Posted: 2/6/16 at 6:27pm
I want to ask this after reading comments questioning if Jonathan Groff only being on stage 10min of Hamilton puts him at a disadvantage .
Assuming that the quality of performance is uniformly strong among the candidates, would you put more weight on the roles that where on stage the longest and/or had a more taxing work load in terms of singing/dancing/physicality ect ?
Posted: 2/6/16 at 6:35pm
Oh stop it. You know what the OP means. I don't think the size of the role matters. The Tonys have given the award to many short performances.
Posted: 2/6/16 at 6:36pm
I don't think the time onstage should matter, it's the quality of performance.
Posted: 2/6/16 at 6:42pm
No I don't think that the time spent onstage should matter one way or the other when it comes to the Tonys. Say Groff was nominated. Even if he were to only be on stage for ten min, I'd be more interested in seeing what he does with his time onstage than with the fact that he doesn't have much in the way of stage time.
In some ways, that kind of role could be harder than a role with more stage time regarding prep. Using the example of Groff again, if he's only onstage ten min, he has to work hard to make every second of them count. Perhaps maybe even a little harder than those with more statge time because they have more chances to get noticed.
Posted: 2/6/16 at 7:03pm
Islander_fan said: "In some ways, that kind of role could be harder than a role with more stage time regarding prep. Using the example of Groff again, if he's only onstage ten min, he has to work hard to make every second of them count. Perhaps maybe even a little harder than those with more statge time because they have more chances to get noticed."
Yeah, I think that's kind of the OP's point. What you're describing is exactly the "disadvantage" that the OP refers to. The question is: is all that work enough to give them a leg up on people with larger roles? If they are good enough, then the answer may or may not be yes.
I think this question is often more applicable to the situations where people are misplaced. For example, the fact that Bertie Carvel was placed in leading, despite being in a featured role, put him at a disadvantage against Billy Porter who truly was giving him a LEADING performance.
Posted: 2/6/16 at 9:24pm
Small roles I can think of that won Tonys are:
*Ronald Holgate as Richard Henry Lee in 1776 (even though Williams Daniels cancelled himself out)
*Marian Mercer as Marge MacDougall in Promises, Promises (the same role Katie Finneran would win her second Tony for in the revival)
*Dee Dee Bridgewater as Glinda in The Wiz
*Adriane Lenox as Mrs. Muller in Doubt
Posted: 2/6/16 at 10:20pm
Yeah, but let's say William Daniels had NOT more or less withdrawn from consideration. Had I been a Tony voter, I certainly would have rewarded Daniels' range as John Adams over a few minutes of Ron Holgate clowning as Lee.
I'm not proposing a hard and fast rule that Tony voting be based on length of role, but there's no reason it shouldn't be one factor of many. (No, I don't agree with the counter argument that the one-song show stopper must have done more with less, just to be nominated. A lot of times such winners simply had the advantage of singing the show-stopping number.)
Updated On: 2/8/16 at 10:20 PM
Posted: 2/7/16 at 1:08am
Isn't their performance a large part of the reason a number IS a showstopper?
Posted: 2/7/16 at 1:10am
The Tony's'es's should only go to the best no matter the size and only the best should be casted in the role's.
Posted: 2/7/16 at 6:20am
Roll's
??
Posted: 2/7/16 at 10:10am
Also a few years ago when Andrea Martin won the Tony for Pippin. From what I recall, the role of Berthe is very minor. She only appears in two scenes. She has dialogue with Pippin and a song in Act 1. Then in Act 2, she has like 3 lines and a one line solo
Posted: 2/7/16 at 10:32am
Marilyn Cooper in Woman of the Year is one of the performances that comes to mind.
Posted: 2/7/16 at 12:42pm
Would you prefer a large flawed diamond or a smaller perfect clarity diamond?
Posted: 2/7/16 at 1:14pm
I think size of a role only matters when it comes to placing each character into what category they belong in. When the character is placed in a category then it all comes down to talent.
Posted: 2/7/16 at 1:20pm
Call_me_jorge said: "When the character is placed in a category then it all comes down to talent"
Well, I've always been of the opinion that the writing and direction of the role gets the actor about 60% of there when it comes to Tony noms/wins.
Posted: 2/7/16 at 1:20pm
Call_me_jorge said: "I think size of a role only matters when it comes to placing each character into what category they belong in. When the character is placed in a category then it all comes down to talent."
Correct.
Posted: 2/8/16 at 10:13am
Interesting. But if Jonathan Groff gets a Tony nomination for Hamilton, who is to say whether Brian D'arcy James or Andrew Rannels wouldn't also have gotten the nomination if their performances had been Tony-eligible instead? I'm not disparaging any of them; they're all very talented. But I do think that the brilliant comic writing of the King's "showstopper" also has a lot to do with the memorability of that role and would play into a nomination.
Posted: 2/8/16 at 10:22am
YOU do what Andrea Martin did in Pippin if you think she didn't werrrrrrk for it.
Posted: 2/8/16 at 10:25am
That is obvious when revivals come through and we see the same ROLES nominated time after time. I don't think I can break down the percentages for direction, writing and performance....but I certainly agree that they all have a part.
Posted: 2/8/16 at 10:38am
Another role I was thinking about was Elle Woods in Legally Blonde. I remember that Laura Bell Bundy got a lot of credit for never leaving the stage aside from intermission. It was a marathon role that literally carried the show. Do you think that aspect helped her get a nomination ?
Posted: 2/8/16 at 11:13am
It's a good question! I always have to think about Andrea Martin as Berthe in Pippin, or Lena Hall as Yitzhak in Hedwig.
Huge amounts of stage time and dialogue and singing? No.
Huge presence? Yes.
The formal title of these awards is "Best Performance," and I think that those words inherently don't require a wealth of stage time—just a wealth of stage presence. Granted, many roles (like Tevye, Elphaba, or even Elle Woods as Sunny11) mentioned simply lend easy way to a nomination because they are so integral to a production, but I view these awards as who offers the greatest amount of presence and impact.
Posted: 2/8/16 at 11:40am
think it's best to step back a bit.
Generally - though of course there are exceptions - it's not just the quality of the performance but rather the quality of the performance in a plum (awards-y) role that makes a performance awards-buzzy and or awards-worthy.
Among the many factors that might make a role a plum one are the size of the role. Of course some plum roles are very brief, but on the whole, most roles considered to have an awards-pop have significant stage-time.
Groff's King George may be one of those exceptions. But this season will perhaps have another one and in that very same category. I have a feeling that Peter Bartlett's Head Waiter in SHE LOVES ME is going to get a lot of awards-buzz. Bartlett was extraordinarily good in this role when SHE LOVES ME was done in concert a few years back. In his one scene he made a major, hilarious and highly memorable impression.
Updated On: 2/8/16 at 11:40 AM
Posted: 2/8/16 at 11:48am
Don't think size matters as much as quality of performance and over-all impact on the artistic success of the show.
Posted: 2/8/16 at 1:21pm
Just looked up Peter Bartlett and wow 11 Broadway Shows. If he's good then he's defiantly due.
Updated On: 2/8/16 at 01:21 PM
