Watched the Tonys last night, as I always do...although considering the renowned low ratings the show regularly getrs, I thought it would have been funnier if--when Matthew Broderick made reference to the "millions of people" watching, he'd said instead, "the thousands, perhaps hundreds of people watching tonight."
They certainly did more to try and make the show even more lively for America beyond the boundaries of New York City, including more individual performances from nominated musicals and such. And you have to love that Wolverine hosted the main part of the show, with Nightcrawler doing the earlier, more technical awards. Still, in the first ten minutes, when the two guys who won kissed, I could practically hear channels changing all over the heartlands of America.
Still, Ariel was overjoyed. She was rooting for "Hairspray." Having played Jan in her school production of "Grease," she now aspires to someday play the female lead role in "Hairspray" (since the current star also played Jan.)
PAD
Posted by Peter David at June 9, 2003 10:33 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingLess than .05% of Americans have even seen ANY plays, let alone the NY ones. For all intents and purposes (with apologies to Peter) NO ONE cares about an awards show for these people or productions.
And why does it seem, as Sienfeld said, we have to "Race" everything.
No one cares about the Tony awards. No one. Those that do make up such a small, tiny percentage of the population that they could have ALL been present for the show, live in the building, and there would still haev been room for three stages
Tony's. Who cares?
So Hugh Jackman hosted the Tonys, eh? We're not supposed to imply anything about Wolverine's sexuality from that, are we? :)
(Not that there's anything wrong with THAT...!)
Um, I think I meant "infer" rather than "imply." D'oh!
PAD wrote Still, in the first ten minutes, when the two guys who won kissed, I could practically hear channels changing all over the heartlands of America.
I would suspect that most Tony-watchers wouldn't have been surprised at such a moment. There is a commonly-held belief that gay men are a major part of the Broadway scene (at all levels).
Seeing two men kissing at the Grammys, the Emmys or the Oscars (beyond some silly, juvenile comedic stunt) might be more cause for channel-changing. The scene at the Tonys might make some viewers momentarily uncomfortable, but I think that the majority watching the show wouldn't be so shocked that they would change channels, even in the heartlands of America (which often get seriously underestimated in many regards).
Unfortunate but true: Broadway doesn't speak to the Rest of America any more. I love seeing theatre, but it's obvious that theatre doesn't love seeing us.
Isn't it interesting that the plays that got the most public attention in the last few years were "Hairspray" and "The Producers," two films based on movies? Why did Broadway have to go to another medium to find an appealing subject for plays?
The worst example of this occurred a few years ago. I used to subscribe to the Orlando Broadway Series, mostly road show performances. One of the "big" shows was a version of "Singin' in the Rain" which tried to copy the film as closely as possible. Including an on-stage rainstorm for Gene Kelly's dance (sponsored by 7-Up, yet!) Why see an imitation when the far better original is in the video store?
I would be overjoyed if someone would bring road shows or even local productions of two Sondheim musicals - "Sweeney Todd" or "Assassins" - but that's about as likely as a Broadway season without a play showing weepy sentiment for gays. (Most of the gay people I know don't go through such histrionics about being gay, and they don't go to plays that do, either.)
Oh...by the way, Mr. D., you should be proud of your daughter wishing to be in "Hairspray." It's be even better if you could co-star in it. Perhaps the Sonny Bono part, or the hypnotist played by John Waters in the movie. Your daughter might get a giggle out of you playing an over-the-top villain, and her triumphing over you.
I despise awards.
They are no way related to having any talents or being "the people's favorite this or that" anymore.
Most awards are selected by a "jury of your peers". The small percentage of the population working in the industry.
These days, awards are mostly about "who's butt we like to kiss".
Thomas Reed wrote: Unfortunate but true: Broadway doesn't speak to the Rest of America any more. I love seeing theatre, but it's obvious that theatre doesn't love seeing us.
Isn't it interesting that the plays that got the most public attention in the last few years were "Hairspray" and "The Producers," two films based on movies? Why did Broadway have to go to another medium to find an appealing subject for plays?
Isn't it interesting that the movie that won the Best Picture award in 2003 was "Chicago", a movie based on a Broadway musical? Why did Hollywood have to go to another medium to find an appealing subject for films?
Isn't it interesting that the plays that got the most public attention in the last few years were "Hairspray" and "The Producers," two films based on movies? Why did Broadway have to go to another medium to find an appealing subject for plays?
Such cross-pollinating is age-old. There have been musicals, some successful and some not, based on the aforementioned SINGIN' IN THE RAIN as well as SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER, FAME, FOOTLOOSE, DISNEY'S BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, THE LION KING, THE FULL MONTY, CARRIE, SHOGUN, BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S, STATE FAIR, and SCROOGE (the Leslie Bricusse musical), and more that I cannot recall right here at the computer terminal. Movies are the popular medium, and it makes no less sense to base a musical on a movie than on a popular novel, or a popular source of ant other kind. It's not the source material ... it's what you do with it.
Come to think of it, Shakespeare based his plays on popular sources, just as Aeschylus, Euripides, and Aristophanes based their plays on well-known stories and myths. A big reason their plays prove elusive to some members of the contemporary audience is that they were written for the then-contemporary audience, most of whom would be as aware of the source material as we are of movies.
Many of the aforementioned musicalizations remain obscure to anyone who isn't an enthusiast, but that's not unusual. Shakespeare's plays survive because they were successful, but he was hardly the only successful playwrite of his time. Just as there are many Ancient Greek or Elizabethan plays that are scarcely known (if they are known at all) today, there have been (and will be) many Broadway plays based on movies that do not go on into the ages. (SHOGUN and CARRRIE don't even have soundtrack albums.)
No one cares about the Tony awards. No one
PAD watched. I've been to more than one Tony party with the cast of whatever show I was doing here in Kansas City. There seem to be plenty of theatre people who either care or, at the very least, are interested; enough so that the network continues to broadcast the show despite its continual low ratings.
In the grand scheme of things, the Oscars and the Emmys are just as meaningless, but, to those who are interested in those things, they provide an evening of cheesy fun as well as some interesting debates. (Remember the post-Oscar thread on this blog?) Rather than grousing about the meaninglessness of these awards and their programs, I wonder about the vituperousness of those who rail against them. Did the shows preempt your favorite regular program? Did someone break into your house and hold a gun to your head, forcing you to watch them?
I'm glad that the two men kissed to celebrate the win. Most awards shows are full of men & women kissing to celebrate (Adrian Brodey being the most recent famous one), so why shouldn't a gay couple do the same? As for "channels changing all over the heartland of America," I'm sure that happened in some homes. Others probably kept watching the awards. And some probably weren't offended at what they saw. That's the best result of all.
No one cares about the Tony awards. No one. Those that do make up such a small, tiny percentage of the population that they could have ALL been present for the show, live in the building, and there would still haev been room for three stages.
Was there a cattle call for philistines? I must have missed it.
I guess all those nonexistent people were the ones who made the Tony Awards win its timeslot in the first hour. Yeah, 11% of every person watching television in the US sure amounts to no one by my math...
To quote a wise man (edited for the family blog): Who brought the a$$&@!#?
JLK
Please, John. No need for rudeness or personal attacks. After all, every brings at least one a$$&@!#.
I am happy 'Take Me Out' won a fair number of awards.
I didn't watch the TONYs, but then I can't watch the OSCARs or EMMYs either.
Pretty much the only award show I can usually make it through is the Mtv Movie Awards, and I missed them this year.
Less than .05% of Americans have even seen ANY plays, let alone the NY ones. For all intents and purposes (with apologies to Peter) NO ONE cares about an awards show for these people or productions.
Assuming 300 million people in America, that would mean that only 150,000 people have seen a theatre play, which is just ludicrous. I would say a good number of people have seen live theatre in their lifetime. Given the success of touring productions and such, I would say a majority of Americans have been to the theatre at least once.
I would be overjoyed if someone would bring road shows or even local productions of two Sondheim musicals - "Sweeney Todd" or "Assassins" - but that's about as likely as a Broadway season without a play showing weepy sentiment for gays. (Most of the gay people I know don't go through such histrionics about being gay, and they don't go to plays that do, either.)
I don't know where you live, but it sucks you won't get to see those two shows. However, I'm confused about your comment about "gay" shows. Was there a show on Broadway this season that had "weepy sentiment for gays" with "histrionics"? If you're referring to "Take Me Out", the main gay character has no problem with being gay, and has no histrionics about it - he comes out, and the play is about how others react to it. It's definitely not a show where you go away feeling sorry for the gay character.
And I'm blanking on shows in the last few years on Broadway that your statement applies to. The last two major "gay" shows I can think of on Broadway were "Angels in America" and "Love, Valour, Compassion", both of which were a number of years ago (and neither of which I would describe like you did) . What shows are you referring to?
Having played Jan in her school production of "Grease," she now aspires to someday play the female lead role in "Hairspray" (since the current star also played Jan.)
I read/heard an interview with John Waters in which he talked with gleeful anticipation about Hairspray trickling down to high school productions, where the lead roles go to the fat girl and the drag queen.
Remembering my high school's drama class/club, where the director/teacher/sponsor's favorite was invariably tall, slim, blonde and blue-eyed, I can understand Waters' delight.
I hope Ariel gets the role and knocks their socks off...
The Tony awards are the only awards show I do watch (and always tape it so can watch it in full, sans commercials, the next day.
While the awards may or may not have any significance to me, it is always nice to see some of the 'old' talent, and also gives me a chance as one who is about 6000 miles from Broadway, to see at least some scenes from some shows.
Certainly know not to go see Bernadette Peters in Gypsy now - talk about misguided casting!
Well, as the Tony's were the #1 program for the first hour and #3 for the 2nd hour (and will probably end with a 10 share and around a 6.0 rating,) it seems SOMEONE was watching.
And as for 'Hairspray' and 'The Producers,' ... musicals are more often than not an adaptive form. Most musicals are adaptations rather than original concepts. The musical form is a sometimes difficult one to use so it's usually safer to use an established concept to build from. Which isn't to say there aren't musicals that are original concepts, there are many, but they're not as common and, generally again, not as successful.
In fact, both 'Sweeney Todd' and 'Assassins' are based on pre-existing works. 'Sweeney' in particular takes much of its wording directly from the original play by Christopher Bond.
Movies are just another storytelling medium from which the ideas might come.
Kevin Hines said:
"Pretty much the only award show I can usually make it through is the Mtv Movie Awards, and I missed them this year."
Mtv has been running something similar to an awards show all weekend. They'll probably run it again soon.
Acquaintance of mine has done a couple of musicals. The first, while a financial success, was rambling, unfocussed and unwieldly in the extreme. The second, which is now in pre production, is an adaptation of THE WEDDING BANQUET (by Ang Lee)(who directed a movie about You Know Who), and he found it so much EASIER to do...and to focus on getting things right.
who woulda thunk that theatre/musicals was so controversial in america (going by the above opinions).
i've done the school theatre thing and seen quite a few performances in my short life thus far. my favourites were when the royal shakespeare company visited new zealand with midsummer nights dream. which had its @$$ kicked by a russian play that had english subtitles (big screen on the back wall) - and that had you in piss-your-pants-hysterics. we run quite a few international festivales here.
i quite enjoy the huge amount of originally written theatre we have here. its mindblowingly random what some people come up with. like the splatter play i performed in (think braindead from peter jackson's early years aka dead alive, for you americans), to a play that had a section of a football field moved indoors for a stage, and bleachers for the audience to sit on. can't forget to mention the scone racing play i went to (i'm still not sure what that one was on about), but it was interesting.
methinks its time to look for more theatre to go see :P
"Less than .05% of Americans have even seen ANY plays, let alone the NY ones."
Doncha just love when someone, trying to glory in their own ignorance, invents statistics so that they can spread ignorance around?
The New York production of THE PRODUCERS has sold, itself, more than enough tickets for .05% of Americans. (The show has been running for about 110 weeks now, 8 shows a week, in a 1628 seat theater. Allow for an average 90% capacity -- and the average is likely more than that, although it is no longer a sell-out -- and you're at around 1.3 million tickets sold, equal to close to .5% rather than .05%.)
Americans see plays on Broadway, off Broadway, in commercial theaters in cities nationwide. They see community theater productions, school productions. It's a special part of their trip to New York or Las Vegas.
Americans see plays.
Had I known, I would've watched to root for Eddie Izzard..but I didn't know bout it til monday's Conan rerun. oh well.
Just to antagonize those who're dismayed at Broadway plays based on movies, I'll point out that New York's Newsday is reporting that:
(1) The composer & lyricist for Hairspray are working on an adaptation of Catch Me If You Can;
(2) One of the best-book-for-a-musical winners for Hairspray is collaborating with Mel Brooks for an adaptation of Young Frankenstein; and
(3) Hairspray director Jack O'Brien seems to be involved in a UK production of His Girl Friday (of course, that movie was based on the play The Front Page, so perhaps it's OK...)
Then again, someone earlier mentioned Sondheim's Assassins; its Broadway revival is finally scheduled for next season. And there's always a bunch of interesting theatre kicking around Broadway and off-Broadway, even if it's not the attention-grabbing movie-based stuff that makes the headlines...