| This is a dumb article | |
| Posted by: oddone 01:16 pm EDT 05/12/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Nicole Fosse on “Dancin’” and the Tony Awards. - Chromolume 12:13 pm EDT 05/12/23 | |
|
|
|
| I honestly can't believe American Theatre ran this. It reeks of nepo baby whining. I guess it says a lot about that publication these days. Nicole Fosse definitely understands that Dancin' was eligible in the Musical categories (which it was). Had she thought otherwise, she would have explicitly said as much, since that would have bolstered her argument. So yeah, she's conveniently ignoring that fact—she brings up the Unique Theatrical Event Category as if that would have allowed Dancin' to be eligible for something, when it wouldn't have at all. Even had that category still existed, Dancin' would have been eligible as a Revival, because that's what it is. There was a previous version that was considered a Musical. In what world would the revival of said show be considered as anything else? Here's why Dancin' didn't get any Tony nominations. It was bad. That's it, pure and simple. Now, it wasn't ALL bad. There were some good elements. I liked "Mr. Bojangles" a lot. But even "Life is Just a Bowl of Cherries"—a highlight for some—fell flat for me. That song is all about the build, and when you cut the middle section where the build happens, you just end up with another place where a powerful singer can wail for a bit. And that's to say nothing of the whole "America" section, which was frankly mind-numbingly terrible. And this is not to say a bad show can't receive Tony nominations, but what should this have gotten? It isn't eligible for Choreography (a fact Nicole Fosse certainly knows, and also conveniently leaves out). Revival? Which of the four nominated shows do you think it should have replaced? Design elements? The Drama Desk nominated Dancin' for Lighting, so maybe that's one, but again, what other musical should have been left out? And the show didn't have much of a set, the costumes were perfunctory, and the video work was laughable (and the Tonys don't have a category for that anyway). The only other category where maybe it could have pulled out a nomination would have been Featured Actor/Actress, and more likely Actor, since the men in Dancin' have the showier parts—I imagine Jacob Guzman or Kolton Krouse would have been the most likely candidate. But Featured Actor in a Musical is a STACKED category this year—if even Andrew Durand (who is, IMHO, the best part of Shucked) didn't get in, there wasn't a good chance for someone from Dancin'. Look, I'm all for questioning the process behind something. All too often people complain about such and such being snubbed because it didn't get such and such nomination, and sometimes that happened because of the way the nominations get decided, so it can be useful to think about the underlying process, whether in service of understanding the nominations better, or finding points that should be changed. But that isn't what happened here. Dancin' was eligible in all musical categories (except for Choreography), the nominators voted, and Dancin' didn't make the cut in any of those categories. That's what happened. But Nicole Fosse can't (or won't) admit it comes back to quality. So instead, she comes up with this convoluted argument about the process, thinking she can convince the readers that there's no way Dancin' could have been left out for reasons of quality, so it must be process. It's extraordinarily disingenuous. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: Nicole Fosse on “Dancin’” and the Tony Awards. - Chromolume 12:13 pm EDT 05/12/23 |
| Next: | re: This is a dumb article - UptownMike 07:24 pm EDT 05/12/23 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.021000 seconds.