Tony Award Nominations 2009
by Larry O'ConnorIn what is becoming an annual rite of self-destruction, Broadway has once again chosen to snub many of the big-name stars who have put their film careers on hold to trudge onto the boards eight times a week, take a significant pay cut, and run the risk of being ridiculed for being unable to cut the mustard as a theatre actor (As Alan Swan famously said before having to appear on live television in “My Favorite Year”: ‘I’m not an actor, damn you, I’m a movie star!’). This week’s announcement of nominees for Broadway’s top prize, the Tony Award, was more newsworthy for the names left off the list than for the relatively unfamiliar names singled out for the honor.
Nathan Lane and John Goodman are selling tickets hand over fist for their revival of “Waiting for Godot” but neither received the honor of a nomination. Same with David Hyde Pierce, Frank Langella, Mary Louise Parker and Matthew Broderick.
It was no surprise that Jeremy Piven was included out of the Best Actor category after his famous sushi defense for missing performances in David Mamet’s “Speed-the-Plow,” but not honoring John Lithgow’s brilliant turn in “All My Sons” in the same category is a crime against humanity! It ranks up there with the snub of Dustin Hoffman as Willy Loman in the 1984 revival of “Death of a Salesman.” Brian Dennehy was honored with the Best Actor award when he did Willy Loman in 2000, but that goodwill did not anoint him worthy of a nomination this year for his turn in “Desire Under the Elms.”
Add to the list of the egregiously overlooked: Diane Wiest, Kristin Scott Thomas, Daniel Radcliffe, Tovah Feldshuh, Joan Allen, Jeremy Irons, Rupert Everett, Christine Ebersol, Patrick Wilson, Susan Sarandon and Katie Holmes.
As an industry, Broadway seems to take an odd pride in the moniker “The Fabulous Invalid” and I have lamented this mindset on these pages before. Broadway’s ability to eat its young and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory has become legendary and not a little bit annoying.
Here we are at the end of a season where the biggest headline was about how horrible things are on Broadway and how every show is closing and how there are nothing but empty theatres, and right when the industry has a chance to turn that story around and promote the fact that not only has every theatre been occupied but incredibly high-wattage stars have come out to perform live in intimate, beautiful theatres, they turn around and kill their own lead.
Wouldn’t it have been great to have a nationally televised theatre awards show with ratings better than an NHL playoff game?
Now, I understand the argument that everyone can’t be nominated, and I recognize that some pretty big names were honored like Jeff Daniels, Geoffery Rush, Marcia Gay Harden, Jane Fonda, Stockard Channing, John Glover and Angela Lansbury. But, really, if the industry is in the trouble they say it’s in, and you have a chance to showcase Daniel Radcliffe, Katie Holmes (and maybe Mr. Holmes?) and Rupert Everett on national television as honored performers from the prior season, shouldn’t you figure out a way to do it?
Here’s a modest proposal: Expand the acting categories! Where is it written in stone that there should only be five nominees for each category? In some pretty thin years in the not-too-distant past they have nominated LESS than five in some categories. (I know that the doom-sayers on Broadway all think that this is the worst it’s ever been, but seriously, in 1989 the THREE nominees for Best Musical were “Jerome Robbins’ Broadway”, “Black and Blue” and “Starmites”!). So in a crappy year, they change the rules and only nominate three, but in a year packed with stars, they hold to the arbitrary five nominee rule and the story becomes “Who Got Snubbed”. It makes no sense at all.
I know that none of this seems to follow a “Right versus Left” storyline that many of you may be used to here at Big Hollywood, but hang in there with me for a few more thoughts. The fact is, the left on Broadway (meaning the vast majority of actors, designers and staffers in the production offices) relish the fact that they give a big “up yours” to the Hollywood types who dare to come to Broadway. In this context, the Hollywood actors are “rich” and the New York theatre people are the poor, starving artists giving up riches for their craft. They want to see the Hollywood star fail. It’s classic class warfare, just like it is played out in the political world of America.
The same mentality that celebrates the increased taxes on “The Rich” and rails against “Big Pharma” and “Big Oil” yet fails to recognize the damage done to our society when these productive members of our economy are punished by ever-burdensome taxes and regulations is at play when they watch in bitchy glee as Hollywood movie stars are snubbed in favor of a “real” actor from their ranks. But they fail to realize that those Hollywood hacks are the ones who are selling the tickets and keeping the “Theatre Community” employed. If Hollywood actors ever get the message and stop risking rejection and embarrassment by performing on Broadway, it will just mean more unemployment for the theatre purists.
But, that’s OK, they’ll just blame Middle America for not being smart or cultured enough to truly appreciate Thomas Sadoski in “Reasons to be Pretty” instead of wanting to see Tom Cruise’s wife or that guy from “3rd Rock From the Sun.”
Stage Right is on Facebook.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
52 Comments
This is another manifestation of the same mentality that gave us the East Coast vs. West Coast feud inside the hip-hop community. Except the only guns these people would put into their hands are props. People in all walks of life, throughout all of history, act against their own best interests quite often. And ususally for the most petty of reasons. Unbelieveable.
http://shermansmarch.blogspot.com
"It was no surprise that Jeremy Piven was included out of the Best Actor category after his famous sushi defense for missing performances in David Mamet’s “Speed-the-Plow,” but not honoring John Lithgow’s brilliant turn in “All My Sons” in the same category is a crime against humanity! "
A crime against humanity. Sheez, get over yourself. The theatre is not all that important.
Just glad to see you again Stage Right. I was fearful you had been "outed" and then gagged & tortured by the "tolerant progressive" circles in which you run.
No Kristen Scott Thomas? No Dianne Wiest? Disgusting.
So you think they should stop giving awards based on what the voters feel is merit and just start giving out the Tony to the most famous person? What's the point, then? We all know who the most famous person in any group is — do they really need an award to figure it out?
Great to see you back Professor Stage Right……
We always enjoy your
"A Conservative's Guide to the Theatre Classes 101" excepting the Trolls of course but I think some of them may appreciate part of your posts as well…… they just are not allowed to admit it to the other animals on the farm.
Great Post as always. Keep up the Good Work and God Bless!
I'm glad to see you too, Stage Right! Please keep posting, you're one of my top five favorite posters and I love hearing about broadway.
Ok…. maybe that was a bit hyperbolic… a bit!
No… I think they should not limit themselves to only five nominees so they can honor a wide range of performances. John Goodman's turn in "Godot" and Lithgow's performance in "All My Sons" deserve recognition too. And the industry can get some nice marketing punch out of it as well.
Beleieve me…. Daniel Radcliffe being overlooked had more to do with him being a young millionaire as Harry Potter than it had to do with an objective judgement on acting ability.
Thanks for the kind welcome back, everyone! I was not bound and gagged anywhere… happily I was doing some intrense travelling and had work on a couple of projects that kept me too occupied to pontificate.
But I'm back with gusto… look for more posts in the next few days!
And here I'd been blaming the Threedonia guys for not disguising your voice on your interview.
More Sunday matinees, please.
Hadn't had my coffee yet when I wrote that. Sorry. Good piece.
No criticism of the article, but in that long list of Hollywood stars doing Broadway, I could spot at least six or seven who stink on-screen. How would they get any better on Broadway where nobody gets to yell "cut?"
Actually, your comment was spot on. I was saying I was a bit hyperbolic.
I would like to do your show again… but I want to use a voice altering device. Maybe I could also sing "Mr. Roboto"?
I know…. Kristen Scott Thomas in The Seagull. She won the Olivier in London and didn't even get a nomination in New York… yet Jane Fonda does get nominated. Grrrrrrrrrrr!
The only year The Tony's ever seemed to get it right was in 2001 when "The Producers" cleaned up. Among the other great things about that show was the fact that it led to Mark Steyn's review in the New Criterion entitled "The Authentic Spirit of Broadway." Steyn used the review, not only to praise "The Producers" but to brilliantly dissect the nature of modern theater and the issues it seems to have with it's audience.
I could not disagree more. Hollywood stars are showered with awards, praise, and gift bags on a daily basis. At least Broadway is one place where, even though they have to begrudgingly book the Jeremy Pivens of the world to boost ticket sales, a performer must still earn his or her way to an award nomination. For those of us who are used to 'bringing it' eight times a week for a tiny percentage of Piven's per-episode salary on "Entourage," the idea that a side order of spicy tuna could provide a valid excuse to exit a principal AEA contract on Broadway is laughable.
So, suck it Katie Holmes. Because looking cute next to James Van der Beek isn't enough to get you recognized here on the Great White Way. The Tonys are NOT the Golden Globes. We're not going to give you a nomination just because we want to see you on the red carpet with Mr. Tropic Thunder. You kinda need to be able to 'bring it.'
Thank god there's one area of show business that is still somewhat about merit and consistency, not about how to get more eyeballs watching an awards broadcast at 8pm on CBS.
Not my show, though I did enjoy it, and Threedonia is a great blog.
If they alter your voice, they should vary the output from Darth Vader through Mickey Mouse. While you mimic Edward G. Robinson or Richard Nixon.
Mix it up, you know?
It was the first time I had read Steyn and I felt like I was reading someone who had mind-melded with me. I had never been able to articulate the political and cultural juxtapositions about my industry the way he had done in that piece. It and he are a constant inspiration. I hope I get to meet him one day!
Gotta agree with Miki. I can only go on hearsay, but from what I've heard, nothing about Katie Holmes's performance was Tony-worthy. And if anything would make me LESS likely to watch the Tonys, it would be the presence of The Littlest Scientologist. I think there's an increasing number of Cruise-weary members of the public who would agree.
Other than that, good points, Stage Right!
You named one of the "six or seven" I had in mind. In fact, she was the first one I thought of.
If the theatre operators are looking for a new source of revenue has anyone considered making use of the internet. As I understand it (I am a theatre illiterate) they have subscribers. Perhaps a subscription includes the ability to log on and have high quality streaming video from cameras set in the vantage point of some of the best seats of the house and other angles. Watchers could change the cameras. A format could allow one to stream video to a Computer or BlueRay player. There could also be an internet version of the subscription.
The theatre I think is more adapt to this technology because while you can stream and pirate movies which are reproducible with a year or more of effort and millions of dollars each night’s performance is unique and you can only watch it live once even if it is from your home. Set camera angles and no stop in the action would be the point of this so customers would not be expecting more.
Stage Right do you know of anyone who has thought of this?
OK… I'll admit it: I threw Katie Holmes in there to get a rise. Glad it worked.
But Radcliffe, Thomas, Lane, Goodman, Sarandon, Lithgow, Langella and Hyde Pierce were all praised for their performances and they have real acting chops. A star like Daniel Radcliffe makes a daring choice of not only doing theatre and lending his star-power to a production but also plays a daring role like he did in Equus and as an industry (especially an industry in desperate need of profile) has to reward such efforts.
If you REALLY think the Tonys are about "merit and consistency" then you haven't really been watching… did merit and consistency earn "Avenue Q" the Tony over "Wicked"? Did merit and consistency give the Tony to "Lost in Yonkers" over "Six Degrees of Seperation"? Did merit and consistency give the Tony to "Will Rogers Follies" over "Miss Saigon"?
Politics and cliques play an enormous part in every awards process… the Tonys included.
Welcome back Stage! I'm missed your articles.
I think you make a very good observation that this is a "socialist" or anti-success issue. I could understand not nominating big stars (1) if the point of the show was to highlight those who are not yet stars, or (2) if the point of the show was to give awards just for acting and the big actors aren't actually good stage actors. But neither of those things appears to be true.
To me, this really shows the depth of the mental disorder that is jealousy/socialism — that these people would spoil an oppurtunity for all to benefit just because it might also reward who have already had success.
I dunno…everyone can't be nominated. Five seems plenty. I haven't seen any of the shows, but Stage Right (and welcome back!!), do you feel the (non) Hollywood nominees are so unworthy? Did you see every nominated performance (and if you did, you are a lucky so-and-so)? Does the Tony organization work like the Oscars, in that those who vote are already established in the industry, ie, NOT the starving artist wing of the theater community, but the established, well-paid professionals? As you said through your dudgeon, they kinda did nominate a lot of 'mainstream' actors. (you left Allison Janney off your list) I think the reason no-one watches the Tony Awards is far too few people have seen any of the shows. They'll still trot Radcliffe and Sarandon for tv–but at least they worked on Broadway. I hate when they drag a ton of movie and tv stars onto the broadcast who didn't appear during the season at all. I will soon be able to comment on the quality of a whopping ONE show when I go to New York in a week–my revered, 70 year old aunt wants to see…"Hair." And I'm actually totally jazzed because I have loved that musical since I was a kid and still do, in spite of the wisdom of age and knowledge of history.
By the way, Showtime or the Movie Channel has been running a really great documentary from 2007 called "ShowBusiness: The Road to Broadway" that follows four shows from rehearsals to the Tonys in 2004 (Wicked, Avenue Q, Taboo and Caroline, or Change). I re-watched and it's fantastic!–a good look at the, well, business of show.
I'm kind of on the fence on this one. I'm all for Broadway using whatever it needs to in order to add to it's prestige and ticket sales, even if that means using the reflected glow of some Hollywood names. On the other hand, part of me likes to see that not everyone trips over themselves to heap glory and praise on marginally talented actors who want to see if they have real chops in front of a Broadway audience. A lot of the names you mentioned, like Lithgow and Sarandon, are people we don't really see on the big screen (or little screen) all too often anymore. I read that Lithgow had a part in "Confessions of a Shopaholic" but I'm sure that doesn't count.
So it may be unfair that they're being overlooked due to a Hollywood resume. I haven't seen Katie Holmes on stage, but since I haven't been impressed by anything else she's done, I have a hard time believing that there aren't other hugely talented performers on Broadway who could put her to shame. Seems only fair that those people get some recognition for all their hard work..
I'm not a fan of live theater (or is it -re – I never know), but yours has become my favorite feature at BH. The run-down of the Tony's gives me a nice Cliff's Notes of what I've missed without having to actually watch it. Your posts here at BH show that a good writer with something to say can make subjects boring to readers like me quite interesting.
Huzzah!
The Tony's use a hand-picked comittee to come up with the nominations. And I don't say that EVERYONE should be nominated and I don't say we should take a nomination away from anyone.
I say that the producers of some of these shows are pretty pissed off right now because having a nomination could have helped business and to deny a nomnination to a worthy actor because of the five nominee rule seems arcane.
Very few of the Broadway houses have subscriptions, only those manned by in-house, non-profit organizations like Roundabout or Lincoln Center Theatre.
There has been thought to some ideas like this in the regional theatre world.. like being able to listen in on the stage manager's frequency to here the cues being called or being able to get live texts from actors while backstage, or listening in on general backstage banter. I am not a huge fan of this idea because I am still a bit of a purist and I am in love with the idea that when the audience sits in our house for three hours we transport them to another reality… by listening in on our machinations we kill the fantasy.
The other problem with the cameras and live feed on the internet is the unions (oh boy the UNIONS!). The way the contracts are currently written this would be an enormous budget buster.
I dunno…someone's always going to be unhappy their show didn't get nominated, and unfortunately losing out can mean the swift death of a show. And if there _were_ a huge leftist bias, surely Susan Sarandon and Rupert Everett would have been given nominations, no? And c'mon–Dolly Parton got nominated! That's got to count for something!
Please note that I said SOMEWHAT about merit and consistency.
And is it really worth the 2 calories it takes to type all those names you just did, from Radcliffe all the way to Hyde Pierce?? If any of those people got any more recognition from our industry via a Tony award, you know they would just toss it in their 9-car garage and let it collect dust. I think Susan Sarandon's gonna be just fine. Besides, she needs time to count her money and polish her Oscar.
If the Tonys are going to go the full out celeb-whoring route, then it might as well relinquish all credibility and join the ranks of the Blockbuster Awards, People's Choice, and oh, what's the one where green slime gets dumped on the recipients at the podium? Kids' Choice?
And I'm not sure I understand the alignment of your argument to the concept of undermining conservative values. If an unknown, highly skilled actor makes it to Broadway despite the odds through hard work, determination and relentless persistence, isn't that an ultimate testament to the virtues that conservatives hold dear? Shouldn't that guy get a Tony nod over, um, Uncle Jesse from "Full House?"
On the one hand, movies stars have all the money, on the other hand, Broadway actors have more respect. You know what: screw them all.
I think a true conservative would argue that the act of succeeding and earning his JOB is the reward he deserves for his efforts, not a shiny trophy. You don't EARN a trophy for acting on Broadway, you win it for a lot of factors. I can tell you that some of the best and most talented performers on Broadway are the members of the singing and dancing ensembles of large musicals. They have the hardest jobs and they make or break a show, but they don't win any awards at the Tonys. This isn't about earning something through hard work, these awards have always been part self-congratulation and part marketing. If the industry is in as bad a situation as we keep hearing, then they should lean a little further in the marketing direction.
Besides, my proposal doesn't exclude your unknown actor, it just INCLUDES Uncle Jesse as a nominee along with him.
If you want a right versus left perspective on the Tony Award nominations, how about the record number of nominations for a musical for "Billy Elliot" which contains the merry ditty "Merry Christmas, Maggie Thatcher" with the following charming lyrics:
"Merry Xmas, Maggie Thatcher,
We all celebrate today
Cos it's one day closer to your death."
Nuff said.
Yes yes…. I was going to point these things out in my post mortum after Billy Elliot wins for Best Musical.
Also, of course, the inevitable win for Will Ferrell's show.
My other succint, well written reply fell into the void, but to paraphrase, I guess the more people you nominate, the less of an honor a nomination would become. To (mis)quote "The Incredibles," if everyone's special, no-one is. And every year producers get mad because their show didn't get nominated, and yes, shows die because of it, but it's called show business…not show fairness.
maatkare… if anything I've written above suggests that I am advocating "fairness" as a reason to expand the acting categories then I'm sorry for not being clearer (seriously, I know you've read me before, does that OSUND like me?). This has nothing to do with fairness it has to do with business. It's good for business to encourage Hollywood actors to perform on Broadway. And if the 5 nominee rule is keeping some of these folks from receiving a nod, what is the harm in expanding it a bit? They USED to do it… back in 1956 they nominated 6 actresses for Best Actress in a play and there were no less than EIGHT nominees for Best Director!
Your suggestion to expand categories could work well for the Oscars, too. Decades ago it wasn't unusual for up to ten films to be nominated for Best Picture. Expand from the arbitrary five to ten and they might accidentally include a couple that people have seen.
So, you're saying the Tony Awards SHOULDN't be a meritocracy, but should be a popularity contest?
Wasn't that the same argument McCain used against Obama last year?
So, you're saying the Tony Awards SHOULDN't be a meritocracy, but should be a popularity contest?
Isn't that the opposite of McCain's argument against Obama last year?
Well, I humbly defer to your experience in the field, but I guess I just think expanding the nominees would be seen as pandering purely for business' sake, and prestige would be lost. At the end of the day though, the strong show survive despite winning the major awards– I'd be thrilled to continue the discussion when I'm in New York–can you get us a table at Babbo??
if this doubles up, my post got eaten again…this has been happening quite a bit.
Re: Lithgow–I think he took that mountain o' cash and umpteen Emmys from "3rd Rock" and now he can afford to just work as he likes. It's interesting to note that most of the Hollywood /stage actors listed got their success–and the financial freedom that lets them work Broadway for what one must presume is a pittance–from t.v. series. And Radcliffe must have jumped at the chance to do something non-Potter-y. Katie Holmes…well…bless her heart. But with the exception of those two, I think everyone else listed in the post is well north of 40. Younger screen stars are still going for those big pyachecks before they can find their muses.
I'd love to get Cynthia Nixon or Tonya Pinkins on the phone so you could tell them that they didn't earn their trophy for their acting, that it was for "a lot of factors…" Sure, some of the most talented stage performers who work the hardest, in the ensemble or otherwise, never see a Tony or even a nomination. So…the answer is then to shower Hollywood celebrities with even more attention via yet another awards show? That's gonna save Broadway? I think it would cheapen Broadway even further than any rehash jukebox musical has so far.
Every Uncle Jesse that gets a Tony nod is a spot taken away from some unknown who is barely scraping 20 weeks of work per year to keep their AEA health insurance. Your proposal seems to ignore those mathematics. If it "isn't about earning something through hard work" and it's "part self-congratulation and part marketing," then all the more reason to fight harder towards integrity and the recognition of those stage actors who would be ignored at any other awards show.
Oh, and the "true conservative" believing that "succeeding and earning his job" is the reward in itself? If that's true, then should we stop handing out "shiny" medals to our soldiers who risk their lives in combat overseas? You know, since doing well at their job is it's own reward?
Actually, I bet our heroes in uniform would humbly agree that doing their job is their reward but no, that should not keep us, as grateful Americans from honoring them in any way we can, expecially with medals.
But to even bring medals for valor and bravery into a discussion about acting awards takes this thread into territory that I'm not comfortable pursuing. I think we have both explained our positions, we just don't agree.
Tonya Pinkins? She won in a weak year..
True maat… and the younger actors don't yet have the clout with their agents to force them to hunt down theatre opportunities instead of films. Their agents aren't remotely interested in finding Broadway work for them because THEIR compensation is so much smaller.
I thought Idina Menzel beat her that year.
You're right, she did… but, she won a featured actress award in the '90s for "Jelly's Last Jam" when she was up against……. ummm…….
Hah! Fair enough, but I remember really wishing I could have seen that Guys & Dolls revival. (praise be to the internets). I do wish Gregory Hines was still with us, tho. *sniff*
My bringing up our service men and women was to point out the weakness of your argument; it was not to equate their dodging mortar fire in a war zone to the accomplishments of a Broadway actor.
But getting back to the original debate, if you want the Tonys to start throwing their hardware at Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt for marketing purposes, then fine. I'll at least enjoy the moment of impact when the awards hit them in their heads, and the subsequent hollow rattling noise.
Hey Stage good to see you again.
This is off topic a bit, but you know how they have best revival play/musical as separate categories, but the actors/directors et al of revival and original are all lumped in together? I'd like to see entire separate categories for actor/director/lighting/choreog et al for revival and original. I know some years they would need to scrap to fill the categories, but in a year like this, it sure would've been nice. Who do I see about that;)
And would it kill em to add a category for best chorus. I think the dancers and singers in the chorus are some of the hardest working, MOST talented on stage.
Also, I'm hoping that Liza gets the Tony and not Ferrell. I'm hoping that the politicalness of b'way outweighs the politicalness of politics. Hmmm politicalness, not sure that's a word. HA!
Welcome back, Stage — I've missed your Broadway insight! Thanks for another great article. In the same way the Broadway elites slam the "Hollywood Hacks that are selling the tickets" they slam the idiots from the flyover states who buy tickets and keep them employed, as you pointed out in your brilliant, "I am Scott Eckert" article. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
Can you do a theatre without Unions or is that a dumb question.
I remember taking a break from college before starting the first job of my career. I worked for Kelly services part time just to make some cash and not have to have a permanant job. We worked for this plastic factory and this old guy told us to slow down because they wanted to set lower work standards for a Union they wanted to start. I remember thinking this guy was a loser.
Since then all I have seen of Unions is to make people less productive. I just don't get it. Do they not see that it is "productivity" that drives the economy. This is a perfect example. If you get just 1000 people to pay $10 a month that is 10,000 a month. Not to mention the advertizing possibilities from hits on the website alone from people checking it out. Seems like a no brainer to me.
Union rules have the effect of losing the Union work,
You must be logged in to post a comment.