Agreed. Bertie would have taken it, but I'm thinking it goes to Terrence. I LOVED him in the show, and he's been in the business for so long, he really deserves it.
I think Terrence Mann will win. He's a respected veteran in one of the hot shows of the season and this role actually demonstrates the range of his abilities amazingly well. (It's a large and meaty role, too.) I hope he wins-he really deserves it.
Me too. I'd love to see this one go to Terrence Mann. For a lot of the same reasons: he's a respected veteran of the theatre, who's been nominated twice but never won, and he really is quite brilliant in this role. He does deserve it!
I don't doubt how loved and esteemed Terence Mann is and should be within the theater community for his 30-plus years doing great work on Broadway stages.
But wow, am I surprised at the acclaim for this particular performance. I must be in the minority here for thinking his Charlemagne was hopelessly over-the-top and unsubtle, so delighted at his own wit that we weren't allowed to be. For me, those opening scenes are best played with a warm and welcoming king so that his abandonment of Pippin later will come as a surprise; Mann's king already seemed to be a stock villain type from the get go.
But that said, I've no doubt that yes, the Tony is his.
Totally. This year we're going to see Terrence Mann and Andrea Martin take the featured Tonys for the same show. Just like last year with Nice Work for Kaye and McGrath. They were both weak categories last year, as stated...
I didn't think much of Terrence Mann in Pippin, and am surprised that he is the consensus pick. I don't see a clear front runner, think Ebert very well could take it, and personally would vote Will Chase (if I had a vote.)
Words don't deserve that kind of malarkey. They're innocent, neutral, precise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so if you look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But when they get their corners knocked off, they're no good anymore…I don't think writers are sacred, but words are. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.
I think Will Chase is also well-respected (although he obviously hasn't been in the scene as long as Terrence Mann) so we can't count him out. I'd say he's a dark horse with Mann and Ebert out in front.
I will also happily admit that I may be biased in Chase's favor, because the night I saw it his two daughters were in the front row. So, he may have gone even further over-the-top than normal, but either way he was a spectacularly unhinged sight to behold.
Words don't deserve that kind of malarkey. They're innocent, neutral, precise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so if you look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But when they get their corners knocked off, they're no good anymore…I don't think writers are sacred, but words are. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.
My choice would be Ebert over Chase. I like both performances and both actors but I would go for Ebert. I love the physical precision of his performance as much as I enjoyed the physical commitment in "One Man Two Guvners." What makes Ebert's work Tony worthy, for me, is the emotional depth he found in his performance of what could have been a two dimensional character. I don't know that it is to everyone's taste though...
Also to whoever said that Featured Actress was a weak category this year is sadly mistaken. Behind Best Actor in a Musical is was one of the most exciting categories.
"Oh look at the time, three more intelligent plays just closed and THE ADDAMS FAMILY made another million dollars" -Jackie Hoffman, Broadway.com Audience Awards
Also to whoever said that Featured Actress was a weak category this year is sadly mistaken. Behind Best Actor in a Musical is was one of the most exciting categories.
"Oh look at the time, three more intelligent plays just closed and THE ADDAMS FAMILY made another million dollars" -Jackie Hoffman, Broadway.com Audience Awards
Pretty sure the poster said that the categories were weak LAST year. But that the same show would take both awards THIS year (like last year.)
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
I'll be rroting for Terrence Mann. I loved him in Pippin, and for all the whining on this board about relative newcomers having never won a Tony, here's someone with decades of quality performances, including original casts of smashes like Cats, Les Miserables, and Beauty and the Beast.
"It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."
-- Thomas Jefferson
It will be Terrenc Mann for his charming and fun portrayal of King Charlemagne. You want subtlety in Pippin? A musical with Commedia de a'rte roots? You are kidding me.
While I like Will Chase as a performer, I am surprised he was even nominated for Drood. His take on the role was quite uninteresting and bland . I've seen performances of " A Man Could go Quite Mad" better done in musical comedy class.
^ Yeah, call me old school, but I find subtlety and nuance in comedy infinitely more fun than ham-handed obviousness. At the very same performance of Pippin where I found Mann, Miller and Martin too over-the-top (they should be a law firm...), I was delighted by all sorts of subtle choices made by Matthew James Thomas and Rachel Bay Jones. Pippin may be a show rooted in Commedia del'Arte but that does't mean acting choices can't be geared toward the adults in the audience from time to time.
This production of PIPPIN is fascinating to me; people's responses to its components are wonderfully varied. I found Miller and Martin to be expertly crafted performances, Jones grew on me as the role developed, and I found Mann and Thomas as generally forgettable and left much to be desired. Patina and Andrea were the only ones who regularly kept my attention from the wonderful circus performers (who I otherwise felt made the show.)
Words don't deserve that kind of malarkey. They're innocent, neutral, precise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so if you look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But when they get their corners knocked off, they're no good anymore…I don't think writers are sacred, but words are. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.