What Tony award season....- Page 2

[robbiej]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 12:31pm

I guess my feelings on the role of the witch have nothing to do with the entrance or the number of solos and more to do with the function of the role. The witch is very tenuously tied to the plot and the entire show has an ensemble feel to it. I think the best I've ever seen the role of the witch work was when there was no 'name' playing it. Ellen Foley gave a very sexy reading of the witch, but her presence did not distort the show. A star presence of Williams and Peters magnitude, I feel, tends to stretch the the role a bit too far.

[tpdc]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 12:31pm

Al Dente, I agree with you about Sherrie Rene Scott. I think her performance helped AIDA be a hit as much as Headley's. Karen Ziemba won the Tony not yates, right?

[Al Dente]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 12:33pm

Again, it's been a while but I think Ziemba and Yeats were in different categories. I could be wrong, I'll check and get back to you.

[TheBalladeer]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 12:36pm

Robbie, I know you weren't saying anything disparaging about Vanessa...I was just simply explaining to you why I liked Vanessa out of conversation. Anyway, I actually enjoyed the revival quite a bit. But I do think it was too soon for it. And I also agree on your opinions on the function of the Witch in the show. It IS an ensemble show. However, it is obvious some characters have more of a function than others. It is so funny that the Baker and his Wife are supposed to be the central characters, but the Witch always seems to upstage those two characters in every production I have seen done of this show. Odd.


I also agree about Millie beating Urinetown for best musical. That was just ridiculous. Obviously some sort of politics were involved in that. Also, I was infuriated that Kerry Butler wasn't nominated for her supporting role in Hairspay, and that she should have won. I still can't get over that Jane Krakowski won the Tony for her performance in Nine. Although she was very good, I believe that Mary Stuart Masterson, and Tammy Blanchard definitely had more to offer than she did within that category, and Chita, is just....well, Chita.

Cheers,
The Balladeer

Updated On: 10/9/03 at 12:36 PM

[tpdc]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 12:40pm

Robbie, from what I've read, the reason they replaced Foley (and many people agree with you that she was the best Witch) was that they wanted the Witch to be the unliked, unpleasant truthteller throughout and they realized they wanted a star to make those moments that were important to them land with the force they intended. After Foley, they had Betty Buckley until shortly before production when they got Peters. I think the star entrance and additional costume were the things they added for Peters. The number of solos and the finale are there to make the character as important and forceful as the authors wanted. I think the Baker and the Baker's Wife are clearly the lead characters but the Witch is "the star".

[Al Dente]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 12:44pm

Tpdc, they were both nominated in the supporting category. It was the 2000 Tony season. If you check Broadway.com's archives, it gives a complete list. Alot of (imo) egregious mistakes.

[Zola LaPlaya]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 12:46pm

Ragtime should have won over that silly Lion King.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 12:48pm

Tonyawards.com has an archive of nominees and winners up and running as well.

[robbiej]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 12:50pm

Yes, Al D, that CONTACT year was BIZARRE!!!

I thought Stokes was completely miscast in KMK and yet he won the Tony.

I've never liked that Ziemba woman and she beat our beloved Eartha!

And the fact that Wild Party lost EVERYTHING was just ridiculous. At least Wild Part WAS a musical. With an incredibly exciting score and some stellar performances.

And I would have easily left out any of the men who were nominated in the supporting actor category from KMK for the wonderful performance of Marc Kudisch in Wild Part.

[TheBalladeer]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 12:55pm

Well tp, that logic they had is flawed, because that only makes the witch MORE likeable. Especially with Bernadette Peters, although it was quite obvious that with her portrayal of the Witch, she was supposed to be very forceful, determined, and no-nonsense in Act II especially, for me, it was hard to take her seriously after she was somewhat goofing up and playing up the schtick in Act I. When it was time for the Witch to actually be more intimidating than before in the second act, it just seemed that the Witch was more cranky, rather than pissed off and intimidating. This wasn't the case with Vanessa. She didn't play up the comedy in Act I, her Witch just seemed very mysterious, and determined to get what she wanted in Act I, and you could also get that this was not a woman you would want to mess with. After this has been set up, in Act II, when it was time for Last Midnight, you really got a chill when she finally tried to intimidate/reprimand the other characters for their actions to get their wishes filled. Just my opinion. I wish I could have seen Betty Buckley as the Witch. Now THAT would have been interesting.

Cheers,
The Balladeer

[TEACHEROFTHEATER]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 12:55pm

I saw the original cast of Will Rogers Follies at the Palace theater and thought it was huge and spectacular and very, very


boring.

However, I do love the cd:)))

On the other hand, Miss Saigon was gripping and intense for me. I absolutely was stunned at the brilliant intimacy of Miss Saigon, by far the best of the "British Invasion" musicals, I think.

I wish Miss Saigon had beaten Will Rogers Follies for the Tony award.

I saw Tommy Tune several times in Seesaw and in Bye, Bye, Birdie. I find that every Tommy Tune musical I have seen, I have found dull and boring:

Best Little Whorehouse in Texas
Nine
Grand Hotel
Will Rogers Follies

I like them all on cd (with the exception of Grand Hotel) but certainly didn't care for them in the theater.

The fact that NINE won best musical over DREAMGIRLS kinda shows you how seriously one can take the merits of a show based on a Tony award win. DREAMGIRLS was in a hemisphere that NINE was too pretentious and sleepy to even think of.

[magruder]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 1:01pm

That's what makes horse races, tpdc. I think Urinetown achieves everything it sets out to do, and does so in spades. But as far as a happy, fluffy, tap dancey evening, if you compare the productions of Millie, with the current 42nd Street, for example ... does Millie come close to the style and delirium that 42nd Street generates? It didn't for me, though I know it does for others here.

[robbiej]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 1:12pm

Same here, magruder.

I think of the dizzying heights offered by CRAZY FOR YOU and then I look at MILLIE and I'm all 'Eh'.

There are VERY few shows that combine the sensibilities of Brecht, Weill and Blitztein with the wit of Loesser and Burrows HOW TO SUCCEED, but indeed Mark Hollman and Greg Kotis did it brilliantly.

MILLIE may be old fashioned, but it's not necessarily good.

[TheBalladeer]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 1:17pm

You liked the non-sensical plot and overdone songs of "Crazy For You"? Ugh...that is one of my LEAST favorite musicals. I think Millie definitely had more to offer than Crazy For You. BIG time.

[robbiej]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 1:28pm

Really???

I don't pretend that either book is Chekhov. But that glorious Gershwin music and the knock-em-dead original Broadway production just left me giddy!

Not only did I think MILLIE was poorly written, I also thought it was hidously designed and choreographed without charm or ingenuity.

[TEACHEROFTHEATER]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 2:03pm

robbiej, I too loved Crazy For You.

It was certainly the most exciting live presentation of Gershwin music I have seen in my lifetime:)

[tpdc]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 3:15pm

I think I guess I approached a stage version of MILLIE with lowered expectations. The film version isn't a classic either. I agree that in design and choreography it was very lacking. I really think URINETOWN was robbed of a Tony for Carrafa. I expected a pleasant entertainment and for the most part, I thought MILLIE delivered on my expectations. Without the original cast, I might not like it as much. I think Kudisch, Creel, Ralph and especially Harris really got as much out of the material as they could. Expecting something groundbreaking from URINETOWN, I was disappointed when I got something as mildly entertaining as MILLIE.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 3:24pm

just want to check...do people really prefer MISS SAIGON over LES MIZ or even PHANTOM ("best of the Brit invasion")?!?! i mean, there are some nice melodies, and there were incredible original performances (haven't seen it since the West End opening week), but there are weak moments too ("The American Dream", etcetera). i just think the whole business of comparing shows is so subjective...some folks like apple peel better, some swear by orange rind. i've always sort of wished that award categories would take in all work by a person in a season...like the Brit Academy Awards do. i guess that's impractical, though.

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 3:32pm

Lion King won just because of the whole show concept. All of the puppets and great sets made whoever voted vote for the Lion King. That probably goes for Hairspray too.

[robbiej]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 3:36pm

Yes...I like Miss Saigon better than Les Miz.

As for Lion King v. Ragtime, remember the award is for the best production of a musical...where all the elements come together to form a whole. In that respect, I preferred the entire production of LK much for than I did Ragtime.

That said, I would choose Ragtime over LK as the cd I would choose to listen to.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 3:38pm

i was also glad LION KING was recognized in that it might encourage corporations (like Disney) to let artists (like Julie Taymor) have more free reign with their patronage and intellectual property. As popular as BEAUTY & THE BEAST is, for the sake of the theatrical art, wasn't it more exciting to see LION KING re-invented rather than just put into three-dimensions with live performances? Let's hope that happens again, instead of the reverse. And i do think the LION KING score was also heightened and amplified (in the good way) from screen to stage. The ethnic rhythms and even vocal harmonies were a welcome addition to the B'way canon. i don't think it's ever a good idea to dismiss a project just because of judgemental assumptions regarding its source.

Updated On: 10/9/03 at 03:38 PM

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 3:39pm

I'd rather see 'Saigon' than 'Les Mis' even though 'Saigon' has more flaws. But I thought 'Les Mis' was just flat-out dull in points (especially as staged on Broadway) whereas 'Saigon' was at least cleverly staged and exciting to watch. I'd probably sit through 'Phantom' over 'Les Mis' but after 'Music of the Night' I'm going to the lobby until Act II.

[TheBalladeer]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 3:42pm

WOW. Really???? I would watch Les Mis over all of those you mentioned, Papa. Ah well. Diff'rent Strokes for Diff'rent folks...

[Benzy92]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 3:48pm

Marla Schaffel getting beaten by Christine Ebersole.
Robert Cuciolli getting beaten by James Naughten.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 10/9/03 at 3:50pm

gotta agree, Benzy. And i love Ebersole, but that role as directed as was hardly Tony-worthy.