Why did Kinky Boots get all of the awards it did? — Page 2

To try to answer the question somewhat, in many awards, there is momentum for a certain show that ends up winning many categories, even though it might or might not have done so if one were looking at each category isolated from the others. This year, that happened to Kinky Boots. Last year, it happened with Once. I'm guessing that it will happen with some show this upcoming June as well.

In terms of score, there was discussion at the time that Minchin's lyrics may be too clever for their own good. The wordplay is much easier to appreciate with repeated listenings or with reading the lyrics, neither of which the typical audience member can do. And the muddled sound design for Matilda didn't help the intelligibility of the lyrics in the theater.

---

To quote Jeanne Tesori in SHOW BUSINESS-"you never know what's going to stick with people-it's timing, and alchemy and the emotional temperature of the audience when the show opens. You just have to throw the spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks."

Kinky Boots won for many reasons, some of which are emotional and intangible. It's not an equation.

---

The problem I have with Matilda is that outside of Naughty, When I Grow Up, The Hammer, Revolting Children, & The Smell of Rebellion I don't really want to listen to anything on the OBCR. The rest is just boring to me. Unlike Kinky Boots where the only song I avoid is Take What You Got.

Mediocrity is the new black.

I saw Matilda for a second time 2 weeks ago (on an invite). Had no real desire to pay to see it again but wasn't going to turn down an invite and thought I might like it more the second time around. I got to see more as I was in the balcony the first time and mid orch. the second. I did enjoy it a bit more and still feel it should have gotten best choreography. But of the two shows, I still like Kinky Boots better. JMO

---

So... No one is really going to answer this? Ok. Matilda lost a lot of awards because it can't tour. It's too expensive with all those kids. That's the primary reason.

Or maybe the committee just liked Kinky Boots more and voted for it. The "best" (whatever that means) artistic movies don't usually win Oscars, no musician is going to ever say that Tchaikovsky is a better musician than say Shostakovich but 9 times out of 10, we are going to hear Tchaikovsky music because it's popular and appealing...and maybe less complicated...but overall more enjoyable.

I can analyze KB and Matilda til the cows come home and while I can intellectually agree that Matilda has some strengths and maybe should have won more individual awards, I wholeheartedly would have voted for KB because emotionally I loved it more. It rang more true to me, was more relevant and more pleasing for many reasons...to me. That's all I can do - say how I feel. That's what the judges did.

I don't think the Tony's should necessarily be won by intellectual weigh-in's. The committee is going to vote for what they liked and enjoyed more...and I don't think that's wrong. Marketing sure - it might have altered the voting - or might not have. We'll never know. I don't buy that Matilda didn't win because they may not tour. I don't think that was decided one way or the other when the Tony's were voted on. It won because a lot of voters loved it. And most people that I personally know who saw both shows would have voted for KB too. It's not the producers fault. Matilda just lost.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse either but it's still somewhat insulting to those of us who would have preferred KB to be continually told by some that our opinion is faulty and less intelligent or there had to be some extenuating explanations as to why Matlida lost. More voters liked Kinky Boots. Enough.

Because of who the voters are. It's all those Broadway Across America people-- they often vote for shows that tour more easily because they have a vested interest. Tony Awards sell tickets. I'm not saying they'd outright pick a show that was horrible because it was cheaper to tour, but in this case it was a close call. My very strong opinion is that because you can't easily tour with tons of kids for cost reasons, that was enough to tip the scale in this case.

"My very strong opinion is that because you can't easily tour with tons of kids for cost reasons, that was enough to tip the scale in this case."

Billy Elliot did just that-and seemed to succeed.

Jane, don't waste your time.

dreaming, I'm not disagreeing with you that Billy Eliott seemed to succeed. It did seem that way.

I would be incredibly surprised if Matilda doesn't tour. Annie, Oliver and Billy Elliot have all toured. So will Matilda. I think the whole "tour" vote is an outdated talking point that may have been a trend for a few seasons, but didn't prove to hold much water (remember Passion?). Does anyone truly think Once won because it had more touring market appeal than Newsies?

Now, I did know an out-of-town producer who was a Tony voter and he did not vote based on tour potential. He voted purely on his own personal taste which was VERY mainstream middle-of-the-road fare. AND he voted on scores for which he received the free promo CDs, not necessarily because he had actually seen the shows.

---

Matilda will absolutely tour. But it won't tour as long or to as many places because it's so expensive. I'm not saying Kinky Boots was horrible, but won anyway because of the touring aspect. I'm saying Kinky Boots, with a Tony for Best Musical, will make a lot of money on tour. Matilda, without that same Tony, will also make a lot of money on tour. Kinky Boots, without the Tony, would have made far less on tour. But Kinky Boots is also good, it's by well known and well liked authors, has the Roth power stamp all over it, and it was relatively timely subject matter. Those are all good reasons why it won, but, in my personal opinion, the touring difficulties with Matilda is a major reason certain voters, charged with the task of choosing between two, chose Kinky Boots.

Updated On: 9/30/13 at 04:38 PM