Wayman_Wong said: "Giving out awards is not an objective science. It's a judgment call.Due to our varying tastes, we don't all necessarily agree on what ''excellence'' is.
Nobody is claiming otherwise. In fact, that's kind of my point. The Tony voters should have a right to decide what THEY think "excellence" is. And not be pressured into nominating something by default, regardless of their opinions.
Regarding 1985, Leilani Jones, I guess, was not judged ''excellent'' enough for a Leading nomination, but ''excellent'' enough for a Featured nomination, which she won. (She also won the Drama Desk that season.)
I may be wrong, but that's not how I understood it. It seemed to me that the comment about "excellence" referred solely to Leading Actor category, and whether that category was warranted that year - not referring to the Featured vs. Leading Actress placements.
I saw ''Grind'' and enjoyed its wonderful cast. . To me, the above-the-title men, which included Tony winner Ben Vereen, got screwed by the Tonys. They should've at least been ruled eligible for Featured. I remember being very moved by Timothy Nolen singing ''Katie, My Love.'' (And for the record, the Drama Desks nominated Nolen for Featured Actor.)"
This seems to contradict your initial statement about subjectivity. Why should those above-the-title men have been made eligible if the Tony Committee subjectivity decided that they didn't earn it? You are, of course, welcome to your opinions, but the Tony Voters should be allowed theirs as well, and they should be allowed to make decisions according to those opinions.
I really take issue with the snarky quote from the Tony committee member: ''If the Tonys are to reward excellence, then we must just do that.'' If that person thinks that the Tonys have only ever rewarded excellence, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. I can think of equally excellent performances thatwere never nominated, as well as arguably less-than-excellent ones thatwere.Again, it's so subjective."
Fair point. I'll grant you that the phrasing of their comment does wrongfully imply that they have a specially ordained knowledge of what "excellence" is. But I think the sentiment of the comment is in line what the Tony Awards are SUPPOSED to do. A better phrasing might have been "Our goal is to award what we think is excellent," but I think that is a perfectly valid rationale behind their choice, for the reasons I gave above.
As for the Tonys being influenced by other biases that don't have to do with "excellence" - another fair point. I'm sure factors like popularity, marketability, and conflicts of interest run rampant among Tony Voters' ballots. But is that a reason to scoff at them when they actually attempt to act with integrity by choosing not to award work that they don't deem worthy of an award? Is it wrong for them to attempt to stay true to their mission in some ways, just because they fail to do so in other ways?