SHOULD "A Chorus Line" and "Les Miserables" be eligible for Tony Awards?- Page 2

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 9:44am

How was it horrible? The whole thing was, in a word, bland. Broderick was a deer in the headlights (as per his usual - is he really THAT talented to begin with?) and Lane took it upon himself to chew the scenery (what he does best) to make up for it. The whole thing came off as a dated, uninspired mess, which is sad, since Odd Couple, of all things, is essentially timeless. (Just look at the Lithgow/Tambor TV misfire called 20 Good Years.) The one real highlight of the show came when Lane felt the need to adlib because of an accidental dropped fork (thats just an example). Lane was in his milleau (your guess is as good as mine when it comes to spelling that French word) when it came to adlibbing - same as during Producers. Broderick was the laughing buddy who never contributed.

Mantello seems like he didn't even know where to begin to direct (same as 3 Days of Rain - what happened to him!?) Can't help but wonder how good a Jack O'Brien production could have been....for both shows....

The producers were banking on Lane and Broderick - as I like to say, they could have read the telephone book and it would have sold out.
Updated On: 11/30/06 at 09:44 AM

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 9:55am

I still don't understand why they cancelled 20 Good Years. I thought it was great and it was one of the most highly anticipated TV shows of the season! Oh well.

Broderick was horrible.

I don't get how a show could be dated. If a show takes place in the 60s then what's wrong with that? That's like saying 1776 is dated!

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 9:59am

There's nothing wrong with a show being dated. There is something wrong with showing it's age because it's not fresh.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 10:45am

Personally, I think both shows should be eligible for best revival... but not for any of the individual creative awards, if these elements are exact (or near exact) replicas of the original productions. In other words, no Best Director, Best Choreography, Best Costumes, Best Lighting, etc.

If any of these are "new creations" for these productions, then they should be eligible.

But both should be eligible for the overall award of Best Revival, since ALL the elements, both old and new, are considered for that award, including the scores and books of these "old" shows.

And all performances should be eligible, as is, under the current rules.

Updated On: 11/30/06 at 10:45 AM

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 11:00am

I think they should both be eligible for Best Revival, but I think of the two A CHORUS LINE will actually get nominated.
I also think they should both be eligible for performance awards, but not for direction, sets, costumes, etc.

Basically what a lot of others have been saying...

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 11:51am

I say they should both be nominated- for revival and the performances. They are quality, first rate productions. Especially the cast of LES MIZ.

Just because they don't "look different" from the original productions doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered. Both oroginal productions won Best Musical.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

I agree, Yankeefan007, and I recently saw both productions with no understudies. Neither show showed it's age due to not being fresh... IMO, anyway.

I saw THE ODD COUPLE with Nathew and loved every second. Of course I am die hard fan of both of them. Always have been, always will be Those people who hated it will use that against the validity of my opinion. My fellow audience members loved it, too. Not one complaint was overheard- at least by my ears.

I adore Broadway. I realize people have different opinions and I *LOVE* that. Theatre is extremely subjective. Although if *everyone*- meaning critics/fans/theatre goers- say they LOVE it/hate it, that MAY say something, right?

One thing that upsets me, though, is that with the revivals- ODD COUPLE, LES MIZ and ACL- so many people say "I hate so-and-so because she/he didn't say the word like so-and-so did in the original production. Or "He didn't hold the note as long as _____" Ummm... No. Of course not. So-and-so is *NOT* So-and-so. They are So-and-so, right? Doesn't make them "bad" or unworthy of the role (in most cases.) It makes them different.

Which makes me bring this up. Re: Daphne Rubin-Vega in LES MIZ. When I had the chance to see it, I blocked out all the things I'd already heard about her. Marty at Colony confirmed my apprehension when I visited him on the day before I got to see the show. But nevertheless, I respect her talent and Cameron and the directing crew enough to know she was up there for a reason. While her voice and approach to the character is MUCH different than any other Fantine I have seen/heard, she acted the part with real and raw emotional power. There were groans all around me "Ugh! That woman can't sing!" One person even leaned over and said "I'm glad she died!" How rude and terrible. And I must admit here and now I have never been a true fan of her voice persay. LOVE her personna and her as a person. She can act very well, too. But when I heard she was to play Fantine, I thought, "How interesting," with my eyebrows raised. In short: LOVED her acting, was not to sure on her vocals. And that is only because her voice is more suited for RENT, not becasue she has no talent

All that being said, if I saw Nathan Lane and/or Matthew Broderick perform in a show/role and it was not good or I didn't like it, I'd admit it. And don't say that I wouldn't I have always found it hard to believe that Matthew did GODZILLA *shivers* and wondered why Nathan did LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT.

Updated On: 11/30/06 at 11:51 AM

[Broadway Bob*]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 12:15pm

According to Tony rules, a person can't be nominated for a Tony more than once for the same role/job. Example: Joel Grey won a Featured Actor Tony for CABARET, so when they brought the show back in the '80s billing him as the star, he was ineligible to be nominated even in the Leading Actor category (where he would have been placed since he was above the title billed). Similarly, Cathy Rigby as Peter Pan, was nominated her first time out so when she came back to Broadway in a significantly different production which was nominated itself, she was still un-nominatable.

Therefore, the revivals themselves and the performances should be eligible. Anyone already nominated for the original that is repeating here (Theoni Aldredge for ACL costumes, Trevor Nunn for Les Miz directing just to name a couple) would not be eligible. And remember that revivals, originally, were almost always exact recreations of the original productions and it didn't stop them from being nominated before. A recent example would be the 1990's HELLO DOLLY with Carol Channing. An exact reporoduction that was nominated. She wasn't, since she'd won before.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 12:36pm

Good point, Broadway Bob*, and true... Sadly in some cases- ie. Joel Grey.

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 8:08pm

The revival of Hello Dolly was the tour. It had a HORRIBLE set but seeing Channing play Dolly? Priceless!

[SDav 10495]

Posted: 11/30/06 at 8:28pm

I think Broadway Bob* has made the most sense on here. The rules you cite, Bob*, would certainly seem to apply to this situation and they clear up a whole lot of the messy issues that Riedel thinks should make these two productions ineligible. But going by those Tony rules, there wouldn't even need to be a dilemma about re-nominating original members of the creative team.

I originally looked at this and thought that neither show should be eligible. Great though they may be, I thought, there's nothing significantly new about them aside from the actors, and granting Tony recognition to either production could open the doors for a slew of unoriginal revivals in the future...not exactly what we want to see. But it is true that many past revivals were just that (and were even sort of return engagements very soon after the originals, like Les Miz), and so far we haven't seen the death of new and creative revivals. So I say let both of these productions be eligible for Best Revival and any acting nods, both of which would be well-deserved awards--just don't recognize their decades-old creative teams, which have already had their time to shine.

Broadway Bob*, I think you should write to Riedel and clear some of that up for him.

[97jrobbins]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 4:19am

I would argue that as the award is for 'best revival', and isn't 'best revamp', that they should be ELLEGIBLE, as the term REVIVE, simply means to bring something back, NOT that it has to be changed. To be honest, i think it would be a big mistake to try and change Les Miserables too much anyway, what is the point in changeing something that is still going extremely strong around the world? Anyway, the only way the Broadway version would change is if the London version changed, because all international productions (appart from i think 1) are copies of the London show.

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 4:57am

My take on it is that the acting should be nominated, but if the direction, costumes, sets, etc, are the same from the original production, then they should be omitted.

But can you just nominate part of the show?

I know they do for movies, but I've always thought Broadway to be a little bit different.

[CostumeMistress]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 11:04am

Robbins, you make a good point. However, the mission of the Tonys is to reward excellence in theatre. (Whether they actually DO reward excellence in theatre can be debated to the death elsewhere.) While I don't think that copying a past performance's direction and staging constitutes "excellence," I think the actors should still certainly be eligible, as they still are working hard, singing and dancing and dazzling an audience.

[Colle]

Posted: 12/1/06 at 3:25pm

I can understand why, and kind of agree, the creatives of both shows decided to go the way they did. Both "A Chorus Line" and "Les Mis," I would consider classics, and most of the time I don't think it is a good idea to tamper too much with classics.

[keely2]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 8:42am

Hmm.

Personally, I don't want Les Miz even nominated for best show, but for an entirely different reason: it's a limited-run show. There are other brilliant, still-open revivals that could fill up the nomination slots and would also be able to make use of the publicity that the nominations and even awards would give them.

For example, last year: everybody was dead certain that Sweeney Todd would win best revival; it didn't--Pajama Game did. Pajama Game was only limited run to begin with, and it was already sold out anyway, so the Tony win really didn't affect them that much. The award could have meant the world to Sweeney, which was an open-ended production that ended up only staying open for about a year.

I hope to see Company nominated and given serious props. Angel Desai definitely deserves the nomination if not award of Best Supporting Actress in a Musical.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 9:23am

"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."

Cough-cough-Sweeney Todd, Wild Party, Full Monty, and Felicia P. Fields-cough-cough!!!!!