A New Broadway Business Model? Bring It On!

This week we were treated to the first new musical of the 2012-2013 season when Bring It On officially opened on Broadway.  While I am personally excited for the show, which I think sounds like a blast, I can also understand those who are wary of a musical based on a movie of dubious quality that has no less than four writers.  But aside from being a new show, I think Bring It On represents a new way of developing musicals that while not perfect for every show, could end up being a major boon to the future prospects of certain theatrical properties.

We’re told Bring It On was never intended for Broadway, and while I find that claim suspect (when Tony-winning composers Tom Kitt and Lin-Manuel Miranda are collaborating, any sane producer must at least *consider* Broadway), the fact of the matter is the producers chose to skip the Great White Way in favor of a national tour.  In doing so, they removed a lot of critical pressure from the show, as Broadway-bound musicals are evaluated on an entirely different and much more stringent metric.  These raised standards almost inevitably lead to lukewarm out-of-town reviews, and if the press is overly negative it can lead to the cancelling of the proposed Broadway run.

Shows that cancel already announced Broadway runs inevitably get branded as failures, a major marketing hurdle any future productions or revisions must overcome.  By only announcing a tour, the producers of Bring It On managed to keep media scrutiny to a minimum and in essence gave themselves permission to fail.  A tour is much less susceptible to negative reviews, because by the time bad word of mouth starts to spread it has already moved on to the next destination, one in which a good deal of seats are already sold to the touring house’s season subscribers.  The producers and the production also don’t have to endure the embarrassment of canceling already announced Broadway plans, keeping any potential downsides at a manageable level.

BUT, since the tour received enough positive response to prompt a Broadway run, suddenly Bring It On is positioned to be a pleasant surprise.  In addition to having avoided the massive expectations attached to “Broadway-bound” shows, Bring It On is also arriving in the midst of the summer doldrums, making it the only new game in town for New Yorkers who have seen everything else.  Add to that audience the enormous number of tourists that are currently increasing the box office of every show in town, and you have a musical that is poised to do relatively strong business.  The show’s limited engagement should also help increase ticket sales, as it forces anyone interested in seeing the show to buy their tickets sooner rather than later.

Of course, New York’s famously jaded theatrical press could spoil everything by trashing the show, but I think truly terrible reviews are unlikely.  For one thing, the show has essentially been running for months, meaning that if nothing else it should be the tightest, most polished version of Bring It On possible.  The competitive cheerleading setting also necessitates musical staging unlike anything currently on Broadway, and novelty usually earns at least measured praise from the press.

If Bring It On can manage decent reviews and good word of mouth from audiences, I see no reason why its limited run can’t be extended, making the show more money and increasing the perception of the show as a Little Musical That Could.  The mere fact that the show had a Broadway production brings with it a certain amount of legitimacy that will help catch the eye of regional theatres and other touring houses, which in turn helps widen the show’s exposure.  And perhaps most importantly, the longer Bring It On runs, the better its chances at some Tony nominations, which would be a huge boon to its future prospects on the road and as a licensable property.

Am I saying Bring It On will win the 2013 Best Musical Tony?  Of course not.  It’s far too early in the season to be making those kinds of predictions.  But I am saying that by starting with a tour and then coming to Broadway during the less crowded summer months, Bring It On has maximized its chances of making money and being generally well-received.  This developmental path would not work for every new musical (for instance, the big name stars producers love to build a show around rarely go out on tour), and I expect most shows will stick to the traditional out-of-town or Off-Broadway routes.  But if Bring It On is a success, it gives producers another option on how to develop new work that helps maximize their chances at financial success.  And the more money any musical makes, even a bad one, the more money producers have to develop new works and continue to employ the next generation of theatrical artists.

She Knows Things Now

Hi, I'm Broadway's Morgan James, and I apparently have no idea how the internet works.

I had another topic in mind for this blog entry, but then I saw this story about the uproar Broadway actress Morgan James caused by tweeting her negative reaction to Shakespeare in the Park’s Into the Woods and felt compelled to write about that instead.

If you’re too lazy to read the linked article, just know that Ms. James attended last night’s first public preview and was decidedly unimpressed.  She said as much via Twitter, criticizing the acting and musicians, and the rest of the Broadway community jumped down her throat for saying such negative things in a public forum.  James has since deleted the offending tweets and half-heartedly apologized, but maintains she is entitled to express her opinion. 

This is a subject that is close to my heart, as I am a theatre professional (or at least semi-professional with professional friends) who has a blog full of show reviews, and not all of them are complimentary.  I agree that James is entitled her opinion and that no one can force her to like a particular show, but I also agree with most people that she is in the wrong for tweet her displeasure.  Why?  In the spirit of the show, I have listed her offenses in the form of fairy tale morals.

1)      The difference between a thought and a tweet is a tweet can cause a commotion

Twitter is a social landmine.  The website’s format encourages users to tweet whatever thought pops into their head immediately, and then keeps a record of that thought forever (or at least until you go back and intentionally delete it).  This causes many users to forgo the mental filter they would use during face to face conversation, and the text format means you can’t claim you were misheard or pretend you didn’t say something.  This has been the bane of many celebrities’ existence, and yet after countless instances of people being taken to task for ill-considered tweets James seems surprised the same thing happened to her.

Also, being limited to 140 characters makes it very difficult to back up any assertions with examples.  If James had been having a face to face conversation (or just posting to something that allowed her more words to express herself), she could have provided some concrete examples of the flaws she was talking about.  But without examples, it comes across as if James is just being catty, especially since most performers give negative critiques in a way that seems to imply they would have done a better job. 

2)      A first preview is not opening night

The entire point of having a preview period is that it gives cast and crew time to work out the production’s kinks.  As a veteran of several Broadway shows, which often have three or four weeks of previews, James should have understood that what she saw last night was not meant to be the final product.  By choosing to attend the first preview, James essentially agreed to see a work in progress, and should have tempered her expectations accordingly.

3)      The harsher the words, the quieter you speak them (especially during previews).

Because elements of the show are still in flux during previews, being too harsh on them is generally frowned upon.  There is still time for things to improve, so speaking out against the show before it is finished makes James appear immature and rude.  This is why critics don’t see shows until the week before opening, and even then they hold off on publishing their judgments until after the production opens out of respect for all the hard working individuals involved.  Yes, theatre professionals love to gossip about troubled musicals, but most have enough tact to engage in those types of conversations in the privacy of their own homes (or a nearby bar) rather than on the very public internet.

4)      The younger the critic, the less people care

This entry could also be entitle, “Respect your elders.”  Simply put, Morgan James hasn’t earned the right to publically bash her fellow artists.  She may have Broadway credits, but you know what they are?  Ensemble in The Addams Family (a bad show), Wonderland (a worse show), and Soloist in Godspell (a decent show).  Nothing about her resume or body of work gives her any kind of industry clout or respect, especially when she is saying Tony winners and Oscar nominees don’t know how to act.  You have to earn the right to speak out against your peers, and James is a long way from being able to insult the abilities of other artists. 

When Stephen Sondheim decided to trash the Porgy and Bess revival before it had even started its out of town tryout, he did so with 60 years’ experience, multiple Tony Awards, a Pulitzer Prize, and a body of acclaimed work that demonstrates he knows a thing or two about what constitutes good musical theatre.  And even with all that expertise, a lot of people still felt he was out of line (although they promptly forgave him, as he’s still Stephen-freaking-Sondheim).  James’ dubious career doesn’t afford her the type of leeway given to the writer of acknowledged masterpieces like Sweeney Todd, Company, and yes, Into the Woods.

Hopefully this incident has taught James (and other performers) that there is a time and a place for peer criticism, and Twitter is not it.  The only acceptable public forum for such criticism is a review, which exists expressly for that purpose and has a format that allows you enough space to back up your assertions with examples.  Other than that, negative critiques should be reserved for private conversation among peers, preferably after the show is opened and therefore “finished.”  Otherwise, keep your damn mouth shut.

Hollywood is Calling

Well, that was quick.  Just a month after winning the Best Actress Tony for her work in Venus in Fur, Nina Arianda is headed off to Hollywood to star as Janis Joplin in a biopic about the late singer (re: try really, really hard to win an Oscar).  And I’m pretty damn upset about it.

Now, I’m a huge fan of Arianda and want her to have a successful career; I just want that career to be in the theatre.  Live theatre is one of the most difficult forms of entertainment around.  You don’t get to go back and do another take if you make a mistake, and you have to reach the same level of emotional intensity night after night since there’s no camera around to preserve your performance.  Being able to do that is a rare gift, one that Arianda is blessed to have, and if she decides to focus on a film career it is a gift the Broadway community will be deprived of. 

I understand the allure of film.  Even if you don’t subscribe to the romanticized and glamorous notions of Hollywood portrayed by the media, the simple truth is there’s just more money in film work.  You can make the same amount of money in a couple of months that it would take a year or more to make in the theatre, and if your movie/television show becomes really popular you can make a pretty penny by collecting residuals from work you’ve already done.  You can also reach a much wider audience more easily, increasing your fan base and thus your industry clout (the more people who like you, the more likely producers are to cast you).

However, when a Broadway actor starts their film career, I don’t see all of the opportunities that stand before them.  I see the amazing stage performances they won’t be able to give, and the great theatre that won’t get done because they were focusing their talents elsewhere.  Despite both falling under the blanket term “acting,” film and stage work are such different skillsets that excelling at one in no way guarantee success at the other, meaning a talented performer like Arianda could end up wasting years in a medium that doesn’t really suit her.  And on the flip side, what if she does turn out to be a brilliant film actress?  Then she might decide to focus exclusively on film (after all, that’s where the real money is) and never set foot onstage again, which would be an enormous loss for Broadway.

It is especially disappointing when someone abandons theatre for film and ends up in works not worthy of their immense gifts.  Take Kristin Chenoweth, who after her massive success in Wicked began doing film work that has rarely utilized her to her full potential.  Most of her movie and television roles fall under the supporting category, and the two examples I can think of where she had a starring role (her self-titled sitcom and GCB) were hardly successful.  Yes, she did eventually win an Emmy and seems to be respected by the film community, but it is nowhere near the level of acclaim she receives on Broadway.  If Chenoweth had continued to work primarily in the theatre, she would have been the Star of pretty much everything she did, and I can virtually guarantee she would have won her long sought-after second Tony Award by now.  Think of all the great Kristin Chenoweth stage performances we missed out on because she was busy doing shows like Glee.

We’ve been seeing a lot of stage performers head off to Hollywood lately, and like Arianda the timing of these announcements make it seem like they are purposefully abandoning Broadway.  Already a darling of the New York theatrical community, I have to believe that winning the Tony would have opened up all kinds of interesting stage projects to Arianda, even if she still had to do some leg work to find them.  Sutton Foster, one of the greatest musical comedy actresses working today, left the highly successful Anything Goes revival early to film ABC Family’s Bunheads.  Andrew Rannells and Josh Gad, after giving two of the funniest performances in recent memory and announcing the extension their Book of Mormon contracts into next February, both left the show last month to pursue TV projects.  We are losing our most promising new talents to the film industry, and they seem so eager to leave they aren’t even sticking around to the announced ends of their contracts.

I still adore all of the above mentioned actors, and I wish them nothing but success.  I just find it unfortunate that even the notoriously expensive Great White Way doesn’t pay well enough to encourage these talented folks to stick around.  At least in Arianda’s case I can take solace in the fact she chose movies over television, meaning there’s a better chance she’ll be able to squeeze in a play or two between gigs.  The grueling production schedules of a television series rarely leave enough time between seasons for an actor to rehearse and perform even a limited Broadway run, which is why Broadway went four long years without Audra McDonald while she was on Private Practice.  (The fact she returned with one of the most satisfying musical theatre performances of the decade does help make the wait seem more worthwhile.)

Hopefully Arianda and the rest will remember their theatrical roots and come back to visit once and a while.  The one positive of a film career (besides the increased bank account) is that it can result in enough fans that producers are able to sell tickets based on an actor’s name, which increases the chances said actor will actually get cast.  But I’m still hoping for a reversal to this trend, as Broadway cannot afford to continue losing our most promising talents to Hollywood’s cold, unfeeling embrace.

Peter and the Overly Ambitious Creative Team

Review:  Peter and the Starcatcher

It’s difficult to know what to make of Peter and the Starcatcher, the stage adaptation of the 2004 children’s novel which serves as a Peter Pan prequel.  There is a bevy of talent on display, both onstage and behind the scenes, and the almost endlessly inventive production flies by at such a brisk pace that only the most impatient theatregoers will be bored.  Yet Peter also contains some maddeningly large missteps that are all the more intolerable because of the quality that surrounds them.

The plot is a rousing adventure in which Lord Astor and his daughter Molly attempt to smuggle a chest full of secret treasure out of England at the behest of Queen Victoria.  Unfortunately, their clever plan involving a decoy ship and fake treasure runs into complications when a greedy captain decides he would rather have the treasure for himself.  To make matters worse, a group of pirates led by the maniacal Black Stache simultaneously attack the convoy, and on top of all THAT, Molly discovers a group of orphans about to be sold into slavery, among them an unnamed Boy with a strong dislike of grown-ups (three guesses as to who he becomes).

If all that sounds complicated, it is, and the fact that Peter and the Starcatcher remains coherent throughout is a testament to Rick Elice’s script and the sharp direction by Roger Rees and Alex Timbers.  Despite appearing to be a children’s play, Peter never talks down to its audience, and includes something for people of all ages.  For the kids, there is plenty of physical comedy and even the occasional fart joke, while copious amounts of wordplay and some clever innuendo will keep the adults in the audience interested as well.  The story is so interesting that it’s almost a shame it must tie into the preexisting Peter Pan mythos, as the play’s resolution forgoes a satisfying finale in favor of setting up Peter’s coming adventure with Wendy.

Despite a strong cast (more on them in a bit), Rees and Timbers’ direction and the astounding design work are the real stars here.  The most complicated piece of machinery used is a rolling staircase; almost every you see could be found or easily manufactured by an amateur theatre troupe.  Rees and Timbers use basic items like ropes, umbrellas, and toy ships to communicate cramped holding cells, tropical rainstorms, great naval battles, flying cats and even that famed giant crocodile.  Donyale Werle’s simple set design proves endlessly adaptable, and is lit to perfection by Jeff Croiter’s gorgeous lights.  Paloma Young’s costumes give each character an identity while remaining basic enough to allow the actors to easily transition between characters, and her mermaid outfits alone justify her recent Tony win. 

In fact, there is so much theatrical invention on display that it can become distracting.  Everyone involved is so concerned with proving their creativity that the physical production often takes precedent over the story.  Entire swaths are dialogue are rendered incomprehensible due to the onstage hubbub of actors moving props, miming scenery, and creating constantly changing stage pictures.  All of this visual information is generally clear enough to prevent confusion, but it would have been nice to see these supremely talented folk put more faith in Elice’s sterling script and strike a better balance between the visual and auditory.

As for the actors, they fully commit to their roles and each other, forming a tight-knit ensemble willing to do anything to support their fellow performers.  They allow themselves to be used as set dressing, props, and even furniture, while still creating distinct and even compelling characters.  And if those characters tend towards broadly drawn outlines rather than fully realized individuals, it’s hard to fault the actors for lack of trying.

As the strong-willed but good-hearted Molly, Celia Keenan-Bolger emerges as the production’s heart and soul, anchoring the zaniness of her male co-stars with her no-nonsense yet still hilarious performance.  Arnie Burton is equally charming as Molly’s nanny Mrs. Bumbrake, and Rick Holmes proves to be an excellent authority figure as Lord Astor.  Teddy Bergman spends most of the first act playing supporting roles, but his second act romp as island native Fighting Prawn is so memorable that his contributions to the show prove essential.  Adam Chanler-Berat does seems a little lost at sea as the Boy who becomes Peter Pan, although the script doesn’t do him any favors by keeping Peter passive and uninvolved for a good portion of the show.

And then there’s newly minted Tony-winner Christian Borle as Black Stache (re: Captain Hook).  I certainly can see why he won, and wouldn’t want to advocate taking the award and accompanying recognition from an actor who has been so consistently strong in such different kinds of roles over the years.  But at the performance I saw, Borle’s hamminess and scenery chewing repeatedly crossed the line from entertaining to distracting, throwing the focus of the piece and onstage energy completely out of whack.  It was almost impossible to concentrate on the actual story while he was gallivanting about the stage, and yet I’m not sure any actor would have been able to resist the urge to mug given the over-the-top applause that met any bit of comic business he even attempted.  At one point this was clearly a brilliant performance; unfortunately, it has now grown so broad that it hurts the show as much as it helps it.

There is much to admire about Peter and the Starcatcher, including the commitment of the actors and the unbridled imagination of the creative team.  But sometimes less is more, a truism the play seems to both understand and simultaneously ignore with its shunning of high-tech stagecraft for an overabundance of low-tech alternatives.  A great story gets lost among the frenzy of creativity on display, and after the platitudes given to the show by the rest of the theatrical community, I really was hoping for something better.  As long as expectations are kept in check, Peter and the Starcatcher makes for an fine evening of theatre, especially for those who are young or simply young at heart.

High Art for a Balmy Summer Evening

Review:  As You Like It

David Furr, Renee Elise Goldsberry, and Lily Rabe in Shakespeare in the Park's As You Like It

The problem with producing Shakespeare is that the Bard only wrote so many plays, which are mounted so often that making any individual production stand-out requires a combination of fantastic actors and strong directorial vision.  Thankfully, the As You Like It which just opened Shakespeare in the Park’s 50^th anniversary season features both in equal measure, breathing (mostly) new life into this oft-produced comedy.

For those unfamiliar with the plot, As You Like It begins when the evil Duke Frederick banishes a host of people, including his niece Rosalind and his daughter Celia, to go live in the Forest of Arden with his usurped brother Duke Senior.  Just before her exile Rosalind meets and falls in love with the young Orlando, who also ends up in the Forest of Arden for separate reasons.  Unfortunately, in order to avoid execution Rosalind has disguised herself as a boy, and when she and Orland meet again he does not recognize her.  What follows is a series of comic misunderstandings involving a host of supporting characters which eventually sort themselves out just in time for the play’s ending.

As You Like It has never been my favorite Shakespeare, but remains a popular choice for theatre companies due in part to the showcase it offers for the actress playing Rosalind.  This production is blessed with the sensational Lily Rabe in the central role, who gives a dynamic performance that expertly balances comedy and pathos.  Intelligent and charismatic, Rabe lights up the stage with a captivating interpretation that proves she is one of the most gifted actresses of her generation by being entertaining, moving, and most of all truthful.  It is unfortunate that Rosalind isn’t more of a presence in the first act, as the production sags slightly when Rabe isn’t around to elevate it.

That is not to discredit the efforts of her uniformly excellent costars, who combine to create one of the finest acting ensembles of the year.  As Orlando, David Furr projects a humble and quiet confidence that keeps his lovelorn youth from becoming insufferably saccharine (even the other characters tease Orlando about his overly earnest proclamations of love).  As Rosalind’s cousin and best friend Celia, Renee Elise Goldsberry has excellent chemistry with Rabe and provides a welcome contrast to Rosalind and Orlando’s platitudes.  Oliver Platt makes for a hilarious Touchstone, the court jester who accompanies the cousins into the forest, and the veteran actor is particularly skilled in making the Shakespearean wordplay comprehensible to a modern audience.  And as the melancholy Jaques, Stephen Spinella gives an ingeniously underplayed performance which leaves the audience in stitches (he also does an excellent job with the famous “Seven Ages of Man” speech).

The glue holding this entire ensemble together is director Daniel Sullivan, who scored a similar triumph two years ago with the Al Pacino-led Merchant of Venice.  Sullivan is a fantastic director with an excellent understanding of pace and narrative clarity, and even those unfamiliar with the play’s twists and turns should have no trouble following this production.  Sullivan coaxes wonderfully layer performances out of his actors, and continues to be a wonderful asset to the Public Theatre in general and Shakespeare in the Park in particular.

John Lee Beatty’s set design does a great job of evoking the play’s whimsical setting, and it’s a shame the Delacorte’s thrust staging doesn’t allow him to bring his intricate forest setting further downstage.  Jane Greenwood’s period costumes are quite beautiful, and the original grassroots score by Steve Martin does an excellent job of setting the production’s mood. 

Overall, this As You Like It is a first-rate production of one of Shakespeare’s proven crowd-pleasers, and is an excellent way to spend an evening in Central Park.  Lily Rabe’s Rosalind is a marvel, and Daniel Sullivan’s assured direction helps reinvigorate this comedy even for those who are intimately familiar with it.  The impending arrival of the highly anticipated Into the Woods will likely prevent As You Like It from extending its limited run, so any interested parties should rush over to the Delacorte to catch it before it’s gone.

2012 Tony Predictions: Best Play and Musical

And then there were two.  The only categories left to discuss are the two biggest awards of any Tony season, Best Play and Best Musical.  Winning either of these awards has a major effect on a show’s future prospects, ensuring a high profile that makes the work one of the first scripts regional and amateur theatres assess when programming their upcoming seasons.  For musicals especially, winning this award provides a document box office boost, increasing the length of the show’s run and raising the chances of it actually turning a profit.

As always, I must point out a couple of caveats:  1) I have not seen all of the nominated productions; and 2) I am predicting who will win, which is not the same as who should win.  History is riddled with examples of Tony’s top honor going to something other than the season’s best (find me one person who honestly believes The Music Man is a better overall show than West Side Story), and if that seems to be the case this year, I will say as much in the body of the article.

Best Play

Nominees:  Clybourne Park, Other Desert Cities, Peter and the Starcatcher, Venus in Fur

Since there is no separate playwriting category, the Best Play award functions as an acknowledgement of both the production as a whole and the script in particular, raising the desirability of a win in this category.  For the first time in years, every single nominee is a new American play, a refreshing change of pace from the recent domination of British shows winning this award.

While all of these plays are worthy, this is really a two-way race between Clybourne Park and Other Desert Cities.  Venus is Fur is a lean and thought-provoking work featuring two dazzling performances, but its early season opening has resulting in it losing a lot of buzz to more recent works.  And while many theatregoers are completely enamored with Peter and the Starcatcher, it will struggle to overcome its image as a kids’ play, something the high-minded Tony voters tend to scoff at no matter how well done.  Many would also argue that the direction has as much if not more to do with the Peter’s success than the actual script, a major problem since a Best Play win doubles as a writing honor.

Both Clybourne Park and Other Desert Cities have a lot of elements that Tony voters look for in potential Best Play winners.  Both are ensemble driven pieces that tackle serious issues with a healthy mix of humor and pathos, expertly acted and directed by some of the most talented people in the business.  And from a financial standpoint, Other Desert Cities is one of the most successful plays in years, having sustained strong box office and word of mouth despite being open for the better part of a year (name the last play that opened in October and was still running in early June).  In any other year, it would be the show to beat.

But there is something about Clybourne Park that compels people to vote for it.  While Cities had to settle for being “only” a Pulitzer Prize finalist, the racially charged Clybourne won the prestigious award in 2011.  The show does seem like a new type of play, whereas Cities is very much in the mold of the dozens of family dramas that have come before it.  Helped by a pitch perfect cast who has been with the show since its Off-Broadway premiere, Clybourne Park has the most momentum going into this evening, and I expect Tony voters to crown it this year’s Best Play.

Will Win:  Clybourne Park
Should Win:  Other Desert Cities

Best Musical

Nominees:  Leap of Faith, Newsies, Nice Work If You Can Get It, Once

I have no idea who the Leap of Faith producers paid off to get their critically panned show included among this year’s Best Musical nominees, especially considering the show’s dismal box office and premature closing indicate they didn’t have a lot of money to use for such bribery.  Granted, this has not been a great year for new musicals, especially compared to last year’s incredibly strong crop of new shows, but I have to believe there was a more deserving potential nominee.  But all the money in the world couldn’t secure Faith a win in this category, so I guess there isn’t too much harm done.

Nice Work If You Can Get It really should be better than it actually is, but as last year’s Women on the Verge proved, putting a bunch of past Tony winners in the same room does not automatically produce Tony-worthy work.  Nice Work is perfectly serviceable, but there is nothing exciting or overly interesting about this by the numbers show.  Most of the people involved seem to be there only for the paycheck rather than a love of the material, as evidenced by the lackadaisical performances of both Matthew Broderick and, I hate to say it, Kelli O’Hara.  Kathleen Marshall would have been better off spending the year collecting Anything Goes royalty checks, and I can only hope her next show marks a return to form for the very talented choreographer/director.

From the moment its Broadway transfer was announced, I knew Newsies would be a frontrunner for the Best Musical trophy.  It is easily the most commercial new musical of the season, and potential touring profits have been a deciding factor in this category more than once.  The show’s family friendly song and dance routine is definitely entertaining, and now that Disney has finally stopped playing coy and announced the show for an open-ended run, I expect Newsies to easily outlast the rest of this season’s new shows.  It is not high art, but it is well-done escapist entertainment, which wins the Tony more often than not.

However, I think Disney got the timing wrong on this one.  Had the show opened in April instead of in March, it would still be riding high on its post-opening buzz and sail into an easy Tony victory.  But the show has been running just long enough that we are starting to see some backlash against its lowly ambitions, and the flaws in its slickly-presented façade are more apparent in hindsight.  And the people who realize that Newsies isn’t quite as good as Disney would have you believe will surely vote for Once as the season’s best new show.

At first I was skeptical of Once, fearing this stage adaptation of an Oscar-winning indie film would quickly devolve into two-and-a-half hours of emotionally manipulative sentimentality accompanied by plaintive singer-songwriter style music.  But the show won me over with its expert execution and genuine heart, moving me in a way no other new musical has this season.  While small in scale, Once is large in ambition, and I’m happy to say is succeeds in achieving its lofty goals.  There is more invention and feeling in Once than in the other nominees combined, and the cherry on top of this musical sundae are two fantastic leading performances by breakout stars Steve Kazee and Cristin Milioti.

Once deserves the Best Musical trophy.  It is the best written show of the year, and the acting is the most truthful and heartfelt I’ve seen all season.  No one should be surprised if Newsies takes the prize tonight (I certainly won’t be), but I think Once has built up enough momentum that it might actually triumph over Disney’s pre-ordained classic.  Yes, this year has not been a great one for new musicals, but these two shows are definitely worthy of Broadway and beyond.

Will and Should Win:  Once

And that’s it for my 2012 Tony predictions!  Tune in to the Tony Awards telecast tonight at 8 to see how I did, and check back in the coming days for my reaction to Broadway’s biggest night.  If you’ve missed any of my previous prediction blogs, check them out below:

Best Revival

Best Actor (*Note:  I’ve amended my prediction for Best Actor in a Musical.  A lot of people seem to think Jeremy Jordan has this one in the bag, and since he was a close second for me I’ve upgraded him to “Will Win.”  Danny Burstein still “should win,” but I’m thinking this is Jordan’s year.)
Best Actress
Best Featured Actor
Best Featured Actress
Best Book and Score
Best Direction and Choreography

2012 Tony Predictions - Best Revival

Now that we’ve discussed the creative categories and the acting nominees, all that’s left to predict are the production awards.  These awards are arguably the most prestigious, as theatre is a collaborative medium and a production win is an acknowledgement of excellent in all aspects of a particular show.  As I prepare to predict the season’s best revivals, please keep in mind my two caveats: 1) I have not necessarily seen all of the nominated productions; and 2) I am predicting who will win, which is not necessarily the same as who should win.  Any discrepancies in the two will be discussed in the body of the article.

Best Revival of a Play

Nominees:  Death of a Salesman, The Best Man, Master Class, Wit

Master Class is an extreme long shot in this category, as it opened and closed during the summer of 2011.  Tony voters have notoriously short memories, and given the sheer number of shows that have opened since then, Master Class should consider itself lucky for having been nominated at all.  It is particularly telling that the production’s star, Tyne Daly, failed to receive a Best Actress nomination despite her much ballyhooed turn as opera diva Maria Callas in a piece that is essentially a one woman show with interruptions. 

Wit suffers from a less severe version of the same problem.  Historically, winning a Best Revival trophy has been very difficult when a show isn’t being performed nightly to remind voters how good it is, and Wit has been closed for months.  Cynthia Nixon’s Best Actress nomination proves the show is still present in people’s minds, but despite being highly regarded I don’t think the production as a whole made enough of an impression to secure a Best Revival win.

The Best Man has the distinction of being the only nominated revival that is still running, an invaluable asset in any Tony race.  Unfortunately, it also received the least encouraging reviews of the bunch.  While many critics praised the star-studded cast, they found the show itself a tad slow, indicating that for whatever reason the individual performances aren’t adding up to a satisfying whole.  A show perceived as a disappointment, whether due to unreasonably high expectations or actual shortcomings, rarely wins the big awards.

I think Death of a Salesman will easily win Best Revival tonight.  The play is an acknowledged masterpiece, and you couldn’t ask for much better material.  But rather than rest on their laurels, Mike Nichols and his entire team pushed themselves to deliver the most universally praised revival of the year.  The presence of Oscar-winner Phillip Seymour Hoffman made the show a box office bonanza, and the level of buzz surrounding the production was deafening.  Critical acclaim, a towering central performance by an A-list celebrity, and box office success amount to a Tony-winning trifecta, and I would be shocked to see anything other than Salesman win this award.

Will and Should Win:  Death of a Salesman

Best Revival of a Musical

Nominees:  Evita, Follies, Porgy and Bess, Jesus Christ Superstar

The Tonys have often been accused of being too commercially-minded, favoring box office success over artistic merit.  While there is certainly some truth to this (producers of touring houses make up a large percentage of Tony voters, and they want to be able to book Tony-winning shows that will also make them lots of money), the revival categories seem to be less prone to this phenomenon.  That is why I think despite Evita’s enormous financial success, it has very little chance of winning the big prize.  This current revival has been unfavorably compared to memories of the original 1979 production.  Leading lady Elena Roger has proven to be a divisive Eva, and I would agree with the many audience members who feel her voice simply isn’t up to the challenge of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s demanding score.  Despite a visually stunning physical production and top-notch direction by Michael Grandage, this Evita lacks spark, and has been deemed a disappointment by many of the show’s fans.

The other Lloyd Webber revival of the season, Jesus Christ Superstar, is a much stronger contender.  Though Superstar is far inferior to Evita as a piece of musical theatre writing, director Des McAnuff and his team have polished it to a high gloss.  The end result, which wisely emphasizes the pseudo-love triangle between Jesus, Judas, and Mary, is so good that it managed to win me over despite my deep dislike of Lloyd Webber in general and Superstar in particular.  It helps that McAnuff cast leads that are actually capable of handling the insane vocal demands of the score, but Superstar’s low number of overall nominations indicates it will have a tough time winning against its stiff competition.

The real contenders here are Follies and Porgy and Bess, two fantastic shows which have received first rate productions.  The Stephen Sondheim revival boasted an impeccable cast, a sumptuous physical production and excellent direction, and I truly believe that it will be talked about for years to come as a definitive version of that landmark show.  While there is much to love about Porgy, including an astounding central performance by the incomparable Audra McDonald, purists have been vocally upset about director Diane Paulus’ retooling of a four hour opera into a two-and-a-half hour musical.  Even though Porgy is still running (a major advantage for any Tony-nominated production), I expect the ire over Paulus’ judicious cuts to keep it from taking the big prize, which is as it should be.  Follies was a truly transcendent theatrical experience, and deserves to be recognized as the best revival of the season.

Will and Should Win:  Follies

The only races left to predict are the two biggest, Best Play and Best Musical.  Stay tuned for my thoughts on each, and catch up on the rest of my Tony predictions in the meantime:

Best Actor

Best Actress
Best Featured Actor
Best Featured Actress
Best Book and Score
Best Direction and Choreography