Kudos to Jonathan Pyrce -His Response to the Replacement Tony Award Debacle

[SirLiir]

Posted: 5/19/06 at 6:28pm

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/68793.htm

I love this man. Not only does he do so well in DRS but he delivers an excellent and well thought out response to the obvious (and baffling) snub of the Replacement Tony.
Updated On: 5/19/06 at 06:28 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/19/06 at 6:30pm

Replacement Tonys should be annual awards as sometimes replacements are better than the originals

[SirLiir]

Posted: 5/19/06 at 6:34pm

Agreed, Roxy. For those who have had the pleasure to see both Johns, its so plain to say that not only did Mr. Pyrce fill the role extremely well but he took it in other directions that worked wonderfully. John Lithgow was fully deserving of his nomination and so should have Jonathan Pyrce.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/19/06 at 6:44pm

Not since the heady days of Beergoggles have I so enjoyed reading the British slang:

"It was really their cock-up, and they should have admitted that."

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/19/06 at 6:48pm

Bravo to Mr Pryce

[shesamarshmallow]

Posted: 5/19/06 at 7:06pm

"What kind of criterion is that?" snaps Pryce. "Is this supposed to be an award for Best Actor From Another Planet?"
Fierstein says he thinks the replacement award is "creepy."

That article is HILARIOUS.

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 5/19/06 at 11:18pm

How shallow and graceless to place such emphasis on such a meaningless award. So much for love of craft and profession. For shame, Pryce.





Newland Archer
Newport, Rhode Island

[Dirty Rotten Scoundrel]

Posted: 5/19/06 at 11:31pm

How shallow and graceless to place such emphasis on such a meaningless award. So much for love of craft and profession. For shame, Pryce.





Newland Archer
Newport, Rhode Island


I feel that he handled it with a lot of class and has every right to be upset...and you're saying all this as someone who signs their posts! For shame to you, Archer person!
Updated On: 5/19/06 at 11:31 PM

Posted: 5/20/06 at 12:21am

I don't think Pryce handled it with any class. I much preferred Harvey's response.

[SirLiir]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 12:35am

Pyrce did not sugarcoat it or dance around the issue. He attacked the topic with just cause and he made some solid points.

[Practically Perfect]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 7:32am

I don't think that was particularly tactful of Pryce - it makes him seem incredibly bitter, and also makes it seem that he is only doing the show for an award, imo.

Mary P x

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 8:26am

"How shallow and graceless to place such emphasis on such a meaningless award. So much for love of craft and profession. For shame, Pryce."

Meaningless to whom? You? Were you up for the award? Who says he doesn't love his craft or profession? And in case you didn't notice, the Tony Committee were the ones to place the emphasis on the award in the first place. There's nothing shallow or graceless in Pryce's response to the double backhanded slap he received from the Committee.

"I don't think Pryce handled it with any class. I much preferred Harvey's response."

I thought what he said was perfectly valid and appropriate.

"I don't think that was particularly tactful of Pryce - it makes him seem incredibly bitter, and also makes it seem that he is only doing the show for an award, imo."

What gives you that impression? I don't think it sounds particularly bitter, but it certainly is a pointed response, which seems entirely appropriate. The committee announced this new category, for which there was much press, and for which Pryce was eligible in a role for which he has gotten positive reviews (as did Fierstein). Then to be told that you weren't "worthy". And then to find that the Tony Committe couldn't even follow their own guidelines, and the entire category, for which there was much hubbub, was not even taken seriously enough by the Committee to bother to attend the performances according to their own criteria. It's an insult with a kick in the ass. I don't think Pryce is obligated to say something tactful and I believe he handled with with as much class as the situation deserved. The Committee is behaving like a bumbling group of Junior High stooges.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 8:30am

I am gonna have to agree with Tom and Practically Perfect. Pryce comes accross as a total jerk who has been waiting for someone else to hand him this award. I don't see how it's fair to get angry about this when the award hasn't been promised to anyone. He talks as though he was misled. Frankly, I think he will lose a lot of respect for these comments.

Also, while I liked Harvey's response better, I wouldn't necessarily call it a slap in the face of the original performer to win a Tony for recreating a role.
Updated On: 5/20/06 at 08:30 AM

[FranklinShepard-Inc.]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 8:31am

I agree, he as every right to be upset, as the award seems only to not go nominated nor awarded as the committee messed it up. Shame on them.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 8:34am

"The Committee is behaving like a bumbling group of Junior High stooges."

I don't think that the committee is BEHAVING like anything. Sure, they screwed up, but it's the first year so let's cut them a little slack. People are getting WAY too worked up about this.

[riv]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 10:08am

I have no problem with Pryce's remarks.

Perhaps "replacements" should simply be allowed to compete for best actor, etc., rather than have their own category or special award. Maybe restrict it to allowing only one replacement to compete in an acting category per season.

Having suggested this, I realize an original performer will have an advantage when the voting takes place simply because they have created a part. A replacement will have a tough time winning the award. But a nomination would at least be recognition.

[WiiCKED x3]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 11:06am

Before the show Tuesday night, Pryce, dripping sarcasm, told his fellow cast members: "I apologize for not being worthy enough."

I feel bad for Pryce. He should have definatly have won.

[Pippin]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 1:59pm

"Sure, they screwed up, but it's the first year so let's cut them a little slack. People are getting WAY too worked up about this."

what are you talking about? if it's the first year, they should be adamant about the rules and following them, thus setting a strong precedent for future years. if you're not strong coming out of the gate, how do you expect people to follow for future years to follow?

if they didn't want to take this award seriously, they shouldn't have even bothered trying to make it a reality in the first place. you can't raise people's hopes and then just say, "oooops, nevermind"

Updated On: 5/20/06 at 01:59 PM

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 2:49pm

I agree Pippin.

Perhaps they should have kept the whole award idea under wraps until a year when they really felt there was a performance worth recognizing.

This whole situation is completely absurd, and the Tony committee is coming off as the fools here. Pryce had every right to be frustrated and his remarks were certainly warranted.

[SirLiir]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 4:38pm

Jonathan Pyrce took on the role as a favor to his friend, John Lithgow. He did not take the role in order to win some award like was claimed and it is insulting to the man to insuate that. That is cheapening his hard work and fine performances.

[jsrocks]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 4:49pm

I agree both w/ what Jonathan and Harvey said about the award. It's just to weird of an award and I don't think the committee would ever sort it all out.

Jonathan is definitely worthy!!

[bjh2114]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 5:17pm

"if it's the first year, they should be adamant about the rules and following them, thus setting a strong precedent for future years. if you're not strong coming out of the gate, how do you expect people to follow for future years to follow?

if they didn't want to take this award seriously, they shouldn't have even bothered trying to make it a reality in the first place. you can't raise people's hopes and then just say, "oooops, nevermind""

I completely disagree. There is always trial and error involved in creating new awards. Call this the previews and next season opening night. Crtics don't review shows until the opening, so don't criticize the Tony committee for not having all of their kinks worked out. Jonathan Pryce has ALREADY gotten HUGE recognition for being an amazing replacement, he doesn't need the award to prove it. And, p.s., we don't know how many votes he even received. It only said 16 people attended. What if 3 of those people voted for him and the rest abstained? The award rules specify that there doesn't NEED to be a winner each year, so by no means can we assume he WOULD have won had the entire committee attended.
Updated On: 5/20/06 at 05:17 PM

[admanrich]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 5:22pm

If you need 66% (16/24) and only 16 people went to see it, they should have just made 11/16 votes necessary to win. It's really not fair that the committee isn't giving the award because some members weren't able to see it, when they should have.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 5:25pm

"If you need 66% (16/24) and only 16 people went to see it, they should have just made 11/16 votes necessary to win."

Right, fine, dandy, whatever. But my point is...who is to say that he received even 11 votes? We don't know, he could have gotten 5.

[Pippin]

Posted: 5/20/06 at 5:35pm

yes, but then why go to all hassle introducing the award, publicising, organizing, campaigning, just to have it not happen?

it seems to be alot of wasted time and energy, doesn't it?

I don't really care about the award not going to price, or anyone involved. I just think that since the Tony's are the biggest representive of all things Broadway, they should get thier act together before acting on something that they had no intention of following through with. In reality, the whole award should just be forgotten, and replaced with "best ensemble"