Tony Award for Replacements (potential solution)

[binau]

Posted: 7/15/22 at 10:51am

Feel free to tear the suggestion down, I know it's a topic that has come back and forth. Could a simple solution be that the Tony nominating committee at their complete discretion allocate up to 1 nomination in each acting category for a replacement performance with no requirement that they see every replacement or anything like that? (and no requirement to actually nominate a replacement actor). In practice, there would be no actual distinction between a replacement actor or not in a nominating category although someone can probably footnote it on wikipedia haha. 

It doesn't happen every day but historically it is a shame that performances such as Marin Mazzie in N2N, Bernadette Peters in Night Music and Dolly etc. don't ever get the opportunity to be nominated. With Lea Michele coming into Funny Girl it is an obvious example where the performance could be 'Tony-worthy' and the nominating committee could decide if they want to recognise that accordingly?

Updated On: 7/15/22 at 10:51 AM

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 7/15/22 at 11:02am

binau said: "Could a simple solution be that the Tony nominating committee at their complete discretion allocate up to 1 nomination in each acting category for a replacement performance with no requirement that they see every replacement or anything like that? (and no requirement to actually nominate a replacement actor)."

No, that doesn't sound simple at all. And it would basically come down to productions campaigning nominators to see their replacement actors, when the nominators are busy and already have a hard enough time seeing all the NEW shows.

The larger issue is that replacement/understudy performances should never be judged in the same way as a principal who originated the role in the production. Replacements are stepping into a track that has already been mapped out by someone else, and while some replacements have been allowed to deviate from what the original actor did, that's not always the case. And it starts to be an award for the role, not the actor.

I don't think there's any way to award replacements, understudies, music directors, or stage managers.

[binau]

Posted: 7/15/22 at 1:56pm

I agree the petitioning thing might get annoying but I think my point was that there are some replacements that are so notable that it’s likely most or all of the nominating committee will have seen them (such as the Bernadette examples) so is it really that much of a burden? Especially if it doesn’t happen often. And similarly these examples owe almost nothing to the original (IMO) - it’s not the 50th Elphaba replacement.  
 

And Lea Michele might be one of these rare examples. 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 7/15/22 at 2:05pm

You then get into issues of equitability surrounding which people are petitioned or not. The examples you are talking about are not people who NEED Tony Awards to further their careers. And then it would become a giant part of contractual negotiations when someone (of any role size) goes into a production, and a colossal headache when shows like DEH have a revolving door of cast changes. And then the 800 voters have to see them all, not just the nominators. Would probably need to limit it to the "First Replacement" of a specific character (for which Lea would not qualify), with perhaps a cap of how many actors a production could petition.

Regardless, I don't anticipate this conversation will ever get anywhere with the League/Wing after the fiasco of trying to set that up in 2006 with Jonathan Pryce & Harvey Fierstein.

[hearthemsing22]

Posted: 7/15/22 at 2:09pm

I think if that do that, it’s like saying “the original performer wasn’t good enough. We made a mistake, so here, we’re correcting it”. The Tony Awards doesn’t do this, but there are other websites that acknowledge and award replacement performers. I can’t think of a way that this could be done fairly. In my opinion, it’s kind of a ridiculous thing to even think about. “We didn’t like our original leads, but you were better so let’s give you a Tony instead”. No. It’s ridiculous. 

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 7/15/22 at 2:11pm

I agree it's a nice idea, but 1) What happens when they decide to nominate no one? (to answer, see 2006 and Jonathan Pryce's reaction). And more importantly 2) This would require voters to not only see additional shows (which seeing 40+ a year is already challenging for a lot of them), but would also require those productions to offer free tickets. And most of the time there's a big-name replacement, it's because the show needs that big name to keep their sales going, so can those shows really afford to give away 1500 seats?

[BroadwayRox3588]

Posted: 7/15/22 at 4:51pm

It's a nice idea, and admittedly one that would be nice to see if it would work. It just wouldn't. As others have said, it would be a logistical nightmare. 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 7/15/22 at 5:32pm

What, precisely, was the issue with the 2006 situation? Was it literally just that Jonathan Pryce got his feelings hurt? Every year there are dozens of actors who are deemed unworthy of a Tony nomination/win. Is it an insult to every single one of them?

The point of an award is to honor excellence where where it's seen, not to be a participation trophy. Honestly, I WISH we had more awards bodies who weren't afraid to abstain from bestowing awards where they don't feel it's deserved. It's partly this fear that's causing the Tony Awards' significance to become diluted. Nothing enhances the prestige of an award than by sending the message that it's not a done deal; that it has to be genuinely earned.

It seems like a question of setting proper expectations: if everyone is on the same page that the award is only given out when the committee REALLY wants to, and that's a special thing, then theoretically no one will be insulted when it doesn't happen. They'd just be glad when it DOES happen. I'm sure there will be some sourpusses still, but too bad for them. They can get over themselves.

So, having said all that: were there any LOGISTICAL issues with the way they had it in 2006? It seemed like the right idea to set up a separate, smaller committee for it (at least that's how I interpreted the thing I read?). Granted, the smaller the group, the less meaningful it really is. So that's something to consider, but it's not a dealbreaker. 

If there's a separate committee of 30-50 or even 100 voters for replacements, it wouldn't be so hard to get them to all the shows. And they can impose a limited on the productions that they have to choose one set of replacements per season to invite the voters to see, or something like that. Since they aren't going to the new shows, then they'd only have to see maybe 15 shows a year, which is more manageable.

It's true that these productions/actors don't really NEED these awards, but like, theoretically that shouldn't be the point of an award. I recognize that it often is, in practical terms, but plenty of people/shows win awards despite not "needing" it, because it's not "underdog of the season" it's "BEST [xyz]" of the season. The point of the Tonys, in theory, is to honor the best artistry on Broadway, and replacements are artists on Broadway.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 7/15/22 at 8:45pm

JBroadway said: "What, precisely, was the issue with the 2006 situation? Was it literally just that Jonathan Pryce got his feelings hurt? Every year there are dozens of actors who are deemed unworthy of a Tony nomination/win. Is it an insult to every single one of them?"

Here's how the voting process worked + some of what went down (Riedel).

The award was being determined by the Tony Administration Committee. The only two shows whose actors were deemed eligible were FIDDLER (Harvey) and DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS (Pryce). It was going to be a "no nominations, just a win" situation iirc. Ultimately, the committee chose not to give either actor an award, and then the League did away with it for various reasons.

In Harvey's memoir, he claims the late Margo Lion was on the administration committee and did not see Harvey in FIDDLER because she was pissy at him for not extending for an even longer run in HAIRSPRAY (he did 2 years on Bway + out of town) and Margo somehow messed up the situation.

Updated On: 7/15/22 at 08:45 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 7/16/22 at 12:02am

E.S.S., thank you for posting that. Totally forgot about all of that.

I, personally, am not for the award. Leave it to be awarded to the actor who originated the role in the production.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 7/16/22 at 12:17am

After reading the Riedel piece:

Some of it confirms what I suspected/said in my post above: the system itself seemed reasonably functional, with the major exception that only 16 people saw Pryce. But that seems fixable, under the new system: make it so only voters who saw the finalists are allowed to vote, and change the win threshold from a hard number to a percentage.

Pryce was right to be irritated that only 16 of the 24 voters even saw him. But as for the rest of Pryce's comments, they seem really childish and entitled, despite his attempted disclaimers.

Upon some reflection (and seeing it come from Fierstein), I do agree that there's a certain back-handedness to the idea of awarding a replacement without awarding the original. And I can see why that's a dealbreaker for some, especially if you're in either actor's shoes (as it puts both in a slightly awkward position) But the same could easily be said of cases where there are 2 big leading roles, and only 1 gets nominated. And those people actually work together at the same time! Personally, I feel like NOT giving an award to someone, out of fear of insulting someone ELSE, just feels like a waste to me, and not a good enough reason.

Ermendgarde, I also see your point that the reverse problem could be true: where they just keep awarding the same roles over and over. But it already feels like that consideration was included in the 2006 criteria: they were specifically looking for performances that were beyond the ordinary, and brought a sense of newness to the show/role. Not just looking for actors who can fulfill the demands of the role and belt their faces off. So with that restriction, I don't think you'd end up with Elphaba and Evan Hansen winning every year.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/16/22 at 10:44am

Or we can stop trying to make "fetch" happen.