| Are the Tonys an indefensible award from an artistic point of view? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:32 pm EST 02/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: the rule change - Just a guess (though I bet it's a good one) - Ann 02:52 pm EST 02/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| I think I read in an article from the early days of the Tonys, back when they were decided on by the directors of the American Theatre Wing sitting around a table, that this was sometimes a problem even then, with shows that some of the directors felt should receive awards, but some directors had not seen a few of the shows. If enough people voted for those shows, though, they got awards. While so much has changed about the Tonys and New York theatre, one particularly unfortunate thing is that never again will a worthy artist be nominated or even win for work in a short-lived show, as happened with Dolores Grey and Zoe Caldwell among winners, and with many people, as well as some plays and musicals, being ominated. As far as I know, the Oscars and the Emmys do not have rules actively preventing films and television shows from being nominated just because they were not successful at the box office or had short runs and were not seen by many people. Anyway, I'm not sure how I feel about this new rule. While I do think voters ought to have seen every nominated show, performer, etc., in a category, for most of the existence of the Tonys, there was no such rule. Re my subject line: Perhaps the Tonys have long been indefensible from an artistic point of view. Perhaps most of the major awards in different areas really are indefensible. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: the rule change - Just a guess (though I bet it's a good one) - Ann 02:52 pm EST 02/01/23 |
| Next: | re: Are the Tonys an indefensible award from an artistic point of view? - BroadwayTonyJ 11:51 am EST 02/02/23 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.129975 seconds.