Posted: 6/13/17 at 1:26pm
I think Groban's performance was absolutely deserving and I would have been annoyed if he hadn't have been nominated. It's just that he was in the wrong category. Agree that Briones should have been there too though.
Posted: 6/13/17 at 1:30pm
kdogg36 said: "Kad said: "The last African-American playwright, for instance, to win Best Play was actually Wilson himself... in 1987."
I know this might have been answered elsewhere - I haven't gone through the entire Tony viewing thread, for example - but was Wilson included in the Best Revival Tony this year per the updated rule?"
Well, he died back in 2005, so he was obviously not there. I would assume that whoever now controls his estate could receive his post-humous award. However, I don't think that ruling guarantees them the right to do an acceptance speech, I assume that still defaults to the lead producer.
Posted: 6/13/17 at 2:36pm
VintageSnarker said: "JudyDenmark said: "VintageSnarker said: "We could have had Paloma Young or Catherine Zuber or Rachel Chavkin accepting awards last night but we didn't."
See, this is ridiculous to me. I'm an active feminist, but the absolute last thing I want is women winning awards just because they're women. Those women didn't win because the voters felt that others in their categories were a better choice. I think it's important to have diversity at the ground level, but when it comes to awards, it makes me cringe to think that voters are checking boxes based on quotas rather than on who created the best work.
Who said anything about quotas? I didn't pick random names of nominated women. I specifically chose them because they had a good shot of winning in their categories unlike Eva or Denee."
It's about quotas because this is a thread about diversity. If you think they should've won because you liked their work better, that's entirely valid, but it should be in the "bitter Tony losers" thread where people are discussing the merits of the award-winners. In this thread, saying that "we could've had one of these female winners" clearly implies that they should have won because they're women.
Posted: 6/13/17 at 2:42pm
^I didn't think that was the implication at all. Paloma and Catherine were viewed as the two most likely to win their category and Rachel was the far and away frontrunner yet none of them won. When only 3 female directors of a musical have ever won, these things need to be pointed out.
Posted: 6/13/17 at 3:05pm
They now must recast Three Tall Women with an Asian cast
Posted: 6/13/17 at 3:17pm
froote said: "^I didn't think that was the implication at all. Paloma and Catherine were viewed as the two most likely to win their category and Rachel was the far and away frontrunner yet none of them won. When only 3 female directors of a musical have ever won, these things need to be pointed out."
And Barlett Sher was the frontrunner to win Director of Play. Upsets happen. It's an awards show.
Posted: 6/13/17 at 3:21pm
He wasn't as much of a frontrunner as Rachel and whilst I saw plenty of people suggest Rebecca could win, I saw no one suggest Christoper Ashley would.
What is the difference between pointing out trends in the gender of the winners and trends of the race of the winners?
Posted: 6/13/17 at 3:32pm
"He wasn't as much of a frontrunner as Rachel and whilst I saw plenty of people suggest Rebecca could win, I saw no one suggest Christoper Ashley would."
Do you believe that your personal, limited, anecdotal experience represents a universal truth?
Posted: 6/13/17 at 3:34pm
I think I read/watched 90% of people's Tony predictions that were posted on the internet (it's not exactly something super widely discussed) so I'd say it's pretty close, yes.
For the record I'm not suggesting the only reason Ashley won is because he's a man. But when troubling trends occur and strong frontrunners that are women lose, I do think it is worth examining.
Updated On: 6/13/17 at 03:34 PM
Posted: 6/13/17 at 3:46pm
"I think I read/watched 90% of people's Tony predictions that were posted on the internet (it's not exactly something super widely discussed) so I'd say it's pretty close, yes."
That's equally sad, impossible, and pointless, but if it's what you believe, have at it.
Posted: 6/13/17 at 5:26pm
AEA AGMA SM said: "Well, he died back in 2005, so he was obviously not there. I would assume that whoever now controls his estate could receive his post-humous award. However, I don't think that ruling guarantees them the right to do an acceptance speech, I assume that still defaults to the lead producer."
Well, of course I know August Wilson couldn't be there to receive a trophy or give a speech. 
I was just curious as to whether he's credited with a Tony Award since they changed the rule for "classic" revivals that had never previously been on Broadway. As I read the rule, I think he probably was.
Posted: 6/13/17 at 6:36pm
JudyDenmark said: "It's about quotas because this is a thread about diversity. If you think they should've won because you liked their work better, that's entirely valid, but it should be in the "bitter Tony losers" thread where people are discussing the merits of the award-winners. In this thread, saying that "we could've had one of these female winners" clearly implies that they should have won because they're women.
Nope, that's totally you reading into it assuming that the only reason they should have won is that they're women. I'm saying that the numbers could have been better if the voting had gone differently, but it didn't, and so things looked particularly bad.
Posted: 6/13/17 at 6:39pm
Listen to my friend Morgan and stop thinking in race.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3cGfrExozQ
Posted: 6/13/17 at 6:55pm
Yesssss praise! There are ACTUAL racial issues that need to be solved. People are dying in the streets for no good reason.
But people on here complaining that some wins for white people this year (that went to black people last year) means Broadway has a white supremacy problem? As the closest human we have to God himself said, it's not all about race!
Posted: 6/13/17 at 6:59pm
Racism comes in many shapes and sizes and all forms of it should be discussed and examined. It's the little changes that add up to a greater whole.
Posted: 6/13/17 at 7:25pm
froote said: "I think I read/watched 90% of people's Tony predictions that were posted on the internet (it's not exactly something super widely discussed) so I'd say it's pretty close, yes.
For the record I'm not suggesting the only reason Ashley won is because he's a man. But when troubling trends occur and strong frontrunners that are women lose, I do think it is worth examining."
You're not wrong. If you look at the "sure things" (outside of the acting awards, which are segregated by gender for...reasons) it seems that many of the "upsets" have come from men upsetting women. Pasek and Paul's deeply problematic book of DEH over Sankoff and Hein. Ashley over Chavkin (and other women). Whereas the reverse, where women "upset" a male perceived front-runner, is almost never the case.
Posted: 6/13/17 at 7:54pm
Let's keep it simple: with entertainment awards, there is no such thing as a "front runner;" there are, however, many idiots who believe they can predict the future.
Posted: 6/13/17 at 7:57pm
If there were no such thing as a frontrunner, it wouldn't be some peoples actual jobs to discuss what is going to win an Oscar all year round. Frontrunners are not foolproof, but they exist and win the majority of the time.
Posted: 6/13/17 at 8:02pm
If your life's work is attempting to predict winners of entertainment awards, I would recommend re-thinking your life choices.
Updated On: 6/13/17 at 08:02 PM
Posted: 6/13/17 at 8:03pm
If they enjoy it and get paid enough, I don't see why.
Posted: 6/13/17 at 9:15pm
froote said: "^I didn't think that was the implication at all. Paloma and Catherine were viewed as the two most likely to win their category and Rachel was the far and away frontrunner yet none of them won. When only 3 female directors of a musical have ever won, these things need to be pointed out.
But does it need to be pointed out that two female costume designers (both of whom have won Tonys in the past) happened to lose to a man this time?
Posted: 6/13/17 at 9:22pm
Not on its own no, but along with the other losses it makes sense to include that one. Loquasto has also won before.
But I think it's fairly obvious that more people are bothered about Rachel, particularly because women often get recognized in costume design but almost never as directors.
Posted: 6/13/17 at 9:27pm
kdogg36 said: "Well, of course I know August Wilson couldn't be there to receive a trophy or give a speech. I was just curious as to whether he's credited with a Tony Award since they changed the rule for "classic" revivals that had never previously been on Broadway. As I read the rule, I think he probably was."
This is kind of a weird rule that is commonly misunderstood. The authors of a Best Revival winner are not technically considered the winners of the award, only the producers are. HOWEVER, if/when the producers purchase additional awards (meaning the medallion mounted on the black base) to give to their co-producers/investors billed above the title, they are allowed to purchase awards for the authors as well.
August Wilson is officially a one-time Tony winner (for Fences) but it's very possible his family will have 3 Tony Awards (adding the revivals of Fences and Jitney) to display, assuming they and/or the producers wanted to pay for them.
Posted: 6/14/17 at 12:53am
Rebecca Taichman and Christopher Ashley were surprise winners at the Tonys, because the winners of Best Director often, but not always, go hand-in-hand with Best Play or Best Play Revival, or Best Musical or Best Musical Revival. So Bartlett Sher (''Oslo" ) was seen by most pundits as the likeliest to win Director of a Play; if not him, possibly Ruben Santiago-Hudson, who helmed the much acclaimed ''Jitney.'' Santiago-Hudson had just won the Drama Desk for Direction of a Play a couple weeks earlier. ... And most pundits picked Rachel Chavkin to win Director of a Musical, ostensibly because of her handling of the giant cast and the multi-tiered set. If not her, Michael Grief was likely to win because so many people loved ''Dear Evan Hansen,'' and some believed he was overdue for a career award, having lost for ''Rent,'' ''Next to Normal,'' etc.
That said, Taichman and Ashley were not totally out of left field; in fact, they had won precursors. Both of them had picked up the corresponding Director awards from the Outer Critics Circle. Taichman had beat out Lila Neugebauer (''The Wolves'' ); Jack O'Brien (''The Front Page'' ); Daniel Sullivan (''The Little Foxes'' ), and Kate Whoriskey (''Sweat'' ). Ashley had beat out David Cromer (''The Band's Visit'' ); Darko Tresnjak (''Anastasia'' ); Matthew Warchus (''Groundhog Day'' ), and Jerry Zaks (''Hello, Dolly!'' ).
Awards are so subjective. Who's to say who deserves it more? But to play devil's advocate: Ashley probably had to do the most with the least. He didn't have a huge cast, a mega-star, a movie adaptation or a dazzling set to work with. Nor was he was dealing with a B'way classic that had been once mapped out by Gower Champion. Ashley had a collection of stories and songs by an unknown married couple of writers, a cast of 12 and some chairs. How many other directors could've taken all of this, and a ''9/11 musical,'' at that, and turned it into a Broadway hit? Maybe that's what won him the Tony.
Costume Design: Catherine Zuber had won the Outer Critics and Drama Desk for ''War Paint,'' so she might've been the Tony front-runner. Yet at GoldDerby.com, 9 of the 17 experts were predicting Santo Loquasto; 4 went for Zuber, and 4 went for Young. ... I can't remotely believe that the Tony voters had any animus toward women designers. And Zuber is proof herself. She's a 6-time Tony winner. Young won a Tony in 2012 for ''Peter and the Starcatcher.'' Yes, she and Young lost Sunday night, but are Mimi Lien and Jane Greenwood (who finally won after 21 tries) chopped liver?
Upsets happen at awards. That's showbiz.
Updated On: 6/14/17 at 12:53 AM
