SHOULD "A Chorus Line" and "Les Miserables" be eligible for Tony Awards?

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 9:38am

Riedel: http://www.nypost.com/seven/11292006/entertainment/theater/re_creations_muddle_tonys_theater_michael_riedel.htm

[roseaddams]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 9:42am

It seems like that should only bar A Chorus Line and Les Miserables from the nomination for Best Revival -- the performances are different, even if they're in a carbon copy production.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 9:47am

PLenty of revivals are eligible in the revival and acting categories, although I'd agree that direction and choreography should omitted.

[bschneid76]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 9:47am

This is a very interesting article, and I agree that why should the same people who won during the originals be nominated for the same show again? We will see what will happen, but I yawned when I heard that Les Mis was coming back, as it just closed a few years ago, Chorus Line will be fun to see, since I didn't get to see it before. I am more interested in the newer shows that are currently or arriving on Broadway.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 10:10am

Riedel:

November 29, 2006 -- SHOULD "A Chorus Line" and "Les Mis erables" - two re vivals that are pretty much carbon copies of the original productions - be eligible for Tony Awards?

That question is being hotly debated in Shubert Alley right now, and it's sure to be a sticky one for the Tony Award administration committee, the powerful group of theater executives that decides which shows and artists are eligible for Broadway's top prizes.

The committee meets Thursday to begin sorting out eligibility issues - although questions about "A Chorus Line" and "Les Miserables" probably won't be resolved until a second meeting in January, a source says.

"But they are certainly in the air," this person adds.

A radical position being floated is that because both shows are reissues rather than reinterpretations, neither should be eligible for Best Revival of a Musical.

"A Chorus Line" sticks to the blueprint laid down in 1975 by the show's creator, Michael Bennett (who died of AIDS in 1987), while "Les Miserables" is essentially a national tour spruced up for Broadway.

Neither has been radically restaged in the same way as such past Tony-nominated revivals as "Chicago," "Cabaret," "Annie Get Your Gun," "Sweeney Todd" or "The Pajama Game."

Read on...
RE-CREATIONS MUDDLE TONYS - Michael Riedel

[winston89]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 10:30am

I know that people who saw remembered the original production of ACL said that there were a lot of things different between the original production and the one currently playing. And, the Times talked about in an article that announced that les miz was comming back. Both of these shows count towards best revival of a musical. the Tony rule as to what makes a show a revival is that there has to be at least a three year gap between the closing of the origiinal production. And another production of the same show opening. Les Miserables is the only show that has opened up three years after the original production closed.

So yes, both these shows should be eligible to win best revival.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 11:02am

The Tony Committee changes the rules practically every year, so to claim a three-year gap on Broadway as eligibilty for a revival is ludicrous. I agree with Reidel on this one. Les Miz is merely the tour. Other than a few cuts, I see nothing new in the revival (except the direction looks even worse than it did on the tour). Personally, if the show is a carbon copy of a previous production, it should be deemed ineligible in ALL catagories (including the acting ones).

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 11:22am

Riedel is just stirring the pot - it must be a slow news week. It's pretty much a given that ACL and LES MIZ will be eligible for Best Revival and that their casts will be eligible for performance Tony Awards but that none of the directorial/design elements will be.

Its also pretty much a given that ACL will be nominated for Best Revival but not LES MIZ.

[Julian2]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 12:40pm

"Says a Tony Award source: "There's a lot to deal with here. We'll probably f - - - things up somehow. It's what we do best."

Priceless.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 1:30pm

Wanna Be A Foster,

Why do you feel the need to quote and link a post that was already posted in the original thread?

[MTVMANN]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 1:32pm

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 2:12pm

I don't think either of these two shows would hurt from a lack of "Best Revival 2007 Tony" hanging on their marquees. They're both bound to sell-out around the country on National tours anyways. I say give it to something that's smaller and more risky.

[Colle]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 3:34pm

I think the compromise mentioned in this article seems fair. The cast of both shows shouldn't been punished by not even being considered for a Tony, assuming there are those in both shows that do deserve it. If I could travel to New York, the only revival I would be interested seeing is the Les Mis revival, and maybe "The Apple Tree" because of Kristen. The rest of the revivals just don't interest me.
Updated On: 11/30/06 at 03:34 PM

[JMVR]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 4:47pm

I think it's unfair to reward Cameron Mackintosh for dusting off some old tour setas and costumes and putting them back on Broadway. The return on the comparatively small investment should be enough for him. I personally wouldn't like to see this start a trend of producers milking the last cents from the tours by bringing them to Boadway as 'revivals" instead of dealing with the hassle and risk of bringing in new shows. Besides, Cameron may get Tony glory from Mary Poppins anyway.

As for "A Chorus Line" I don't think it's fair to let it be eligible for best revival for the reasons Riedel states which I see no need to repeat. However, in both cases I strongly feel the performers should be eligible, I think it's fair and see no risk of setting off harmful trends.

[JustABroadwaybaby2]

Posted: 11/29/06 at 5:24pm

I want both of them to win. Both amazing pieces of theatre. A Chorus Line isn't ground breakingly different, but Les Miz was reorchestrated, no? I think they should still be up ther eas nominees, and I hope at least they get nominated.

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 12:49am

Did the same thing happen with The Odd Couple? Or did they just not like it? I loved it and thought Rob Bartlett should've won Best Supporting Actor in a Play. Nathan should've been at least nominated. The revival of that WAS the original production. I think Doc Simon changed a few dialouge and staging but other than that it was the original show.

[StarStruckGB]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:10am

I'm glad they finally settled it all out.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:17am

Well COMPANY (a major work and reworking) is getting interesting reviews)
And we have THE APPLE TREE and 110 IN THE SHADE to look forward to, it may only leaves one space, so those 2 shows can fight it out.
Am I forgetting any other revivals?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:19am

Stalker, I'm just guessing, but due to the point of view you express and your...how shall I put this....way with words, I would be shocked beyond belief if you told me you were actually:

1.) Older than 16 years old

and

2.) Around to see the original production of THE ODD COUPLE to know whether or not this revival was merely just a restaging of the original.

I doubt Joe Mantello even saw the original production, let alone copy it. PLEASE.

THE ODD COUPLE was eligible, it just completely sucked.



And I think that A CHORUS LINE and LES MIS should be eligible for Best Revival and the performers. It won't bother me one bit if they deem them eligible, as LES MIS doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting nominated.

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 1:28am

1.) I liked it.

2.) I didn't see the original production but I was told by a friend (Who's like 80 and DID see it) that it was exactly the same. And I have seen more Odd Couples than I can count and I thought this was great! Can you honestly tell me that Nathan Lane and Rob Bartlett weren't good? Matthew Broderick was bad. I admit that.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 2:19am

Rob Bartlett was good, but deserved no award.

Nathan Lane got through it unscathed...but was terribly miscast.

It was a horrible production. The award committee's and the critics agree.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 2:22am

I think the fact that Nathan has already won twice and been nominated other times had something to do with it, but beyond that there was definitely something cynical about the whole ODD COUPLE enterprise that made the awards committee reject it.

When it was first announced that Nathan and Matthew would do this revival, it was clear that they both could do those characters in their sleep -- and that's exactly what it looked like they were doing. They brought nothing new to those roles that we hadn't seen from them many times before in the past. There was no real verve or inspriration -- and the whole enterprise stunk of all of them (Simon and Mantello included) simply cashing in on the hype and fame that THE PRODUCERS had received. They all made MILLIONS dollars doing that limited engagement (rumored to be $100,000 per week for each of them) which frankly was no more innovative, engaging or artistically challenging than a decent dinner theatre production of the show from Poughkeepsie -- THAT'S why the Tony Awards ignored it altogether, figuring that Lane and company could nurse their Tony snub all the way to the bank (and that they did).

Updated On: 11/30/06 at 02:22 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 2:24am

Cynical is a good way of putting it, Margo.

Upon seeing the show and realizing how absolutely waseful and horrible it was, it made me loose a lot of respect for Mantello.

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 3:53am

How was it horrible? I know it wasn't THE BEST performances but we've all seen the TV shows and movies and knew what to expect!

I thought they should've revived it with Nathan as Oscar and Mark Linn-Baker as Felix. Nathan played Oscar twice (if not more) before. I didn't see anything wrong with him. He played the kind of character he usually plays.

and what was wrong with Neil Simon? His writing? It was exactly the same as the original and the movie (except there were a few added scenes in the movie)

ONE more question: WHY on earth has Matthew Broderick been acting like this? He never did until The Producers movie. Did he act like it in The Producers on broadway?

[timote316]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 9:32am

Yes, Broderick was just as bland on Broadway.