"artistically meaningless, blatantly commercial, shamefully exclusionary, culturally corrosive"

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 11:49am

That's ONE take on the Tonys! Daniel Okrent in yesterday's NYTimes:

"Unless I acquire some unexpected clout around here in the next 48 hours, Times readers will wake up on Tuesday morning to read a prominent story announcing the nominees for an artistically meaningless, blatantly commercial, shamefully exclusionary and culturally corrosive award competition."

"There's no business like Tony Awards business"

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 12:26pm

"put in a stage and the newsroom itself would qualify - not bad drama, either"

i cannot wait for the show that comment inspires and it's attendant tony nomination.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 12:28pm

Not that he is wrong, but it diminishes credibility when he doesn't even know what day the nominations are announced.

[magicfingers]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 12:30pm

HE IS REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT THE TIMES WILL NO BE PRINTING THE NOMINEES UNTIL TOMORROW

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 12:30pm

I thought he was referring to the big article that will be in tomorrow's print version of the paper, discussing the nominees. Or did I fill in a blank that wasn't there?

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 12:41pm

Oh, I get it. In that case he is 100% correct. But we still love the Tony's just as we love the Golden Globes.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 12:43pm

I love the Tonys more than the Golden Globes. I always thought of the Drama Desk awards as more like the Golden Globes.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 2:28pm

I'm still unclear what his goal is in this article. As long as there is the delineation of Broadway/Off-Broadway/Off-Off-Broadway (similar to the West End/One-Off/Fringe in London) , then the Tonys will be limited to Broadway productions as it has always been. The Obies were created specifically for that reason. To eliminate the categorization of these is to eliminate the definition of the American theatre icon of Broadway entirely. Off-Broadway shows would have no reason to transfer (which could be good or bad) and commercialism would certainly be reduced if shows could not advertise as being a "Broadway production". The Drama Desk and Outer Critics awards include both. Does he want the Time to provide equal coverage to all theatrical awards? If so, then they should do the same for all film and literature awards. Sure the Tonys are political, like every other artistic award institution. Is it commercial? Not as much as the Oscars or Grammys, but yes. Any theatrical production (or any other art form for that matter) that is not-for-profit is a commercial business. Is this news to anyone?

Okrent's zeal in supporting American theatre is certainly admirable, but it seems that he would prefer to deconstruct what has been the ultimate goal in producing American theatre. According to Okrent, for a show to be eligible for a Tony, would it mean that it would have to simply run in Manhattan, or should we be more poilically correct? Do the boundaries extend throught the tri-state area, or should it include all theatres nationwide?

Does he believe the Times coverage of the Tonys is excessive and equal time should be given to the other theatrical awards? He doesn't say, but it's nice that at least one paper in the country is supporting the Tonys with the bravado usually only given to the Oscars in every other major national paper. I do like the idea of an additional Sunday supplement for theatrical reviews (especially by a seperate critic) for more exposure, but it sounds like he'd rather the Times do nothing than continue with the amount of coverage tey have previously offered.

I say, there's always room for improvement, but American theatre needs all the exposure it can get. Anyone working outside of NYC would be thrilled to see the kind of support the Times has shown to their theatre community. Gift horse....

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 2:36pm

Wow, Matt, you are right. Besides, it is the NEW YORK Times and Broadway is a huge part of New York. However, his point that the producers/theatre owners are the ones controlling the Tony's can't be dismissed. But your post is very well written and I do agree with you. Gift horse, indeed!

[robbiej]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 2:42pm

The problem is that Broadway and the Tonys not only do not represent American theatre, but they don't even represent the New York theatre scene responsibly. More and more, the work on Broadway is being watered down to satisfy the largest number of people. The truly meaningful work is being done both Off and Off-Off Broadway (as the Drama Desk Noms can attest). And Matt, you have NO IDEA how difficult it is to get the Times to cover the Off-Off scene.

The Tony coverage is only a problem because the Times does little to cover the rest of the NY Theatre scene. Tourists are being told only to go to (God help me) MILLIE and are not truly being informed about the other options in NYC.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 2:52pm

If the focus of his argument is about the theatre owners, then I do think he has a definite point, but he never really gets to the heart of it. If the theatre owners control the Tonys, how do they do it and how do they benefit from it? Do they work independently in competition or as a collective monopoly over smaller independent theatres? How long has it been this way? Theoretically, each one could own several theatres with multiple nominees. For example: what would the Schuberts gain if one show in a Schubert theatre wins over another show in a Schubert theatre?

Instead of exposing the injustice of the Tonys, it seems he'd rather punish the Times for their coverage and thereby throw the baby out with the bathwater. The article is so convoluted it reads more as a flailing rant than a well-thought exposé on the corruption of Broadway theatres and their link to the Tonys.

[nystateomind04]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 3:29pm

whether or not he meant to focus of this as his main idea, the fact that the three largest theater owners control the tony's is the most important point he brought up. how has this been ignored for so long?

[Ruffian]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 3:30pm

Mister Matt, I agree with much of what you are saying in these posts

Unfortunately, The Tony Awards are only EVER going to appeal to Culture Vultures, and that will never be a huge portion of the public.

Their loss, not ours

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 3:48pm

Well it all goes back to the argument that awards of this nature are silly to begin with. How do you compare? It is all so subjective. I love the Tony’s because it gives me a chance to see the actors all dressed up, see the numbers from the shows and hear the design concepts. I really don’t care who wins, nor do most people not affiliated with Broadway. If it is just a big commercial, then so be it. I find a lot of commercials more entertaining than the shows themselves.

Every awards show is conceived to promote the product. That is just a fact. If some people take it more seriously than others (Bernadette/Marissa threads galore) that is their prerogative.

But live TV events are always fun to watch. Marc and Scott’s kiss, Stritchy’s speech being cut off…I’ll never stop watching.

[Al Dente]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 3:59pm

You're spot on RobbieJ.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 5:09pm

for the sake of argument robbiej -

"The Tony coverage is only a problem because the Times does little to cover the rest of the NY Theatre scene. Tourists are being told only to go to (God help me) MILLIE and are not truly being informed about the other options in NYC."

I don't believe tourists are using the Tonys as their sole source of info, especially international tourists who don't even receive the broadcast. And I don't believe the Times will be their only source either. With the internet available, most tourists looking to see a show will most likely take advantage of NY or Broadway websites, or simply book with a travel agent unless they are pretty theatre-savvy.

"The problem is that Broadway and the Tonys not only do not represent American theatre, but they don't even represent the New York theatre scene responsibly."

They are not supposed to. Broadway represents Broadway and the Tonys represent Broadway. That is what they are designed to represent.

"More and more, the work on Broadway is being watered down to satisfy the largest number of people."

Not really. It's pretty much always been that way. Fluffy crowd-pleasers have been tops on Broadway since Broadway became Broadway. The rise and success of an intelligent thought-provoking show (Rent or Falsettos perhaps) has always been an anomoly. If we're lucky we can get the best of both worlds (Hairspray is a good example).

The Times seems to review quite a bit of Off-Broadway, but then, how many critics do they have employed to cover the entire NY theatre scene? I know they have several pages of theatrical ads for shows running all over NY. This in itself is quite unique. Do they not run articles of playwrights and non-Broadway productions? I don't read the Times daily, but every time I pick one up, there is always the nation's largest theatre section for any city newspaper. Granted, it may not be as comprehensive as it could, but is there a single US city newspaper that is more comprehensive or dedicated to American theatre?

"Matt, you have NO IDEA how difficult it is to get the Times to cover the Off-Off scene."

I'm originally from Houston. I'm sure I have SOME idea how difficult it must be. The Off-Off scene is the fastest changing theatre scene in NYC. Coverage would have to be updated on a weekly basis. It's very difficult to cover a scene when most of the shows only run a couple of weeks. It's the same reason there is little coverage of the theatre scene in most cities. While it would be nice if the Times could somehow make it to every show in NY and interview every theatre on its season and cover every genre of every performance, it's simply too huge a task for a newspaper that has responsibilities to hundreds of other topics. I'm sure they don't cover every restaurant, bar, and dance club either, but when it comes to theatre, they support it rather well.

"The truly meaningful work is being done both Off and Off-Off Broadway (as the Drama Desk Noms can attest)."

That is completely subjective. Ask the various writers and creators of the current Broadway shows if their work is truly meaningful.

Updated On: 5/10/04 at 05:09 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 5:23pm

I'm outtie in a couple of minutes. I love the discussion, but want to dedicate more time to it...HOWEVER, one point I want to make is a response to 'Not really. It's pretty much always been that way. Fluffy crowd-pleasers have been tops on Broadway since Broadway became Broadway.'

1964
HELLO, DOLLY
FUNNY GIRL
SHE LOVES ME

1965
FIDDLER ON THE ROOF
GOLDEN BOY
OH, WHAT A LOVELY WAR

1966
MAN OF LA MANCHA
MAME
SWEET CHARITY

1967
CABARET
I DO! I DO!
THE APPLE TREE

Even the 'light and fluffy' of these shows were constructed beautifully. At one point in the history of Broadway, commerce and art met to create truly engaging, moving nights in the theatre that stand the test of time (wait for that APPLE TREE revival!)

[HunterFosterIsMyGod]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 5:25pm

hmm. wow.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 5:51pm

"Even the 'light and fluffy' of these shows were constructed beautifully. At one point in the history of Broadway, commerce and art met to create truly engaging, moving nights in the theatre that stand the test of time (wait for that APPLE TREE revival!)."

Also subjective. I disagree with many of your choices as being beautifully constructed, but the shows that are usually well-constructed often are not commercial successes in their original run (West Side Story, Chicago and Gypsy first come to mind). I'm sure many audience members will attest that current shows they have seen were engaging and moving. True, Broadway had what is known as its Golden Age, but that doesn't mean it can't and won't happen again. Maybe I'm not sure what you mean by "watered-down".

I believe these Broadway shows to be well-constructed as well:

2003-2004
Avenue Q
Assassins
Caroline, or Change

2002-2003
Hairspray
Movin' Out
Amour

2001-2002
Urinetown
Thoroughly Modern Millie
By Jeeves

2000-2001
The Full Monty
Jane Eyre
The Producers

[MusicMan]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 6:56pm

A ballsy, truthful, and long-overdue article by Okrent.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/10/04 at 7:30pm

robbie, anybody can get covered in the times if they hire the right pr people. practically every off off broadway show i did got a review in the times, one got a 1/4 page picture and a half page above the fold article on the from page of the saturday arts section. and it was an awful show, but it had good pr people.

i'll shill here, barlow-hartman or boneau/bryan-brown will get you a times review every time. if you want the coverage, and the possibility of expanded profits and exposure that the coverage will bring, you have to pay professionals to help you get it. it's not fair, of course and every good show should just automatically get coverage, but this ain't shangri-freakin'-la.

*kiss kiss*

[robbiej]

Posted: 5/11/04 at 5:10pm

You know what...I nearly burst into tears at Matt and Papa's responses to me...I'm at work, saying goodbye to all my friends and nearly every little thing is setting me off. I hate this place...why am I emotional????

Anywho...yes...it is all subjective Matt...but a good number of those shows you quote started life off or off-off Broadway, nurtured by a different system from Broadway. I've been such a mess these past couple of days that I simply cannot articulate my point! It's very frustrating. I'll do better tomorrow...I promise!

And Papa...would that we had the money!!! I keep telling the members of my company that...it's just not in the budget...yet.

Posted: 5/11/04 at 5:17pm

I find it all too amusing...

The Neilsen ratings show that 5 people in the state of Montana watched the TONY awards last year.

5 People, people!

....and in all of East Texas...people actually removed ANTENNAS from their TRAILERS so they didn't have to sit through it..

Now I ask you, can something be artistically meaningless, blatantly commercial, shamefully exclusionary, culturally corrosive in a void...

If a Tony Award falls on Angela Lansbury in the woods does anyone care????! Updated On: 5/11/04 at 05:17 PM

[Drew7810]

Posted: 5/11/04 at 5:17pm

the awards need to stop focusing so heavily on what is able to tour around the nation and look more closely at what is developing the art.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 5/11/04 at 6:19pm

I don't know about that. What develops an art is generally something only future generations can assess. Too often something considered original turns out to be frivolous or essentially unimportant: the innovations turn out to be aberrations.
For all of his contributions to the musical, I sometimes wonder if Sondheim will have any lasting effect on the form
(other than spawning a generation of wanna-bes) or if he will be considered a sui generis anomaly. At the least, I'd hope he be remembered as a polemicist who argued the seriousness of his craft.