Expanding the Nominees: Good, Bad, or Inconsequential?

Would last season's Motown have gotten a Best Musical nomination had the field included five nominees?  Probably.  Would it have been a serious contender to actually win?  Probably not.

Well, this week is just full of under the radar announcements with the potential to seriously shake up this year's Tony races.  On the same day we got word of Audra McDonald's late season entry into awards contention (which I discuss here), Variety reported that the Tony Awards committee has voted to allow the production categories to expand to five nominees should there be nine or more eligible productions.

While it may not seem like much, this represents a major change from the traditional cap of four nominees per category, and in theory could really shake up the Best Musical race in particular.  As the Variety article points out, both the Best Musical and the Best Revival of a Play categories have an unusually large number of eligible productions this season, making them prime candidates for expansion.  And seeing as how Best Musical is the one award that has a measurable affect on a show's box office fortunes (don't you think for a second that Kinky Boots would have recouped in just 30 weeks without that Best Musical win), this could potentially mean more money and more work for industry types.

Or does it?  Several years ago the Academy Awards instituted a similar rule change, expanding the Best Picture field from five to as many as ten potential nominees.  This was seen as a way to recognize a wider variety of films, including some of the popular movies that typically wouldn't be considered awards contenders.  (How much the exclusion of the critically beloved The Dark Knight from the Best Picture race the year before influenced this change is difficult to say, but I bet it was a not inconsequential factor.)  And when there are enough shows to support it, why not allow the love to be spread around a bit more?  There's a chance for the more esoteric shows to get some recognition, and more up and coming producers and writers will be able to add a Tony-nominated show to their resume.

However, we've had a few years to live with the new Oscar nomination system, and I would argue that the expanded Best Picture field's affect on the industry and the Oscars themselves has been negligible.  You can almost always tell which five films would have been nominated under the older, more restrictive system, and the remaining nominees end up being somewhat derogatively viewed as "filler."  Best Picture tends to boil down to a race between two or three films anyway, and they are always the films that you know would have made the cut under the old system.  For instance, this year's race is largely agreed to be between 12 Years a Slave and Gravity, with American Hustle functioning as the dark horse candidate.  Looking at the nine nominees, I think we can all agree that those three would have still gotten nominations in a five film field (while something like Philomena, which clearly benefited from the expanded number of nominees, has never been deemed a serious contender to win by anyone in the industry). 

I suspect that should the Tony nominees be expanded, the "extra" nominee will stick out like a sore thumb, with almost no chance of actually winning the big prize.  For instance, if Motown had ended up nominated last year (a presumption based on past Tony voting patterns that also ignores the fact that there weren't enough eligible musicals to prompt a category expansion last season), would anyone have considered it a serious contender for the prize?  No matter how many shows were competing against them, last year's race was always going to be between Kinky Boots and Matilda.  While there currently seems to be enough musicals to make a competitive 5-way race, I imagine that if five shows are nominated there will be a pretty clear consensus on which two or three actually have a chance at winning.  But the extra recognition is nice, and the announcement is very carefully worded to allow the category to remain at four nominees should there not be five "deserving" contenders.

Best Actress Bloodbath?

Rumor has it Audra McDonald has added an extra room to her Manhattan home; my guess is its to house all her Tony Awards.

As soon as Bronx Bombers announced it's closing date last week, rumors began circulating that the Circle in the Square Theatre would be the site of a sooner-than-expected Broadway return for 5-time Tony winner and all around theatrical goddess Audra McDonald.  Now those rumors are official, and this year's Tony race just got even more interesting.

One of the most gifted actresses to ever grace the Broadway stage, McDonald is tied with Angela Lansbury as the most decorated performer in Tony history.  Even more impressive is the fact that with the exception of the 2003 revival of Henry IV, McDonald has been nominated for every single one of her previous Broadway appearances.  Considering the theatrical community's overwhelming love of her, and her even more overwhelming talent, conventional wisdom states that if McDonald sets foot on a Broadway stage, she *will* get a Tony nomination.  Considering that her latest project, Lady Day at Emerson's Bar and Grill, is a one-woman show with nothing to distract from the luminous and golden voiced McDonald, I see no reason why this year would be the year that trend changes.  The only question is, which performers' Tony dreams did she just make more difficult with her late in the game Broadway appearance?

Given that McDonald's chosen vehicle contains 18 songs made famous by the legendary jazz singer Billie Holiday, the immediate assumption is that this would throw McDonald into the already crowded Best Actress in a Musical race.  This is a race that already includes all but assured nominations for previous Tony winners Sutton Foster and Idina Menzel, previous nominee Jessie Mueller, and perpetual Tony bridesmaid Kelli O'Hara (will someone please give this woman a Tony already??).  At this point, the one wild card spot is most likely to go to either Marin Mazzie - presuming she isn't deemed a supporting player in Bullets Over Broadway - or Michelle Williams, presuming Roundabout's remounting of their Tony-winning Cabaret is deemed eligible for awards consideration.  At this point, it's pretty obvious that someone, likely a very deserving someone, is going to get left out, and I don't think it will be McDonald.

However, as the Broadway.com article linked to above points out, Lady Day is traditionally billed as a "play with music."  Don't ask me how a show with 18 musical numbers gets considered a play; Tony eligibility rulings can be somewhat arbitrary, such as in 2004 when McDonald was deemed a supporting player in A Raisin in the Sun despite having just as much stage time and importance to the narrative as her costar Phylicia Rashad (the upside of that distinction is that it allowed both women to take home Tony Awards that year).  Should Lady Day be considered a play, McDonald becomes a major roadblock between Cherry Jones and her presumptive 3rd Tony Award, and road which already faces potentially stiff competition from Tyne Daly.  Fun fact: should McDonald win Best Actress in a Play, she will have won a Tony in all four categories in which a female performer is eligible.

Personally, as much as the classification may seem questionable, I hope Lady Day is indeed ruled a play and keeps McDonald out of the super crowded Best Actress in the Musical race.  It is already going to be hard enough for the long overdue O'Hara to finally win Tony gold without having to also contend with one of the greatest stage actresses of all time.  Also, I should point out that while anything is possible at this point, I don't actually expect McDonald to win whichever race she ends up competing in.  I think it is much more likely that McDonald wins her record-breaking sixth Tony Award should the rumored revival of 'night, Mother come to fruition.  Or, as I like to dream about, when Stephen Sondheim comes out of retirement and writes one final show for McDonald's singular talent, a hypothetical show which I would pay any amount of money to see.

However awards season shakes down, the big news of the day is that Audra McDonald is coming back to Broadway!  She is one of the greatest talents the New York stage has ever known, which is not something I say lightly, and we should all thank our lucky stars any and every time we are offered the chance to see her perform.

Insanely Early 2014 Tony Predictions: Part III

I cannot speak for the rest of the country, but New York remains in the midst of a seemingly unending winter (and that damn groundhog thinks we have six more weeks of it left).  Broadway is deep in its winter doldrums too, with most of the splashy spring shows still in rehearsals before previews begin.  Which means that now is the perfect time to start handicapping this fall's productions for the upcoming Tony Awards!  You may think it's early, and it is, but what else are we going to talk about?  I've already given my thoughts on the productions and lead performances I consider well-positioned to score an eventual Tony nod, so now it's time to turn my same skills of unsubstantiated guesswork toward the featured performances.

For those who didn't read my last two posts, the rules for getting mentioned here are simple: the actor/actress must have made a major impression on the New York theatrical community.  As we have a whole slew of shows set to open during the spring, the only way any fall performance will be able to break into the crowded Featured Actor/Actress categories is via a universally praised turned.  As such, there are very few sure things in these categories, but that's not going to stop me from trying to pick the most likely nominees.

WARNING:  Occasional snark and wild speculation to follow.

Best Featured Actor in a Musical

Of all Jefferson Mays' deliriously daffy characters in Gentleman's Guide, the racially insensitive Lady Hyacinth is easily my favorite.

A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder's Jefferson Mays is guaranteed one of the five slots in this category for his bravura turn as all eight members of the doomed D'Ysquith clan.  I'm a little surprised he wasn't upgraded to Lead Actor status, although I agree this category is where his roles, however showy, belong.  More confounding is the Tony committee's decision to consider his extremely talented costar Bryce Pinkham eligible in the same category despite the fact that Pinkham's upwardly mobile Monty Navarro forms the lynchpin of the entire evening.  I'm really hoping that Pinkham, who I found to be a sensational straight man and one of the purest tenors currently singing on Broadway, also scores a nomination for his work, but if the spring musicals are particularly strong he could find himself shut out by the flashier Mays.  And depending on how many fans Big Fish has on the Tony nominating committee, Bobby Steggert may find himself among the nominees as well.  Even that show's biggest detractors generally considered it to be well-acted, although I personally found Steggert to be the least memorable of the show's main trio.

Best Featured Actor in a Play

Game, set, and match, gentleman.  Mark Rylance's Olivia in Twelfth Night is quite possibly the performance of the season, and it's only February.

They might as well just go ahead and engrave this Tony with Mark Rylance's name, because he is going to win it.  Rylance's Olivia in the all-male Twelfth Night is the buzziest performance of the season thus far, and rightfully so.  He took the role in unexpectedly hilarious directions, downplaying the character's normal refinement and making her an overgrown child prone to hysterical tantrums.  Not only was this a new interpretation, but one that was fully supported by the text and went a long way towards making this the funniest production of Twelfth Night I have ever seen.  I also wouldn't be surprised to see any of Rylance's costars nominated in this category (I was particularly impressed by Paul Chahidi's Maria), but Rylance is the man to beat.  Among the fall's other offerings, I think The Glass Menagerie's Brian J. Smith stands as good a shot as any Gentleman Caller ever has of being recognized, and I think that much ballyhooed production is well positioned to perform the hat trick of getting a nomination in each of the four acting categories (although Smith is probably most in danger of being shut out).

Best Featured Actress in a Musical

"Long suffering wife" is a sure road to awards contention, and Kate Baldwin played it with unusual depth and sincerity.  (Bonus: her slow-motion dance during "Time Stops" was one of the most beautifully simply staging moments of the season.)

I'm rooting for Big Fish's Kate Baldwin to get some recognition for her sterling work in that production, her first Broadway outing since her star-making turn in Finian's Rainbow four years ago.  I think the fact that she was deemed a Featured Actress rather than a Lead actual works in her favor, as it keeps her out of the hotly contested Best Actress race.  I also think there is a good chance one of the lovely ladies from Gentleman's Guide joins her on the red carpet, although whether that is Lisa O'Hare or Lauren Worsham remains a toss-up at this point.  In fact, I would *love* it if both women wound up nominated, as that show and particularly it's second act wouldn't be nearly as good without them.  If I had to pick one, I would go with O'Hare, as her Sibella is a little more complex and fun that Worsham's doe-eyed and superbly sung Phoebe.  But Worsham is one of the most winsome and interesting ingénues of the past several seasons, which only reinforces my wish for both of them to score nominations.

Best Featured Actress in a Play



Celia Keenan-Bolger rose to fame in a couple of high profile musical roles, but it's her critically acclaimed turn as Laura in The Glass Menagerie that may finally bring this talented actress Tony gold.

As I've stated before, I expect this latest revival for The Glass Menagerie to do very well come Tony time despite my personal dislike of it.  I think Celia Keenan-Bolger is a sure thing for a nomination, and depending on how the spring season goes the twice-nominated actress may actually win her first award.  In fact, as of right now, she's the only actress I think is in serious contention for this award, as the fall plays were particularly male-heavy, what with the two all-male Shakespeares and the Pinter/Beckett rep plays starring four male actors each.


And that concludes my semi-annual Tony rant.  There are a lot of shows opening in the next few months, and I hope to see a good number of them so that I can provide you all with reviews.  Look for more Tony talk from me closer to the announcement of the nominees on April 29th, after which point I will likely be unable to talk about anything else until the awards are handed out on June 8th.

Waiting's Not So Bad When the Company's This Good

Review: Waiting for Godot

Professor X and Magneto are currently demonstrating another of their mutant powers, the ability to breath new life into a theatrical stalwart.

Waiting for Godot is a tricky play no matter how you look at it.  Samuel Beckett's absurdist comedy is wholly unconcerned with the trappings of conventional theatre, disregarding plot and significant character development for what on the surface appears to be inane babble.  And while the characters occasionally stumble across a profound thought, the play tends to skim over the implications of said thought with nary a backward glance.  It asks questions it doesn't even attempt to answer, and with no obvious political or philosophical agenda the entire thing is ultimately left up to audience interpretation.  It is not a play for everyone, but those who are interested will find much to enjoy about the finely staged revival currently playing the Cort Theatre, starring theatrical icons Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart in roles they seem born to play.

The play's setup finds Estragon (McKellen) and Vladimir (Stewart) waiting for the mysterious Godot next to a tree in the middle of an unspecified wasteland.  The pair can't seem to remember much about Godot or why they are waiting for him, but both are convinced (at least initially) that he is indeed coming and they must meet him.  During their wait they play games, bicker, and tease one another to pass the time, eventually getting interrupted by Pazzo (Shuler Hensley) and his servant/slave Lucky (Billy Crudup).  And that's about it.  We never learn much more about the characters' backgrounds or what brings them to this tree in the middle of nowhere; we just watch them interact, with often comical results.  But as the waiting stretches on for an indeterminate amount of time, Estragon and Vladimir begin to question everything about their existence, which in turn forces the audience to reflect upon their lives as well.

Director Sean Matthias has staged the play with an extraordinary amount of sensitivity, and does an excellent job of keeping his own views out of the equation.  Matthias simply presents the play as written, with enough specificity to make all the little details stand out without indicating that some of those details are more important than others.  Normally you would look for a director to have a unique take on the material, something to say about it (especially with material as well worn as Godot), but in this case the lack of any attempt to impose some kind of logical order on the moment to moment structure works in the play's favor, resulting in an intensely personal experience for each audience member.  Five people could see the same performance and come away with five entirely different interpretations about what the work is about, which in this case is the entire appeal of the play. Matthias must be commended for fostering that kind of atmosphere in his production.

Of course, he is aided and abetted by the enormous talent and chemistry of his two leading men.  Stewart and McKellen, known for their exhaustive stage and film credits, are so assured in their craft that it looks as natural and effortless as breathing.  The back and forth dynamic between Estragon and Vladimir forms the basis of the entire play, and the actors' well-documented affection for one another translates into stage magic.  The pair employs razor sharp comic timing to elicit belly laugh after belly laugh from the audience, with Stewart's rational straight man acting as the perfect foil to McKellen's impulse-driven clown.  Their expert understanding of the art of speaking finds music in the play's sparse dialogue, even when that dialogue amounts to fart jokes and bawdy humor.  Like two expert tennis players, these old hands bat jokes back and forth with an intoxicatingly precise rhythm and physicality that represents the pinnacle of a lifetime of honing their talents.

It is extremely unfortunate that Shuler Hensley and Billy Crudup have to come and ruin the interplay between these two theatrical giants with their histrionics, although whether the fault lies with the actors, the direction, or the writing is difficult to discern.  One thing that almost certainly originates from Hensley is the misguided choice to have Pazzo speak in a Foghorn Leghorn-esque drawl, causing the character to always sound like he's yelling and making Hensley's performance at best ponderous and at worst insufferable.  Crudup fares better as Lucky, although his wild physicality results in most of his big monologue being incomprehensible.  This moment has the dubious distinction of being the one point in the play where the production seems to deem the text unimportant, despite giving equal weight to every other line of dialogue, no matter how inane.  It is a relief when Hensley and Crudup leave the stage towards the end of Act I, and thankfully their second act appearance is much briefer.

There is an odd beauty in the sparse, vaguely apocalyptic production design, including Stephen Brimson Lewis' crumbling set and tattered costumes.  For all the design's simplicity, it never becomes boring to look at, which is a testament to the artistry of Lewis' work and Matthias' clever staging.  Even the lighting design by Peter Kaczorowski is kept to a minimum, maintaining the production's focus on the actors, the text, and subtle suggestion rather than strict realism.

Even if Waiting for Godot weren't such an important part of the theatrical canon, this production would be notable for the chance to see the indisputably great Stewart and McKellen work their magic together onstage.  McKellen in particular has said that this will probably be his last Broadway appearance, so any fans of the British thespian have extra incentive to catch this limited-run production before it closes in March.  Godot isn't for everyone, but this production is the most accessible and overall well-acted ones we're likely to see for some time.