Greg Stepanich: Dreadful Tonys show was a disservice to theater

June 8, 2005

Dreadful Tonys show was a disservice to theater

It's not fashionable any more, but I always watch the Tony Awards, largely out of solidarity with all the friends I used to have when I did a lot of theater.

There's something truly special about live theater, and it's only when I go back and sit in an audience again am I reminded how enlarging an art form it really is.

The Tonys have the same problem the other major award shows do — a very small pool of works is up for all the honors — and there's something faintly silly about entertainers dressing up to be saluted by their peers. Yes, part of it's for the audience at home that they don't see, but nonetheless there's a good deal of phoniness connected with these shows.

Still, the Tonys are my chance to hear a little bit of the new music that's playing out on Broadway, see some production numbers, and check out some of the dramas. I always look forward to it despite how geeky it is; it's always worth getting a small taste of what's going on out there in that universe.

But this year's show was without question one of the worst Tony broadcasts I've ever seen, as well as a terrible awards show in general. It was not only frustrating to sit through, it was actually disrespectful to not only this group of creative artists, but the arts in general.

I know: It sounds dumb to defend people who are in many cases big stars, and I don't want to say we need to genuflect in front of theater people because what they produce provides solace and enlightenment, belly laughs and righteous anger. Far from it, especially when we consider all those anonymous folks who do the heavy lifting in society and keep it running smoothly.

But for heaven's sake: if you're going to put on an awards show, at least treat what you're awarding seriously.

The big problem with Sunday night's broadcast is that it gave us virtually nothing that made some Tony Awards shows in the past worthwhile — actual excerpts from the plays, substantial portions of the music — and gave us a bunch of useless stuff we didn't need, such as Hugh Jackman's solo piece, as well as his duet with Aretha Franklin.

We heard virtually nothing of the plays (in the past there have been good chunks of a scene) and saw an In Memoriam section in which major figures got a second or two of silent headshot exposure. But worst of all:

Thanks for everything, now hurry up and get off the stage. Edward Albee, one of the nation's most important playwrights of the past three decades, gave a very short, gracious speech in recognition of his lifetime achievement award. But he had to speak it over music, implying that he was out of time before he even started. He deserved more time to speak, and his time should have been preceded by about 5 minutes of career retrospective: scenes from plays, a review of his work.

Major figures died last year, but we can't tell you what they did. Lyricist Fred Ebb and composer Cy Coleman were among two major writers who died last year, but we didn't get a chance to recall what they'd done. Coleman in particular deserved a couple minutes of retrospective, so we could hear the contribution he made and weigh its impact on the present. That's the way we come to understand what a living tradition is all about.

We love regional theater, but only for a second. Minnesota's Theatre de la Jeune Lune got a couple seconds of stills and exactly one sentence of live airtime before the camera panned away to something else. Again, it wouldn't have killed anyone to devote two or three minutes of airtime to the work of this group. We would have enjoyed it, and most likely we would have learned something.

Next year, keep the production numbers from the major musicals, but get rid of most of the revival numbers. Don't let the host do anything but host, and don't bother adding celebrity singers coming on to sing a show tune. Give us play excerpts, dance excerpts, real time with the regionals.

People who work in art forms that aren't mass culture anymore need to educate us every time they get the spotlight. Show us why theater is a vital art, and most importantly, give us some sense of how good the best of our fellow Americans are at this, and why they do honor to their country when they're at their best. Our arts culture tells the rest of the world a lot about what kind of nation we are, what kind of people we are, what we think about, giggle about, sing about.

It certainly should say we know enough about our own artistic traditions to give them the proper respect when it's their time to stand up and be recognized.

Posted by at June 8, 2005 12:34 AM
Comments

Jennifer:

Thanks much for your comment; I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who was hugely disappointed.
I'm with you: Let's hope for a totally revamped show, rethought by different writers, directors and producers.
And let's hope they start from the premise that the theater community is at heart a corps of impressive creative artists, that their work can speak for itself, and that it's worth honoring.
On to next year!

Posted by: Greg at June 10, 2005 1:23 AM

Greg:
I couldn't agree with you more! I, too, eagerly await the Tonys each year and was disappointed and bored - even angry - with this year's show. Yes, it was the worst I've seen. I love Hugh Jackman, but -- last year he sizzled; this year, he lacked energy and sparkle. As did the entire show. NO excitement whatsoever. Not to mention awkward segues and, as you mentioned, flash segments that jerked along one to the next. One could barely take them in, let alone glean what was truly meaningful about them. Even the production numbers from the nominated shows - something I usually love - seemed somehow "off." And, yes, the show is on a schedule, but drowning people out - especially those being honored and those who won a Tony - is unbelievably rude and uncomfortable to watch. It truly diminishes the entire spirit of the show and the "Broadway community." Here's hoping for a completely revamped show next year - new writers, new producers and even a new host (much as I love Jackman, it's time for a change.) I remain optimistic, as the countdown begins to next year!

Posted by: jennifer at June 8, 2005 10:41 PM

Roz:

Thanks for your comment.
I like Hugh Jackman quite a lot, actually; he's a very talented guy.
My point was not that he was bad, but that the numbers he and Aretha Franklin did, as well as the one by Jesse L. Martin, took up time I thought would be better spent doing other things: Honoring Albee, Ebb and Coleman, seeing some of the play excerpts.
But you make a point no doubt shared by the producers of the show: Without the song-and-dance stuff from the host, audiences will be bored.
I guess I'd rather risk being bored if it means I'll get a better sense of what happened during the theater season. This broadcast didn't do that, and that's what I was trying to say.

Posted by: Greg at June 8, 2005 8:18 PM

Dear Mr. Stepanich:

I don't know who you are or what you have done in the past, but many many people from all walks of life know of Hugh Jackman as being an extremely multi-talented performer and he is just coming into his own. He will be remembered for a very long time. Before his hitting the Tony's 3 years ago-talk about a boring telecast.

Besides, he has a very strong work ethic and a good set of family values. You don't find much of that with today's actors.

This is my humble opinion.

Posted by: Roz at June 8, 2005 2:06 PM

Kudzu.com: Mosquitos are breeding.  Ready for the bites?
Today's deal from DealSwarm.com
AJC Breaking News Updates