Critics no longer considered Tony

September 11, 12:52 PMNY Theater Producer ExaminerMeredith Lucio

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the NY Theater Producer Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

  Photo Courtesy Jeff Christensen/AP

Earlier this summer the Tony Management Committee announced that they would no longer allow "first night" press to vote for Tony Awards - a decision which culled approximately 100 people from the list of eligible Tony-voters. "First Night" press are journalists (including editors and feature writers as well as critics) who get tickets to Broadway shows on Opening night for the purposes of reviewing or featuring the show in question.

The league's announcement has met with consternation and passionate response within the theatre community. Journalists like the Village Voice's Michael Feingold, Newsday's Linda Winer, and  the legendary Liz Smith have weighed in on the subject of losing their Tony vote and none are happy about it. (Michael Feingold even insinuated the new ruling was the perfect excuse for his paper not to review or cover a Broadway show he might have othewise felt honor bound to see.)  The theatrical blogosphere has also been abuzz about the announcement as well as the critics' responses to it.

There's no question the loss of 100 voters will affect the outcome of the Tony awards. Even more so, the fact that all of those voters are from the same demographic (journalists with no vested interest in any one show or another) insures that the outcome of the awards will be vastly different then they might have if the block were included. Is this necessarily a bad idea? Different isn't always better but it's not always worse either.

While the influence of newspapers is certainly waning, the influence of the critics is still firmly in tact. The best early endorsement for a production is still a glowing review in a publication your ticket-buyer trusts. Anyone from the avid theatre-goer to the in-town-for-a-week tourist still looks to critics and reviews to get an inkling as to how they should spend their Broadway dollar. This is true whether the critics are on the net or in the paper. The fact that some critics have the opportunity to influence both the early perception of a show's value as well as the Tony perception seems to me to be a bit of  "double dipping". As a commercial producer, I'm not so sure it's fair or even ethical for journalists to be a part of the Tony voting process.

It's important to note that the mother of all theatrical critics (and still the most important review to get if you are a Broadway show,) the NY Times, includes in its ethics policy the requirement that its theatre journalists NOT vote in any kind of sponsored competition for awards. Even Linda Winer admits that she's never been "altogether comfortable about having a vote in what's basically an industry award."

Theatre journalists have a valid point that removing this "independent" block from the voting might create a hole in the legitimacy of the Tony voting process. There is a risk that the awards become more of a high school-esque popularity contest in years to come. The Tony awards will definitely have to consider that as they continue to plan and rebuild their voting membership. 

The reality is that no awards show in the history of awards shows is ever about what is altruistically the best (Gwyneth Paltrow beats Cate Blanchett for the Best Actress Oscar in 1998. Really!?) Awards shows are about the business of their industry and cultivating a consumer for that business. The best they can do is try to be fair. While the loss of the Tony vote might be a blow to some critics, it's a real opportunity for the industry and for the League to cultivate a new block of Tony-voters. One way or another they'll eventually have to replace those missing voters with someone else. To maintain the credibility and the high standard of the awards, those missing voters should come from a more independent and objective position than those whose bread is buttered from the outcome. Here's a shocking idea. How about inviting savvy audience members to join the voting block for limited periods of time?

As to the critics, one wonders why they create their own critical awards show. The Golden Globes not only honors the people who win their awards it also awards the opinions of the Hollywood Foreign Press thereby keeping them visible as a part of their industry. A separate critics award gives theatrical critics a unique opportunity to actually build their influence in the industry rather than sit idly by and watch it wane. These guys are doing it, why can't the more established press do it? An additional awards show (especially with the kind of integrity that any journalism organization would create) focusing on the industry of theatre can only help highlight and promote both the industry and the organization who created it. That's a win-win in my book.