Was Audra's 1998 Tony win unexpected?

I recall at the time that the pre-show polls and media pundits had them neck and neck. Speculation was that voters were trying to make sure Ragtime got its share instead of The Lion King completely sweeping. Plus, Audra had the showiest, most effective moments with "Your Daddy's Son" and the end of "New Music".

Personally, I let out a big whoop and frightened the neighbors when Audra's name was called. And you could see the industry support she has when she got the standing O for winning another featured Tony.

---

I would have voted for Tsidii Le Loka that year. She was magnificent and so unusual on stage.

Audra was very good, but I felt from the start she was miscast as Sarah. Her singing voice was too Julliiard for the character, but she still delivered a powerhouse performance which actually overpowered Brian Stokes Mitchell dramatically at times. The balance was much better when LaChanze played the role. Her Sarah was more earthy, and you believed that she was in love with this "rock star" of a man. When Audra was on the stage, SHE was the "rock star." It didn't work with the story or the actors. The focus was off. Quite frankly, the entire production of "Ragtime" was much better with the L.A. cast. They gelled together and had great chemistry all around, and the NY cast never quite did.

I also saw Ragtime and Lion King very close together in time (so they were fresh comparisons), and I thought going into the theatre that there was no way Lion King was going to be better than Ragtime. And when I came out of the theatre, I knew it was going to win the Tony over Ragtime. There was no doubt in my mind.

Just as Audra had overwhelmed the character of Sarah, the production aspects of Lion King overwhelmed the actors. I think that's why Tsidii Le Loka didn't win, as good as she was.

---

I was happy Audra won that year, but agree with Best12Bars, that LaChanze was a better fit (I actually preferred her voice). That being said, I saw The Lion King and Ragtime within a couple weeks of each other and whereas The Lion King left me cold, I was moved by Ragtime, and it quickly became one of my all-time favorite shows. I also found Tsidii Le Loka's performance to be quite annoying.

---

Unrelated to the Tony Awards was the amplification of RAGTIME. Audra was over-amplified, distorting her beautiful voice. I went to the sound booth at intermission and complained that a voice like that simply did not need so much "help". The sound men looked at me as if I were crazy.

For me, RAGTIME was a disappointment. There were just too many characters to make sense out of the plot. I'm sure of the reasons for having so many characters, but what worked in the novel did not work for the stage, IMO. And I was also disappointed in the theatre itself. I was in the front mezzanine and felt a million miles from the stage. I was looking forward to seeing the revival, to give the musical another chance in a smaller theatre, with hopefully a better sound design, but the show folded quickly in a season that also saw FINIAN'S RAINBOW fold quickly, despite good reviews. Broadway can be fickle.

---

Mary Louise Wilson would have won if it was any other year. Her performance in CABARET was outstanding. It was actually a great year for musicals in general (199 with Cabaret, Lion King, Ragtime, etc...

Frau Schneider is usually the award winning role in CABARET... For the 1998 revival's London run in 1994, Sara Kestelman won the Olivier for supporting actress and then in 2008, Sheila Hancock won the Olivier for her performance. So, I'm surprised Wilson didn't win any award that season

Thank you for reminding me of Sara Kestelman's wonderful performance as Fraulein Schneider. Truly a great singing actress. Mary Louise Wilson offered perhaps the best "What Would You Do?" I've ever heard. It neck-and-neck between her and Lenya in my mind. I saw the Cabaret revival numerous times with many fine Fraulein Schneiders--Blair Brown, Polly Bergen, Carole Shelley--but none of them touched Wilson.

I'm glad she won a well-deserved Tony for GREY GARDENS, though. In my mind, that award covers both performances.

---

That was and wasn't the story I heard (from people very close to the show), AC ...

LaChanze was in the workshop of Ragtime. She left willingly, yes, but not because of pregnancy. She thought the role was underwritten, and honestly when she left it, it was. There was no "Your Daddy's Son" yet and no appearance at all in Act II.

She also didn't originate the role in Toronto. Audra came on board when LaChanze left after the first workshop, and the creative team expanded the role at that poin, adding the material mentioned above. If only she'd held out! On the other hand, those songs might not have been written had it not been for Audra's involvement. Who knows?

Bottom line is when they announced an American Premiere Cast opening in Los Angeles while the Toronto production was still running, LaChanze was back as Sarah. That production opened before the Broadway production. So I saw LaChanze as Sarah first, before Audra. And for me, there was no comparison. LaChanze WAS Sarah on stage, and Audra was "acting" Sarah and didn't seem right for the part.

Here's a clip (albeit a weird one) when LaChanze replaced Audra in the Broadway production (after the L.A. sit-down Premiere Production closed). At least you can get an idea what she was like in the "ghost" section of Act II (of course, with no orchestra or lighting, since it's outdoors). And Brian Stokes Mitchell and LaChanze had such wonderful chemistry (he's not in the clip here). It was truly magical, and they embodied the characters. For me, that just wasn't happening with Audra in the role (again, as good as she was). I do believe it's possible to be wonderful in a role and still "not fit" with everything and everyone around you. Hey, but she still got her Tony, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb84wrcoBCo

---

Updated On: 8/16/11 at 10:41 AM

Do you happen to know when that workshop was, besty? I have...ahem...documentation of what I was told was the first workshop of RAGTIME and it's definitely Audra as Sarah. She, Stokes, Judy Kaye, and Stephen Sutcliffe are the only people in this workshop who made it to the Broadway cast. It could very well be a subsequent workshop, but I distinctly remember being told that it was the first.

And I couldn't agree more with you, as I saw LaChanze on Broadway after she replaced Audra. She was a hundred times more attuned to the character than Audra. I generally thought that much of the second cast--especially John Rubenstein as Tateh--bested their predecessors.

And Robbie, I'm in my office so it's iced coffee, but I'm raising it.

---

Updated On: 8/16/11 at 10:47 AM

Natasha Richardson's performance in Cabaret ranks as one of the BEST I've ever seen in any musical. She just owned that role (I did see some fine replacements in the cast, however her performance just floored me.)

AC, that's definitely not the first workshop. LaChanze was Sarah, absolutely.

I'm not sure what you have, but Judy Kaye wasn't hired for Emma Goldman until the Premiere L.A. cast. The role was Camille Saviola's in the early workshops and in Toronto. When Judy Kaye played it in the Los Angeles company, she got a lot of attention, great reviews, and won an Ovation Award as Best Supporting Actress for her performance. When Brian Stokes Mitchell left the L.A. cast to join the OBC (which was moving from Toronto as planned), suddenly Judy went with him. It was a surprise to everyone, including and especially Camille, since she had to be bought out of her contract for Judy to play this part on Broadway.

Ah, backstage drama.

---

"And there was something jarring about McDonald's absence for almost the entire second act. Her presence was immense, it made the whole show feel lopsided."

Exactly, Mister Matt. That's what I mean about someone being very good, but a "bad fit" for the show overall.

In addition to the chemistry being noticeably better in L.A. company, they played the Shubert Theatre (no longer there, sadly). It was a decent sized venue, but "normal." Not a gigantic barn like the Ford/Hilton. For me, the impact was diminished in NY. Some of it was chemistry, and some of it was the venue. Regardless, it felt "off."

---

Yes, it does. That explains a lot. Thanks for clarifying some of the history of the show and its development.

---