Tony Musings

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/8/14 at 8:22am

Remember when.....

The Tonys were not a popularity contest and were more about quality. In cases such as musicals quality seems to take a back seat to awarding a Tony to the show easiest to tour. Better still, how about awarding a Tony to a closed show because it might be better than ones running. Case in point was Best Musical Tony going to Hallelujah Baby after it had closed months before.

Yes there are genuine great performances but this years snubs were absurd. Zachary Quinto & Steven Pasquale to name but a few. Business & politics play a large part in the nominating process so anyone who thinks it simply has to do with quality and performance is smoking some good stuff.

Mull & discuss

Updated On: 6/8/14 at 08:22 AM

[WickedGinger]

Posted: 6/8/14 at 8:34am

You can never satisfy everyone…. Someone is always going to be snubbed and there are always going to be years you think someone else should have won a particular award!

[binau]

Posted: 6/8/14 at 8:40am

Agree Roxy. The Tonys are absurd. They were worried about an over supply of statues lowering the value of the award, but it's the award process itself that is lowering the value of the award. For years we always accept in particular that closed shows are disadvantaged but we shouldn't have to accept this. They should do something about it (I.e. Improve the process).

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/8/14 at 8:52am

Yes See you later

[haterobics]

Posted: 6/8/14 at 10:09am

Well, on some level, you're trying to fix what will always be a broken proposition, namely: quantifying art.

You're trying to rate unquantifiable things as though it is a scientific pursuit. Just look on BWW: Rocky, Bullets, If/Then, Aladdin, etc., have glowing, positive reviews and horrific negative reviews, and both side is 100% right about their experience.

And then you get to the acting level, and in a world where you're told not to compare something that's apples and oranges, we also add pears, bananas, and peaches into the mix. Is his singing boxer better than his singing transsexual, or his playing 9 characters in an olde tyme musical, vs, etc., etc.

And, as if it weren't subjective enough, then we let a huge voting bloc in who are going to make money in the future based on who wins, when they sell tickets to these same shows. They see the whole contest from the vantage point of their own box office receipts.

So, it's a broken system because it's a broken concept. Just like the Grammys (Tony Bennett vs. Eminem vs. U2 vs. Adele, etc. as though they are all the same thing).

And then they force the audience to rank their experiences as some sort of sport. So fans of art sound off that "I would rank them Kelli, Idina, Sutton... so I don't see how you can up with Jessie, Sutton, Kelli..." rather than just being glad you saw amazingly diverse things from talented people at the top of their game. That isn't enough, they must be put in order. In fact, they should tell us the order of the losers, too, if we're quantifying things.

So, I watch the Tonys, I saw nearly all of the performances, and I don't care who wins. I barely ever remember who won in the past anyway, so I'm not sure why I'd care today. As it happens, one person will seem like the person who gave the best performance to me, sure, and they will win or not. But whichever name is called would equally make sense. And I'll still think my list is the accurate one.



Updated On: 6/8/14 at 10:09 AM

[jnb9872]

Posted: 6/8/14 at 10:43am

I bristle at the word "snub" - it's only a snub if an unworthy nominee cracked the field. For example: Quinto was worthy, but not being nominated is not a snub; if anything, it's a testament to the honor bestowed upon the five worthy actors who did crack the field. (And what a hell of a field Best Actor in a Play was this year - maybe the deepest in any category in my memory.)

[jemjeb2]

Posted: 6/8/14 at 11:00am

I think Haterobics said it all succinctly and accurtely.

[kade.ivy]

Posted: 6/8/14 at 11:17am

Speaking about the business aspect, I didn't realize until this year that some voters are presenters/promoters in touring markets. Wouldn't this be a conflict of interest? As the OP mentioned, wouldn't they be more likely to give the Tony to a more "tourable" show if only for their own marketing purposes? For example, in reference to an article or post (can't remember which) that I read a few days ago, Gentleman's Guide might not be as successful on the road as Beautiful may be.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 6/8/14 at 2:41pm

It's not as bad as preview years, a lot of Hollywood types were completely shut out from the nominations this year. Award shows and their awards don't really mean anything, but it's still pretty fun to watch.

"Well, on some level, you're trying to fix what will always be a broken proposition, namely: quantifying art."

Exactly

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/8/14 at 4:18pm

Yes. The out of town voters DEFINITELY have a vested interest in the outcome of the Tony Awards. But a few years ago, they took the critics voting abilities away.


What the basic public will fall for is FAR from artistic achievement in most cases, or even just basic quality. I was at both Beautiful and Gentleman's Guide in the last few weeks. The audiences most definitely fell in love with Beautiful. Why? Sentimentality. It'll make a fortune on the road -- people already know/love the music and they don't have to think and can easily convince themselves that they were moved.