Gender Based Awards?

[sabrelady]

Posted: 4/25/18 at 9:34pm

Recently the Toronto Alliance for the Performing Arts (the Dora Awards))  decided to remove all gender specified awards ( ie best performance by an Actor/Male) in an effort to be more inclusive  to the non gender identifying within the artistic community. Instead it will be just Best Performance followed by the names of the nominees.

So my question is, could this idea transfer to Broadway/off Broadway, given the same concerns re  inclusion,( including the Tony's) or will people see it just as a reduction of a possible award opportunity?

It's a fait  accompli here in TO but I wonder about the larger more commercial  award systems.

I guess what i'm asking is- will Bway put it's money where it's PC mouth is?

 

[Elegance101]

Posted: 4/25/18 at 9:36pm

I'd say it will happen at some point, but not before major controversies, arguments, and nastiness from both sides of the issue. Something to look forward to in the next few years!

[froote]

Posted: 4/25/18 at 10:42pm

Would just result in men winning the vast majority of the time like in all the other gender neutral categories. Plus I think halving the amount of actors to be recognized would be a great shame.

[DramaTeach]

Posted: 4/25/18 at 10:51pm

I was thinking about this when I saw Alex Newell perform at Stephen Schwartz's 70th Birthday Celebration.  I remember him explaining on The Glee Project back in the day that he was a guy who enjoyed dressing like a girl, but I didn't know if that was still how he identified.  His hair is long on one side and short on the other, he has some physical feminine attributes, and is generally effeminate in mannerisms.  It'll be interesting if he gets nominated for Best Supporting Actor playing Asaka.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 4/25/18 at 11:10pm

My main worry would be that they would just award males at a disproportionately high rate (look what happens in Best Director).

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 4/25/18 at 11:23pm

I do think in theory, having the actor categories be gendered make no sense really. However, in practice, we all know why we have it...especially at other awards for other mediums where there is an even bigger representation problem for women.

[SomethingPeculiar]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 12:09am

Are there two winners for the Canadian award, or just one? As complicated as gendered awards are, one of the good things about them is that it allows two leading (and supporting, etc.) performances to be honored.

I would think awards organizations would have to figure out a way to still have two winners. And in some years maybe two people of the same gender identities would win (I.E., Nathan/Matthew for The Producers, Patti/Kelli for Gypsy/South Pacific, Audra/Jan for Porgy/Follies) but in other years people of different gender identities would still win (Midler/Platt last year, NPH/Jessie for Hedwig/Beautiful).

 

EDIT: One thing it would also help with is weak seasons (thinking of this year's Leading Actor race)

Updated On: 4/26/18 at 12:09 AM

[Tag]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 12:32am

They haven't really released all the details yet, but performance categories are going from the (separate gendered) 5 nominees per category, to 8 nominees in a combined category (ie. outstanding lead performance in a musical).  I question whether that means for example, 7 men could be nominated against 1 women, or something like that.  It seems like a clustef*ck waiting to happen.

[Elegance101]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 2:29am

I've always thought they should separate by category of show if they want to do away with gender categories, but still give the same amount of awards.

For example, the Tonys last year could've been "Best Performance by a Leading Actor in a Musical - Drama: Ben Platt" and "Best Performance by a Leading Actor in a Musical - Comedy: Bette Midler." I know it'd be hard to categorize sometimes, but the Golden Globes manage.

However, I completely agree that it could just lead to men nabbing it every year, which brings a lot of new problems.

[binau]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 3:15am

adamgreer said: "My main worry would be that they would just award males at a disproportionately high rate (look what happens in Best Director).

"

Well this would be the ultimate test of sexism because, at least in terms of musicals, I’d predict the opposite. With exceptions, males are boring in musicals. 

 

[gypsy101]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 7:25am

the best supporting actor awards at the oliviers used to be gender-neutral and for the 25 years or so that they were combined, the ladies won about 4 more times than men. i don’t like the idea in general tbh but i agree that usually imo women have better characters in musicals.

as for Alex Newell, when i watched Glee Project it mostly seemed like she was cisgender boy and was kind of a drag performer in a way. this was changed on the show, originally she was basically a drag queen named Unique but she was later revealed to be a transgender lady which I thought was fine, plus I found Alex performing in a dress to be more entertaining than her performing in men’s clothes.

it would be interesting if she announced he was transgender and was nominated for the Tony in the supporting actress category, and would have beaten Peppermint as the first transgender performer on Broadway by several months.

edit: i just checked Alex’s wikipedia and it now lists her name as Alexandra, so i guess she announced she was transgender at some point and I just never heard?? i’ve changed her pronouns in this post of mine out of respect!

Updated On: 4/26/18 at 07:25 AM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 7:46am

the objections voiced here strike me as creating a problem before it happens, the typical aversion to change that almost invariably proves ill-founded.

[After Eight]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 8:09am

Sabrelady wrote:

 

"So my question is, could this idea transfer to Broadway/off Broadway, given the same concerns re  inclusion,( including the Tony's)"

 

It probably will extend to all award ceremonies. And probably sooner rather than later.

I'm wondering when the notion of giving one award to the "best" performer or play or anything else will be jettisoned entirely. After all, the notion of artists "competing" with one another is more than a little distasteful. The arts are not a track meet. Instead of nominees and winners, why not just hand out awards for excellence in the theatre, film, tv, or whatever? One can still have a televised ceremony, red carpet and all, with performances and clips for all the world to see. 

But in light of the amount of ego gratification --- and money, don't forget money --- involved in these awards, I don't see that happening any time soon.

[BWAY Baby2]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 8:18am

I don't see why- awards are ridiculous anyway- who can really say that one performance of a role- completely different than another role- is better or worse- ridiculous- was Carol Channing better than Streisand? just one dumb example. Both were great. 

     Awards are an artificial device to promote commerce, interest and controversy- PERIOD. I say- leave the awards as they are. Making it even more controversial serves no point at all, IMO.

Updated On: 4/26/18 at 08:18 AM

[raddersons]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 9:31am

HogansHero said: "the objections voiced here strike me as creating a problem before it happens, the typical aversion to change that almost invariably proves ill-founded."

Alex Newell's performance means it's already happening - best start the discussion now.

[AlfredDrakeII]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 9:33am

Honestly I would be against this coming to NYC. There are very few award-worthy actors, and still fewer gender nonconformists. While I recognize that the performing arts industry has an incredibly high proportion of non-conforming individuals, it still strikes me as unlikely that there would ever be enough award-worthy gender non-conformists to warrant such a radical change in policy.

Personally I think those who've gone against the grain should be given a SPECIAL DISTINCTION, rather than being lumped in with the rest of the cis-folks, but I also see how that would be counterintuitive to feeling "included". But then how is altering an entire awards category based on the demands of a specific group any more or less inclusive than giving them a special award?

At any rate, once this is proposed here it's all but inevitable, as any who oppose this measure (even if...I might say ESPECIALLY if...they belong to a protected group themselves) will be tarred and feathered as the worst kind of bigot--how dare they stand in the way of "progress" and "diversity" and "inclusivity"? There is no way to oppose this measure without exposing yourself to accusations of discrimination and, subsequently, suffering social and professional death. Most will simply silence themselves, fearing the fury of the outrage mob and wanting to keep in good standing in a notoriously difficult and unstable business.

While many may view all this as a positive, in terms of letting others shine, there's going to be some unpleasant side effects.

At some point those in charge of voting for the winners will have a dilemma: they will need to choose between voting for a critically-acclaimed performance that completely floored them, or handing the award to someone from a "protected group" as a means of signalling virtue. If the former option is taken, the members of the protected group will accuse the voting body of discrimination.

If the latter route is taken, then what was already a dicey process to begin with (the subjective choice of the "best" in a field that defies such tabulation and quantification) will become an even more cynical process, as performers will ultimately be left to wonder if THEY are being recognized for the hard work they put into that particular project, or if the VOTING BODIES THEMSELVES are looking to be recognized for "doing the right thing".

That is ultimately what it would boil down to; the award-winner themselves will likely have very little to do with winning the award, ironically, since politics will be the key determinant.

Over time the value and distinction of winning the award will diminish, since it will become abundantly clear that certain winners will be chosen simply to make a statement, and nothing else.

As someone who has been a "diversity hire" on more than one occasion, I cannot tell you how insulting and demeaning it is to feel like you're only being given a shot because people feel sorry for you, bad for themselves, and want to atone for what they perceive as their own sins and the sins of their forebears and peers.

Nothing to do with my elite (and very costly) training, nor the countless hours I've spent analyzing the script, doing my research, trying and failing at building a character, putting my voice and body under tremendous strain for anywhere from 90 minutes to 3 hours (sometimes more!), subjecting myself to the ruthless judgement of the public, sacrificing hours of fun and enjoyment that normal people get to have because I need to take care of myself and rest and save my body for the paying public.

No, none of that will matter, because I or someone else will belong to the correct protected group of the moment, and be distinguished merely for belonging to that group and being competent at my job.

[AlfredDrakeII]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 9:35am

I have to add that it's astounding to me that so many here would assume that men would still win a disproportionate number of awards.

Think you so little of women and gender nonconformists? Why are you automatically assuming that men will win? Do you understand how bigoted and misogynistic that sounds?

Ironically I took out a line in my previous post regarding this, because I predict the OPPOSITE, that given the current climate FEWER men will be given awards, ESPECIALLY if they are white.

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 9:44am

I just like having two categories because it means more winners and more people having their performances acknowledged. Imagine if there was just one category. Last year would have been Ben Platt vs. Bette Midler. I don't think we would have survived that.

I am interested if Newell is transgender. I haven't heard anything, but I would love to know so that I can use their proper pronouns. If they are a transwoman, they should be put in featured actress, and should actually win, IMO. It would be a great moment for the trans community.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 9:49am

I have no problem with a transgendered person being put in his/her chosen category.  That being said, I don't think Newell SHOULD win: it would be awarding a fabulous performance of one song.  (The rest of the part really disappears.)

 

I understand the desire to let go of gender based awards, but I'm not sure if it will ever happen (nor sure if it should.)    

[candydog2]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 9:54am

Seems like dangerous territory to me. There's enough politics involved in awards shows, introducing gender politics is risky.

What if someone really deserves the award but people don't vote for them because a person of their gender won the last two years in a row?

In theory there's no need to gender awards categories (although it does only happen for actors and actresses) - in reality neutralising them puts the industry's "showiest" awards in a rather precarious position.

One day, perhaps, but reading the room right now, it doesn't feel like the right time.

[BuddyStarr]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 10:00am

The potential problem with non-gender based awards is who is voting on them.  If it is a historical group of past winners/nominees, then it could be skewed either way (like the Oscar director nominees)  It would be important to have equal representation of the different type of people picking the nominees and voting for the winners.  (Women had to rely on men for the right to vote as absurd that that is so it took a long time)

[kdogg36]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 10:47am

AlfredDrakeII said: "Think you so little of women and gender nonconformists? Why are you automatically assuming that men will win? Do you understand how bigoted and misogynistic that sounds?"

I didn't interpret those comments in that light. On the contrary, I think the fear is that, due to the sexism and male privilege prevalent in our world, many men would win over more deserving women.

While not denying that premise at all, I actually agree with those who think that wouldn't happen in this very specific instance. It always seems like the race for Best Actress in a Musical is much juicier than Best Actor.

[newintown]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 10:50am

How about we just get rid of all awards and just evaluate art and entertainment individually on its own merits, rather than imposing an arbitrary "best?"

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 10:54am

I think most people recognize that musical theatre is sort of special in that so much focus and attention is put on Lead Actress in a musical in comparison to Lead Actor. So when people argue disproportionate rewarding of one gender, it's more inputting what they think would happen at the Oscars or Emmys especially considering the make-up of the voting bodies.

As for the danger of putting trans actors in categories that align with their gender identity, I think the dangers as expressed in this thread is far too exaggerated and one can argue everything you fear is always going to be some sort of factor so long as we continue to give awards and the more minorities of all kinds receive award-attention roles. People complain about underserving winners and politics even when all the nominees are all cisgender AND of one race. Then it becomes about age, it becomes about who networked better, who the studios are pushing as the next big thing, who was overdue and robbed in the past, who is the most famous, etc. And honestly, Sophia Cox has been nominated for a few Emmys, did not win, and people accepted it as much as most people accept it when somebody they like loses an award (which in some cases on message boards around the Internet, it's not well no matter what their gender identity and race is).

[sabrelady]

Posted: 4/26/18 at 11:38am

Tag said: "They haven't really released all the details yet, but performance categories are going from the (separate gendered) 5 nominees per category, to 8 nominees in a combined category (ie. outstanding lead performance in a musical). I question whether that means for example, 7 men could be nominated against 1 women, or something like that. It seems like a clustef*ck waiting to happen."

Considering they have had 2 years I believe to examine and come up w this new system, I agree, the lack of details is frustrating . 

A Dora award is a nice thing to get in TO but financially it means very little either to the performer or the producers. ( shows have already closed or moved on to the next tour stop)

In the commercial world of Bway/O-Bway/West End  awards are very important for producers as they are used for promotional purposes big time. ( and we all know a Tony winning bump can save a show on the otherwise edge). And the ego-boo of winning a big time award helps the performer too. ( tho I still love Lupone's comment " the base of the Tony is plastic"

Will be watching this w great interest to see how it plays out here in TO and any ripples it has further afield.