There have been five productions of GYPSY on Broadway. Arthur Laurents directed three of them. He won the Tony for Best Direction of a Musical (Gypsy) in 1975, but wasn't nominated in 1989. He was nominated for the current production. Seems like overkill to me. Was he nominated because he's old?
Possibly because the current production has stellar actors, and the overall effect is superior to the 1989 version. I don't really think "old" is considered here (why should it be, and why shoould they give someone a nomination/award, other than merit...? Certainly, when I'm old, I hope they will not be looking at me as an "old" person, but as a still vibrant, contributing member of the process, whatever that might be.
BobbyBubby ... :I ... Although I think we all will be considered sometime in our lives as having great "sex appeal" by someone else...Now, isn't that comforting and reassuring :)
Arthur Laurents didn't win the Tony in 1975. Geoffrey Holder did for THE WIZ.
Personally, I find it kinda funny that he got nominated twice for doing essentially the same thing. Much like James Lapine's two Best Director nominations for INTO THE WOODS.
"You mean what was the best picture of the year or what did they pick as the best picture of the year?" - California Suite
Well, I wouldn't be thrilled if Bartlet Sher won. I don't like his South Pacific as much as the Trevor Nunn Royal National Theatre revival. I'm not sure who I would pick for best director though when Patti wins I guess it would be fitting if the man partly responsible for her performance also won, but I'd like to think he'd have a better chance if the production itself wasn't so cheep looking. I honestly hope that plays a small factor in the decision making.
"Winning a Tony this year is like winning Best Attendance in third grade: no one will care but the winner and their mom."
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
Well, the show did get a nod for Best Costume Design, so the Nominating Committee certainly didn't have a problem with it.
"Winning a Tony this year is like winning Best Attendance in third grade: no one will care but the winner and their mom."
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
I know what you mean. I'm not a fan of that smock either. I think it's hideous. But I think Laurents' work with LuPone in the turnaround of her portrayal of Rose from City Center to Broadway should weigh more in judging his work as a director over a costume when he is the director and not the costume designer.
"Winning a Tony this year is like winning Best Attendance in third grade: no one will care but the winner and their mom."
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
I agree. Which is why I find it strange when sometimes actors are nominated and directors aren't. I know there's only so much room, but a lot of actors wouldn't be as great as they are if it weren't for great directors.
...and, you could run out of time (not to mention money) to push for a different approach to the set. This happens sometimes, but as noted, the director should concentrate first and foremost on directing the actors and the way the play develops. However, on the other hand, if "I" was the director, I would definitely pay attention to the set, costuming, EVERYTHING, since it all is a reflection of the overall impact of the production. Just my HO.