Should there EVER be a best "Director/Choreographer" of a revival category?

[Joviedamian]

Posted: 7/27/13 at 5:14pm

I think this was brought up before, but could not find another thread on it...but at some point, do you think there should be a a "Best Director and or Choreographer" of a musical revival?

I always thought it was unfair that those who are trying to revive something that has already been displayed once before is in a category with people who built something from the ground up. As an example, Jerry Mitchell should never been nominated for best Director while Diane Paulus is as well. One wrought/directed something and another directed something from what already existed and yet found a fresh new way to say it.

Please feel free to discuss!

Updated On: 7/27/13 at 05:14 PM

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 7/27/13 at 5:24pm

I think the choreographer portion is particularly tricky. I mean do you get nominated for totally fresh choreography or choreography that is basically a re-do what was done before. I mean I still remember seeing a revival of Oklahoma where there is that famous ballet mid show that was created by the legendary Agnes DeMille - only to see the choreographer (Susan Stroman)created her own dance for the revival. My personal feeling is that new can be interesting and excellent but there are certain things you don't mess with.

I sort of went off tangent but I am not sure how that would translate into best choreography for a revival?

[CapnHook]

Posted: 7/27/13 at 5:31pm

Your thoughts are based on a lack of knowledge about the nominations process.

Only ORIGINAL direction and choreography are eligible for a Tony. Recreation of such in revivals are not (ie WEST SIDE STORY, A CHORUS LINE, etc.).

Last season's PIPPIN, while a revival, had completely original direction and choreography (with exception to the 1-2 musical numbers that they credit Bob Fosse for).

There does not need to be a new category. There are not enough revivals each season to warrant such a division, anyway.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 7/27/13 at 6:38pm

And if direction and choreography are split (not that I think they ever would be), then why not split every category?

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 7/27/13 at 6:57pm

^ My thoughts exactly.

[Joviedamian]

Posted: 7/27/13 at 8:31pm

Totally agree, AEA. I guess I was questioning it only because I remember a friend of mine told me that a person who won best direction of a musical (for a revival) was not in the same league n(only because it was done before) as someone directing a brand new musical. The revival has been done before...the new musical has not. She was simply saying it was not fair.

She was also saying that there should be a category for best NEW Musical...

Just collecting thoughts on this...seems interesting to think about...

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 7/27/13 at 9:40pm

^I actually loved Susan Stroman's choreography for the Oklahoma revival. If that show had been one not to "mess with" I don't think that revival would have been as interesting as it was. It was nice to finally have a new take on it and to finally have a Laurie and Curly who did their own dancing in the ballet.

[broadwaybabe1234]

Posted: 7/28/13 at 1:48am

I think creating something new and recreating something so it appears new are both equally challenging.

What i thought this conversation would be about is making a category for the people who tackle both direction and choreography in one show like Kathleen Marshall and Jerry mitchell and if they should get their own category. But alas...

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/28/13 at 8:28am

^That doesn't make sense either. What if one nom has better directing, and another has better choreo? Additionally, there aren't enough eligible director/choreographers -- are you going to have a field of only one or two?


Let their work speak for itself: the directing with the directing, their choreography with the choreography.

[Shoshana BeanieBaby]

Posted: 7/28/13 at 9:25am

To say someone directing a revival isn't in the same league as someone directing an original piece is so insulting. I think the current Pippin and last Cabaret are perfect examples - the directors took pieces that were well known and did something completely fresh and unique with them. Sometimes directing a revival is a million times harder because there are a million expectations from the audience - you have to give them what they're coming for (because they already know the piece and probably want certain things from it) and do it in a fresh and unique way. Sometimes a piece of choreography or stage picture is so iconic that you almost HAVE to do them - picture a West Side Story without the boys doing that signature jump with the snap - I feel like some audience members would view it as harshly as cutting a song from the show. So, in my opinion directing a revival (not recreating someone else's direction like the last chorus liine or les miz) can sometimes be more challenging than creating a piece from scratch where the audience has no expectations.

[Joviedamian]

Posted: 7/28/13 at 5:57pm

^^^ Totally agree!

[Jon]

Posted: 7/28/13 at 7:30pm

If you had separate categories for directors and choreographers for revivals and new shows, that would pretty much assure that nearly EVERY director and choreographer would get nominated. Do 8 to 10 directors and choreographers (plus 8 to 10 directors of new plays and play revivals)really deserve nominations?

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/28/13 at 8:52pm

Either way, it's words and notes on a page to living bodies moving and speaking on a stage. Except in special "recreations", directors of revivals do not use the prompt book from the original.