Theater Talk: TONY Awards Wrap-Up PLUS AndrewAndrew on the 2015 Red Carpet

Our panelists Stefanie Cohen of the “Wall Street Journal,” Paul Wontorek, Editor-In-Chief of Broadway.com, and master press agent Adrian Bryan-Brown (winner of a "Tony Honors for Excellence in the Theatre") review Sunday's TONY Awards ceremony on CBS.
Next, journalists Cohen, Wontorek and Riedel, question Bryan-Brown some of the strategies that have made him and his company, Boneau/Bryan-Brown, one of the theater's most respected and successful public relations firms.
Finally, a report by roving correspondents AndrewAndrew from the TONY Red Carpet where they interview winners and nominees including Alex Sharp, Robert Askins, Annaleigh Ashford, Richard McCabe, and Michael Cerveris prior to the broadcast.
Taped: 06-08-15
Theater Talk is a series devoted to the world of the stage. It began on New York television in 1993 and is co-hosted by Michael Riedel (Broadway columnist for the New York Post) and series producer Susan Haskins.
The program is one of the few independent productions on PBS and now airs weekly on Thirteen/WNET in New York and WGBH in Boston. Now, CUNY TV offers New York City viewers additional opportunities to catch each week's show. (Of course, Theater Talk is no stranger to CUNY TV, since the show is taped here each week before its first airing on Thirteen/WNET.)
The series is produced by Theater Talk Productions, a not-for-profit corporation and is funded by contributions from private foundations and individuals, as well as The New York State Council on the Arts.
Watch more Theater Talk at www.tv.cuny.edu/show/theatertalk

[@BottleConcreteBlond]

Reidel's attacks on Rosie O'Donnell at the time of Taboo seemed personalized.

[@stvp68]

I had the same first Tony experience as Paul! I recorded the show an rewatched Peters singing “Unexpected Song” over and over and over until even my dad was humming it!

[@lindakahler4799]

I was a Something Rotten fan. Saw it then dragged friends to see it. Didn't watch the Tony awards because I knew Fun Home would win because it served an agenda. Was so tired of hearing Seth play the keys song on Seriux

[@hpfan]

Perhaps it was the trend to vote for the big juggernaut to win to help Broadway sales back in the 80s, early 90s. But I think voters have been voting for the sentiment more often than the crowd-pleasing moneymakers recently. It this it all began when "Wicked" lost to "Avenue Q" most memorably. (And then more recently -- "Once" over "Newsies," "Kinky Boots" over "Matilda," "Gentleman's Guide" over "Aladdin.") And if there's a "message" musical that deals with sexuality, it seems to always win lately regardless of the competition, worthy or not. "Fun Home" is an interesting show, and it deserves recognition. But as an audience member who spends her hard-earned money to travel and see these shows, it's annoying to hear critics talking about how the moneymakers are less deserving than the more modern, "message" musicals. "An American in Paris" is a beautiful, breathtaking show, and shows like that are the staple of Broadway, what people travel from all over to see. As someone who saw both, I enjoyed my experience seeing "An American in Paris" much more, and while "Fun Home" was certainly compelling and the performances are wonderful, I found the music boring. (Though, if I was voting this year, I would've given the Tony to "Something Rotten." It was so funny, so entertaining, so original, and the music and performances were sublime. I was humming on my way out, and it felt like I knew the score even though I had only heard it for the first time that night. I loved that the most this year.) (Sidenote: As someone who DEEPLY adores both "Phantom" and "Into the Woods," I would have hated being a Tony voter in 1988 because I wouldn't have been able to decide. Sondheim is a genius, and Andrew Lloyd Webber's score is hauntingly beautiful. But I think Phantom's near-27 year run on Broadway goes much deeper than just how much money it makes based on spectacle and budget. That show resonates with people, critics be damned.) But YAY, KELLI O'HARA!! Her speech was the best of the night!

[@jeffreykare]

hpfan Or Passion over Beauty & the Beast.

[@anitalevy-sisk7897]

But that's not what they said. They said that now that shows are succeeding on their own, the voters might feel its ok to vote with their heart or for the show that advances the art.

[@hpfan]

Anita Levy-Sisk Hmm. I didn't take that away. Michael says he felt people always voted the bigger juggernaut because they were the ones that were successful, and now they feel free to vote "with their hearts" and vote "Fun Home" because "'An American in Paris' will do just fine without [the Tony]." (5:20-6:00 give or take) On another note, after re-watching this, I've noticed many critics (not just those in this particular discussion) use "juggernaut" and "crowd-pleaser" in the same sentence with tones that suggest, in my opinion, snobbish. Well, personally, I think there is something to be said about those big budget, crowd-pleasing shows that run for years because people genuinely like them, and those are what bring people back to Broadway. It just irritates me when critics (and some fans) turn their noses up at the "big budget, crowd-pleasing juggernauts" as if they're less *because* they make more money. But I went off on a tangent…lol

[@georgechlada4868]

I would really use kinky boots and Matilda as an example, because kinky boots was the crowd pleaser and won.