Should the 3 Billys Have Won the Tony Award? — Page 2

No

No!!!! They should have been given a special award but not be considered for leading against the others. It would be interesting to know how the votes turned out for the real leading actors - how close was the voting.

Yes

---

No. It's an award for the best actor in a musical, not best dancer in a musical or cutest child in a B'way show. The fact that the voters only had to see one Billy proves that the role won the award, not the three actors.

Daisy Eagan played Mary Lennox at six of eight performances, with one alternate (ibdb tells me her name is Kimberly Mahon) playing Mary at the Wednesday matinee and Thursday evening performances.


as for the OP, I think they boys deserved a special Tony, because I do think it is rewarding the role, not the actor, the way it was done. not that roles don't win awards normally, it's just not so transparent.

---

ChiChi,

They nominated David Bologna who plays Billy's best friend Michael. The talk about that was that the role of Michael is double cast just like Daisy in The Secret Garden. And, the question became why did they nominate one over the other and yet nominate all three Billys?

---

I hope this clip still works. It's a terrific piece done on ABC news that explains better than anywhere else just WHY it takes multiple actors to play the part of Billy (thus making it perfectly reasonable to nominate all three). It was the simple fact that it would have been humanly impossible for one actor to do it alone that made the producers petition the Tony committee to look at all 3 boys as one entry. The committee looked, and agreed. That same excuse simply cannot be used for the role of Michael. While Michael's song and dance number requires a great deal of technical and artistic talent, it is still only ONE number. They rotate the casting between the two (or three) boys in order to keep them fully rehearsed. Recently Frank Dolce left for a few weeks in order to film a pilot episode of a new television show. While he was gone, David filled in every night - without any problems. That could never have happened with the role of Billy. If the producers had tried to use the same argument for David and Frank, they would have seriously weakened their argument for the Billy role.
ABC News - Billy Elliot

---

I'll weigh in with my thoughts on why the 3 Billy's won over the other nominees.

1. Brian d'Arcy James is admired but he was playing a cartoon character under pounds of latex, which may have worked against him.

2. Constantine Maroulis was in a jukebox musical based on 80s schlock-rock....never had a chance.

3. Gavin Creel was in a hit revival that's primarily an ensemble piece. Besides, "Hair" has never been particularly beloved or respected, which may have effected voting.

4. J. Robert Spencer somehow got overshadowed by the Ripley juggernaut, not her fault but it still might have had an impact.

5. David Alvarez, Trent Kowalik and Kiril Kulish have been something of a media event since BE opened. The part of Billy is a demanding one and, besides that, the image of these young dancers in flight has become iconic and is undeniably memorable.

I'm not saying whether or not the 3 Bs should have won, since I haven't seen all of the performances. But the fact remains that none of the other nominees had strong voter sentiment behind them and that is what often wins awards, like it or not. I will say, J. Robert Spencer was also very deserving of the award for his impressive work in N2N.

Yes.

A resounding YES YES YES. They completely outshined the competition.

Updated On: 6/10/09 at 02:37 PM

No. I think Constantine deserved to win for his layered performance.

Yes, they definitely deserved the award. They may be new to acting, but the way they perform those dances has everything to do with acting. If they were not connected to Billy's emotional journey, the dances would fall flat and then the show wouldn't be as astounding as it is. Yes, the role is beautifully crafted and written, but their performances were ones to root for. Of course, the historic and sentimental aspect of it played a part in voting, but it was the one performance by a leading actor (or three) that people could cheer and give a standing ovation for. They definitely should have been awarded. Billy Elliot would just not be the same with only serviceable performances by the title character. Each one of those boys carries the show and takes the audience on his journey. It's magical.

I don't think the fact that they were nominated together means that they're awarding the role and not the performance. The Tony Committee has said many times that they felt that each boy's performance was of the same quality as the other, thus the joint nomination. Each Billy needed to pull his own weight if they wanted to win that Tony. If a voter saw a bad Billy, they wouldn't have voted for the boys.

~Steven

i haven't seen billy elliot yet so i can't say if they deserved it or not. however, i really do think, contrary to popular belief, that brian d'arcy james' performance in shrek was phenomenal. he was able to play through all of that makeup. just watch him perform "who i'd be" its beautiful

---