What was the most shocking Tony Win/loss ever?- Page 5

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 6:02pm

No it wasn't a shock that Bernadette didn't win because she wasn't right for the role. Bernadette Peters is the Helena Bonham-Carter of Broadway. She's good in her niche roles, but she gets cast in roles that she's not good with. The Merman roles (Gypsy, AGYG) are not Bernadette's style.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 6:22pm

It's interesting to me how time and perception can change so much.

I'm sure there are people today who would find it "shocking" that A Chorus Line beat Chicago for Best Musical.

Just as people are shocked that The Music Man beat West Side Story.

At the time when the awards were given out, there was no shock at all.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 6:25pm

Looking at it historically, that Mr. Roberts took Best Play over A Streetcar Named Desire and that The Desperate Hours took it over Cat on a Hot Tin Roof would seem to discredit the plausibility of the Tonys, period.

Looking at it from my personal experience, Jason Robards not getting it over Michael Moriarity and Raul Esparza not getting it over David Hyde Pierce were the two most egregious oversights I've ever seen.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 7:03pm

Let's put the WICKED/AVENUE Q thing to rest. It was absolutely, positively, without a doubt, a major surprise that AVENUE Q won the award.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/07/theater/tony-awards-finish-up-with-fuzzy-surprise-puppet-musical-wins-big-does-my-own.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
"...a stunning upset..."

http://www.today.com/id/5151193#.UUZF6lvwKqA
"...upset..."

http://www.bmi.com/news/entry/20040607_tony_finds_a_home_on_avenue_q
"...surprise win..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/theater/avenue-q-tony-coup-is-buzz-of-broadway.html
"...one of the biggest upsets in Tony history..."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1941066
"...surprise winner..."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-06-07/features/0406070017_1_tony-awards-night-music-assassins
"...beat out the heavyweight favorite..."

http://articles.philly.com/2004-06-07/news/25368941_1_tony-race-audra-mcdonald-jefferson-mays
"...a surprise winner, if not a stunning upset..."

And then the predictions:

http://www.today.com/id/5122610/43339411
"[WICKED] seems to have a lock..."

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/06/06/tem_jackie06predictions.html
"Bet the house on WICKED."

http://www.broadway.com/buzz/93329/which-2007-tony-pundit-had-the-clearest-crystal-ball/
"Not one pundit predicted Best Musical winner AVENUE Q would take home that award, all of them predicted WICKED." (These fourteen pundits include correspondents from EW, NY Times, NY Post, USA Today, Associated Press, Time Out NY, etc, etc, etc...)

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NYTimes.com+Announces+Reader+Predictions+Sweepstakes+for+Tony...-a0116803443
"67% of NY Times readers predict WICKED [will win Best Musical]"

There's also a Variety link that won't open that remarks "Virtually all the Tony touts had predicted WICKED, a splashy riff on "The Wizard of Oz," would take the top honor..."

I believe I have proven myself to not be a WICKED fangirl on these boards. I like AVENUE Q. But I have no idea how you can say that WICKED losing the Tony wasn't a shocker or a surprise, let alone one of the biggest in Tony history.

And the Vegas deal is not a "moot point," because the truth remains that they thought a deal with Wynn would be a cash cow for the show and they wouldn't need to tour. When the Vegas production started flopping (which it did, very badly), the producers then looked at the option to tour. Initially, they had no interest in touring even though they acted as if they did in front of road voters. Here's Riedel's article on the situation from when it was first revealed, and I can tell you with 100% certainty from various reliable sources that his report is extremely truthful.
http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/item_ONKSq7JYOVMg5BZHH71JYP Updated On: 3/17/13 at 07:03 PM

[Emma White]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 8:08pm

CZJ was certainly pretty shocked when she won the Tony.

[chrisampm2]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 10:30pm

Maybe not so certainly. Looking shocked is often very different from being shocked. Ask Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep.

[roseaddams]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 1:57am

"Nearly every other Tony that evening did not include best book for a musical. That's an important one. It was won by Two Gentlemen."

Because Best Score, Best Actress, Best Director, Best Choreography, Best Scenic Design, Best Costume Design, and Best LIghting Design really don't amount to much of anything. Musicals always win seven Tonys but not Best Musical.

And Best Book of a Musical always goes to the Best Musical, just like On the Twentieth Century, Woman of the Year, Dreamgirls, Into the Woods, The Secret Garden, Ragtime, The Drowsy Chaperone, Parade, Urinetown, and The 25th Annual County Spelling Bee.

[madbrian]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 6:49am

I thought DHP was terrific in Curtains, and completely deserved that award. However, I had was convinced that Esparza was going to win, so I was shocked by the win.

[EarthLuau]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 7:10am

How about the 1970 Lauren Bacall over Katharine Hepburn? Given that Appause had a better material for Lauren to work with, however really hoped Katharine would won. A tie would have been ideal. :)

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 7:34am

Rose,

A book is still a very important part of a musical.

Follies' book was bad.

It did not deserve an award for best book, nor for best musical. (Nor for best score for that matter, but let's not get into THAT!)

[ken8631]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 8:30am

Still bothers me that David Hyde Pierce won for Curtains, beating Raul Esparza in Company. Saw both productions, no comparison.

[Emma White]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 8:39am

"Maybe not so certainly. Looking shocked is often very different from being shocked. Ask Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep."

Well, Ms. Zeta-Jones is bipolar, of course, and I think that played a part in her reaction too.
But if you watch her winning the Oscar... she didn't bother acting surprised at all. She stood up like "thank you, thank you, you're too kind."

[b-way obsessed]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 9:51am

How about Julie Andrews turning down her nomination for Victor/Victoria? Nobody was expecting that since she was a favorite to win that year.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 9:52am

One of the strangest Oscar moments was with Shelley Winters. She was so sure she would win for "A Place in the Sun" that she started down the aisle even though she didn't win.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 10:56am

How about Julie Andrews turning down her nomination for Victor/Victoria? Nobody was expecting that since she was a favorite to win that year.

Wasn't Donna Murphy's win for THE KING & I considered a surprise that year? I think someone on the board once mentioned how the general idea was that either Andrews or Daphne Rubin-Vega (for RENT) would win.

Everyone saw Raul Esparza's face when he didn't win the Tony for COMPANY, I'd say he was shocked. Unfortunately, everyone's logic is probably that because Esparza had a "dramatic" and "serious" role he should have won. But David Hyde Pierce was a joy in CURTAINS, he gave one of those old-fashioned, great musical theatre turns in that show, Esparza was fine in COMPANY, Pierce was a revelation.

[80 Lines of Virgil]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 11:16am

Personally I was shocked (shocked as in horrified, not surprised) by Billy Elliot winning Best Musical over Next to Normal. I was mostly upset because it verified the stereotype that these awards shows are highly political and that frequently the commercial success wins over the piece that actually has integrity. I would compare this to Brokeback Mountain losing the Oscar to Crash. We all saw it coming because Crash was "good enough" to win the award, and while Brokeback was outstanding, it was too risky a choice for the academy to make. Similarly, Next to Normal was too innovative and was never projected to bring in the amounts of money that Billy Elliot did - and the Tonys are about money, whether or not we want to accept it. I believe that the most shocking Tony wins (pleasantly shocking, that is) are when the commercial success loses to musical that is best, critically speaking.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 11:29am

I completely disagree that NEXT TO NORMAL vs. BILLY ELLIOT this is the same as BROKEBACK vs. CRASH. Both NEXT TO NORMAL and BILLY ELLIOT were great shows, each of them were very different, I'd actually say that BILLY ELLIOT was more seamless and it was good from beginning to end, whereas NEXT TO NORMAL struggled to remain as interesting as it is in the first act. I was happy to see NEXT TO NORMAL get rewarded in the Best Score category and BILLY ELLIOT get Director and Musical. It was just a very strong year with two very strong competitors.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 11:38am

Wasn't Donna Murphy's win for THE KING & I considered a surprise that year?

Not that I remember. The race was considered to be between Andrews and Murphy. Andrews pulled herself out of contention, but I doubt she would have won. Early reports of her vocal struggles hindered her momentum (and I can't say I was particularly impressed by her performance, personally). Murphy received across-the-board raves for King & I and her Anna was considered revelatory. Rubin-Vega was the dark horse in a show that was considered more of an ensemble piece. She probably would have had a better shot in the Featured category. The real shock that season was that Rachel York was not nominated for Victor/Victoria.

Updated On: 3/18/13 at 11:38 AM

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 11:43am

Was I the only person who really, really, really disliked CURTAINS...?

DHP was giving an entertaining, bubbly, fun performance in a complete dog of a show. Nearly everything around him was dreck, if you ask me. And that's why I think his performance stood out more, and that's why he won the Tony. I can't imagine how completely intolerable that production would have been if it wasn't for him!

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 12:55pm

"The real shock that season was that Rachel York was not nominated for Victor/Victoria."

Yes that was a shock. But I think it was a crowded field that year. I think it came down between Rachel and Joohee and The King & I was riding a wave of popularity.

The nominees were:
Ann Duquesnay - Bring in Da Noise
Joohee Choi - King & I
Veanne Cox - Company
Idina Menzel - Rent

[nsguy45]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 1:24pm

"A book is still a very important part of a musical.

Follies' book was bad.

It did not deserve an award for best book, nor for best musical. (Nor for best score for that matter, but let's not get into THAT!)"


The above remarks must have been made by someone who did not see the OBP . . . or saw it but was too young to appreciate it.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 1:24pm

Joohee Choi was a revelation as Tuptim, imo. Rachel York was like a drag version of Warren's Norma, so I wasn't surprised. Each of the nominees were the best thing in their respective shows...okay, everything about the 96 King and I was great.

I actually think it was a shock Andrews still didn't win even after she tried to shun the award, mostly as a career acheivement and to get her to an EGOT...there were gasps in the audience when Murphy's name was called. I was very happy for her, of course.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 1:38pm

Andrews might have been tossed a bone as a "career achievement" award of sorts (though she was only ever in 4 Broadway shows and the first 3 were within 6 years), but I think Tony voters were insulted when Andrews told them their nominations were flat-out wrong. I sort of agreed with her. Victor/Victoria should have earned more nominations, but none of them should have been for her performance. It wasn't until I saw Liza step in that the role finally received the spark and energy it needed to drive the show.

I saw Joohee Choi in King & I and I don't remember a thing about her. I do remember Rachel York being the sole energy source in Victor/Victoria and pretty much running away with the show (when Andrews was in the cast). She played it broad, crass and to the rafters, which is what was needed for the character, especially in that theatre. Andrews just seemed completely lost and swallowed up by the space.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 2:38pm

Matt, you've shocked me more than any tony win ever bass.

I understood Liza's Victoria to unequivocally comprise one of the great fiascos in theater history. Certainly the people I knew who saw her in it were genuinely embarrassed for her; and Tony Roberts went public with what a train wreck the show had become thanks to her (not to commend him for that unprofessional conduct, but clearly he thought she was a disaster).

Up until reading your post I thought the disdain for Liza's work in the show was universal, and never thought I'd read anyone praising her, let alone finding her performance superior to Andrews's.

I don't mean to be critical of your opinion; it just shocks me to see anyone suggest that Minnelli's performance was anything near a success.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 3:17pm

henrik - Really? Somehow I missed all the disdain for Liza's performance. I initially saw the show out of curiosity and for Andrews' performance, and while she was charming, I found her quite bland and flat. I wasn't a huge fan of the show, but I revisted the show when I was going to be in town during Liza's stint since I had never actually seen Liza perform on stage before. I found her to be FAR more enjoyable and entertaining, injecting some life into a show that so desperately needed it.