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

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!

---

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

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

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

---

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.

---

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.

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.

"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!!!!!

---