pulitzer prizes — Page 2
"
#27
Posted: 4/17/06 at 5:30pm
They should have just counted Rabbit Hole as this year and gave it the award. It sure does deserve it.
#28
Posted: 4/17/06 at 5:31pm
I am truly disappointed that RLW didn't win. While I know many of you disagree, I thought it was an incredible and moving play. Oh well.
You promised me poems. ~Tricky
#29
Posted: 4/17/06 at 5:35pm
Just my opinion, but I found RED LIGHT WINTER to be a third-rate, shallow, callow fever drama. Totally forgettable in every way, and living off of its overhyped sensationalism.
#30
Posted: 4/17/06 at 5:41pm
How dare you disagree with my opinion?!
Did it really have overhyped sensationalism? Maybe I missed out on it since I'm not in NYC. When I saw it here in Chicago (twice, I may add), I only thought the little snippet in the Steppenwolf brochures looked really interesting, so I went to see it. I, at least, never liked it because of sensationalism.
Did it really have overhyped sensationalism? Maybe I missed out on it since I'm not in NYC. When I saw it here in Chicago (twice, I may add), I only thought the little snippet in the Steppenwolf brochures looked really interesting, so I went to see it. I, at least, never liked it because of sensationalism.
You promised me poems. ~Tricky
#31
Posted: 4/17/06 at 7:16pm
So would The Lieutenant of Inishmore count because this is its NY premiere?
#32
Posted: 4/17/06 at 7:19pm
Lieutenant of the Inishmore is ineligible for the Pulitzer because it was written by Martin McDonagh, an Irishman. Only Americans can win the Pulitzer.
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
#33
Posted: 4/17/06 at 8:28pm
I didn't know that. Thanks Margo. That really does limit the options.
#34
Posted: 4/20/06 at 12:37pm
So am I the only one pissed that there is not a winner for the Pulitzer? I have not read any of the plays considered finalists so I cannot pass judgement on their quality but I think it is really disheartening that no prize has been awarded "because there is no clear winner." So??? THINK!!!! Use your heads! Who said there was always going to be a clear winner? Who said your job was easy? Why are you on the commitee? To sort through all the plays and find the best, not to just give up. I find it really snobbish and am infuriated that this decision was made and to me it reflects really badly on the commitee. There will always be weak years for every single award, but has the Oscars ever said "We didn't like any movies this year, so we won't award Best Picture?" No! Even in week years, something always wins.
Dean: Can I tell you something?
Lorraine: That depends on what it is.
Dean: I think you're really really pretty.
Lorraine: (after a pause) Ok, you can tell me that.
#35
Posted: 4/20/06 at 12:43pm
The Rocky Mountain News here in Denver won 2.
Just give the world Love. - S. Wonder
#36
Posted: 4/20/06 at 12:52pm
misto: There was no award given because they didn't feel that anyone deserved it, not because there wasn't a clear winner. Are you kidding me?
SEE WHAT I WANNA SEE for the Pulitzer Prize? Are you drunk?
SEE WHAT I WANNA SEE for the Pulitzer Prize? Are you drunk?
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."
-Charlie Manson
#37
Posted: 4/20/06 at 1:09pm
Hey, I'm all in favor of not awarding Oscars on weak years too! I'm glad they didn't give one out--saves having to explain another "Harvey"-esque win.
#38
Posted: 4/20/06 at 1:21pm
Well that was the idea I got from the Playbill news article. Here's the paragraph:
"Unlike in recent seasons, when plays like Proof, I Am My Own Wife, Wit and Doubt dominated the proceedings, there did not seem to be a natural choice for the Drama prize this year."
So I didn't remember the semantics correctly, but I still take it to mean that since there wasn't an obvious winner, they didn't award one at all, which I still think is ****ty. Don't tell me if you were Adam Rapp or Christopher Durang you would not feel disappointed right now. Looking back on other Putlizer Prize winning plays that I have read, I don't think they really deserved the prize, including Proof. It just seems completely arbitary not deciding to award one every 10 years or so just becaue they didn't like any of the plays.
"Unlike in recent seasons, when plays like Proof, I Am My Own Wife, Wit and Doubt dominated the proceedings, there did not seem to be a natural choice for the Drama prize this year."
So I didn't remember the semantics correctly, but I still take it to mean that since there wasn't an obvious winner, they didn't award one at all, which I still think is ****ty. Don't tell me if you were Adam Rapp or Christopher Durang you would not feel disappointed right now. Looking back on other Putlizer Prize winning plays that I have read, I don't think they really deserved the prize, including Proof. It just seems completely arbitary not deciding to award one every 10 years or so just becaue they didn't like any of the plays.
Dean: Can I tell you something?
Lorraine: That depends on what it is.
Dean: I think you're really really pretty.
Lorraine: (after a pause) Ok, you can tell me that.
#39
Posted: 4/20/06 at 1:49pm
I think it's GREAT that they didn't award a prize this year. This was an incredibly weak year for new American works and the "No Award" reflects that. The Board has done this 15 times before in the past and this wasn't a situation like in 1963 when the Board was offended by the language in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" so the opted not to give a prize at all, or an occasion like back in the 50s when first rate plays were rejected because their authors had been deemed Communist sympathizers by HUAC (Guys and Dolls was passed over because Abe Burrows wrote the book and Lillian Hellman's plays were never recognized by the Pulitzers).
This is about recognizing works that appear to have enduring quality -- the kind of plays that a hundred years from now will still be read and performed and will give insight to future generations as to what it was like to live in American society at our particular time in history. While not all Pulitzer winners necessarily accomplish that, that's supposed to be the goal of the committee and the Board in deciding whether or not to recognize a given work or not. There a legacy to be upheld, one that includes Eugene O'Neill (4 times), Edward Albee (3), Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams, David Mamet, Sondheim, August Wilson, Tony Kushner et al and none of those three finalists deserve to be put in that class.
Thank goodness the Board recognized that and didn't bow to any pressure to hand out an award anyway. This isn't just about this year -- with the Pulitzers, it's about the last 96 years and the 100+ years and though they've made plenty of boneheaded selections in the past (which hurt the Prize's reputation) they need to be protective of their legacy and make sure the only the elite work gets recognized. Nothing was in that class this year, so "No Award" was certainly the best choice. On the plus side, perhaps this will spur those finalists to write better and more inspired work in the future now that they've been singled out as one of the top three of the year (and while yes, they're disappointed, their plays will forever be known as "Pulitzer Finalists" which has to look pretty nice in a bio).
And also, hopefully our not-for-profit insitutional theatres which sponsors and commissions most of the new plays that emerge in this country and supports many up-and-coming playwrights, will work even harder to help artists develop new work in the future. All three of those finalist plays could have used another draft or two and maybe another workshop -- our regional institutional not-for-profit theatres need to do an even better job or nuturing writers than they already do and they need to make sure that the needed resources are provided to artists so that they can create the finest work that they possibly can.
This is about recognizing works that appear to have enduring quality -- the kind of plays that a hundred years from now will still be read and performed and will give insight to future generations as to what it was like to live in American society at our particular time in history. While not all Pulitzer winners necessarily accomplish that, that's supposed to be the goal of the committee and the Board in deciding whether or not to recognize a given work or not. There a legacy to be upheld, one that includes Eugene O'Neill (4 times), Edward Albee (3), Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams, David Mamet, Sondheim, August Wilson, Tony Kushner et al and none of those three finalists deserve to be put in that class.
Thank goodness the Board recognized that and didn't bow to any pressure to hand out an award anyway. This isn't just about this year -- with the Pulitzers, it's about the last 96 years and the 100+ years and though they've made plenty of boneheaded selections in the past (which hurt the Prize's reputation) they need to be protective of their legacy and make sure the only the elite work gets recognized. Nothing was in that class this year, so "No Award" was certainly the best choice. On the plus side, perhaps this will spur those finalists to write better and more inspired work in the future now that they've been singled out as one of the top three of the year (and while yes, they're disappointed, their plays will forever be known as "Pulitzer Finalists" which has to look pretty nice in a bio).
And also, hopefully our not-for-profit insitutional theatres which sponsors and commissions most of the new plays that emerge in this country and supports many up-and-coming playwrights, will work even harder to help artists develop new work in the future. All three of those finalist plays could have used another draft or two and maybe another workshop -- our regional institutional not-for-profit theatres need to do an even better job or nuturing writers than they already do and they need to make sure that the needed resources are provided to artists so that they can create the finest work that they possibly can.
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
#40
Posted: 4/21/06 at 1:29am
none of those three finalists deserve to be put in that class
I'm relatively certain that you meant for that sentence to come out: "none of those three finalists deserve to be put in that class for their work this year." Because I completely disagree that none of those three finalists are in the class of O'Neill, Miller or Albee. I agree that all three of the nominated scripts could have gone through another couple of drafts (but then again, what script couldn't use another couple of drafts? Even some of the Pulitzer Prize winners from previous years). However, at least one of those nominees stands a good chance of developing into a playwright who constructs works of "enduring quality."
I agree with your last paragraph though, MargoChanning. These past couple of seasons have seen a decline in new works. Perhaps this declaration of "no award" will drive NPOs to support our playwrights and produce new works. I understand that NPOs are in a difficult situation (with grants being awarded less frequently and corporate sponsorship amounts decreasing). They depend on ticket sales to make their annual budget and few NPOs are willing to take the chance on new works (when a revival is guaranteed to bring in audience members). However, workshops/readings are inexpensive and invaluable to the theater community. Also: NPOs such as Roundabout and MTC should be particularly active in cultivating new playwrights. These companies claim all of the advantages of 501(c)3 status and still charge $100+ per ticket. Certainly sponsoring a few readings wouldn't cause them any harm.
So yes, if this year's Pulitzer Prize will act as a wake-up call to our nation's theater companies, I'm glad that there was no award given. However, I believe that all three of the nominated playwrights have the potential for greatness. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if we see Adam Rapp walking away with that award in a couple of years (after all, he's still young).
I'm relatively certain that you meant for that sentence to come out: "none of those three finalists deserve to be put in that class for their work this year." Because I completely disagree that none of those three finalists are in the class of O'Neill, Miller or Albee. I agree that all three of the nominated scripts could have gone through another couple of drafts (but then again, what script couldn't use another couple of drafts? Even some of the Pulitzer Prize winners from previous years). However, at least one of those nominees stands a good chance of developing into a playwright who constructs works of "enduring quality."
I agree with your last paragraph though, MargoChanning. These past couple of seasons have seen a decline in new works. Perhaps this declaration of "no award" will drive NPOs to support our playwrights and produce new works. I understand that NPOs are in a difficult situation (with grants being awarded less frequently and corporate sponsorship amounts decreasing). They depend on ticket sales to make their annual budget and few NPOs are willing to take the chance on new works (when a revival is guaranteed to bring in audience members). However, workshops/readings are inexpensive and invaluable to the theater community. Also: NPOs such as Roundabout and MTC should be particularly active in cultivating new playwrights. These companies claim all of the advantages of 501(c)3 status and still charge $100+ per ticket. Certainly sponsoring a few readings wouldn't cause them any harm.
So yes, if this year's Pulitzer Prize will act as a wake-up call to our nation's theater companies, I'm glad that there was no award given. However, I believe that all three of the nominated playwrights have the potential for greatness. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if we see Adam Rapp walking away with that award in a couple of years (after all, he's still young).
Tickets From $73
Tickets From $89
Tickets From $89
Tickets From $65