Hedwig as a revival

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 10:15am

Acknowledging that I'll probably get whipped for this - I did search BWW for this without finding an answer though the conversation could be buried in another thread. I also didn't find the answer on Google.

Why was Hedwig and the Angry Inch considered a revival by the Tony Award committee?
This is the first time Hedwig played in a Broadway house.

Was the consideration similar to what happened with Little Shop of Horrors in 2003?
Although this was the first time Little Shop of Horrors had played on Broadway, the show's success in film and numerous regional productions made it fall under the "Revival" category.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 10:18am

Yup...same thing as Little Shop and Cinderella. I think they refer to it as a "classics" ruling.

Basically: if the piece is widely known, it will still be considered a revival. Cult followings, long running off b'way runs and huge showings in regional/high school theaters.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 10:18am

That's exactly what happened. The off-B'way run was a significant NY production.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 10:19am

Yes, it's the "Classics Rule."

A play or musical that is determined by the Tony Awards Administration Committee (in its sole discretion) to be a 'classic' or in the historical or popular repertoire shall not be eligible for an Award in the Best Play or Best Musical Category but may be eligible in that appropriate Best Revival category.
Playbill

[jnb9872]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 10:19am

Yes. Same with VIOLET. And CRIPPLE OF INISHMAAN. And CINDERELLA. And ASSASSINS. And WIT. And THE NORMAL HEART. And TALK RADIO...

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 10:20am

I may be wrong about this but I think it's because the show was already produced in New York, albeit Off Broadway, but it enjoyed a very successful run. While this new production is ON BROADWAY it technically is the second production to play New York so it is considered a revival of the previous production.


EDIT: Sorry, when I logged on the posts that appear directly above mine did not appear so I apologize for it's redundancy as it already covers what has been already mentioned.


Updated On: 6/10/14 at 10:20 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 10:23am

This is a landmark thread. Five responses in five minutes to a question about Hedwig and not one of the answers is from Haterobics.

[jnb9872]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 10:24am

But let's not all answer at once, I think we got this one covered, folks.

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 10:40am

thanks all

[Jane2]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 10:53am

"This is a landmark thread. Five responses in five minutes to a question about Hedwig and not one of the answers is from Haterobics."

or Darry.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 11:06am

I think according to "The classics" rule, all musicals directly based on movies should be considered revivals as well. And what about jukebox musicals? We've heard all those ABBA songs for years.

[Kad]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 12:13pm

That's certainly a creative reading of the rule.

[averagebwaynut]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 12:18pm

Not sure I truly follow that logic. The scores of the jukebox musical are already ineligible but why should the show as a whole be deemed a "revival"? And as for shows based directly on movies, where do we draw the line? Do we disqualify shows based directly on books or ANY other pre-existing material?

I do note that you say "directly" but that's a very vague and subjective term. In the case of adaptations, the writers still have to write the show, the music, the lyrics -- and if designated as revivals, their work would be ineligible. Someone will then note that if at least 50% of the material is newly written for the stage, it would be deemed eligible. But then we'd be left with a pretty meaningless revival category, with possibly no common ground between the potential nominees.

At best, I could make an argument for a 'Best Book' and 'Best Adapated Book' award, a la the Oscars. But I don't think I would change the qualifications for Best Original Score.

What I would love to see, though, is a way to acknowledge writing that on the one hand, has already been proven but on the other hand, hasn't previously been eligible for a Tony. That's really where wonderful work goes unrecognized -- all of the other creatives on a revival have a chance to be recognized for what they bring to a revival production, EXCEPT for the authors. Now I agree that the composer of a brand new musical shouldn't necessarily have to compete for a Tony with the composer of a musical that is already tried-and-true. But the composer of the latter surely should be worthy of consideration for some recognition as well. If the material has previously been eligible for a Tony, it's a non-issue -- that author had a chance to compete for the award and lost (or won). But if the material has never even been eligible for recognition by the Tonys, there needs to be some way to make that work, even if it means that the award isn't given every year and/or that there needs to be a minimum number of eligible nominees.

Food for thought, at least.

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 12:29pm

Does the same apply for Off Broadway Awards? Eg Obie Award?

Avenue Q won the Tony Award when it was on Broadway...then it transferred to an Off-Broadway house. Is it eligible for an Obie the year it opens Off Broadway?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 12:36pm

Actually average, that was a bit tongue in cheek.

I just think that a show that has never actually been on Broadway shouldn't be considered a revival. Especially something like Hedwig which played a theater that was so far off-Broadway.

[averagebwaynut]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 12:47pm

Ahhh...sorry if I missed the intended tone. It can be tough in these forums, sometimes.

On the latter point, I certainly agree and wish it could have been the case, without also being unfair to the writers of this season's new works.

[dreaming]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 12:49pm

I still think that within a certain timeframe, the 'classics' pieces should be eligible one time for book and score-they were never judged on those before and I feel that one concession should be made. (It means that the book and score writers for Hedwig and Violet went unrecognized, which is a shame in my opinion.)

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 4:02pm

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand it seems unfair that the book and score of HEDWIG weren't eligible for a Tony because the show played off-off-Bway, but now its writers aren't eligible because the show played off-off-Bway.

On the other hand, since most of us (and presumably most Tony voters) know the score pretty well, it's a lot easier to appreciate a well-known score than a brand-new one like GENTLEMAN'S GUIDE.

[mjohnson2]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 4:04pm

My question in regards to this would be: would Children of Eden, if it were to come to Broadway, be considered a revival because it is well known, or would it be an original show because it never played in New York?

[dreaming]

Posted: 6/10/14 at 4:06pm

I'm not entirely convinced of that, Gaveston-the voters could think quite the opposite.

Regardless, I think that works that are 25 years or less old and fall into the classics rule should be eligible for book and score since they were never judged in those categories.