Unjustified Tony Wins and Losses — Page 4

I was a fan of Menzel's work in RENT, AIDA, and THE WILD PARTY. I wanted to badly for her to have her big break where she would finally get the recognition she deserved. And look, she got it - but for something completely mediocre.

I have learned just to disreguard some people's posts here, because clearly they are bonafide morons. And BSO, I don't think anyone on here is pretending to hate Idina, or to "jump on the BWW bandwagon" as you'd say. When is it ever "cool" on here to all hate or all love something? Is there an underground handbook going around that I don't know about?

If you actually thought about it for more than two seconds, which might be a little tough, maybe the reason so many people on here dislike WICKED and make fun of it is because the majority of people on here agree that it is a weak, flawed, overrated show. I don't think everyone on here who feels that way unanimously decided they would all post bad things about it. If so many people dislike WICKED, did you ever think that maybe there's a reason other than "everyone's doing it?"

You kind of just dug your own grave - no pun intended. You go around correcting everybody else, telling others how to post, what's right, what's wrong, what's allowed, what's stupid, who's to blame for certain things, and who's opinion doesn't matter - then you have the nerve to say "Dracula is a good show." It's your opinion, that's all. And if there was one reason for anyone on this board to loose faith in anything you might have to say, that is it.

---

D'Abruzzo is also excellent, in my opinion.

But I think that you're misunderstanding what I mean about Tartaglia's rehearsed-ness. His characterizations don't come across as rehearsed- to the contrary, they come off as fresh and spontaneous; however, like I said before, I've seen the show several times, and so many of his nuances and subtleties translate from performance to performance that I find it hard to believe that anyone could say that he isn't remarkable. Also, his character is VERY well thought-out- why do you think that rehearsed acting equates underdeveloped or flat acting?

For the record, I loved Menzel in "Rent" and "The Wild Party".

---

Updated On: 12/30/04 at 12:55 AM

"Also, his character is VERY well thought-out- why do you think that rehearsed acting equates underdeveloped or flat acting? "

It often doesn't start out that way, but it can unintentionally turn to that after hundreds of performances. The thing is, when an actor prepares with the aforementioned ways (meaning...discovering the psych and actually "experiencing" the character's life), it allows for a fresh performance every time as long as the focus is there. I think living off that character's past creates a more fresh moment in the present than a pre-planned future, if that makes ANY sense. I don't think it HAS to be in naturalistic acting...I think it just makes the present moment fresh. Pre-planning your moves can kind of make you meander from that.

I don't think anything specific can come to mind where I thought Tartaglia's every move seemed too rehearsed, but as I said, something just wasn't "there" that made me think he was really more than mediocre. Or maybe I built my expectations up way too high.

Oh, and for the record. I don't think Menzel's best work has been in Wicked. Maybe on the best nights I've seen her I could say that, but I find her work in Rent and The Wild Party a little more impressive.

Updated On: 12/30/04 at 01:04 AM

Better to be a pile of amazing amazingness than an over-hyped piece of crap.

as for hugh. he was great at being....Hugh. At no time did he transcend into Peter Allen. He was charming and funny and personable and great. But he didn't act.

When his lover died, we weren't moved. When his father died, we weren't moved. When he was dying women were STILL catcalling him in the audience.

That isn't acting.

Too bad Hugh didn't cross the street and work at the Golden. Maybe all that amazing amazingness would have rubbed off on him

i agree - i was sitting RIGHT in front of him and you could see how much he puts into the role...

FOAnatic - Amen!

am i a young child? no I am not...i'm in college 0 and a good one at that...

what am i talking about? i was reffering to your post

Butler was robbed.

---

I loves me some Jane Krakowski and, granted, her performance was well done. But, Masterson made me cry. Her performance was heart wrenching and powerful. Again, it's another instance where they give the award to the better known actress. Krakowski did a good job but was not in a lot of the show. Masterson should have gotten in.

And yes...Butler was robbed.

---

No, not at all. Butler shouldn't have won but she did deserve the nom.

I really hate the new Tony rule that makes these newish/old musicals fall under revival. Like with Assassins. It had never been on Broadway before, although it did have an Off Broadway run...still, that doesn't put it in the revival class. It was a new musical on Broadway and should have been treated as such. It didn't deserve the revival award because it wasn't one. The producers of the revivals this past season must have been quite pissed when they heard that Assassins was running against them.

---

i wish LSOH received more tony nominations

How can you say that Hugh was just playing Hugh ?

Who is the real Hugh? The angst-filled mutant from XMEN? The elegant and a little foppish Leopold, Duke of Albany? The womanizing media personality in Someone Like You? The charming cowpoke in Oklahoma! ? The droll and heroic Gabriel Van Helsing? The angry young man in Erskineville Kings? The reformed computer hacker in Swordfish? The flamboyant Peter Allen whose joie de vivre was lived to the fullest?

The Hugh you see on stage or on film is a chameleon, acting-wise. If you are going to praise John Tartaglia's ability (and yes, I did see AVENUE Q and likewise appreciated his performance), please do not do it at the expense of someone else, unless you have done your homework well.

Unfortunately, because of Hugh's looks and charisma, people mistake his appeal to be solely due to these personal assets which he has in abundance. Fortunately, the theatre critics ( and the TONY voters) were one and the same in recognizing his acting chops and his other musical theatre talents. Surely, such prominent members of the Broadway community were not all wrong. Also, the only solid standing ovation was given to Hugh after his TONY win was announced - a spontaneous recognition by the theatre community that it was a well-deserved win!

I think we have not seen him yet at his best, acting-wise. He is a classically trained actor ( I have seen some clips of him speaking the words of the Bard) and he can surprise us if and when he eventually does a play with Trevor Nunn from the Bard's many masterpieces. I also think that his screen promise has not been fully realized and that the right script will come along that is worthy of an Oscar-winning performance!

doing my best "whine":

Boo hoo, Follies should have beaten Two Gentlemen...Wicked was robbed...There's no freaking way Marissa should have won over Bernadette...La Cage sucked. Sunday in the Park was so much better...

BLAH BLAH BLAH!!! Get over it all ready. I loved La Cage but if it lost the Tony for best muscial, I wouldn't be whining about it 20 years after the fact. If you loved Wicked, great! That's all that matters. Who cares if it one or not. For that matter, who will remember 50 years from now that it lost the best musical Tony.