Wayman_Wong said: "Update: Just found the source of the Feb. 19 cutoff in the N.Y. Times:
"Twenty plays and musicals opened on Broadway during the abbreviated 2019-20 season, but only the 18 shows that opened before Feb. 19 will be eligible for Tony Awards. A revival of “West Side Story” that opened Feb. 20 and the new musical “Girl From the North Country,” which opened March 5, will not be eligible because too few nominators and voters saw them before Broadway shut down March 12.""
Well that settles that. Sorry to hear it. That makes me feel even less invested in these awards.
Honestly, I think the best thing they can do to make it an interesting competition would be to lump categories together, so the men compete against the women (as it should be anyway, IMO). And/or getting rid of nominees like others have suggested.
@LesWickedly made a post above about “throwing a bone” to these shows, giving them closure, and the “who cares?” of it all. And to all those points, I would say:
Sure.
If giving out Tony Awards like candy at Halloween is the best way to help the industry, to help those shows stay afloat, and to uplift these artist, then who am I to argue? I know I say that with a snarky tone, but on some level, I do mean it. Awards only matter so much, and if these awards can create tangible, positive consequences, then all power to them.
But as a follower of theatre, I feel zero investment in these awards, except maybe for a few select categories like Best Play. And the cynic in me feels frustrated that a bunch of work that I hated will now be able to call themselves Tony-Winners or Tony-Nominees without even really earning it. But I recognize that this is just pettiness on my part, and has no basis in real-world consequences.
I also have to imagine that most of the artists are smart enough to know when they’re getting a participation trophy, but that’s not my issue to worry about.
