What happenened to the acting part in Best Actor Award?

[COOOOLkid]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 3:44am

After JLY won his Best Actor in a Musical award, I just couldn't help but to notice... If they awarded a Tony for his singing ability, why can't they change the name to "Best Singer in a Musical?"

I'm not really suggesting a name change, but just ranting about how JLY won instead of Michael Cerveris, I know...

Updated On: 7/9/06 at 03:44 AM

[Weez]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 4:20am

Isn't the award's full name "Best Performance By An Actor In A Leading Role In A Musical", therefore covering all aspects of the role? ^_^

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 4:28am

It's a musical. Singing is important.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 4:36am

Hey, if "Contact" could win best musical, anything is possible.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 4:39am

You're comparing apples and oranges. JLY is a tremendous actor, as is Cerveris.

[scooter38432]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 6:31am

It's just one of those things, I guess.

I had similar thoughts when Idina Menzel won Best "Actress".

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 7:49am

A good singer is a good actor. You can't truly separate the two.

[dirty rotten guy]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 8:18am

jrb, are you crazy?!

Ever seen Adam Pascal in the RENT movie? He can't act his way out of a paper bag.

[COOOOLkid]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 8:23am

I can happily accept the fact that a performer wins a Tony it that performer truly shows his/her emotions and such in a song, and wins it.(i.e. Audra in Ragtime), however, what was so great about JLY's acting skill, I don't know. I mean, I'm not saying that he is bad, but I don't think he should've gotten a Tony if he was competing with Michael Cerveris or any other roles that required much more acting.

Updated On: 7/9/06 at 08:23 AM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 8:40am

JERSEY BOYS is much more commercial, and will not only run here for a very long time, but will likely have a great touring life.

That's what the voters vote for. If you try to make the awards purely about quality, you're going to drive yourself crazy.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 10:22am

JLY tremendous? uh NO.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 10:35am

I think they should just change the top award from "Best Musical" to "Best Musical With the Most Potential As a Profit-Making Machine That Is Also Finanically Attractive to Producers As a Touring Show"

Best Leading Actor in a Musical should be changed to "Best Male Performer With a Lot of On-Stage Time Who Wowed Us With His Singing and/or Dancing Skills the Most"

We'd be right on track, then.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 10:36am

Oh, Twelvy. You and your practicality.

We enjoy our fantasy world - don't take it away from us!

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 10:38am

*puts fantasy world back in its place*

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 10:41am

*whew*

[etoile]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 10:50am

So do people actually know the motivation behind each voter's vote for each category in each award show?

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 10:51am

It's been well-known in the business how the voting works for many years. I've been right in the middle of it all, so yes, some of us know a lot about it.

It's 99% business decisions. Like everything else in life.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 11:05am

Honestly, I think it's this way...

Voters genuinely believe they are picking the best show (or person, whatever...) in the category. But their decisions are swayed by so many other factors.

The Broadway community is ALWAYS convinced, deep down inside, that it's dying. You see theatre folk bragging and celebrating gleefully about how good the hit show profits are, and at the same time there is a little hint of desperation in their eyes and voices.

So, when they vote... there is a gnawing voice in their heads saying... "pick what the PEOPLE want. We have to keep Broadway alive!" Especially when it comes to musicals. With plays, it's not as obviously desperate... because plays NEVER yield the profits that musicals do. There is far less money at stake with their voting decisions, so they are likely to vote with clearer heads (not that they always make good choices though, but at least they're closer to the mark).

Once in a while an "artistic" musical choice slips in with a win (NEVER a sweep), and it scares the Tony voters. They always manage to CORRECT their artsy selves the following season and return to a sane world of voting from the wallet (and the noble cause of keeping Broadway alive) once again.

As far as the "smaller" awards, most of them can't tell a backdrop from a tap shoe, so they tend to vote with the big, popular shows again. They've gotten a little more savvy and educated over the years, but many times they just lump all those "little awards" into one big basket of "we think you'll like this show the best."

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 11:11am

"If you try to make the awards purely about quality, you're going to drive yourself crazy. "

But don't people ALWAYS say that when their own particular favorite doesn't win?

Judging art isn't like doing a math problem. There is no definitive answer. We all allow our own preferences and prejudices to enter the equation. These things have ALWAYS been subjective and always will be, no matter who wins. So how do we know that when people voted as they did, they felt they were somehow voting for something or someone that was inferior?

Besides, it's not like Cerveris and Cerveris alone got rave reviews for his performance.

As someone said in a previous post, sometimes it really is about choosing an apple over an orange.


Updated On: 7/9/06 at 11:11 AM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 11:14am

That's giving quite a benefit of the doubt, b12b.

I can only speak for the years when I was in the business, but I'm sure it hasn't changed much, considering how the awards still go - these are the "rules" the voters tended to live by:

1. Vote for your own show(s)
2. Vote for your friends' show(s)
3. (for the out of town presenters) Vote for the shows you have booked already or hope to have booked for your upcoming season

Those "rules" applied across the board for the major categories. It's no different from any other major awards in this country - it's all about business, which means securing your market.

ETA: Twang, I've been saying that for years, whether my favorites have won or not. It's a fact.

Updated On: 7/9/06 at 11:14 AM

[jasonf]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 11:14am

Could someone (has someone) won best actor (or actress) in a musical for a role that involved no (or next to no) singing? The example that's coming to mind is Yul Brynner, but even he had a couple of songs, though he clearly won for his acting.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 11:17am

Rathy, very nicely put. I'm sure you're right, here.

EDIT: I guess I was trying to give these voters a little more slack, believing they are voting for the cause of keeping Broadway alive... and I guess in a way they still are.

But the idea of keeping Broadway alive for their close friends in particular (since the Broadway community is SO very small and cliquish) makes a hell of a lot of sense to me as well.

Updated On: 7/9/06 at 11:17 AM

[Kitzarina]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 11:19am

Yul Brynner didn't win Best Actor; he won Best Supporting Actor.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 11:24am

JLY totally deserved it and his acting was great. Just because he didn't act the part of Sweeney, a part that is much darker and more of a stretch for most people, he still had to ACT the part of Franki Valli. I think he really hit the nail on the head with the naivity of Valli, then afterwards growing up into the full blown star that he is/was. He still had to act the part, and just because he was playing a real person doesn't mean he had to act any less than Cerveris. In fact, playing a real person is often much harder because you have to make the audience believe you are that person, whom they most likely know.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 11:33am

Kitzy, you're right, but the award was actually "featured actor." It's a semantics issue, but in its original conception it had nothing to do with the size of the role. It had to do with billing. It should have been Best Actor with Featured Billing, because that's what they meant by it. Anyone who's name was below the title of the show was automatically put in this category (until the rules changed in the mid-'70s).

Over the years up until the mid-'70s, "featured" had come to mean "supporting," and that upset quite a lot of actors. It started with William Daniels when he removed his name from consideration for 1776, when he was put in this "featured" category for playing a leading role in his show. They changed the rules after that, so now it does pretty much mean "supporting."

As far as Yul's "acting" as the primary reason for his win in The King and I, I would agree. He has one song (Puzzlement) which is about 2 minutes long, and that's it. The rest is non-musical acting (if you want to call it that). I have always thought and hoped that this was indeed an ACTING award. As Jerby said, and I agree with, the best singers and dancers are ACTORS. They are helping to tell their stories and convey their characters through song and dance in a musical, but they are ACTING (above ALL ELSE) in their roles while doing so. That's why I see no problem with an actor who doesn't sing or dance winning this award. Or an actor who doesn't dance a step but sings winning, or a dancer who doesn't sing a note winning, etc. But the ACTING needs to be first-rate. I don't necessarily see this being reflected in some of the Tony wins recently... but I would hope it was the case.