What happenened to the acting part in Best Actor Award?- Page 2

[Kitzarina]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 11:35am

I can't believe I called it Best Supporting Actor. Thank you for being kind about correcting me. I guess I was just a bit distracted by Naughty American History

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 11:51am

Thomas Mitchell won the Tony for Best Actor in a Musical Award in 1953 for a non-singing/non-dancing role in HAZEL FLAGG.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 1:29pm

dirty rotten guy, no, I am not crazy. A person who can not act might be a pretty singer, but YAWN. Who cares about a performance that is ONLY a pretty sound? That would not be MY definition of a "good singer". That is why I am often frustrated with opera--and with many of the performances one sees in musical theatre these days.

I'd rather see a person with a mediocre voice who can act the crap out of a part than someone with a gorgeous voice "sing pretty".

[jasonf]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 1:31pm

Thanks Margo - had a feeling you'd be along with an answer.

[sondheimboy2]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 1:47pm

The only time that a singer can't act (besides Kelly Clarkson in "When Kelly Met Justin", or whatever the hell that thing was called) is in opera.

And that is only when you give them lines to speak.

Singing is acting.

And, I learned that commerce will trump art at the Tonys when "La Cage Aux Folles" beat out "Sunday in the Park with George." When "Lost in Yonkers" beat out "Six Degrees of Separation".

The only time when it doesn't is when the voters don't like the commerce for one reason or another. "Passion" beating out "Beauty and the Beast." "Will Rodgers Follies" beating out "Miss Saigon."

JLY deserved his Tony.

And is he just as cute as a bug, or what?

[dirty rotten guy]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 2:04pm

For the great majority, Broadway is full of singers who act, not actors who sing.

[SallyBrown]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 2:25pm

The way I see it is:

Most musical theatre songs require a character behind them. Musical theatre is telling a story through song and dance, no? So, you kind of need to act out your songs, through dance yes, through movement yes, but on CDs you don't see movement or dance you hear the voice, and hear the voice acting.

Or is that totally not having to do with anything?

[blueroses]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 2:25pm

*shrugs* I thought John Lloyd Young was fantastic.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 3:12pm

"Broadway is full of singers who act, not actors who sing"

I think a great number of performers would find that statement to be incorrect. Patti LuPone, Michael Cerveris, Donna Murphy, etc. probably all consider themselves to be actors first. And they have amazing voices. The point is

TO BE A GOOD PERFORMER WHETHER SINGING, DANCING, SPEAKING, OR EVEN STANDING STILL, YOU HAVE TO BE AN ACTOR.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 3:35pm

"I'd rather see a person with a mediocre voice who can act the crap out of a part than someone with a gorgeous voice "sing pretty"."

I absolutely agree with this. But it's sad that we so often have only one or the other on a professional stage.

[dirty rotten guy]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 4:00pm

JRB, I did not say all of them, I simply said the great majority. Of course there are exceptions, but in the current state of Broadway musicals, your voice is generally more important than your acting ability.

[LostLeander]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 4:16pm

John Lithgow in Sweet Smell... he has For Susan, and a couple of licks here and there, but for the most part he just talks.

Idina Menzel in Wicked.







Kidding.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 4:55pm

And, I would argue that that is a SHAME. But, then again, the best performances have been by people who could do both. And that is what we SHOULD aspire to. But above all else, being a good actor is the most important part. Period.

And I hate when people say "Period." but I feel justified in using it here so :P

[Phantom2]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 4:58pm

Two words: TRIPLE THREAT

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 5:05pm

Well, my fave performers can't dance, but I think dancers are awesome. And they have to act, too. Even if they don't speak or sing a word. No one gets a break on the boards!

[Phantom2]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 5:13pm

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 9:36pm

I agree with Tennessee Twang. Art is subjective, and so are awards. Sometimes you agree with them; sometimes you don't.

Frankly, I thought John Lloyd Young was terrific as an actor AND as a singer in 'Jersey Boys.' And for anyone who thought Tony voters picked him simply because he was in a hit show, I'd point out that the Drama Desk voters and the Outer Critics Circle voters also chose JLY for Best Actor in a Musical, and neither group has any commercial interest in the outcome. I've voted in the OCC and the DD, and I always pick who impressed me most.

Short of polling every Tony voter, who knows why they picked what they picked? Is it because they believed a certain performance was the year's best? Or is it because they wanted to acknowledge a rising star, or reward an overdue veteran? Or did they want to spread the wealth among the shows? Did one actor get more points because he originated a role, or because another one gave a new spin to a classic part? It's all speculation.

[mijofly19]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 9:43pm

"Broadway is full of singers who act, not actors who sing"

I disagree with that as well. Most of these people are in movies and on Law & Order because they are actors, not singers. Patti LuPone stated in one of her FAQ's that she's an actor who sings, not a singer who acts. Lauren Molina stated in the "Sunset & 42nd" Podcast last week, that she wishes to do a straight play, so she can show off the fact that she is an actress. I have also heard in interviews/talked with many actors that feel that same way. Although quite a few Broadway stars have solo CDs, most of them would rather be considered actors.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 9:51pm

"Who cares about a performance that is ONLY a pretty sound?"

Are you living under a rock? A hell of a lot of people care about a performance if it is only a pretty sound. I think it's stupid, but there are MANY MANY people who are impressed by singing more than acting. And hell, even if they are good singers in the sense that they perform and act songs well, I want to see somebody who can act in speaking scenes as well if that's required of them. So yes, you can absolutely separate the two. A good singer is not necessarily a good actor.

"Although quite a few Broadway stars have solo CDs, most of them would rather be considered actors."

Well, yes. Most of them would rather be considered actors first, but I tend to think an awful lot who THINK they're "actors first" are much better singers than they are actors. There are plenty of "actors that sing" on Broadway, but I tend to think the majority of the performers are singers/dancers who act.


Updated On: 7/9/06 at 09:51 PM

[kenmarksnj]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 9:55pm

do you guys not understand that the tony awards are VOTED for?

i LOVE michael cerveris

i LOVE john lloyd young

i work at jersey boys, so i COULD be biased since it won best musical.

BUT...

at a certain point you really need to learn how to not take awards so seriously and just realize that they are truly a matter of the opinions of the board members of the american theater wing.

you can disagree with someone's opinion but it takes a stronger man to accept and disagree than to argue with someone's opinion AFTER the damage has been done.

there are much better things to worry about.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 10:44pm

The problem, Broadway Girl, is that you seem to be separating acting from singing. What you mean to say is speaking vs singing. Acting is necessary for BOTH.

An actor goes onstage and uses the physical tools they are given: their body to move (whether blocking or dance) and their voice (whether speaking or singing).

Again, I say that a good singer IS a good actor. Otherwise, it's just pretty NOISE.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 11:07pm

There are plenty of people who are good singers that won't necessarily be good actors. Plenty of people can perform a song charismatically and with heart without being able to be present in their scene and connecting with their fellow actors. It's entirely possible. You see it ALL the time.

That's like saying because Kelly Clarkson is a good singer, she'll be a good actress. Not necessarily. It may mean she has the POTENTIAL to be a good actress, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she'll really DELIVER as an actress. All it means is she'll deliver as a singer. Perhaps in the wrong sense.

Look at Adam Pascal. The guy certainly knows how to sing a song. He's passionate and connected. He's not a good actor because even though he DOES have that, he doesn't engage with the other performers the way a really good actor does. He doesn't make the interesting choices a good actor always would. He's not on his toes the way a "real actor" would be. But he definitely can sing.


Updated On: 7/9/06 at 11:07 PM

[broadway86]

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

I thought Young was outstanding as Frankie Valli, and very deserving of his Tony.

[etoile]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 11:21pm

"Short of polling every Tony voter, who knows why they picked what they picked? Is it because they believed a certain performance was the year's best? Or is it because they wanted to acknowledge a rising star, or reward an overdue veteran? Or did they want to spread the wealth among the shows? Did one actor get more points because he originated a role, or because another one gave a new spin to a classic part? It's all speculation."

Thank you for a well thought out statement from someone actually qualified to voice an opinion on the voting process.

If, as someone stated, it is so well known how the voting process works, then why the need to tell the board how your well known process works? Would we not already know? Or must one be "right in the middle of it all" before it becomes well known?

I think to speculate on a voter's vote as 99% a business decision, or any other one reason, does a disservice to those individuals who have actually won an award. I sense it as an attempt to try to diminish an award winner's achievement.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/9/06 at 11:25pm

"Plenty of people can perform a song charismatically and with heart without being able to be present in their scene and connecting with their fellow actors."

Who's to say they aren't acting when they are performing "charismatically and with heart"? But if they are not connecting with the other actors in the scene, then, no, they are not being a good actor and thus they can sing as pretty as they please--I could care less. I just tune out.

Kelly Clarkson IS a good actress when she sings. It's the same problem Madonna has--Madonna is a great actress when she sings and/or dances. But, for some reason, she looses the ability to connect when she speaks.

It's not black or white.

I've only seen Pascal in Rent--I thought he was great in that role. If he isn't able to play other roles, he may well be a lousy actor, but that doesn't take away the fact that he did nail Roger on stage--at least the night I saw the show.

Updated On: 7/9/06 at 11:25 PM