Terry's commentary for the Wall Street Journal is right on target.
The nominations for the 62nd annual Tony Awards were announced yesterday morning. They weren't surprising. They almost never are ... The Tony nominations, in short, have become an exercise in ratifying the obvious--and how could they be anything else? Broadway consists of 39 houses, four of which are run by Lincoln Center Theater, the Manhattan Theatre Club and the Roundabout Theatre Company, a trio of non-profit outfits that are marginally more adventurous than their commercial counterparts. As for the remaining 35, they're so costly to operate that anyone who dares to bring a new show into one of them is all but begging to throw his money away ... All this explains why the Tonys have grown so lackluster in recent years: Their unsurprising nature merely reflects the safety-first institutional culture of Broadway....Didn't I vow to ignore the Tonys? Maybe I didn't actually go through with publishing that post.
Can anyone out there tell me why the Tonys are at all relevant to me? And don't tell me it's because they drive attendance to the winners, cause that's been disproved as a significant economic force.
Are they gonna be on TV again? Wanna start a pool on how low attendance will get this year?
Wow. Lots of negativity. I guess I really hate the Tonys, huh? And you know why? It's not just because they are so silly and limiting and ridiculously out-of-touch. It's also because they could be a chance for the entire country to get in touch with the theatre industry and see what's happening, what's interesting, and what's worth hearing about. They could take that quickly fading television contract and turn it into a force for good. Instead, they'll just spend more money talking about shows that've done little more this year than throw good money after bad.
But, who am I to judge. Have fun, go see Xanadu if that's your kinda thing.
Comments (3)
I know I'm not exactly helping, but it's worth pointing out a couple recent articles from Variety that seem to refute your arguments:
Size doesn't matter to Tony's: Small-scale fare wins out over popular hits
Tony's boost Broadway box office: 'In the Heights' his high due to nominations
Posted by Brant | May 19, 2008 7:59 PM
Posted on May 19, 2008 19:59
Um, well, sorta, kinda ... I mean, first of all, would anyone expect Variety to publish articles about how dumb the Tonys are? Nevertheless.
Let's look at a gem from that first article - "It's clear, however, that the one-time perception of Broadway as a showcase for megawatt spectacle is becoming obsolete"
Really? Let's face it, smaller, cooler musicals have been on Broadway for awhile, and have gotten plenty of recognition from the Tonys before, but that didn't stop Young Frankenstein or the march of the $400 ticket, did it?
But, more to the point of my original point - Just because the Tonys pick a few "more relevant" shows for their nominees doesn't make the awards themselves more relevant. The only reason Passing Strange and In the Heights were eligible is because they moved to Broadway. If fortune hadn't granted them that, we'd be looking at Best Musical noms for The Little Mermaid and Mel Brooks.
And about that money ... The article actually seems to indicate that it was a good time to be a Broadway show no matter who you were. Grosses were up for everyone.
Certainly, the Tony noms probably helped the "little guys" get a bigger percentage of the boost than they might have, but ... "Largest uptick of the week was registered by last year's Tony winner, "Spring Awakening" ... which woke up with $150,000 more than it did the prior frame. Other six-figure leaps were reported at revival contender "Macbeth" ... "Legally Blonde" ... and "Avenue Q"."
Huh? Those shows aren't Tony noms. And what about this?
"Slowdowns were few and far between, with two high-profile revival nominees, "Gypsy" ... and "South Pacific" ... slipping by about $20,000 each."
Wait, so 2 of the only shows that lost money just got Tony nods for Best Revival?
What happened?
Well, I couldn't tell you. My best advice is to go ask Journey's End, which got 6 2007 Tony Noms and still didn't benefit enough to stay open until the Tony ceremony.
Posted by Slay | May 19, 2008 10:52 PM
Posted on May 19, 2008 22:52
I have to question whether the Tonys are significantly different from other awards shows. Are the Emmys or the Oscars still relevant to their respective industries? Maybe the MTV movie awards are the most relevant of all. But what about the Espys or the Webbys? Are the Eisner awards more relevant than the Wizard Fan Awards?
Also, if the TV ratings for the Tonys are so low, why does CBS continue to broadcast the them? What's in it for them, if not ad revenue?
Posted by Brant | May 21, 2008 10:51 PM
Posted on May 21, 2008 22:51