Odd Pulitzer Winners

[Alex Kulak2]

Since there was just a post about Pulitzer predictions, I thought I'd bring up some of the odder shows that have received the award. The biggest ones that come to mind are Guys and Dolls and How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. Why were these musicals awarded the Pulitzer? They're good, but I don't see anything in them that would have transcended the genre. What are some other examples of Odd Pulitzer winners?

[After Eight]

Sunday in the Park With George.

The insufferable tuneless bore is still going strong as the ultimate critics' darling.

[AC126748]

Guys and Dolls is not a Pulitzer Prize winner. The committee selected it as its winner in 1951, but no prize was given that year. 

[Alex Kulak2]

Even if you aren't a fan of Sunday, you can understand why it won. It constructed an entire musical around a painting. It tried something new. I don't see that in Guys and Dolls or How to Succeed.

[Alex Kulak2]

"Guys and Dolls is not technically a Pulitzer Prize winner. The committee selected it as its winner in 1951, but no prize was given that year."

I heard about that. They didn't give it out because they thought the writers were communists.

[After Eight]

"Even if you aren't a fan of Sunday, you can understand why it won."

 

Alex, I understand only too well why it won.

 

[MadonnaMusical]

Alex Kulak2 said: "Even if you aren't a fan of Sunday, you can understand why it won. It constructed an entire musical around a painting. It tried something new. I don't see that in Guys and Dolls or How to Succeed.

 

"

How to Succeed is obvious I feel. It was a scorching satire about sexism, nepotism, and the American corporate environment that was shaped by an Ivy league boys club that had little to do with hard work and talent. It did this mind you in 1961... 

[Alex Kulak2]

But Guys and Dolls?

[Call_me_jorge]

After Eight said: "Sunday in the Park With George.

The insufferable tuneless bore is still going strong as the ultimate critics' darling.

 

"

Like you. Insufferable tuneless bore. 

[whatdoesntkillme]

You also need to take into consideration the basis of the award: currently, "for a distinguished play by an American author, preferably original in its source and dealing with American life," though this wording has changed over time. 

The purpose of the Pulitzer for drama is that it paints a portrait of American life. Additionally, remember that it's awarded by Columbia University, so it's often very New York-centric attitudes about American life. 

[perfectliar]

Alex Kulak2 said: "But Guys and Dolls?"

As has been stated, Guys & Dolls did not win.

[Roscoe]

TOPDOG/UNDERDOG -- I mean, WTF?

And the whole "American Life" thing is pretty loose these days -- I AM MY OWN WIFE had nothing to do with American life.

 

[After Eight]

"The purpose of the Pulitzer for drama is that it paints a portrait of American life."

 

Such as Georges Seurat's painting a scene on an island in the Seine.

[Mr. Nowack]

The funny thing about TOPDOG/UNDERDOG is that it's an outlier in Parks's oeuvre and might even be seen as her "selling out" when compared to her more experimental works.

As for GUYS AND DOLLS the fact that it wasn't actually awarded doesn't negate the fact that it was still chosen for the award.

[Consistency]

Could we please not quote A8? Some of us have that insufferable bore on ignore for a reason. 

(Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.) 

[perfectliar]

Mr. Nowack said: "The funny thing about TOPDOG/UNDERDOG is that it's an outlier in Parks's oeuvre and might even be seen as her "selling out" when compared to her more experimental works.

As for GUYS AND DOLLS the fact that it wasn't actually awarded doesn't negate the fact that it was still chosen for the award."

It does though. You will never see it included on lists of winners or billed as a Pulitzer Prize winning musical. So clearly someone also thought it was an unworthy winner, because it, you know... didn't win.

[Mr. Nowack]

perfectliar, if that's what it takes to validate your superiority complex, then by all means YOU'RE RIGHT god of the technicalities.

[KnewItWhenIWasInFron]

It is not a technicality. The question, "Did 'Guys and Dolls' win a Pulitzer?" is a Yes or No question, and the answer is, "No."

[MadonnaMusical]

The title of this post is "Odd Pulitzer Winners." 

GUYS & DOLLS did not win a Pulitzer... THE END. 

[perfectliar]

MadonnaMusical said: "The title of this post is "Odd Pulitzer Winners." 

GUYS & DOLLS did not win a Pulitzer... THE END. "

Thank you. It's not about being right, it's about responding to the post. What is the point of discussing the merits, or lack thereof, of a show that didn't win the Pulitzer in a thread about shows that won the Pulitzer?

[wonderfulwizard11]

I don't think How to Succeed is that confusing in context. When it premiered, musical comedy was seen as entertainment for the figure of the tired businessman, so it was daring to make a musical comedy that sharply satirizes the ruthlessness of the corporate world. I think it's easy to overlook because it's a silly comedy on the top, but underneath it I think it's a pretty accurate statement about American work culture- not just the sexism, but the heartlessness at the center of it all. 

[Mr. Nowack]

Alex Kulak was not musing on whether or not it won, but rather why it was selected since he thought it did't hold up against other winners. No it didn't win of course but it was still selected by the committee so I'd say it's just as valid to discuss it here alongside other committee selections, despite the thread title.

This is why no actual conversation happens on this board anymore. Gimme a break.

[astromiami]

Roscoe said: "TOPDOG/UNDERDOG -- I mean, WTF?

And the whole "American Life" thing is pretty loose these days -- I AM MY OWN WIFE had nothing to do with American life."

To be fair, I AM MY OWN WIFE is about an American writer's incomprehension when confronted with the complexities of European life under political systems different than our own. 

Because the actor wears a dress, it is easy to forget the actual plot which is about an American playwright interviewing a witness to history.

 

 

[green waver]

What I find odd is the arbitrariness of the award, especially when you look at the creator's career. Why did Bock and Harnick win for Fiorello, and not Fiddler or She Loves Me? Sondheim for Sunday, and not Sweeny or A little Night Music? As with all other awards like this, I guess you could say that they're well intentioned... but capricious.

[AC126748]

All awards are arbitrary, at least to some degree.

It's important to remember that unlike the Tony Awards, which consider 4-5 nominees across two-dozen categories, one Pulitzer Prize is issued, and the choice is made from more than a hundred candidates. Also, because the committee is always in flux, it is definitely subject to the whims of whoever happens to have a seat on the committee at a given point. And at the end of the day, the Pulitzer judges have the final word, which is how a work like Next to Normal can win the prize without even being among the finalists.

Arbitrary? Of course. But that's the nature of awards in general.

[perfectliar]

Mr. Nowack said: "Alex Kulak was not musing on whether or not it won, but rather why it was selected since he thought it did't hold up against other winners. No it didn't win of course but it was still selected by the committee so I'd say it's just as valid to discuss it here alongside other committee selections, despite the thread title.

This is why no actual conversation happens on this board anymore. Gimme a break."

Or maybe it's because posters like you fly off the handle and resort to name-calling over really insignificant things, like fact-checking.