going to come AND SCREAM AT YOU ALL if she loses the Tony, okay?

[TulitaPepsi]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 1:51pm

I'm surprised nobody here has yet mentioned...

Winokur over Bernadette.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 1:52pm

It has its own thread!

[TulitaPepsi]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 1:53pm

Ha! I just saw that! Drama THAT big does deserve its own thread.

Oh, yeah...I thought Breaker was robbed.

Updated On: 5/25/10 at 01:53 PM

[sowren1020]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 6:54pm

Thank you for that video clip of David accept his Tony! David Hyde Pierce is as gracious as he is talented. He deserved to win that year because he knows how to get across the idea of humanity in his characters through his humor and timing. Raul Esparza too often plays the crazy card, making it difficult to relate to him or care about his characaters. Looking forward to seeing DHP in LA BETE this fall!

[binau]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 6:59pm

You thought Esparza's Bobby was crazy? wtf?

[Xman8]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 7:13pm

I agree Raul should have won. But... the real reason why DHP won his Tony for Curtains was because he was robbed for failing to be nominated for Spamalot. His performance was stronger than Michael McGrath's who was nominated. He should have won for Spamalot as well so it was kind of a make up..a consolation prize.

[Marinacat]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 7:16pm

I just don't like Raul Esparza. I can't put my finger on it, but he just rubs me the wrong way. I've been open minded every time, but I just don't share the love.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 7:55pm

DHP did the best he possibly could with such a flat, uninteresting cardboard cutout character in a show filled with tired tropes and cliches as characters and a bunch of ancient plot devices tied together with rubber bands for a story. The fact that he made it somewhat watchable is, perhaps, just as big an achievement as Raul's intense, thoughtful, and incredibly moving performance.

I do think that Raul elevated that character into something deeper and more real than the other actors to tackle the role (I can only judge from the cast albums, but just compare the whole John Doyle recording to that Lawrence Welkish elevator music OBCR and I don't think there's much of an argument). But he was starting out with brilliant material, as was John Doyle, and turning a very well written show into a very good production built around a finely tuned production may not be a bigger deal than turning an absolute steaming pile of a show (like Curtains) into a watchable show built around a single performance that lifts the whole thing up.

Obviously, I'd rather have had Raul win, because it was the more important and memorable performance, but I think DHP did something very worthy of recognition, too.


....Christ, I can't believe I just wrote all of that. This topic really will never die.

[binau]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 7:57pm

" (I can only judge from the cast albums, but just compare the whole John Doyle recording to that Lawrence Welkish elevator music OBCR and I don't think there's much of an argument).'

Wait, what?

[BDrischBDemented]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 8:16pm

"(I can only judge from the cast albums, but just compare the whole John Doyle recording to that Lawrence Welkish elevator music OBCR and I don't think there's much of an argument)."

I'm going to second the "Wait, what?"

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 9:16pm

I'm biased, since I knew the John Doyle version first, but when I finally got around to listening to the OBCR, I thought everything (except Elaine Stritch) sounded like some kind of awful late-sixties variety hour show. Maybe that was just the style of everything at the time, but it just seemed so...upbeat and vanilla. I think I can understand why people who loved the original weren't as happy with the last revival, because it really is so drastically different (I think it sounds more like the Soundheim style I've come to expect) but I just had a hard time taking it seriously, myself.

I realize I probably have just offended quite a few people simply by having this opinion. But although I'd have loved to see the original productions, I wouldn't trade having seen all of these Sondheim revivals of the past decade or so first.
Updated On: 5/25/10 at 09:16 PM

[binau]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 9:30pm

Hehe, I can see how they might seem very dated retrospectively. But I don't think they were considered "In the style of everything at the time" or "vanilla" - they were widely innovative.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 10:55pm

I would call Bobby troubled, but certainly not "crazy."

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 11:18pm

Yeah, he drives people crazy

Scarywarhol you're certainly entitled to your opinion but that post made me cry a little inside.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 11:26pm

Oh, does he that.

The Doyle Company was my first Company. I will always love that cast recording the most, but I adore the original, too. It's a product of its time for sure, but I think that's part of its charm. And... that's the show's history. That's where it all began, and I love it for its window into that, too.

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 11:53pm

And it certainly uses the music of the time more intelligently than some other shows created around the same time.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 11:59pm

(I think it sounds more like the Soundheim style I've come to expect)

With all due respect, I don't think what you think is Sondheim style is actually Sondheim style.

[willep]

Posted: 5/26/10 at 12:02am

I agree with Xman8. I thought DHP deserved to win, and that it was even more so deserved because he was robbed completely with Spamalot. Not even a nomination, and he gave a fantastic performance in that one.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/26/10 at 12:05am

I feel like the "proxy Tony" theory is valid in a lot of the voting, but it's weird how it just perpetuates. More people are going to lose than win each year, so soon every award given is going to start to feel like it was to make up for something else. So when Raúl finally wins (which could very well be for Leap of Faith), everyone's going to say, "Well, it was to make up for Company."

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 5/26/10 at 12:21am

This is all the more evident at the Academy Awards. Happens in all awards circuits. Many people will say it's a deserving performance, but there are always more circumstances and politics involved. I mean, can you imagine when Meryl Streep wins her next Oscar? It will be to make up for those thousands she deserved in the past.

~Steven

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/26/10 at 12:28am

Of course. I wasn't suggesting that it was exclusive to the Tonys, I just stuck to that because it's what we were talking about.

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 5/26/10 at 12:29am

O I know. But let's be real... when he does win, he probably will deserve it, right Em?

~Steven