Examples of when the Tony Nominating Committee Seems to be Out-of-Step with the Entire Membership?

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

I was just thinking about when do you think the nominating committee at the Tonys made an omission in Best Musical or Best Play and that omission ended up winning some big awards on Tony night that may lead one to believe that had that musical or play been nominated for the big award, it may have had a good chance of winning? I'm not questioning the nominating committee's choices here as I know some shows have great individual aspects but do not come together as a whole, and that watching a show live and seeing it in full is not the same experience as listening to the cast recording, which is how some people who think certain shows were snubbed back up their arguments as they haven't seen the original production. I just wonder if Tony voters would have gone a certain way if the competition make-up was different.

One example that pops out of my mind are when Camelot was not nominated for Best Musical or Best Director of a Musical, but ended up winning four out of its five nominations. I wonder if Camelot had been nominated for Best Musical if it would have pulled off a win over Bye Bye Birdie or at least would have given it more competition than Do Re Me or Irma la Douce did.

The other example is when Aida was not nominated for Best Musical, but ended up winning four Tony awards, including Best Score and Best Actress. The actual nominees were Contact; James Joyce's The Dead; Swing; and The Wild Party.

Again, I'm not making a judgment on whether these shows deserved to be nominated nor am I saying they would have won had they been nominated (I mean look at all the wins On the Twentieth Century had and it still ended up losing to Ain't Misbehavin'), I was just observing examples where it seemed the voting membership were more keen on this shows than the nominating committee was. Sometimes I think the nominating committee use their ability to make statements with certain omissions (not just in Best Musical or Best Play) though for the most part are honestly picking what shows they feel are deserving for the nomination.

Are there other examples you can think of?

[Broadway61004]

Aida was definitely a result of nominators still being upset that Lion King won over Ragtime 2 years earlier and wanted to make sure Disney couldn't triumph again (not to mention a lot of controversy with their out of town tryouts--same thing could be said for Jekyll and Hyde's omission a few years earlier).

A more recent example that comes to mind is One Man, Two Guvnors. Dont think it would have actually won Best Play over Clybourne Park, but 7 nominations including 2 acting noms and Best Director, but no Best Play nomination? Seemed odd at the time and still seems odd now.

[RicardoMagon]

-Giving the best musical award to the will rogers follies over Miss Saigon.

-Victor/Victoria not receiving a best musical nomination 

[haterobics]

RicardoMagon said: "-Giving the best musical award to the will rogers follies over Miss Saigon."

That wouldn't be the nominating committee. That would be the voters.

[RicardoMagon]

"Aida was definitely a result of nominators still being upset that Lion King won over Ragtime 2 years earlier and wanted to make sure Disney couldn't triumph again (not to mention a lot of controversy with their out of town tryouts-"

What was the controversy with the out of town tryouts?

[VotePeron]

The biggest one that comes to mind is The Last Ship not getting a Best Musical nomination. Although it had closed (like Bring It On! and A Christmas Story had a year before), I still think it was more than worthy of a nomination.

[Broadway61004]

RicardoMagon said: ""Aida was definitely a result of nominators still being upset that Lion King won over Ragtime 2 years earlier and wanted to make sure Disney couldn't triumph again (not to mention a lot of controversy with their out of town tryouts-"

What was the controversy with the out of town tryouts?"

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-11-17/features/9911170271_1_set-breakdown-steppenwolf-theatre

A set malfunction during one of the performances led to several injuries, which led to all sorts of questions about the safety of the production.  If I recall there was also a lot of scrambling for rewrites at the last minute, but I can't find any specific articles about that.

Basically, just a lot of bad press had started due to various things happening out of town.  That added to the want to snub Disney probably had a lot to due with it not being nominated.

 

[teatime2]

The Side Show revival getting no nominations.

[Someone in a Tree2]

The OP cited CAMELOT's lack of nominations for Best Musical, etc, which may have been a result of the bumpy opening the show had in New York, with Alan Jay Lerner muddling through as director since Moss Hart had been hospitalized while the show was on the road in Toronto. The legendary story is that several months after the show opened in NY, Moss was finally strong enough to see the production, and forthwith restructured the show, omitting 2 songs in the process, reducing the running time, and presumably turning the show into the bonafide hit that played for 3 years. (Ostensibly a 30-minute performance of key songs on the Ed Sullivan Show also contributed to strong business.) Had the Tonys committee nominated the show for best musical, which show would they have meant? The one from opening night, or the revised version?

Which makes me wonder, are there other major shows that had such radical surgery several months after their opening nights?

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Someone in a Tree2 said: "The OPcitedCAMELOT's lack ofnominations for Best Musical, etc, which may have been a result of the bumpy opening the show had in New York, with Alan Jay Lerner muddling through as director since Moss Hart had been hospitalized while the show was on the road in Toronto. The legendary story is that several months after the show opened in NY, Moss was finally strong enough to see the production, and forthwith restructured the show, omitting 2 songs in the process, reducing the running time, and presumably turning the show into thebonafide hit that played for 3 years. (Ostensibly a 30-minute performance of key songs on the Ed Sullivan Show also contributed to strong business.) Had the Tonys committee nominated the show for best musical, which show would they have meant? The one from opening night, or the revised version?

Which makes me wonder, are there other major shows that had such radical surgery several months after their opening nights?"

Thank you for the insight. That certainly adds a lot of context to what may have happened there.

teatime2 said: "The Side Show revival getting no nominations."

But we don't know if the voters would have voted for it had it received nominations.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

VotePeron said: "The biggest one that comes to mind isThe Last Shipnot getting a Best Musical nomination. Although it had closed(like Bring It On! and A Christmas Story had a year before),I still think it was more than worthy of a nomination."

Would that have been out-of-step with the voters though?

[KnewItWhenIWasInFron]

haterobics said: "RicardoMagon said: "-Giving the best musical award to the will rogers follies over Miss Saigon."

That wouldn't be the nominating committee. That would be the voters."

 

...and I suspect I'm not alone in believing the voters were right.

 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

I do think Kristin Chenoweth's snub for her critically-acclaimed performance The Apple Tree was a mix of the show being closed by the time nominations came out, not really setting the box office on fire, some insider gossip that the cast was becoming a bit undisciplined and playing to the audience a bit too much, and Chenoweth being seen as leaving Broadway to go into TV and movies at the time. I'm sure there are people on the committee who truly thought Debra Monk and Laura Bell Bundy were superior to Chenoweth, but I really do believe those other factors played a part in that particular snub. It seemed rather pointed at the time.

[ggersten]

Broadway61004 said: "

A more recent example that comes to mind is One Man, Two Guvnors. Dont think it would have actually won Best Play over Clybourne Park, but 7 nominations including 2 acting noms and Best Director, but no Best Play nomination? Seemed odd at the time and still seems odd now."

The producers of One Man Two Guvnors tried to have the show slotted as a Revival, not a new play.  The Eligibility Committee rejected that petition.  This was perceived as an attempt to manipulate the nominating process which many have affected the nomination process.  NYTimes on One Man Two Guvnors Eligibility

[Broadway61004]

ggersten said: "Broadway61004 said: "

A more recent example that comes to mind is One Man, Two Guvnors. Dont think it would have actually won Best Play over Clybourne Park, but 7 nominations including 2 acting noms and Best Director, but no Best Play nomination? Seemed odd at the time and still seems odd now."

The producers of One Man Two Guvnors tried to have the show slotted as a Revival, not a new play. The Eligibility Committee rejected that petition. This was perceived as an attempt to manipulate the nominating process which many have affected the nomination process. NYTimes on One Man Two Guvnors Eligibility"

Oh, yes, that's right! I forgot about that little controversy.  Still just seems a little odd that the committee loved it enough to give it all those other nominations, but refused to put it in Best Play 

[bdn223]

ggersten said: "Broadway61004 said: "

A more recent example that comes to mind is One Man, Two Guvnors. Dont think it would have actually won Best Play over Clybourne Park, but 7 nominations including 2 acting noms and Best Director, but no Best Play nomination? Seemed odd at the time and still seems odd now."

The producers of One Man Two Guvnors tried to have the show slotted as a Revival, not a new play. The Eligibility Committee rejected that petition. This was perceived as an attempt to manipulate the nominating process which many have affected the nomination process. NYTimes on One Man Two Guvnors Eligibility"

I was about to say the same thing. That year was actually one of the most competitive Best Play categories in a long time. Clybourne Park was a recently crowned Pulitzer Prize winner that was a spiritual sequel and prequel to the beloved A Raisin in the Sun, that successfully explored the topics of race relations and gentrification through both at 1959 and post Obama lens. Other Dessert Cities was modern family drama reminiscent of Arthur Miller with a cast giving out knock out performances. Peter and the Starcatcher the year's little play that could that could be called the American response to War Horse, that went on be the most Tony award winning Play of the season with 5.  Venus in Fur was a theater community favorite that was nominated as a reward to producers successfully transferring the MTC production that was playing to full houses, to a commercial run in less then 2 months. 

If One Man Two Guvnor's producers didn't try to game the system by trying to get it nominated for Best Revival, it had maybe 60/40 odds of bumping out Venus in Fur for the final nomination. Even if it was nominated though, it was a 3 way race between Clybourne Park, Other Dessert Cities, and Peter and the Starcatcher. James Corden's win over Philip Seymour Hoffman, was one of the biggest upsets in recent memory. One Man Two Guvnor winning Best Play, if it were nominated were about as likely as actual nominee that year Leap of Faith winning Best Musical. 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

I just watched the clip of Corden winning and the reactions from the nominees ran the gamut. From slight confusion (I think James Earl Jones for a split second thought he won); unenthusiastic clapping (Hoffman); slightly amused (Langella); highly enthusiastic (Lithgow); and complete shock (Corden).

[Broadway61004]

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "I just watched the clip of Corden winning and the reactions from thenominees ran the gamut. From slight confusion (I think James Earl Jones for a split second thought he won); unenthusiastic clapping (Hoffman); slightly amused (Langella); highly enthusiastic (Lithgow); and complete shock (Corden)."

I can't find the video now, but yes, I saw an interview with Jones where he admitted he had thought he had won (in his own words, his hearing is horrible and all he heard was "James" so thought he had shockingly won as he certainly wasn't expecting it.  Then when his wife explained to him the other James had won it "made a lot more sense".

[ggersten]

I never heard that story about James Earl Jones.

I did hear Davey Jones tell the story about how he at first he thought he had won for Oliver, but it was David Burns who won for Forum!  Jones heard the word "David" and started to stand up before realizing it was the other David.  

[Wick3]

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "I just watched the clip of Corden winning and the reactions from thenominees ran the gamut. From slight confusion (I think James Earl Jones for a split second thought he won); unenthusiastic clapping (Hoffman); slightly amused (Langella); highly enthusiastic (Lithgow); and complete shock (Corden)."

Just watched it too and I agree with you! That was awesome Corden acknowledged his fellow nominees and his favorite actor (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) in his speech.

 

[AEA AGMA SM]

Someone in a Tree2 said: "Which makes me wonder, are there other major shows that had such radical surgery several months after their opening nights?"

The Scarlet Pimpernel went through a major overhaul about a year after its original opening. Robert Longbottom was brought and restaged and rechoreographed the show, as well as replacing Terrence Mann and Christine Andreas with Rex Smith and Rachel York. They billed it as an entirely new "revisal" when they opened again a week or two later. They then closed again about 7 months later only to reopen again about 3 months later at the Neil Simon with further rewrites having been done that, as I recall, were being made for the upcoming tour.

[Someone in a Tree2]

Hah! I saw the Rex Smith version and absolutely hated the thing, but who knows how much worse it had been previously. As a gay man, I never felt so unwelcome in a theater with the constant bombardment of homo-panic jokes that abounded in the script and staging.

[Scarlet Leigh]

Someone in a Tree2 said: "Hah! I saw the Rex Smith version and absolutely hated the thing, but who knows how much worse it had been previously. As a gay man, I never felt so unwelcome in a theater with the constant bombardment of homo-panicjokes that abounded in the script andstaging."

CLEARLY I am a Pimperneal fan. *glances to the left* It was very jarring to see both the original version and the revised version as there were things that were better about both versions. "Creation of Man" was not as loud and over the top in the original version while the revised version had a MUCH better ending sequence. BUT the thing between the two that was just impossible to overcome as someone that saw both is that they took the song that in the original was a song sung between a brother and a sister and converted it into the leading characters love song. The original tried to take itself too serious while the revised version tried to be too funny.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Scarlet Leigh said: BUT the thing between the two that was just impossible to overcome as someone that saw both is that they took the song that in the original was a song sung between a brother and a sister and converted it into the leading characters love song. 

That was honestly one of the funniest things I've read on this forum.