The 2012-2013 Tony Awards

[The Original BJ]

Some thoughts on the additional shows I've now seen from this season:

The revival of Annie is solid enough, if you like Annie. Jane Lynch had taken over for Katie Finneran when I saw it, and I thought she was a hoot. (I also liked that she didn't just play the role as Sue Sylvester, but gave Miss Hannigan a completely different physical presence.) I think the show's one nomination is pretty fitting -- it's not really a fresh enough take on the material to merit across-the-board attention -- but as a place-holder in the Best Musical Revival category it's worthy enough.

Pippin, though, WAS a completely dazzling production, and I assume it has the Best Musical Revival trophy in the bag. I also think Diane Paulus is a very solid bet under Director for helming such an eye-popping visual experience. By setting the production essentially in a circus tent, she amps up the theatricality of the conceit to striking effect -- there were moments I couldn't decide where to look because there were dazzling stunts happening in every corner of the stage (and in the audience). Patina Miller, in the role that won Ben Vereen a Tony for the original production, is considered by many to be the Best Actress/Musical frontrunner, and I would be happy to cheer for her victory. She was very strong in Sister Act two seasons ago; here, she's just electric, with soulful vocals, a fierce stage presence, and a physicality that makes her seem like a long-lost Fosse muse. Featured Actor nominee Terrence Mann was a lot of gruff fun as Charlemagne; he's been around a while and has never won, so I could definitely see him prevailing on career points and his performance. As for Featured Actress nominee Andrea Martin -- apparently the slam-dunk winner in this category -- I can't say I was as bowled over as many with her work. I found her song enjoyable, but she basically has just the one number, and it's not really such a knockout...but then she gets pulled up onto a trapeze and does some poses, and my audience jumped to their feet in enthusiastic ovation because a sixty-something year-old woman was in front of them doing acrobatics. Her win won't bother me, but even based on what I've seen, she wouldn't get my vote. Down-ballot, I think this production will be competitive in a number of categories, too, for creating a very special visual theatrical experience. I can't wait to see it again.

On the play side, The Trip to Bountiful is a very solid revival. I'm not a huge fan of the material -- Horton Foote's country folk milieu isn't my favorite -- but it has its touching elements, and this production is solidly performed by the cast. I think I like Geraldine Page in the film version overall better than Cicely Tyson, but one advantage Tyson has is that, at eighty-eight, she gives the material quite a bit more urgency. It's hard not to feel like Carrie's trip to Bountiful will certainly be her last. And Featured nominee Condola Rashad gives a kind, sensitive performance as the girl who joins her on the bus, though this doesn't seem flashy enough a role to win prizes. I'd also give a shout-out to Vanessa Williams, who I thought played her role, as Tyson's daughter-in-law, with far more nuance than the actress from the movie, who mostly turned Jessie Mae into a shrill harpy. Williams, in contrast, manages to make her character more sympathetic, so that you understand why she's so frustrated by her mother-in-law even as she behaves dismissively toward her. The production, overall, probably isn't the Play/Revival winner, but I expect Tyson to be a strong candidate.

With respect to the new musicals, I caught both major players, Kinky Boots and Matilda, and enjoyed both. Kinky Boots is a bit more traditional, though that admittedly seems to be an odd statement to make about the drag queen show. In terms of structure/story, it's a less inventive narrative than Matilda, and visually less of a theatrical spectacle. But there's a lot of solid work from all involved. Billy Porter is a major threat to win Best Actor in a Musical -- he doesn't necessarily reinvent the drag queen with a heart role, but he's really funny and powerful throughout, and stops the show with his sheer energy on more than one occasion. I like that Stark Sands was also recognized alongside him, as it can often be a challenge for the straight man (in this case, the literal straight man) to be remembered in the face of the flashier costar, but he makes a solid counterpoint throughout, and gets one big emotional number of his own. And Featured nominee Annaleigh Ashford is really funny as his factory girl love interest, appealing from the sidelines for a lot of the show, and a comic standout in her one solo. Cyndi Lauper's score is more pop than traditional Broadway, but as far as these kinds of scores go, it's more impressive than many, with some some fun melodies and witty lyrics. And Harvey Fierstein's book, while not reinventing the wheel, has a lot of laughs and heart, even if the message at the end basically just amounts to "be yourself and accept everybody else." The audience I saw it with roared with enthusiasm during the curtain call, and it's the kind of spirit-lifting show that it's hard not to cheer for by the end.

Overall, though, I think Matilda is the far more imaginative show. There's a lot of genuinely impressive theater magic here, a lot of "how did they DO that?" moments (especially the finale, when Matilda uses telekinesis to write on a chalk board) that are really thrilling to watch. And Tim Minchin's songs are really clever -- there's one number that's a flat-out wow, in which the lyrics highlight every letter of the alphabet in order, as the school children highlight blocks with those letters on them in rhythm. (I can't even explain this at all, look up "School Song" to get the idea). Thematically, I thought the show had a lot more on its mind than your average "kids" show, with ideas about the power of storytelling, growing up (and how even adults feel they still have maturing to do), and what makes individuals "special"? Bertie Carvel's Miss Trunchbull -- one of the other great drag performances nominated his year -- is a marvelously original creation, a hilariously intimidating monster, though I wonder if the fact that it's more of a featured part will hurt him in the Best Actor race. Featured Actor nominee Gabriel Ebert is gleefully dim as the revolting Mr. Wormwood, and Featured Actress nominee Lauren Ward makes for a warm and generous Miss Honey. I also want to give some praise to the non-nominated actress playing Mrs. Wormwood, whose big comic tango number, "Loud," is one of the high points of the show. (Full disclosure: said actress is a friend of mine.) As for the girl I saw as Matilda, I thought she was very impressive for a child actor, full of presence, energy, and precision, like a little machine in the singing and dancing department. Of course, as well-directed as she was, it was clear the performance had been very directed, and I think the special Tony is probably the best way to honor these young actresses' achievements without taking an award away from one of the actresses nominated in the Actress/Musical category. (And by and large, that's a pretty talented group.)

I've been hearing a lot of talk about how Kinky Boots might be popular enough to upset in the prime categories, and maybe that's possible, but I'm still putting my money on Matilda in the Best Musical category. It's rare when the critics' darling is ALSO the big audience blockbuster, and even rarer still for a candidate with both of those pedigrees to lose the Best Musical Tony. I guess, in a different year, Kinky Boots might also have been that candidate -- it was well-reviewed, and is a popular commercial hit with (I'm assuming) a successful tour on its way -- so it's not like Kinky Boots is out of the realm of what can win that award. But precedent suggests Matilda is the stronger candidate.

Also, to revert to my favorite Oscar pet peeve, one thing I noticed from seeing all of these shows this week is just how small so many of the nominated performances in the Featured Actor/Actress categories are, a lot more Hathaway/Les Mis than Zeta-Jones/Chicago. And the lead categories are filled with people who, at the Oscars, might have been placed in supporting due to competition from a cast mate (Sands in Kinky Boots), borderline lead status (Miller in Pippin), or a flat-out supporting performance (Carvel in Matilda). I think part of this has to do with the fact that, with less shows eligible, it makes more sense to bump up borderline cases into lead because it's more likely to get you MORE nominations. An interesting quirk, but, I think, a welcome one, because it means that genuinely featured actors & actresses who may only have one number are less likely to lose out on nominations due to gerrymandering.

[Big Magilla]

Katie Finneran already has two Tonys. Although she received good notices for her performance, the five women nominated for Best Featured Actress in a Musical received even better ones.

[flipp525]

I'm excited for Judith Light's nomination, an actress I've always appreciated. Didn't she give a really great speech at the last Tonys for her Other Desert Cities win? I attend Broadway Bares every year and one of the highlights of last year's show was when she came out on stage. The gays pretty much had a collective heart attack.

Last night, I was retroactively looking at some Tony predictions sites. Was no one even considering a Kate Finneran nomination?

Thank god the nominating committee they saw through Jessica Chastain's utterly boring performance in The Heiress and passed. She had all the charisma of a piece of chalk.

[Big Magilla]

Though, it is something akin to the miniature Oscars that were once given out. Give a special honor instead of permitting them to compete. Granted, those were given because everyone was reluctant to nominate young actors.

The other way around. They were designed to keep kids from competing in the actual acting categories.

[OscarGuy]

Though, it is something akin to the miniature Oscars that were once given out. Give a special honor instead of permitting them to compete. Granted, those were given because everyone was reluctant to nominate young actors.

[The Original BJ]

I haven't seen the show itself but based on the clips and from what I gather is that the youngsters that share the role of Billy Elliot are not only sharing/alternating because of age but that the role is also physically demanding. I saw a clip of one of the British Billy Elliots performing "Electricity" for a talk show and when the host came to interview him after doing all those pirouettes and tumbling about, the kid was out of breath.

I saw the U.S. tour production of Billy Elliot, and you are correct that one reason the Billys alternated is because of the physical challenges of the role -- it's a pretty grueling dancing part, and the kid I saw was outstanding.

But from what I gather, the role of Matilda is hugely challenging in its own right, and the actress is basically required to carry a giant musical on her back, a pretty daunting task for 9 and 10 year-olds. It's not surprising that the producers of this show would want to cast four-deep so as not to exhaust the little tykes. (And keep in mind that TWO Matildas have to be working for any given show -- one on stage, one standing by.)

I actually think the special recognition was a nice way to go, honoring the actresses' achievements, but acknowledging that it's a different level of accomplishment than what is deserving of Best Actress in a Musical. (It was probably also the best news of Patina Miller's week.)

[Big Magilla]

I haven't seen the show itself but based on the clips and from what I gather is that the youngsters that share the role of Billy Elliot are not only sharing/alternating because of age but that the role is also physically demanding. I saw a clip of one of the British Billy Elliots performing "Electricity" for a talk show and when the host came to interview him after doing all those pirouettes and tumbling about, the kid was out of breath.

From this list, I'm dying to see Pippin and Matilda but, alas, a U.S. tourist visa for me is almost next to impossible because I'm a single young adult with not a lot of money.

The Billy Eliot kids were popular winners at the time. The most famous kid to come out of that musical is Tom Holland (The Impossible) who alternated the part in London with two other kids from 2008-2010. Incidentally, there were only three girls alternating in the London production as opposed to the four on Broadway.

[Big Magilla]

I have nothing against the producers of shows advertising them in small print beneath the title, as they do, as "...the musical", but this business of critics, commentators and awards committees falling into the trap and using an advertising slogan as part of the official title is fairly new. If you search the data bases of either the IBDB or the Tony Awards you will find Grand Hotel listed as Grand Hotel period. The current Matilda is listed on the IBDB as simply Matilda, yet the Tony and Drama Desk committees have seen fit to call it Matilda the musical. I just realized that Newsies, which is based on a movie musical is advertised as Newises the Musical and is listed on the IBDB as such whereas the Tony database lists it as simply Newsies. Mary Poppins was advertised in small print as "a musical based on the stories of PL Travers and the Walt Disney film. Imagine trying to get all that into the title for the record books. It's just all so silly.

[anonymous1980]

I haven't seen the show itself but based on the clips and from what I gather is that the youngsters that share the role of Billy Elliot are not only sharing/alternating because of age but that the role is also physically demanding. I saw a clip of one of the British Billy Elliots performing "Electricity" for a talk show and when the host came to interview him after doing all those pirouettes and tumbling about, the kid was out of breath.

From this list, I'm dying to see Pippin and Matilda but, alas, a U.S. tourist visa for me is almost next to impossible because I'm a single young adult with not a lot of money.

[The Original BJ]

I've been following this season a bit more than usual, for two reasons. First, I have friends in the casts or producing teams of, I believe, six of the nominated shows, and second, I'll be visiting NYC in several weeks where I plan on seeing a lot of these shows, and have been working to decide which ones will take top priority. I'll probably report back on these before the big show.

The only nominated show I've seen as of this moment is Bring It On, which I found to be surprisingly funny, and almost completely different from the film of the same name. Obviously, it's no major work of dramaturgy -- or even a major player this season -- but the union of the Next to Normal and In the Heights creative teams led to something that was far more solidly built than I'd anticipated. And the nomination for its choreography -- with some of the most spectacular stunts I've ever seen on a stage -- is hugely deserved.

Many people -- myself included -- thought Motown would have landed in the Best Musical lineup simply for being one of the few new musicals still open, and for its healthy ticket sales. But those poor reviews caught up with it.

Goodness gracious, TWO men from the SAME show nominated in the same LEADING category! And the world didn't end?!

From what I gather, some grumbling over the Tony Award for the Billy Elliots led to the decision to exclude the Matildas from eligibility. And it's probably the right decision -- it really doesn't seem fair to award actors for basically two shows a week, and at that point it really becomes about Best Role rather than Best Performance.

[Big Magilla]

Kristine Nielsen was a college girlfriend of a good friend of mine; she's labored a LONG time and is now getting the best notices of her career. She'd have been a gimme in supporting. Slating her in lead makes it a bit tougher, but I still give her a good shot.

Even against Cicely Tyson?

[Mister Tee]

Even more ridiculous is the appendage "the musical" attached to Matilda and A Christmas Story and other recent adaptations. Why not Kinky Boots the Musical to distinguish it from the 2005 film? How about Newsies the Show or Once the Show to distinguish them from their film roots? What's next, the off-Broadway hit Giant becoming Giant the Musical if and whne it transfers to Broadway?

I'm waiting for Mel Brooks or some other fearless soul to come up with My Ass the Musical which will hopefully put an end to this nonsense.

Unfortunately, this nonsense has been going on for a quarter century, and shows no sign of let-up. It used to be part of the process to come up with a new title when you were adapting previous work -- Pygmalion became My Fair Lady, Lili became Carnival, The Matchmaker became Hello Dolly!, I Am a Camera became Cabaret, etc. Now, though, the desire to hitch oneself to the pre-sold name is all-important.

And I'm afraid I was present at the creation of this phenomenon. When Grand Hotel was in workshop, it was called The Grand -- not miles from the original title, but a declaration of distinction. By the time previews got underway, though, the producers opted for Grand Hotel: the Musical (which many of us at the time said reminded us of Twilight Zone: the Movie). Since then, this dreary practice has become the norm.

I'm not saying the ruling on the Matilda girls was unfair, but can we retroactively take away the Billy Elliot boys' Tony?

Kristine Nielsen was a college girlfriend of a good friend of mine; she's labored a LONG time and is now getting the best notices of her career. She'd have been a gimme in supporting. Slating her in lead makes it a bit tougher, but I still give her a good shot.

[Cinemanolis]

Many "stars" and big names were left out. No Al Pacino, Scarlett Johansson, Alec Baldwin, Jessica Chastain, Bette Midler, Sigourney Weaver (practically all her costars were nominated), Paul Rudd, Michael Shannon, Alan Cumming, Ellen Burstyn, Chita Rivera and to a lesser extend Fiona Shaw, David Strathairn, Vanessa Williams, Bobby Cannavale, Mare Winningham, Kieran Hinds, Ben Foster.

Good for them i suppose...

[flipp525]

The four girls alternating the lead in Matilda are being given a special award to take them out of competition. The lone girl playing the title role in Annie was snubbed altogether.

She wasn't very good, that's probably why. Kate Finneran though, as Miss Hannigan, I thought rated consideration. I thoroughly enjoyed her interpretation. I wonder how close she came to a nomination.

[Big Magilla]

A few interesting facts:

The four girls alternating the lead in Matilda are being given a special award to take them out of competition. The lone girl playing the title role in Annie was snubbed altogether.

The heavily promoted Motown was ignored in the major categories except for the actors impersonating Diana Ross and Smokey Robinson.

Two actors in drag - Bertie Carvel who plays the headmistress in Matilda and Billy Porter who plays a transvestite in Kinky Boots - are competing in competition for the first time.

Patina Miller, who is nominated for Best Actress in a Musical is playing the part which won Ben Vereen a Best Actor Tony in the original production of Pippin.

My continuing bugaboo:

This nonsense of prefacing musicals with the names of their authors which began with The Who's Tommy which was actually the solo work of The Who's Pete Townshend. Following in the wake of last year's The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess we have Rodgers & Hammerstein's Cinderalla presumably so tourists won't be expecting Disney's Cinderlla. Even more ridiculous is the appendage "the musical" attached to Matilda and A Christmas Story and other recent adaptations. Why not Kinky Boots the Musical to distinguish it from the 2005 film? How about Newsies the Show or Once the Show to distinguish them from their film roots? What's next, the off-Broadway hit Giant becoming Giant the Musical if and whne it transfers to Broadway?

I'm waiting for Mel Brooks or some other fearless soul to come up with My Ass the Musical which will hopefully put an end to this nonsense.