PeterDavid.net

I really enjoyed this year's Tonys; it helps to have a fuller field.

Too often of late, that's been a rarity--and even this year, there were only four nominees in the Play, Musical, and Play (Revival) categories, with only three in Musical (Revival). In fact, if you noticed, there were only three musicals represented in the Best Actor (Musical) category, and Glengarry Glen Ross took up fully three-fifths of the Featured Actor (Play) category.

Still, the range of the offerings was wider--and save maybe for Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, there didn't seem any real reaches, as if they thought, "Omigod! We have to fill out the categories!" And who knows? CCBB might not have actually been bad.

But as for 'Retha ... I love her dearly, but it was ass. Stephen Sondheim probably got a fair shade of apoplectic, hearing her do to "Somewhere" what Sara Ramirez, with better voicing and with humorous intentions, had just done with "Find Your Grail."

I mean, THIS was supposedly in appreciation of Sondheim's 75th birthday? Jackman had been doing the song straight, but Aretha apparently thinks she's Patti La Belle--and hasn't the pipes to match Patti anymore.

Good thing Lenny Bernstein wasn't alive and in the audience, or he would have stormed the stage.

Now you HAVE to do it! That Wolvie joke is funny just as it is. You have to put it in the comic. If you do I promise I'll buy a copy sight unseen.

'Tempted', schmempted; it's funny, go ahead and write it!

Hooper

"wouldn't catch me doing high kicks" is my new favorite line. (the old one, if memory serves, was "i believe, dr. pulanski, you know precisely where you can store it.") also liked the PAD's ending to 'enterprise'; one almost wonders if 23rd century technology would register al or not- certainly no stranger than picard retromuting into a lemur.

It's a funny line, but Claremont already did the requisite "Wolverine acknowledges Hugh Jackman" joke over in Uncanny a few months back. Wolvie actually seemed to like him, too. :)

SEAN

Who cares if Claremont already did it? He already did a lot - doesn't mean someone else can't do the funny. Do the funny, PAD! I double dog dare ya! ;)

-K

"It's a funny line, but Claremont already did the requisite "Wolverine acknowledges Hugh Jackman" joke over in Uncanny a few months back. Wolvie actually seemed to like him, too. :)"

Doesn't mean he has to admit that to Aunt may, though.

I wonder: If someone chops off his arms, what's he gonna do until they regenerate?

No arms?
Can I suggest Irish Dancing? Those freaks never use their arms anyway. (see Michael Flatley etc...)

Wolverine is tied with Cable, imho, as worst character in the Marvel universe.

Thrilled that Sara Ramirez won for SPAMALOT. Went out last night, taped the show and was going to watch, spoiler-free, tonight, but I had to know if she won.

Well, I don't think I had ever watched the Tony Awards before, but I did this year because of Spamalot. They definitely knew people were interested in the Spamalot production number and kept dangling that in front of us. I was quite surprised that they kept the schedule so tight and ended right before 11 PM EDT, not even letting it go a minute over. They should have allowed more time for the Spamalot acceptance speech.

If you noticed the credits at the end, there was a big credit for additional material from John Macks. He also is a contributor to the Oscars and the Emmys. You can hear him talk about that over at Harris Online, where he has a weekly bit. he'll probably talk about the Tonys this week.

http://www.harrisonline.com/audio/listings/2005/01/jon-macks.htm

Neil

I think Claremont used the Wolverine gag in Uncanny X-men a few months back when Wolverine and Storm went to see a show...

I was fine with the Tonys until they brought out Aretha Franklin. A perfectly beautiful song, ruined by that screeching that she calls singing. I dont know how you people listen to her without taking a hammer to your ears to dull the pain

Just for contrast Mark Evanier over at his website http://www.newsfromme.com thinks, as CBG would say, "worst Tonys ever!"
I don't think it was that bad, but I do think the technical glitches were unexcusable.

Regarding the Wolverine - Hugh Jackman joke, something else was done like this in the 80's in a Marvel Age annual. The annual was set-up with Fred Hembeck doing a talk show, interviewing Marvel super-heroes. This was the time when Dazzler was a member of the X-Men, and I think the joke was that Hembeck was disappointed that she was not there to sing something, so Wolverine compensates by singing a version of "Silly Love Songs" with Hembeck. Somehow Hembeck just... knew. My wife wants to send this to Jackman.

Do the funny, PAD! I double dog dare ya! ;)

Yeah? Well, I double-double dog ya, Peter! :-D

--R.J.

O.K. It had to happen sooner or later, let's get it over with....I TRIPLE-dog dare ya!

Hugh Jackman and Aretha Franklin in a duet: Can't ask for better than that.

Sure I can. I can ask for Aretha back when she could still actually sing. She is deservedly a legend, and I adore her past work, but this was actively painful to listen to.

Dav2.718

However, I am tempted to put a sequence in "Spider-Man" wherein Wolverine wanders by Aunt May watching TV, and he asks her what she's watching. She tells him it's the Tonys. "Who's the guy singing and dancing around?" "That's Hugh Jackman." And Wolverine snorts and says, "Wouldn't catch ME doing high kicks."

Mmmmm...didn't you already do a joke like that in the first Spider-Man with Kirsten Dunst? I mean, it's hilarious, but you'll get nailed for doing it twice.

Don't bother with the joke in your new Spidey book. By the time it runs, the Tony Awards will be forgotten by most of the USA. How about just running it in your column in CBG?

As for the show itself, did they pick the worse possible number for SPAMALOT or not?

Neil Ottenstein said "Well, I don't think I had ever watched the Tony Awards before, but I did this year because of Spamalot ... I was quite surprised that they kept the schedule so tight and ended right before 11 PM EDT, not even letting it go a minute over. They should have allowed more time for the Spamalot acceptance speech.

I've found, over the years, that the Tony Awards are usually the most entertaining awards show on television. (I say that keeping in mind I don't watch music awards programs.) You get to see things you don't see unless you travel to NYC. I'd love to see a DVD of highlights from over the years. (Or a DVD of the 25th Tony Awards program, which had a number from every Best Musical Winner sung by the original stars in every case where that was possible. God, that was a GREAT show!) And the Tonys are very good about ending the show on time.

By the way, did anyone else find it interesting that the LA CAGE AU FOLLES revival was, in part, sponsored by Clear Channel?

And here I thought I was the only one watching the Tonys. hmm.

Couple of things:

Glengarry, Glen Ross? I was to young to care when it was a movie and the only reason I remember it is because Scully mentions that she hasn't been on a date since she went out to see it. Still I hear there's alot of cussing in it so it can't be that f*ckin bad.

The Light in the Piazza and Doubt? They won alotta Tonys but hadn't heard of them till last night. That's what I get for living in Amish country.

The Spelling Bee one looked hilarious.

Damn it all, I would still rather see Nathan Lane and Robin Williams than Robert Goulet and whoever that guy was in La Cage Aux Folles for cryin out loud.

Oh and I WILL see Spamalot.

"We dine well here in Camalot, We eat ham and jam and spamalot!"

Forget, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Little Women (Hate-ed it!), On Golden Pond, A street car named desire, and Twelve Angry Men (and how timely was that!), I think it's time for another revival of West Side Story. God I loved that one.

I've found, over the years, that the Tony Awards are usually the most entertaining awards show on television. (I say that keeping in mind I don't watch music awards programs.) You get to see things you don't see unless you travel to NYC. I'd love to see a DVD of highlights from over the years. (Or a DVD of the 25th Tony Awards program, which had a number from every Best Musical Winner sung by the original stars in every case where that was possible. God, that was a GREAT show!) And the Tonys are very good about ending the show on time
---------------------------------

A PBS program "Broadway's Lost Treasures" shows Tony performances and is on DVD.

David

I didn't even know the Tony's were on last night. I didn't watch, and I don't know what was nomitated (or what won), but it strikes me as kinda sad that all the plays mentioned are either revivals of of older plays (great as they may be) or adaptations of movies or books. I'm sure they are out there (as I don't hit broadway that often I don't know), but how many plays were nominated that were completely original material?

"...but it strikes me as kinda sad that all the plays mentioned are either revivals of of older plays (great as they may be) or adaptations of movies or books."

I thought the same thing.

...it strikes me as kinda sad that all the plays mentioned are either revivals of of older plays (great as they may be) or adaptations of movies or books. I'm sure they are out there (as I don't hit broadway that often I don't know), but how many plays were nominated that were completely original material?

Couple of things...

First: you might be conflating plays with musicals, which are treated as seperate categories for the Tonys. Orginal plays, not based on other media, still get produced on and off Broadway--and this year was particular strong for plays. Musicals on the other hand, are more ambitious, risky, and expensive undertakings, so yeah, for better or worse, lots of them are based on other media.

Second: For both plays and musicals, there are two seperate award categories--one for revivals and one for non-revivals. Obviously, all the plays nominated in the "Best Revival of a Play" category and all the musicals nominated in the "Best Revival of a Musical" category will be revivals of previous productions. What's (somewhat) remarkable about this Tony season is that there were a substantial number of praiseworthy non-revival plays and musicals (four nominated for "Best Play" with Doubt being the winner and four nominated for "Best Musical" with Monty Python's Spamalot coming out on top.) That doesn't happen every season.

Third: But, as you point out, even original, non-revival plays and musicals can be based on a previous material (movies, books, etc.) So let's see. If we include both the revival and non-revival categories, the nominees for Best Musical were:

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (based on a movie)
The Light in the Piazza (based on a novella)
Monty Python's Spamalot (based on a movie)
The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee (based on Rebecca Feldman's play "CREPUSCLE")
La Cage aux Folles (based on Jean Poiret's play of the same name)
Pacific Overtures (not based on previous material, I think)
Sweet Charity (based on Federeico Fellini's "Nights of Cabirira")

(On the play front, things are predictably different where the nominees (in both revival and non-revival categories) were, unless I'm mistaken, all original creations, not based on work in other meida, with the exception Twelve Angry Men, which originated as a teleplay for CBS in 1954.)

So, sure, you can absolutely make the case that lots of Broadway productions are based on previous material. But that's also not too surprising. A Broadway production is an expensive, risky venture. It's only natural that that risk is often ameliorated by selecting work previously undertaken in other media, that may have a built-in fanbase and (perhaps more importantly) may have proven its quality and appeal by its success in other media. That's natural.

But if you want to see wholly original, non-based-on-anything-that-went-before-it musical productions, yeah, mainstream Broadway probably isn't gonna do it for you. But independent, regional, off-Broadway, or off-off-Broadway productions might be.

As for the show itself, did they pick the worse possible number for SPAMALOT or not?

Yeah, "Find Your Grail" probably isn't the best showcase for the Spamalot experience. But it's an interesting question. During the show, I was thinking about how difficult it must be to select these proudction numbers. Presumably, the producers not only want something that reflects the experience of the show, but also that showcases (or at least includes) as much of the star talent as possible, and that gets the chorus/dancers on stage too. Plus there are all the logistics of getting performers in and out of costume and all that fun...

Not every show has one single number that does all that. And while the antic romp that is Spamalot might have been better reflected by, say, "Not Dead Yet," that number is more of a showcase for the featured talent, and doesn't include Sara Ramirez at all. (In fact, given how Ramirez was a favorite going into the thing, I imagine it was a priority to select a Spamalot number that showed her off.)

The discussion of the glut of musicals based on material from another medium should also take into account that this is hardly new. Look at the great classic musicals:

Oklahoma: Based on a play, I believe (How Green Grow the Lilacs?).

Carnival: Based on the play Lilliom.

South Pacific: Based on the Michener novel Tales of the South Pacific

The King and I: Based on the play (novel?) Anna and the King of Siam

Guys and Dolls: Based on Damon Runyan stories and characters

West Side Story: Based on Romeo and Juliet

Hello Dolly: Based on the play The Matchmaker

Les Miserables: Based on the novel

Sweeney Todd: Based on a play.

Gypsy: Based on a memoir.

Fiddler on the Roof: Based on short stories.

Cabaret: Based on a play (I Am a Camera?)

A Little Night Music: Based on a film.

Little Shop of Horrors: Based on a film.

Porgy and Bess: Based on a novel.

My Fair Lady: Based on the play Pygmalion

And so on.

And I heartily recommend the just-released CD from A Light in the Piazza for any musical theater fans. A beautiful score.

The discussion of the glut of musicals based on material from another medium should also take into account that this is hardly new.

Absolutely. An excellent point. Going back even further, many great operas were based on previous works (popular novels and short stories of the day, for example) It's certainly not a new phenomenon, and is (as it has ever been) an understandable one. And we absolutely should not succumb to thinking that the mere fact that a musical is adapted from some other source precludes great contributions from the adapters, nor that a musical adapted from some other source is intrinsically inferior to a wholly original one.

Indeed. Actually, at least for musical theater, it seems to be by far the norm, not the exception. The only major musical I can think of off teh top of my head that wasn't derived from another source is A Chorus Line. I'm sure there are others, but adaptations seem to be the rule.

I never really thought the same thing about those adapted from books and even plays under other titles, it's that there seems to be more plays/musicals that we knew first as movies (or television shows)in this season. Not complaining, Just sayin.

Posted by John C.:

The only major musical I can think of off teh top of my head that wasn't derived from another source is A Chorus Line. I'm sure there are others, but adaptations seem to be the rule.

Well, this sounds like a fun challenge for the readership! ;-)

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "major" but musicals that come to mind offhand are EVITA and CHESS (though, looking that one up, I see that's credited as being based on "an idea by Tim Rice" if that counts...)

Major shows from recent years give us URINETOWN, AVENUE Q (again, though, that bears an odd credit of being "based on an original concept by Robert Lopez and Jeff Marx") and THE BOY FROM OZ.

One can argue, I suppose, about whether or not so-called "jukebox" musicals like ALL SHOOK UP. MAMMA MIA or MOVIN' OUT should be considered adaptated from other work.

I'm sure there are plenty of others, too...

Posted by Zeek:

I never really thought the same thing about those adapted from books and even plays under other titles, it's that there seems to be more plays/musicals that we knew first as movies (or television shows)in this season.

Fair enough. Me, when I've considered adaptaions, I've always considered an adaptation an adaptation regardless of what sort of media it was adapted from. I just think musical theatre--especially mainstream, Broadway musical theatre--will always look to adapt material from other sources. Given that movies and TV have become so pervasive (and appealing to the theatre-going demographic) in our culture, it's no surprise that more and more musicals are drawing from that source material.

Me, given that video games are such a lucrative business nowadays, I'm guessing it's just inevitable that we'll one day see "Lara Croft: The Musical" or "Doom on Broadway" ;-)

And if that spooks you, just wait until the rumored-in-the-works "The Apprentice: The Musical" hits town ;-)

I think you hit on it. It's the demographic thing. They must think they can get more money by adapting from tv or movies. And like you or someone else said here it ain't cheap to put on these productions. No one has the wrinklies anymore to invest in something that may or may not flop. They're looking for a sure thing.

If I lived closer to NYC, I'd love to see the off-broadway shows. (As long as they weren't TOO avant-garde. I'm still too much of a good ol' fashioned muscial fan. I was the wierd girl in highschool who knew all the show tunes [i]before[/i] we had to learn them for chrous.) I just don't buy that just because you're an artist, you have to create flaky art. But as they say "beauty (or beauty in Art) is in the eye of the beholder".

Posted by Zeek:

They must think they can get more money by adapting from tv or movies. And like you or someone else said here it ain't cheap to put on these productions. No one has the wrinklies anymore to invest in something that may or may not flop. They're looking for a sure thing.

But I think the point I'm trying to make is that it was always that way. I contend that it's not that folks don't have the courage "anymore" to invest in unadapted-from-other-media work; I would argue that the courage to do so exists today as much (or as litte, depending on your point-of-view) as it ever did.

Anyway, the question of investing in theatre is a bit diferent than creating theatre. Thankfully, the creative impulse exists everywhere, so I'm sure there's worthwhile original theatre to support in any community.

Well, I thought that was certainly the best Tonys in a while. Which, of course, means that the ratings will come back and report that it was the least-watched Tonys ever.

PAD

Well, Tony-watcher Mark Evanier has a brief note on his blog (at http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2005_06_08.html#009951 ) citing three different reports that claim this year's Tony ratings were a bit up, a bit down, or basically unchanged depending on who you ask or what you count...

There have always only been a handful of original pieces written directly for the musical theater. I really don't think it has too much to do with marketing as much as it has to do with musicals being difficult enough to write in a compelling way when you already have a working plot spine, let alone when you're trying to make the spine work as well as make the musical work at the same time.

Rodgers and Hammerstein did 'Allegro' but their other work is all adaptations; Sondheim's 'Sunday in the Park' is basically all original, although it took a lot from the look of the painting, they still invented all the characters and action (well, not that there's action in 'Sunday' but you know what I mean.')

Tim Rice wrote 'Chess' although by the time it got to Broadway they'd brought in a book writer to 'fix' the story (Richard Nelson) who only succeeded in making everything worse, not that the original London show was perfect, it was just markedly better than the Broadway show. But it was all Rice's idea initially and he hadn't written the story in any other form. In the end, 'Evita's a biography, although they lace the Che character throughout. I wouldn't call it an original work by any stretch, though.

'City of Angels,' 'A Chorus Line, 'The Rocky Horror Show,' really 'Bat Boy: The Musical' (the Bat Boy was created in the Weekly World News but they made up everything about the story) those are all original works written directly for the stage.

'Avenue Q' is sort of original but the entire show uses pastiche of 'Sesame Street' to the extent that it's hard to say it's its own creation.