Stephanie Mills, why no Tony?

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 2/3/07 at 5:28pm

Ok, I've been on a HUGE "The Wiz" kick lately, and I am really confused...why didn't she get a Tony nomination? She was older than both Andrea McArdle and Daisy Eagen, who both got nominated, and Eagen won. All three girls carried their respective shows (Eagen and Mills more so than McArdle, and even then Eagen not as much as Mills). Why was she passed over?

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 2/3/07 at 5:32pm

Why are you comparing her to them?

They were all in different years.

[D2]

Posted: 2/3/07 at 5:35pm

Considering the nominees, I have no idea why she was overlooked. There were two outstanding, legendary performances nominated: Angela Lansbury for GYPSY and Bernadette Peters for MACK AND MABEL. The other two nominees were Lola Falana for DR. JAZZ, a show that barely opened, and Ann Reinking for GOODTIME CHARLEY, a show that managed a three month run. The fact that THE WIZ was such big hit makes Mills' lack of a nomination a little shocking in hindsight.

Updated On: 2/3/07 at 05:35 PM

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 2/3/07 at 5:38pm

Neddy-
I am comparing the roles, not the actresses. In "Secret Garden" and "Annie" both Mary Lennox and Annie have the majority of the show to carry...in "The Wiz" Dorothy does too.

And I agree on why the hell was Lola nominated...

[purpleprince101]

Posted: 2/3/07 at 6:31pm

curios also

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 2/3/07 at 10:50pm

Anyone? Margo, B12B, MB???

[WOSQ]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 10:00am

Stephanie's performance in The Wiz on opening night and early in the run wasn't that good. This is a case of a performance becoming much better the longer she played it. At the time she was 16-17 and a singer with what looked like no acting training except instinct.

The Wiz had a tumultuous out-of-town tryout and there just wasn't time to go for nuance when directors were being fired along with some actors, the sole investor was getting antsy and rewrites were happening right and left. It took six months for Stephanie to settle in before everyone was comfortable. Also Dorothy is the least interesting character in the show no matter how much on stage time she has.

The Tony that year was Angie's and any other nominees were superfluous. Bernadette made a major breakthrough to being a star even though her show was long closed and a failure. Lola was a diamond in a sewer in Doctor Jazz which was an epic disaster that seemed cursed and was also closed by Tony time. Ann Reinking in Goodtime Charlie (still running but barely) worked very hard in her first lead trying to make a silk purse out a sow's ear. A musical comedy about Joan of Arc and the Dauphin? It sounds like Springtime For Hitler and damn near was.

Stephanie carried the show, but was lost with all the other characters stealing scenes.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 10:09am

I didn't see the other nominees that year, but Stephanie could sing...that is about it. She broke character numerous times when I saw her and seemed completely out of her element until she sang Home, when I almost forgave the rest of her performance. Almost.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 10:24am

FYI..Stephanie was nominated for a Drama Desk as best actress...Falana was not.

I would agree, having seen Stephanie play the part a few times, she was great, but the other characters/actors overshadowed her. It wasnt her fault...each scene was a showcase for a new character...Dorothy was directed to be very passive.
LOVE LOVE LOVE her though, and the end of "Home", when she's singing her a** off, and Toto jumps in her arms was magical.

Egan acted VERY well in Secret Garden...her voice was not amazing, but very clear and strong...but she was really acting up there. She deserved her Tony, in a pretty competitive year.

McArdle, who I did not see, was supposedly not much of an actress, even in archival footage she seems disconnected. Her voice was SO amazing, but there was not much behind it...but there were not alot of Best Actresses to nominate. Again, the Drama Desks are a clue...McArdle was not nominated, and Dorothy Loudon won for Supporting Actress...not lead. Most of the lead actress DD nominees that year were for Off Broadway productions, I believe.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 10:44am

The Tony Awards, like the Oscars, have always had some catagory confusion when it comes to child performers. Its awfully hard to argue that Eagan, for example, was a supporting character in THE SECRET GARDEN.

You have to remember that when it first opened on Broadway, THE WIZ did not get good reviews. In fact, nobody thought it would last more than a couple of weeks. The show became a word of mouth hit, largely through black-church groups and was something of a default Tony Winner because the season was filled with not just flops, but legendary disasters.

It was particularly easy for the colorful characters from the WIZ to win supporting Tonys (though of course the Tony for Dee Dee Bridgewater's less than 10 minute performance is still something people debate) but the leading catagory, which Mills presumably would have competed in was actually pretty competative: all the women nominated: Lansbury, Reinking, Peters, and Falana were quite well known Broadway entities at the time.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 10:50am

Interesting you bring up the oscars/tonys and child actors, MB, because I was going to compare Egan and Tatum O'Neal in Paper Moon as being similar...clearly the leads, but as children, were nominated as supporting, and both won.


I also think that The Wiz was successfully promoted, which also helped, and the other contenders for Best Musical werent perfect either. I remember that year and you couldnt turn on the television without hearing "Ease on Down the Road" and "Freedom" from Shenandoah. Stephanie was popular immediately due to her amazing voice...she was a regular on the talk shows.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 11:09am

Kids do seem to have some advantage when winning awards; though many clearly benefit from catagory placement:

I read an interesting article a while back about child performers winning the Oscar and really all the wins were something of upsets: Patty Duke over Angela Lansbury in the Manchurian Candidate, Anna Paquin over Winona Ryder in Age of Innocence. Apparently the only child performance that was considered an Oscar frontrunner was Linda Blair in The Exorcist who lost to fellow kiddie nomineeTatum O'Neill after Mercedes McCambridge went on a PR rampage when she wasnt credited with her "demon vocals". Regardless - you could make a case for most of these roles being leads.

And of course catagory confusion is not something that just gives children an unfair advantage: when you look back at supporting Oscar wins over the years - many performances could just as easily have been put in the lead catagory - case in point: Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls.

[D2]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 11:18am

Michael B: was Lola Falana a well known Broadway entity at the time? I know she was a sort of name, but in the music industry. IMBD lists only two B'way credits: DR. JAZZ and GOLDEN BOY, ten years earlier.

Ann Reinking was coming off spectacular reviews for her turn in OVER HERE, and it was her first lead role. She was also newsworthy in that she had severely hurt her back during OH the year before,and had made quite a quick recovery from the surgery, although she did very little dancing in GOODTIME CHARLEY.

The big guns that year were Angela Lansbury and Bernadette Peters. And of course the Tony was Angela's from the word go.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 11:31am

I understand totally that it was Lansbury's award, and I don't really question Reinking or Peters' nominations either, but nothing was good about Doctor Jazz...was it just a pity nomination?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 11:33am

Lola Falana, like Dee Dee Bridgewater was a really up and coming jazz singer in the city in the mid seventies. I guess it is incorrect to say she was a known Broadway entity, but she was definitely a popular New York entertainer in 1975.

Ann Reinking and Bernadette Peters were both still in "break out" mold: Reinking was featured in a new musical pretty much every season from PIPPIN onward. There were lots of magazine articles about her at the time: she was a regular in the New York in crowd and did modeling and fashion spreads in a lot of magazines as well.

Peters was a fabulous talent who had never really had a break out role in a hit musical on Broadway. She'd been mostly featured in unsuccesful revivals like ON THE TOWN or had small roles in musicals like GEORGE M!

MACK AND MABEL was a big time mess: I think everyone was glad to see Peters finally get a role she was so ideal for and so wonderful in, but everyone hated the show (the cult status came later). She wasn't a real threat to actually win the award. I agree that this year at the Tonys, there was Angela Lansbury in GYPSY and a host of talented, well liked, popular also rans.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 11:35am

I also think that supp. actress is often the "surprise winner" when someone takes it after not winning any of the precursers...one of the reasons I'm not convinced of Jennifer's win.

What makes a supporting role is also interesting to me. Was it really fair for Egan to be in the same category as Fraser in 1990? For that matter, should LaChanze been considered only for Best Actress?

I know this has been going on forever, but Tatum as best supporting actress is just so silly...she'd have been nominated for BA, but would've lost...like she did the GG. Blair won the GG for supporting actress, but mightve lost to O'Neal.

It reminds me of Rita Moreno, who ranted that she was the Lead Actress of the Ritz (arguably correct) but she didnt turn down her Tony, and for years her name was never stated without the "only person to ever win an Oscar, Tony, Emmy and Grammy award..."

This may be silly, since I have yet to see it, but in Notes on a Scandal, it seems to me that Blanchett should be considered BA as well as Dench, no?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 11:39am

No, I do think Blanchett is supporting. But I do think Hudson is lead: if her role were smaller, I'd say she might be upset, but Effie, screen time wise, just dwarves all the other Supporting Actress nominees. People will say Breslin or Barazza might upset her, but I don't think its going to happen. Leads in supporting catagories just are usually hard to beat. Probably because they are on screen most of the damn movie. How could they not make the biggest impression?

I think Eddie Murphy might lose, but thats a different ballpark!

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 11:45am

Part of why Eagen was nomintated for Supporting was she stood a better chance against LaChanze, Fraser and Huffman than she did against Lea Salonga.
I dunno, to me it feels a lot like Mills carried more of the show(who was only NOT onstage for the top of Act 2), and is more solid an actress than McArdle was at her age (From what I have heard, and seen in archival footage), that she should have had the nomination.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 11:52am

Oh, I understand why Egan was pushed into supporting, but I just think it is silly, like Tatum O'Neal isnt the lead actress of Paper Moon.

I certainly understand why the producers wanted her in the supp category.

Oddly, the old "name above the title, lead, name below the title, supporting" rule went in the opposite direction. Her name, along with 4 others, was above the title in SG's advertising.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 11:52am

And of course Patty Duke was not nominated for a Tony for the same performance.

I think McArdle was nominated because she was the young star of a huge hit show, and had an absolutely drop-dead voice. She's still not a great actress to this day, although she can certainly put over a song better than most.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 11:57am

I agree Rath.

I saw Stephanie Mills play Dorothy in THE WIZ in the early 90s. She was in her thirties at the time, but she was just sensational in the role - largely because her acting was so wonderful.

But this was 15 years after she did the show on Broadway. Although there is some footage floating around of the 1983 revival, there aren't any clips of Mills as Dorothy from 1975, except for the commercial, so its hard to say now what her acting was like when the show first opened.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 12:01pm

I got to see Mills in the 80s and 90s, and she really was terrific...and I never once doubted she was a teenager. I believe she was a better actress than McArdle, but it isnt as though McArdle was nom'd instead of Mills...two different roles...two years apart.

Ya know...they dont write musicals for child actors like they used to!

Now...who'd win a sing off?!?

and...McArdle still cant act...anyone see State Fair? YIKES! Luckily Kathryn Crosby was there to show how much worse she could be.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 12:01pm

MB-
We can thank the Tony's that year for that...since they decided to salute the Winter Garden instead of showcasing the musicals that year. Honestly, I'd rather have seen "The Wiz," and "Mack and Mabel" perform as well as "Gypsy" vs. the other...maybe that's me though.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 12:15pm

In hindsight, of course, I think we all would have preferred that they showcase the nominated shows: but at the time it made sense. All the shows, including THE WIZ were considered DOA by the Tony Producers and they opted to show something that, at the time, would have been more interesting to most of the television audiences.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 12:30pm

Which is just one more reason that I need a time machine.