serious musicals vs. fluff.....
#0serious musicals vs. fluff.....
Posted: 12/20/05 at 10:04am
Why is it that "serious" musicals seem to always lose out to big, splashy fluff musicals for the Tony? Is it really just about commercialism and not about art (if so, I am disheartened)?
2005: Light in the Piazza lost to Spamalot
2004: Caroline or Change lost to Avenue Q
2000: James Joyce's The Dead lost to Contact (both great shows, so not a big loss in my opinion)
1999: Parade lost to Fosse (c'mon, what was the deal???)
1998: Ragtime lost to The Lion King
1994: Passion beat Beauty and the Beast (YEAH! VICTORY!)
1992: Falsettos lost to Crazy for You
1991: Miss Saigon & The Secret Garden lost to The Will Rogers Follies
1984: Sunday in the Park... lost to La Cage (I STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS, AT ALL!)
#1re: serious musicals vs. fluff.....
Posted: 12/20/05 at 10:15am
Fluff (which is probably too strong a word)... let's say "light-hearted entertainment"... usually appeals to a wider audience (including voters) than a "serious" piece does.
It's the same thing with the Oscars... big spectacles usually win, with only a handful of movies like "Midnight Cowboy" or "Million Dollar Baby" taking the prize. More often it's "Titanic" or "Ben-Hur" or "Lord of the Rings."
There are exceptions too the Tony wins too: Nine beating out Dreamgirls comes to mind. The "big" show lost that year to a more cerebral, less audience-friendly piece. But generally, the winner is...
Big and splashy.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
hen88
Understudy Joined: 11/30/05
#2re: serious musicals vs. fluff.....
Posted: 12/20/05 at 10:19amI think the touring factor is a big one. The Tony's are not necessarily always about quality. What's monetarily lucrative always hightens a show's possibilities of winning awards. It's a delicate balancing act. Of course, the Tony's don't want to award a show that was universally panned by the critics, so they usually latch on to shows that are big and make lots of money, are tourable and also have the thumbs-up from the critics. Unfortunately, big splashy comedies are the ones that have been making waves lately. Anything too challenging or innovative is usually a hard sell on the road. The only times a "serious" or "innovative" musical wins awards is when there are slim pickings. Passion was one of those cases where it won only because Beauty & the Beast was its only competition, and the Tony's essentially snubed Disney that year for trying to bring what was seen as an amusement park spectacle to Broadway. It's all just politics in the end. It's kind of unfortunate.
#3re: serious musicals vs. fluff.....
Posted: 12/20/05 at 10:26am
"It's all just politics in the end. It's kind of unfortunate." ---hen88
That pretty much sums it up. As much as I LOVE the Tonys and the Oscars... When it comes to a Best Musical, Best Picture, etc., you have to know that it's only a collective opinion. It isn't a "fact" that it's the best.
It's only a "fact" that it won.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
hen88
Understudy Joined: 11/30/05
#5re: serious musicals vs. fluff.....
Posted: 12/20/05 at 11:31amUm in 2000 The Wild Party was totally screwed and that is NOT fluff
#6re: serious musicals vs. fluff.....
Posted: 12/20/05 at 12:13pmAvenue Q is probably not as serious as Caroline or Change, but at least it didn't lose to Wicked or Boy from Oz...
#7re: serious musicals vs. fluff.....
Posted: 12/20/05 at 12:20pmHey I'd take anything over Caroline or Change. Regardless of the fact that I'm an Avenue Q fan, there was no way that CoC had a remote shot at winning in my opinion. Not when it had Wicked, Q, and The Hugh Jackman mobile against it. Then again, I'd pick 99.9% of shows over CoC anyway.
jasobres
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/9/05
#8re: serious musicals vs. fluff.....
Posted: 12/20/05 at 12:33pmI'd say everyone is entitled to their own opinion. End of story.
apdarcey
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/10/04
#9re: serious musicals vs. fluff.....
Posted: 12/20/05 at 12:47pmbest play is usually a lot more "correct" for lack of a better word.
#10re: serious musicals vs. fluff.....
Posted: 12/20/05 at 1:01pm
apdarcey --- That's a good point (but I'm sure everyone could raise exceptions)...
With plays there are not as many elements to consider with the overall production.
With musicals, you can have a show with 4 characters and a blank stage competing agains 60 dancers with a dozen major set changes. You can have a show that has only two pianos in the pit competing against a musical with 35 people dazzling you with complex orchestrations. There is a lot more that factors into "best" in people's minds with a musical than there is with a play.
(Plays can vary too, but not nearly as widely as musicals.)
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Videos




