It was a big night for big theaters at the 2009 Helen Hayes nominations last night. Helen Hayes President and CEO Linda Levy Grossman announced that Arlington’s Signature Theatre racked up over a quarter of the organization’s 150 nominations, which celebrate the 2008 theater year. Signature was followed by Shakespeare Theatre with nineteen nominations, Studio with seventeen, and Woolly Mammoth with sixteen. Arena Stage and the Kennedy Center each had nine, as did Synetic, a smaller theater with a huge Helen Hayes history.
Signature’s parade of thirty-nine nominations was led by Eric Schaeffer’s intimate staging of Les Miserables, whose thirteen nominations included outstanding resident musical, outstanding director for a resident musical (for Schaeffer, who was also nominated for Signature’s Kiss of the Spider Woman and Ace), and outstanding lead actor for a resident musical (for Greg Stone, who played Jean Valjean). Two other Signature productions, The Visit and Kiss of the Spider Woman, had nine nominations each.
Joining Signature’s Les Miserables, Ace, Kiss of the Spider Woman and The Visit as best resident musical nominees were Studio’s raucous Jerry Springer: the Musical and MetroStages’ Rooms A Rock Musical, which receives its New York opening next month at New World Stages.
Shakespeare Theatre’s Major Barbara and Twelfth Night each received five nominations, including best resident play. Other nominees were Folger’s magic-laden Macbeth, Synetic’s silent Romeo and Juliet, and the intense Blackbird which Studio produced in its Milton Theatre.
Nominations for best lead actor in a resident play – an award now renamed after the legendary Robert Prosky – went to Rene Auberjonois in the title role of Shakespeare Theatre’s Imaginary Invalid, Aubrey Deeker as a geeky scientist in Woolly’s Boom, Karl Kenzler and Ted van Griethuysen for their work in Major Barbara, Ian Merrill Peakes for the title role in Folger’s Macbeth, Jerry Whiddon as a middle-aged man with a terrible secret in Blackbird, Floyd King as a vulnerable teacher in Studio’s History Boys, and Ed Gero as a troubled President in Round House’s Nixon’s Nixon. Coincidentally, Prosky, who died last year, was also nominated, as best supporting actor in a non-resident play for his performance in The Price atTheater J.
The immortal Chita Rivera was nominated for best lead actress in a resident musical for her work as the revenge-seeking plutocrat in Signature’s The Visit, as were Janice Lorraine (multiple roles in Cookin’ at the Cookery, MetroStage), Natascia Diaz, who played an ambitious rocker with a troubled romance in MetroStage’s Rooms, Jill Paice, who portrayed the suicidal mother in Signature’s Ace, and Barbara Walsh, who took on the role of a loopy mother and her loopy daughter at different stages in their lives in Grey Gardens at Studio.
Nominees for best lead actress in a resident play included Sarah Marshall, who played a demented granny whose newly-deceased body is possessed by a centuries-old spirit in Woolly’s Maria/Stuart, Diedra LeWan Starnes, who portrayed an honest seamstress looking for love against long odds in Intimate Apparel at African Continuum Theatre, Tana Hicken and Holly Twyford, as an aging artist who insists on living independently and her younger friend who attempt to penetrate her stubbornness, respectively in Studio’s The Road to Mecca, Lisa Joyce, for her work as a young woman trying to come to grips with the psyche of her molester in Blackbird, at Studio, and Kimberly Schraf, who played a hyperpuritanical scold who ended up in a sex club in Woolly’s rhyming Measure for Pleasure.
In addition to Stone, the following artists received nominations for best lead actor in a resident musical: Will Chase and Hunter Foster, as two prisoners of a brutal regime in Signature’s Kiss of the Spider Woman, Doug Kreeger, who played an ubergifted alcoholic in Rooms at MetroStage, George Hearn, as the object of a revenge plot for a romance gone wrong decades ago in Signature’s The Visit, and David Margulies, who portrayed a wise and compassionate grandfather in Signature’s The Happy Time.
Click here for the full list of the 2009 nominations.
The winners of the the 25th Anniversary Helen Hayes Awards will be announced on Monday, April 13th at the Warner Theatre.
I keep seeing the same names over and over again, especially in the acting department. I know these people are very good, but I often wonder if they are nominated simply because they are a known commodity, rather than for a single sensational performance for that particular year. Same can be said for the designers.
I wish there were a way to recognize a body of work for the year instead of single performance. That was the way they did it in the early days of The Academy Awards. The problem of course being what about those who only act once a year, but instead of having multiple nominations for arguably some of our most talented performers you would make room for some less recognized names.
HH now has an award that recognizes new theatre companies how about recognizing young actors, directors and designers at the beginning of their journey? That used to be the Mary Goldwaters, isn’ there something that can fill that void.
Yes, HH now has the John Aniello Award for Outstanding Emerging Theatre Company. Constellation Theatre Comapny won it this year (for 2009). But you wouldn’t know it from HH’s website, which is pretty indicative of how important HH considers that award (among others).
Great posts. You’ve all got me rethinking my views a bit. There seems to be a genuine concern that the HH judges improperly favor the big budget theaters over the many quality low-budget theaters in town. And as ABF points out, that is particularly unfortunate because those theaters (and the artists working for them) would probably most benefit from the attention and publicity that would result from winning an award. There have been a number of suggestions for why that bias exists (apathy, too small a pool, lack of education, too much familiarity with the oft-nominated stars/designers, etc.). And there seems to be consensus that there’s no easy way to solve the problem.
So maybe, as Steve suggests, HH should go ahead and create a special category for “Outstanding Production Low-Budget LOWT Member.” It wouldn’t have to be mutually exclusive of any of the other awards. Perhaps knowing that an award will, for sure, go to a Low-Budget LOWT Member will cause the judges to pay close attention, rather than just go through the motion of attending those shows. Further, as the number of nominations for outstanding Low-Budget LOWT Member theatre productions build over the years it might increase the odds of their receiving nominations in other categories. (The danger, of course, is the opposite could happen. Judges could think, “Well, the small theaters have their own award. I don’t need to really need to consider them for other categories.”)
And while we’re revamping the HH awards, they really should separate the MacArthur award into two categories (play and musical), as they did at least in one prior year. If plays are distinguished from musicals in terms of performance, why aren’t they distinguished in terms of writing? It’s really strange to have straight playwrights competing against composers.
** rolls eyes… am glad that I don’t count myself as a member of this group… just not for me ** How about simply pretending that Helen Hayes doesn’t exist and print up some certificates on your computer; name the awards after yourself and send them to whomever you want so that you can be satisfied.
kthanksbye
Hey, NoToads, since you haven’t been around, let us clue you in a little.
The DCTS comments section allow us to freely discuss things. In this particular thread, I don’t see anything really disparaging. Besides, isn’t half the fun of an awards show debating what didn’t make the cut? It’s no different than any Oscar blog, Grammy blog and the like.
Now, if you’re offended by the discussion regarding ways to improve the HH awards, I don’t know what to tell you. It’s a constructive conversation.
And, on a personal note, I’ve got to tell you that I’m SO pleased that you felt the need to assert your superiority over the rest of us. Really, if you have nothing to contribute, why are you bothering to post something? To make yourself feel better?
I was wondering about the kid thing also – have they nominated a kid before? We’ve (partner and I) seen over 25 shows this year and Angelina Kelly is the one actor we’re still talking about.
LOL – Guess there’s 2 Janets! And I always thought I was so unique.
Thanks to everyone taking part in this discussion. This dialogue between audiences and artists is one big reason we keep the site going.
While the Helen Hayes Awards may not honor all the good work being done in DC, the recognition is meaningful to the nominees.We’ll be doing our annual feature on HHA nominees, so you can read their reactions for yourselves.
I also hope everyone remembers that our Audience Choice Awards are coming up in August.While not perfect either, (we’re working on it!) our writers and readers chose Last Days of Judas Iscariot as their favorite play. No big ceremony or trophy. But we do a radio play that everyone can ‘attend’ and some bread for the winners.
Lastly, I’d like to enlist the brainpower of everyone writing here to help in the upcoming redesign of the site. (See ‘Rethinking DC Theatre Scene’ posted today.)
Thanks for reading. Thanks for writing. And play nice.
I just have to ask everyone out there the following question.
When you are performing a show, and by performing a show I mean to include everyone who contributed to the production, and at the end the lights have faded, the house lights have come up and the sound of the audience clapping is ringing in your ears do you think:
“That should impress the Helen Hayes’s judges.”
or do you think:
“I guess the audience really liked it.”
The Helen Hayes Awards, while a nice feather in someone’s cap, is not the reason we perform and it should not be put on a pedestal. It’s the audience and the audience only that is important. With out them we would be talking among ourselves in a room some place not performing.
So stop all this idol chatter and get off book.
Well said, Bill!!! Well said.
I sure hope the theatre artists in DC aren’t doing it just for the sake of getting HH awards. If my math is right, the odds of any given HH-eligible theatre artist winning an award for their work in a particular production were about 1 in 110 (unless you were a supporting actress in a musical who performed for any theater OTHER than Signature this year, in which case your odds were 0%). But don’t worry, if you keep doing good work I’ll keep buying tickets!
Bill: We do this anyway, work our asses off regardless of the HH recognition. But please do not disqualify our concern for process adopted by HH simply because we come from smaller theatres. We care to talk about because we care to be part of the big picture…and if the HH Awards are supposed to be representative of the theatre DC offers, they simply are not. They are representative of some of what DC offers…mainly Studio, Shakespeare, Signature and now Synetic. Maybe we should change our theatre company’s name to one that begins with an S.
A reminder: Promotion! Promotion! Promotion!
That is what the awards were created for, and that is what they have strayed from. The contest part is secondary. The important part is press for the companies and artists. Changes can and should be made to the awards so that they can more effectively promote DC theatre. The rest of this discussion is high school gossip – avoid that at all costs.
As I’ve said before and I will say again. Studio, Signature and Synetic all came out of nothing. They were all small theatre companies at one time. I’d say that Synetic is actually still a pretty small theatre company.
I’d disagree. Synetic is nowhere near a small theatre company now. It may be a large theatre (grants, awards, finance) masquerading as a small company, but it is in no way a pretty small theatre company.
Hardworking.
I don’t dismiss your concerns about HH’s and its process at all. And I would never disparage the smaller companies in this city or the people who work at them as that is where I work.
I just don’t think in the over all big scheme of things that the HH’s are that important.
Well at least not unless ever they nominate me and them all bets are off!! lol
It used to be that there were nominators and judges. The nominators were representatives of the theatre companies of DC and there were 5 permanent judges. Nominators had to go to shows that were not at their home theater and for any given production 6 nominators were sent. If 4 of them nominated a show in any category – it didn’t have to be in one category, it just had to be 4 nominations total – then all the judges were sent to the show.
Long essay short, this process was better in every way. Not that the results always reflected the highest quality work of a given season of DC theater, but it was better.
My only real comment is this.
Here we are, yet again. The HH noms are out and everyone is complaining that not all the right shows were nominated. This happens every year, is this something that surprises you? And every year someone says “They should make an award ceremony for the smaller companies so they can be nominated” and every year nothing changes. So why isn’t anyone doing anything about it?
Well, all I can say is, if anyone is seriously interested in establishing an alternative set of awards for smaller companies, you can count me in. I’d gladly donate my time and would be willing to use my Examiner blog as a forum to promote such a cause. So how about it? Anyone else interested?
Doug – I’ve heard Kathleen Akerley mention the same idea.
Well! I feel I’d better respond to that.
The awards-system pitch I made in 2002 (called “the Boozer Stooges” in an attempt to prevent self-importance, and, in hindsight, agreement) was to the artistic directors of all professional non-Equity companies. It resulted in a pretty strenuous e-wrestling match, with debate about whether by such awards we would “ghettoize” ourselves; whether the awards should cover all theaters, non-Equity theaters, theaters with a certain seating capacity, theaters with a certain ticket price, or something as simple as theaters that wanted to be considered; who would be the judges and whether the ballot weighting system I proposed was rot (apparently “yes”); whether we should form a consortium, some LOWT-sect, and make that the organization behind the awards; whether we should mimic the Obie Awards (Mondello chimed in with the view that critic turnover was too high and how he and Trey wouldn’t be around long enough to do their part for judging consistency. Hi Bob!).
Shin-biting was not far off (not with Mondello – I mean among artistic directors). The subject died.
Now every year some nominee or other(s) makes me spit out my coffee, and some omission makes me wonder whether awards systems should just man up and call themselves “the mean:” “and the Oscar mean in voting was reached by Julia Roberts” [wild applause]. But that’s not solved by starting a new system, that’s solved by (I know, I said it here already) better judges. To the extent that we admit a value or meaning to awards (and I see that was debated above, but I’m going to take it as read, for this point, that We Care) we should want them to come from people who understand that Ed Gero blew the doors off Studio in Shining City not just because he’s a household name or because he was doing his thing on a financially glossy set but because he filled every single one of those unfinished sentences with specific meaning without losing pace – and who understand that Frank Britton achieved the same thing in Constellation’s Temptation. And who understand that their job is to respond to that, what is really meant by Acting: not to the neighborhood they had to drive to or the condition of the bathroom in the lobby (if there is one) or to each man’s bio, or to each man’s costume (until they come to that part of the form anyway) and so on.
So after years of chewing it over, I don’t necessarily want an alternative awards system. I’ll be an egregious ass hat right out in the open here and say that I would feel qualified to “judge” direction and design at Arena right alongside direction and design at dog & pony dc, with no handicapping, or bias (in either direction) – and that’s how I personally think it should be done, within the part of me that Cares. Because I have this notion I can barely articulate that to the extent awards have any meaning it is inextricable from community.
However, you hear things. Alternative systems may be coming. And I’ll do my part to help them work in the spirit of, well, community. We shall see.
And while I’m at it, 2008’s Boozer Stooge winners in no particular order are: Kim Gilbert as Mercutio in R&J at Taffety Punk, David Graham Jones for Hotspur in Folger’s Henry IV, Colleen Delany for Old Woman in Scena’s Chairs, John Vreeke for direction of Judas Iscariot at Forum, A.J. Guban’s set for Constellation’s Temptation, Charter’s This Perfect World for new play and Pei Lee’s costuming work in general. I missed some shows/designs/performances I’ll bet I would have liked, but unscientifically, and from my gut, there. The only recipients of a Boozer Stooge there will ever be. Thank goodness.
Well said, Kathleen!!! An amusing and informative response. And congrats to all the Boozer Stooge winners.
“Here we are, yet again. The HH noms are out and everyone is complaining that not all the right shows were nominated. This happens every year, is this something that surprises you?”
Not surprising. But these things do need to be said, so they get said.
” And every year someone says “They should make an award ceremony for the smaller companies so they can be nominated” and every year nothing changes. So why isn’t anyone doing anything about it?”
It’s a terrible idea. The whole point here is that there is such a thing as getting it right with nominations, and there is a large degree to which that’s not subjective. There is such a thing as an objective way to assess design, direction and acting and it’s clear from the comments right here that everyone knows that and wishes that the best had been nominated across the board. (Not that no one nominated was deserving, but…) Smaller awards make it seem like a sour grapes thing. That’s not what the issue is.
Respectfully disagreed. The Drama Desk Awards, Obies and New York Drama Critics’ Circle do no harm, they simply celebrate more good theatre. Evolution is our friend.
Broadway is commercial, for profit theatre and off Broadway isn’t so of course they are in separate categories. Whether or not a theatre is non-profit drives the aesthetic and that means that Broadway is really a different kind of fish than off-Broadway. Not better or worse, just different. We don’t have that dichotomy here.
No dichotomy of aesthetic in Washington, or no dichotomy of opinion?
There is certainly dichotomy of audience.
The split in the audience isn’t as pronounced as all that. Yes, there are the suburbanites who come into town to go to the Kennedy Center and not much else. But aside from that there is no strict demographic for any given theater.
As for a split of aesthetic, again I submit that there is a greater difference between for profit theater and non-profit than between the extremes within non-profit. Broadway is all about scale and spectacle. That’s it’s own thing.
Meanwhile here, though two theaters may have big differences in their budgets and that will be reflected in how fancy the scenery is, the fact is that a set that costs next to nothing could be (and some have been) a better design and use of the space it’s in than a set that costs ten thousand. That’s true across the board. The budget of a theater has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the work. And that works both ways, of course: a big theater can (and they have done) terrific work.