The Pulitzer Prize for Drama- Page 2

[alwy15]

Posted: 2/22/06 at 11:38pm

ring of fire sounds likely for the pulitzer. i was actually thinking, though, that they give it to a show from last season --- good vibrations. because its still vibrating with me today. hopefully we'll see one of these shows pick up the pulitzer.

ah. one can only dream.

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 2/22/06 at 11:41pm

[jam_man]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 12:00am

I seem to recall reading/hearing somewhere that Finian's Rainbow won the Pulitzer, too. But I knew the number was 7 musicals, but Finian's also threw me off when trying to name them. Thanks for clearing that up (even though I didn't ask myself).

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 12:11am

Ring of Fire? I hope that was a joke. I'm not sure what will win this year. Maybe "well"? There isn't much fuss swirling around anything this season really. I think its safe to say no musicals will win it.

[Corine2]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 12:20am

They forgot:
The Normal Heart.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 12:24am

What do you think about the two new LaChiusa pieces that are opening and have openeded this season? Do they have to be broadway to be eligable? my gut tells me 'no,' but ill have to look up the rules. unless someone knows.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 1:50am

I was not joking about THE RING OF FIRE, it's just probably so brilliant that I'd put money on it now.

No, it does not have to be Broadway - just a new American play.

ANNA IN THE TROPICS won the Pulitzer before (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) it was even scheduled to open on Broadway...not like the Pulitzer helped ticket sales any. Which was sad, I loved the play.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 3:13am

I don't know if either of the LaChiusa musicals are Pulitzer worthy. I mean... honestly, it's the Pulitzer. In other words, set your standards really high. I think MJL hasn't written his Pulitzer prize winner yet.

I believe if they don't feel anything is worthy, they just don't give out an award.

I like How to Succeed, and I recognize it as an adept satire, but for me, as a young upstart, it seems quaint and dated. I'm sure back in the day the idea of the boss having a mistress and knitting was terribly provocative humor, but nowadays it just seems a little "Oh, well isn't that cute, she's happy to keep his dinner warm. Wait. They're having a... treasure hunt? "

But then again, I think Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is a little quaint too. So who's to say?

I'm rooting for In My Life to win the prize. Either that or The Wedding Singer. Lestat is an astounding commentary on American life. What other random new musical can we throw out there? Maybe Guettel will finish The Princess Bride in time. That's Pulitzer prize winning for sure.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 3:27am

You think WOOLF is quaint?

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 3:39am

A little bit.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 7:04am

Well it was too quaint to win the Pulitzer. There was no award the year that Woolf was eligible.

Of the current Broadway crop, Well, Bridge & Tunnel and Rabbit Hole could all be considered, but as has been pointed out, it's not restricted to Broadway. Anna And The Tropics came to Broadway on the strength of winning the Pulitzer.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 7:17am

I would put money on BRIDGE & TUNNEL winning the Pulitzer in 2006.

[Jon]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 8:52am

It doesn't matter how dated a show seems now. When they opened, HOW TO SUCCEED... and RENT certainly were not dated.

Remember, the Pulitzer Prize started as a prize for journalists. The fiction and drama categories were added later. The award was created by a newspaper man to honor American writers who write (MOSTLY) about American life.

People always criticize the second act of SUNDAY IN THE PARK, but without it, the show most likely would not have been eligible for the Pulitzer. The first act is about a 19th Century French artist. The second act is a commentary about art in contemporary America.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 12:24pm

Good point Jon.

Well, my question now is, how do they set out to see all these new American plays? Surely they only see the ones that are "hyped" about? right? How else would they see every new American play that is performed within the given time frame. do they base things on year or seasons? So, if something opens this fall, it is still elligable for the '06 Pulitzer?

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 12:35pm

A Pulizter Prize winner for "drama" doesn't even have to be in New York. I believe the Kentucky Cycle won while it was playing in Los Angeles. I'm sure there are other examples of that as well... but it's usually a Broadway play, occasionally an Off-Broadway play, rarely a Broadway musical... and rarely a work not (yet) produced in New York.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 12:38pm

They don't even have to see the show, right? just read it - is that correct?

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 12:48pm

Aren't there some years where they just don't give the award?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 12:49pm

Yes.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 12:50pm

Thinking about it, I don't think Well is eligible, it would have been eligible LAST year I think.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 12:53pm

I have a feeling they will give it to something most of us haven't heard of, or not give it at all.

[children&art]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 1:04pm

what about "Light in the Piazza" or would that be considered last year?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 1:06pm

The board is made up of a handful of critics for major publications (in New York usually) who see everything in New York and often travel to see major regional works around the country anyway, to review them for their papers (both Brantley and Isherwood often review shows in Chicago, LA, Williamstown, London, even Pittsburgh -- when new August Wilson works would premiere in the past).

And to follow up on what Jon said, The Pulitzer's reputation for "excellence" rests ENTIRELY on its journalism awards. In that field they are still considered one of the highest honors one can receive. In theatre however, The Pulitzer is something of a joke in many circles, having made one bone-headed decision after another through the years (Harvey beating out Glass Menagerie; No Award instead on Virginia Woolf -- which caused several members of the board to resign that year); Anna in the Tropics, which none of them had seen and had only read the script of when they voted for it and then they all panned it when they saw it on Broadway a few months later). Obviously, no playwright or producer would turn down a Pulitzer (simply because it "sounds" prestigious), but if you're looking for a respected arbiter of the best of theatre in a given season, look to the Obies, Drama Desks, and NY Critics Circle Awards, all of which have very long and consistent history of singling out excellence.

As for this year (or last year, actually), 2005 was an incredibly weak year for new American plays. I saw several dozens (probably every major opening at all of the not-for-profits in town, and many of the commercial openings on and Off and even off-off-Broadway) and I think I would give "No Award" this year. Bridge & Tunnel is solo showcase for Sarah Jones mimickry gifts, not a great stand alone piece of writing. I don't think RABBIT HOLE is eligible (the deadline was December 31st, but it opened in January, 2006 -- I suppose the script could have been submitted by itself, though).

I liked ORSON'S SHADOW a lot, but wouldn't give it a Pulitzer. Same with Craig Wright's ORANGE FLOWER WATER and Douglas Carter Beane's THE LITTLE DOG LAUGHED, though I enjoyed them. I can't imagine them going with any of the musicals from last year -- SEE WHAT I WANT TO SEE, SPELLING BEE, LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA (which could possibly have eligibility problems given the Italian setting, but the central plot concerns Americans) etc...

IN THE CONTINUUM certainly has the kind of gravitas the Pulitzer Prize is looking for in the works they honor (concerning the impact of AIDS on two young black women -- one here and another in Africa; it's a little formulaic, but very effecting). There might be some sentiment for Wendy Wasserstein's THIRD, given her recent death and it certainly was a worthy effort from her. My personal favorite, Charlie Kauffman's HOPE LEAVES THE THEATRE (a quirky, surreal quasi-radio play performed by Meryl Streep, Hope Davis and Peter Dinklage), has no chance I'm sure -- it's probably too "out there" and "different" for the jury.

In the end, I think I'd be quite happy with "No Award" this year.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 1:10pm

Same here.

[children&art]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 1:12pm

maybe i missed this, but the Pulitzers are an American institution celebrating contributions to American culture - so how is "I Am My Own Wife" relevant to that? I know it was written by an American, but other than that...?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 2/23/06 at 1:21pm

The criterion I pointed out before is:

"For a distinguished play by an American author, PREFERABLY original in its source and dealing with American life."

So, while the committee generally favors works about American life, it isn't required to do so. Still, I thought IAMOW was an odd choice for the Pulitzer, although I enjoyed it very much. The Pulitzer has always tried (not always succeeding) to honor great and potentially important "texts" -- plays that will enter the canon and be read for the next century and beyond and give a snapshot of American life at a given time to future generations. A solo piece concerning a German transsexual and having nothing really to do (for the most part) with America struck me as an odd choice for this award (and while Wright's writing was solid, he owed half that award to the extraordinary Jefferson Mays -- maybe more than half).

Updated On: 2/23/06 at 01:21 PM