Tony nominations are out, and “Spamalot” did extremely well. But horrifically missing from the nominations (including acting noms for Tim Curry as Arthur and Hank Azaria as Lancelot) was David Hyde-Pierce as Sir Robin.
I have to wonder what the hëll goes on with the New York theater community and the cast of “Frasier.” When Kelsey Grammer trod the boards in the Scottish play, he was lacerated by critics. We attended a quarter filled house during his truncated run, and he was great. A quality performance, wholly unacknowledged by anyone “in the know.” Now his TV kid brother, while not getting negative reviews at least, is ignored while his co-stars bask in the Tony limelight. I’m almost wondering if–and I hate to say it–there were individuals in the decision-making process who were (best Queen Victoria voice here) “not amused” by Hyde-Pierce’s major solo number (Azaria, though he sang a bit and was the focus of one particular large number, really didn’t have anything comparable to Hyde-Pierce’s showcase). The name of Sir Robin’s song? “You Need a Jew,” a hilarious ditty explaining why it’s impossible to succeed on Broadway unless you have Jews in the show. It was hysterical, with laceratingly funny lyrics and choreography that culminated in a send-up of “Fiddler’s” bottle dance with Sir Robin and company balancing grails on their heads. Now I’m wondering if the political uncorrectness of the song cost Hyde-Pierce a deserved nomination.
PAD
• 
I agree wholeheartedly. I saw “Spamalot” the second week after it opened in NY and thought it superior (and funnier) than “The Producers” in many ways. David Hyde-Pierce’s number in the second act was a true show-stopper —- I cannot remember laughing that hard and long in the theatre. Not slighting th eothers in any way, I do feel he had the best performance and especially comic timing of the entire cast.
But PAD, you have to play fair. Who’s place should Pierce have taken:
Best Performance by a Leading Actor in a Musical
Hank Azaria, Spamalot
Gary Beach, La Cage aux Folles
Norbert Leo Butz, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Tim Curry, Spamalot
John Lithgow, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
After all, when you say he should have been nominated you are by default saying someone else should not have been. I can’t opine, not having seen a Broadway show since Bernadette Peter’s Gypsy a year or two ago. 😉
Not having seen DRS or “La Cage,” I can’t speak about those in any sort of informed manner. But in terms of “Spamalot,” I’d put Hyde-Pierce over Azaria in a heartbeat. Azaria was great, make no mistake, but if it’s him or Hyde-Pierce, I’ll go for the latter.
PAD
Having seen that run of the Scottish play, I would say the primary motivator there was the fact that however good Grammer’s performance was – and it wasn’t bad – the fact that the production as a whole was so wretched was more influential. It’s tough to get noticed when the show you’re in is that bad.
After years in community theatre I recently moved up into the professional ranks and now, dealing with the awards-type stuff here, the job may be the same but it’s a completely different world. It’s not enough for one or two people to be good anymore.
I wouldn’t worry too much about the nominators being unamused, either, given Ave Q’s Tony success.
The best production of the Scottish play I’ve seen in years is still Rick Miller’s “MacHomer” anyway…
JLK
Shame about DHP, as I thought that he was the highlight of the three male leads, even though Azaria and Curry are no slouches. Glad to see Sara Ramirez got a nom. She’s fantastic.
Well, maybe Hyde-Pierce will get invited on the stage at the Tony awards show on television. Which may be seen by less people than see it in the theatre every night.
I think it may be Broadway’s sense of cultural inferiority. They have that little closed-in world, largely inaccessible to anyone with out a lot of bread who lives in the New York area. They’re now paying the price for that insularity, and the financial problems it brings about. So, like a spurned prom queen, they decide to “get back” at a popular medium by less-than-enthusiastic support for actors who come from television.
If I worked on Broadway, I’d see bigger problems to address than competition from TV. Like when Broadway DOES deign to show up on TV, no one watches. Maybe it would benefit Broadway shows more to be better friends with David Letterman, who has occasionally featured Broadway performers on his show, and who is the only major TV performer still located on the East Coast.
I think you’re “They didn’t nominate him because he comes from TV” would be…wrong…given that John Lithgow had a long running sitcom and Hank Azaria currently has a show on Showtime…I suspect that they’re just Simpsons Fans.
I’m wondering if DHP is paying the price for having a bad night when the judges went. I went to see Spamalot in previews and while he was absolutely hilarious, it was also obvious that he blew his lines at least twice. Based on that one viewing, for sheer technical proficiency, I’d put HA over him.
What I’m not sure about is how Curry got there. His role is much smaller than anyone else’s in the cast.
I suspect that they’re just Simpsons Fans.
So they spurn Sideshow Cecil Terwilliger? 😉
Not living anywhere near NY, I haven’t seen Spamalot, but could someone tell me how DHP’s song measures up against the similar song by Seth MacFarlane (as Family Guy’s Peter Griffin)?
For that song ALONE, as well as the delivery of “That’s enough music, boys” he should’ve been nominated. Stace (my wife, the Ever-Enduring One) just got me the CD and I can’t listen to it in my car anymore because I’m laughing too darn hard.
Incidently, anybody else feel like Mr. Curry’s performance of “I’m All Alone” harkens back to his earlier “I’m Going Home”, and not just because they both have “I’m” in the title?
So they spurn Sideshow Cecil Terwilliger? 😉
Cecil: I’m framing you and I’m doing a really excellent job, too.
Bob: Wait a minute. This is all because I got to be Krusty’s sidekick instead of you, isn’t it?
Cecil: Off the record, yes. But officially, I did it for the money!
—
for some reason, I actually like that episode better than just about any episode of Fraiser.
I saw Spamalot last week, and gotta agree that I’d put David Hyde Pierce as just a touch more award-worthy than Hank Azaria. Tim Curry wasn’t in the performance I attended, so I can’t comment on him, but Sara Ramirez was brilliant. Sutton-Foster-in-Thoroughly-Modern-Millie brilliant. I’m sure we’ll hear more from her soon. (I just hope it’s in the theatre!)
Also, I gotta agree with Kozemp about Kelsey Grammer’s infamous Macbeth. Grammer was far from the worst thing in that show, which gave you the sense that it was going south long, long before any actor was cast. Unless I’m misremembering, Grammer put up some of his own money to get that show to New York; if that’s the case, really the worst thing I can say is that, man, I wish he’d have been smart enough to save his money to back a better production. I hope he gets the chance someday.
As for Spamalot not making friends in the talkshow world; in the past three weeks, I have seen Azaria on Conan and Danza, Pierce on Danza, and the “big three” on the View (and there may have been one or two that I missed listing (I believe there may have been a Regis, but I can’t recall).
Sorry, but I disagree. As I walked out of the Producers I commented that Nathan Lane and MAtthew Broderick were irreplaceable. And the subsequent falloff in business and in critical reviews proved that. As I walked out of Spamalot, I felt that all the leads, except perhaps Sara Ramirez, were easily replaceable. I think this show will go on for years without the original cast.
I thought all the Spamalot leads were, in actuality, supporting roles with no one role sufficient to be a best actor role. Contrast with DRS, and I will bet the house that Butz will win the Tony, where I think Butz is close to irreplaceable in a performance so good, you wonder where he has been up till now, and that the show will greatly suffer when he leaves.
I doubt that the Jew number had anything to do with him not getting nominated. After all, Max Bialystock lamented that Springtime for Hitler should have failed because 1/2 the audiences were Jews. Most of my Jewish friends laughed the loudest at the Jew number in Spam.
Come on, let’s face it. DHP cannot really sing and cannot really dance and I find his comedic gifts marginal as well. While I admire him for trying to find a life beyond Frasier, BDWY musicals may not be the best spot. Actually, on second thought, I think he might make a good Leo Bloom!
You want to see a Tony winning performance, go see DRS and watch Butz. He’s amazing!
Honestly, I thought ‘Spamalot’ fell apart once it started lampooning Broadway. It has a brilliant first act and a second act that becomes a series of theater in-jokes that were probably funnier in ‘The Producers’ where they at least were applicable (and I didn’t love ‘The Producers’ by any stretch.)
And lead vs. supporting for the Tony’s is simply a matter of billing. If you’re over the title, you’re a lead, if you’re under, you’re supporting. That’s all there is to it, although they’ll fudge things here or there when the mood strikes them.
“Cecil: I’m framing you and I’m doing a really excellent job, too.
Bob: Wait a minute. This is all because I got to be Krusty’s sidekick instead of you, isn’t it?
Cecil: Off the record, yes. But officially, I did it for the money!”
For me the best line was:
Bart: (hands clapped over Cecil’s eyes) Guess who!
Cecil: Maris?
PAD
I agree, the Tony noms. can be a very strange thing…HOWEVER, I have to say they do sometimes get it right. (ie: the nom for Spelling Bee).
Peter and all, GO SEE THIS SHOW! It gives you confidence that there is hope for the “little” musicals out there.
Spam or Spelling….a tough choice between a show I am cultish about, or just a funny and touching show I can relate too.
jer
I didn’t see SPAMALOT (and with the ticket prices and wait will have to settle for the soundtrack), but any time there’s any sort of award, there’s always a performer one is convinced got cheated/robbed. Can you think of other TV stars whose great stage performanced weren’t nonimated?
And yes, I loved the “Maris?” line too. Since they never showed Maris on screen on FRASIER (a wise decision; what actress was really petite and elitist enough to pull off that role?), Bart is as close as we’ll come to her.
PAD quoted:
> For me the best line was:
>
> Bart: (hands clapped over Cecil’s eyes)
> Guess who!
>
> Cecil: Maris?
I just almost knocked my PowerBook off my desk from laughing so hard! Thank you — I somehow never saw that episode, so this is the first time I’ve ever seen that joke!
Whew! [ wipes tears from eyes ]
I have not seen Spamalot and as such cannot offer informed opinion on that show, but on the topic of the nominations sometimes getting it right, look no further than Kathleen Turner and Bill Irwin getting recognition for “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf.” If you’re lingering in Times Square with nothing on tap (and now that the sex shops are all gone, that’s not such a remote possibility), do yourself a favor and haul yourself over to the Longacre. Turner is exceptional as Martha, and Bill Irwin is somehow better as George. A remarkable, remarkable show.
The Tony rules are that actors billed above the title are considered leads, unless the producers file a request for a change to be made.
When the revival of Chicago debuted, Joel Grey was billed above-the-title in what was clearly a supporting role (Amos). The producers should have filed a request to have Grey considered a Featured Actor; if they had, he would have won the award. As it was, Grey wasn’t even nominated.
I think the same situation is happening with DHP in Spamalot — great actor, billed above-the-title, really a supporting role. If he’d been nominated in the Featured Actor category, he’d be a shoe-in.
I saw it the second night of previews in New York! Loved the show and thought all deserved nods. I didn’t see DRS, but I would put DHP above Gary Beach in La Cage.
I have to disagree with you here PAD. Spamalot was the best time my wife and I had in the theatre since we saw The Producers. But we both thought that DHP was the weakest of the three leads. Outside of the “Need a Jew” number, nothing else he did really resonated. And that was more due to the production of the number than his performance. Compared to Curry’s “I’m all alone’ or the sensational “This is the song that goes like this” I don’t think the ATW was wrong with this one.
But if we want to talk “robbed”, we can still talk about Paul Giamatti and “Sideways”
Posted by Bill Jennings:
The Tony rules are that actors billed above the title are considered leads, unless the producers file a request for a change to be made.
That’s right. And though producers can request that someone be considered in a different-than-usual catgeory, the Tony administrators need not necessarily agree.
Several times throughout the season, a Tony committee gets together to decide eligibility issues of Broadway’s various offerings. Their announcement in April 2005 included their decision that Curry, Pierce, and Azaria would all be eligible in the Leading Actor in a Musical category. It’s possible that the inclusion of this decision in their announcement arose from producers’ request that one or more of these actors be considered in another category.
But nominees and cateogries and all that aside, my new Tony question is this: Why isn’t Billy Crystal hosting this year? Why isn’t he adding “Tony Host” to his years as “Oscar Host”? I mean, he’s in New York with 700 Sundays (OK, his show will have just closed by the time the Tony Awards are broadcast, but still…) He’s giving the opening night address at the Book Expo America trade show in New York in June. He’s around, he’s a good host. The theatre world loves him. Why not?
(Acutally, I’m sure I answered my own question there…the Book Expo speech is just a few days before the Tony broadcast. It’d probably be too exhausting to prepare for both events, especially while 700 Sundays is still running.)
I would question any assertation that DHP’s stage time is less than TC’s or HA’s- There were a few characters he did that I didn’t realize until after I double checked the program. For the sheer amount of work both he and HA did in switching roles, I think he should have been nominated…
I can’t say anything about the other people using that superstitious pseudonym for “Macbeth,” but Mr. D, you are a professional writer, NOT a professional actor! Isn’t there something in the Guidebook to Retarded Theatrical Superstitions that says the use of the title “Macbeth” only applies to people who are pros? Since I have never trodded the stage, but only been shoved towards under the wheels as the horses pulled it down the street, I have no problem with saying it.
Ah but, our esteemed blogger has acted on a few occasions! So while he is best known for his writing, he has regaled us in the past with tales of his acting performances 😉
I agree. I saw Spamalot and I was amazed at how funny David Hyde-Pierce was. I’ve of couse seen Frazier..but this was a whole new level. Tim Curry I didn’t find very appealing in Spamalot, but I saw it before it “opened” so maybe he was still working out the role. Hyde-Pierce I thought was hands down the top of the group.
“I can’t say anything about the other people using that superstitious pseudonym for “Macbeth,” but Mr. D, you are a professional writer, NOT a professional actor!”
I’ve acted on television, in film, and on stage, and been paid for it. To the best of my knowledge, that’s all that’s required to be deemed “a professional actor.”
PAD
There: You see – Your response was a coherent and responsive answer to an attack that was made, and no more personally venemous than was necessary. I knew you could do it if you wanted to.
Whereas you seem incapable of posting without condescension and snottiness.
PAD
“Isn’t there something in the Guidebook to Retarded Theatrical Superstitions that says the use of the title “Macbeth” only applies to people who are pros?”
Actually, the superstition, as I’ve come to know it, is to not speak the name of the Scottish play OR have it spoken in your presence. So, yes, non-pros can in fact create the jinx by the usage of that cursed play’s name. I’ve never seen the written rule one way or the other on the writing or reading of the word outside of the play’s script itself though. But, hey, why not be polite and go “the Scottish play” route when you’ve got friends in the biz who may stop in for the odd read or two?
1) Superstitions don’t have to adhere to a written set of rules. If you’re going to believe that mentioning the public title of the Scotish Play is bad luck, then you can believe that it being mentioned in your presence is bad luck too…regardles of whether that’s what most people think.
2) Why do you have to be a “professional” to think that it’s bad luck to have the title mentioned? Can’t you be a dedicated amateur…or just a superstitious one?
3) I think that the general belief is, in fact, that it’s bad luck for the title to even be mentioned in your presence as Jerry mentioned. I remember hearing a story about somebody saying the “M” word around Michael York at the filming of an episode of Babylon 5. They had to go through some elaborate ritual to get rid of the curse/jinx to satisfy him. So yes, there are professionals who view it that way.
Would it have been uncondescending if I had feigned surprise that you could express yourself? I took this opportunity to point out that you did conduct yourself well, and did know how to frame an argument. I am not naive enough to think you misunderstand the implication: As you are capable of making good sense, it is a shame you don’t exercise that ability elsewhere.
Jeffrey, I think I know how distressing it is to have your feelings invalidated. You’ve got people working, laboring to minimize your feelings. But when you express any distress, your feelings aren’t invalide anymore, but justification to dismiss you. It’s the kind of inconsistency that can clobber someone who is otherwise well-meaning.
My point is, if you’re going to be a troll, you’re going to have to do a better job. I’m sorry, but I’ve been watching you since I’ve gotten here, and you just aren’t doing that well. I’ve been kicked off of communities before, and now no one even notices I’m a troll at all. Maybe I can help.
You are a strict personality, among a pool of more casual personalities. I am not a casual personality, so I think I can give you some feedback. It’s ok, we all need feedback sometime. We can’t read people’s minds and see how they take what we present.
Tactically, I’ve found it helps to encompass your entire point in a single sentence. I’m not perfect, but keeping this in mind has stopped me from repeating devastating blunders.
Saying something like “Your response was a coherent and responsive answer to an attack that was made, and no more personally venemous than was necessary” is generally a bad idea. Why? Because there’s no fire there.
Wait for Peter to say something personally venomous, then stoke the fire. These are your best opportunities to form concise sentences, because you’ve been given an optimal lead in. If you cite something evil Peter said previously, you may not even have to say much at all.
Strategically, it helps to remember the advantage in being a strict-personality troll is in forcing people to abandon casual behavior. That is the power in waiting for Peter to say something vile, and coming back with a single devastating summation. Reiterate your devastating point where he gives you the opportunity, but if you are seen as repeating yourself, you will dilute your own effectiveness as a troll.
In as much as I hope to see anyone improve their craft, I hope this helps.
Mike, if you have such expertise at being a troll, that’s wonderful. I am not interested, but wouldn’t think of trying to silence you. As to PAD saying something vile, perhaps that happens frequently, if you say so. In the particular post you are referring to, his response was relatively moderate, given the provocation. Perhaps his response to ME went a small bit farther than was necessary, but that did not amaze or particularly concern me.
Yes, I know you were being sarcastic: I also know you seem very well-experienced in Trolldom. Enjoy yourself.
Jeffrey, when you refer to someone’s post as “no more venomous than necessary,” it isn’t unreasonable for me to cite you as saying Peter says vile things. You can tell me I’m wrong because of some reason you had yet to disclose to us, but you can’t tell me I’m being unreasonable. You left your statement open to that kind of interpretation by any measure of reason.
To then turn around and say, “As to PAD saying something vile, perhaps that happens frequently, if you say so” — you’re just letting all of us know you aren’t playing by any rules whatsoever.
There’s just no defense against your relentless, Lennie-like personal agenda.
Mike, when you proclaim yourself an expert at trolldom, you invite agreement. The same rule applies when you say, “I’m not perfect.” As to vile comments by PAD, you brought up the subject-inviting similar concurrence. As to rules, what rules are these? It is helpful if you say something coherent. (Since you like to give free advice, obviously this is welcome information.) I did not assume PAD frequently makes vile comments, but deferred to your longer experience. You value concision, apparently. That is a perfectly valid position, but not one that proves itself without some form of an argument. Sometimes detail is appropriate. I am certain many things I have said could have been expressed more effectively: I will not deny it, but nothing you have said has served any purpose at all, so…what? Your assumption that this “trolldom” was the purpose and intent of my comments is not really valid, as “we can’t read people’s minds.” Obviously you and others characterize me that way, as is your prerogative. That is different from an arrogant assumption that you know my intentions. As to “not more venomous than necessary” meaning that I assume PAD says vile things, perhaps you are confused by confronting two words that begin with the letter “v.” Here are some more: vanity, vehement, violently, volume, and vulgarity; they can be told apart by varying numbers of letters, parts of speech and definitions. “Venom” and “Vile Things” can both be characterized as undesirable, but they are different things, to those well experienced in speaking English.
David Hunt
If you want to see a really far out and funny concept of the of the curse of the “M” word then you owe it to yourself to track down the Black Adder ep where the prince hires two actors that old E. B. takes a quick disliking to. Worth it.
As far as venom can be described as vile, saying they “can both be characterized as undesirable” is a self-serving minimization of their compatibility.
The foundation of integrity is consistency.
You referred to Peter’s post as “no more venomous than necessary” then turned around and deny it by saying “As to PAD saying something vile, perhaps that happens frequently, if you say so.”
As demonstrated, for you consistency is optional. Again, there’s just no defense against your relentless, Lennie-like personal agenda.
No one is assuming anything about your intentions. Consider your post following your “no more venomous than necessary” comment:
Mike: “The foundation of integrity is consistency”
Well, that sounds very nice. Is it true? Since I don’t know you, it seems to me that it would not be the soul of integrity to accuse you of vile deeds, and yet, if I remained steadfast in which vile deeds I accused you of, and repeated the baseless accusations very frequently, such statements would be extremely consistent. If I accept your statement as correct, then your claims that I accused PAD of “vile statements” because I felt he had been “no more personally venomous than necessary” must have no foundation of integrity, since they are not consistent. It really isn’t that difficult to refute a statement – all you have to do is accurately report the statement and prove it wrong. Perhaps you could do that, if you made the effort. By your own standards, which may be more rigorous than those I would apply, your argument has no integrity. If I were to claim you, as a stranger, were lacking in integrity, that would be an unnecessarily personal attack: I am willing, however, to grant you the assumption that you do know yourself and can judge yourself accurately. You have done so, it seems.
As for the “Lennie-like personal agenda,” you have lost me, as this is something of a non sequiter. What Lennie would that be? The Lennie from Steinbeck? Cute little bunny rabbits and farms to raise them on have not, so far, been part of this discussion. Nor, thankfully, has the smothering of seductive young women, so your meaning is unclear. I have encountered other Lennies, of course, but you are still being obscure, seemingly to no real effect. Gosh, are you being inconsistent, or merely incoherent?
PAD: As a capable reader, you should recognize that this post contains no criticism of you, as that seems to have no effect beyond making your supporters angry beyond reason. In your own case, I am ready to admit that you appear completely comfortable with your positions and means of expressing them. I submit, calmly, that we see things very differently. As you are a man who is proud of his support for freedom of expression, that cannot be too large an affront to your soul, I presume.
My own standards for integrity? You mean, like, having some consistency? Me inconsistent?
While I may have been inconsistent casually, to refuse to address them would be to reserve the right to be inconsistent.
Jeffrey, if I may impose on your generosity, could you please be so kind as to cite my inconsistency to which you refer, ie whatever things I’ve said that were incompatible with each other? Thank you.
Mike: The standards for integrity you stated were these: “The foundation of integrity is consistency.” I would not have used exactly that formulation, but you did. “Reserving the right to be inconsistent,” as you do above, appears to be reserving the right to have no foundation for integrity. That sounds pretty harsh to me. What you have done repeatedly is to use the words “venomous” and “vile statements” as if they meant the same thing. Well, you can reserve the right to say they are the same thing, but they are not. Being completely literal for a moment, there is no doubt that a healthy rattlesnake is venomous, but many people would maintain that it is not “vile,” if vile is used to mean “evil or morally repugnant.” They are not the same, so insisting that the use of one word is the same as the use of the other is inconsistent – by the standard you provide, without “integrity.” Closer to the way we were both using “venomous,” if I were to confront Pol Pot, my response would be “venomous” – angry or spiteful – but many would say such a response would not be “vile” – morally debased. In the instance of PAD, which occasioned this conversation between us, his response to an attack on him for taking on the dignity of a professional actor, seemed to me to have some venom (anger or spite), although not more than I thought appropriate to the facts of the situation. (As he correctly stated, he has worked on the professional stage as an actor for pay, and is therefor without question a professional actor.) I did not say this was vile, because I do not think it was anything like that. Perhaps vastly excessive venom would be vile; I did not perceive anything of that sort.
Mike, your statement about being inconsistent casually and reserving the right to be inconsistent does not make any sense to me: Literally – When I attempt to understand what you mean by this, I am at a loss. If you believe that the foundation of integrity is consistency, then reserving the right to be inconsistent seems analogous to reserving the right to act without integrity. As I don’t know you, I have no idea at all whether you act without integrity. To be truthful, virtually all of us (certainly not excluding myself) fall short of moral perfection far more often than we should, but I would be surprised to find that you blithely foreswear the correctness of behaving with integrity as a general rule. This is the end result of what you have declared, but I tend to believe that you merely spoke unclearly, rather than being a thoroughly wicked fellow.
My own standard for integrity is making the best effort at honesty and fair play that one can. By my own standards, I have fallen very far short many times, and it would show very little integrity for me to pretend otherwise. Whether my standard makes any better sense than yours, I don’t really know. I just think that your casual use of the word “consistency” has been unnecessarily “inconsistent.”
I’m making an effort to be polite here, because it isn’t worth denying that I have been contemptuous of many opinions over the past few days, achieving little except stoking my own anger and precipitating further excesses, by myself, certainly, and also other participants. I am also trying to leave my criticisms of PAD aside for the moment, because I have made my opinions very clear previously, but found nothing but opposing views which do not sway me at all.
Uh, no. You’ve been repeatedly challenging my one use. As far as venom can be described as vile, my one use was valid.
For you to say that I’ve been repeatedly using the two words interchangeably when I haven’t been doing any such thing, again, there’s just no defense against your relentless, Lennie-like personal agenda.
So because I don’t define integrity the same way do — I’m inconsistent? Jeffrey, it’s past time for you to release whatever hostages you are keep in your basement.
Definition of integrity from Merriam Webster Online:
In a reply to a question — which is not to be confused with arbitrarily foisting my values on anyone — I said consistency is the foundation of integrity. So what’s the big deal?
I said:
For you to confuse my request for you to bring to my attention any of my inconsistencies, which you allege, for me reserving the right to be inconsistent — like I didn’t even ask you with a please and thank you to you — again, there’s no defense against your relentless, Lennie-like personal agenda.
I just stumbled on your blog, and after reading the past month or so I feel compelled to comment. Trolls aside, I wholeheartedly agree; David Hyde Pierce was robbed. I saw the show last week, my boyfriend and I road tripped all the way from PA. Going in I was most excited to see Tim Curry on stage as it was a first for me. But, walking away from the show, our discussion centered around how surprised we were by Pierce’s comedic talent, which I did not expect to be that spectacular in this genre. Like one of your other readers, I doubt that he was passed over because of the topic of his solo, I think it was probably because someone at the ATW objected to nominating all of the “leading actors” from the show. If it were me, I would have picked Pierce over Curry for the nom because Pierce was actually acting, whereas Curry was being Curry with lines about a grail. The award is for acting, not being a personality. It’s a personality I love to watch, but in this case, the nod should have gone to Pierce.