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.
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.
No dichotomy of aesthetic in Washington, or no dichotomy of opinion?
There is certainly dichotomy of audience.
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.
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.
“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.
Well said, Kathleen!!! An amusing and informative response. And congrats to all the Boozer Stooge winners.
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.
Doug – I’ve heard Kathleen Akerley mention the same idea.
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Well said, Bill!!! Well said.
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.
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.
LOL – Guess there’s 2 Janets! And I always thought I was so unique.
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.
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?
** 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
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.
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).
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.
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.
The problem is that people think of the Helen Hayes Awards as a contest, like sports. Isn’t the whole point that they’re intended to be a promotional tool? That’s basically what the Oscars are – a four hour commercial for the movie industry? When the Oscar nominations come out, the most nominated films get a box office bump. I’d hope that by splitting off smaller-theatre categories, those theatres (the ones that need the most help with publicity and exposure) would get a much-needed boost.
TheatreFan: Wish I had seen your post before writing my own.
Regarding “small theatre,” I work primarily for lower budget, professional theatres. And while you might not think that these theatres would not want them because they wouldn’t “mean more,” I argue that, unless the process for training and utilizing judges within the HH committee changes, those low budget theatres are continually going to be left in the cold. You need look no further than this year’s “Outstanding Resident Play” to see that. In fact, I would argue that, traditionally, the Canadian Embassy Award gets their nominees more “right” than the HH judges.
Obviously, all of theatre is subjective. Things I like you may not, and vice versa. As a Washington Actor/Director and theatre-goer, I look at the nominations each year and think, “Wow, they phoned it in. Again.” Nominations like Michael Bobbitt, Theatre J and Toby’s are all well earned and well-deserved. But then we spend time nominating a production/actor/actress that blew through town. Sure, it may have been a great performance, but I would argue that there’s more value in recognizing local theatres over non-resident productions. After all, HH award = better ticket sales, which means bigger audiences, which means more exposure.
Finally, I can’t, in any good conscience, condone the sentence of, “here were 172 HH eligible productions last year. No one can see everything. At least they have 8 of the 60+ judges see each show.” Look, I know that we all do this for love (it’s certainly not for the money). But when a theatre becomes LOWT eligible, and joins, there’s an expectation that eligible shows will be reviewed. Now, if the HH judges can’t fulfill that obligation, then it’s up to the HH Board of Directors to fix it. Admittedly, I don’t have an answer for this. But obviously something must be done.
I heartily concur with ABF’s assessment. Does anyone in this city really care about the non-resident awards? Most of the time the winners don’t even show up at the ceremony, and when they do, it rarely seems like a big deal to them. Compare that to, say, Toby’s Dinner Theatre winning an award for Musical Direction for Titanic last year, where the whole squad went bonkers with the announcement that they had tied for the win.
So, replace the non-resident awards with some sort of “low budget LOWT member” catagory, with a classification of operating budget per year (and not per show). I think you’d get much more recognition of the truly excellent work that is being done in DC (with theatres like Forum, Journeyman, Constellation, WSC). Right now, it seems like big budget=big awards.
abf: If I ran a small theatre I would not want separate awards. True, nominations are fewer and farther between, but they mean more. It’s like college basketball. If you win the NIT Tournament (as opposed to the NCAA) people say, “Congratulations, you are now the 66th best team in the country.”
Jesse: That’s an interesting idea to scrap the nonresident awards. But in the end I think they add value. It may not directly promote DC theatre, but it does promote the awards themselves. The bigger stars and bigger shows tend to appear in the nonresident productions. Plus, those productions travel. So a nomination of a nonresident actor or production is more likely to get attention outside of DC. There are only 4 non-resident awards (lead actor in a nonresident production, lead actress in a nonresident production, supporting performer in a nonresident production, and best nonresident production). They seem pretty targeted to get the most bang for the HH’s buck. (Of course, my more cynical side might believe that the extra awards are included just so the HH judges and their SO’s can get free tickets to nonresident productions.)
Dfg: It is exactly because there are so many productions that the process is flawed. There were 172 HH eligible productions last year. No one can see everything. At least they have 8 of the 60+ judges see each show. I’m not sure how it could be improved. Do you have a suggestion? In the end, as the HH press release suggests, the nomination process is simply a method to identify outstanding work. However, there will always be other outstanding work (arguably even more outstanding) that doesn’t happen to be nominated each year. How is it that some students are rejected by Harvard but admitted to Yale (and vice versa)? You shouldn’t diminish the significance of what the Harvard students have accomplished just because some of the Yalies didn’t get in.
in the end the tastes of approximately 60 judges, 8 of them sent to each production eligible, is a poor sampling of what a city with the second most productions each year has to offer and the helen hayes award should be regarded as such.
i congratulate all the nominees because they are recognized by only the select few as award worthy.
also, great point abf
That’s a great point, ABF. Scrap the non-resident awards, and bring in smaller budget awards in their place. No one really enjoys sitting through all the ‘best non-resident production’ categories anyway.
I’m a bit baffled as to why the Helen Hayes Awards aren’t split into large and small categories (by theatre budget), as the Elliot Norton Awards in Boston are. I feel that this split would lead to precisely the sort of promotion of the entire community that the awards should be engaged in. In fact, I’m not entirely sure what the purpose of having categories for non-resident productions is, since the awards are supposed to promote DC theatre. Do those artists even show up to the ceremony? Do the awards help to draw more productions to town?
It seems as though you are the one who should relax, Compose Yourself. Perhaps there should be addiional awards was special effects and animal actors. That doesn’t warrant your snotiness. Get a life.
Relax Janet, I kidnapped your post and ran with it. Yes, at the very least, the cat deserves a nice bowl of milk for his onstage prowess.
Dear Compose Yourself, You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Educate yourself …
Yes, the cat should be nominated in place of one of the non-equity nominations. Also, I believe the flower petals in Twelfth Night should be nominated, and again, by replacing one of the non-equity nominations. Best Ensemble? We could nominate each of the flower petals, to further pad the selection.
I also agree with the writer who expressed surprise that Lieutenant of Inishmore was shutout of nominations. The acting, set, and “special effects” were top shelf. And should there not be a special recognition for the feline actor? Yes, that was a real live cat, who was brave and wonderful to walk out on set every performance while actors were shouting and waving guns at him.
I agree with you, While I prefer to see somebody win who has “paid their dues,” I have to say the Miss Kelly’s performance was amazing at any level.
It’s pretty awesome that Angelina Kelly got nominated for Ace. Have they ever nominated a child before? She gave an incredible performance.
Congrats to Adventure Theatre! Right now, they have a great production of “Holes” on stage that reflects the outstanding production path the theatre continues to take.
It’s nice to have a dialogue about all this. I do think non-equity work is grossly misrepresented at these awards, and especially this year, but I’ve grown accustomed to it, and I look forward to the party.
Pardon my typo: “claarly” should be “clearly.”
Phillip:
1) “Hey Anonynony” is claarly a spin on “Hey Nonny Nonny,” words from a song in “Much Ado About Nothing.” By William Shakespeare. (Heard of him?) They are not a misspelling, but an attempt at humor. Maybe you should think before you post, but that might be asking too much.
2) “Her partner can’t be sold on her opinion”: interesting that you assume S.O. is a woman. Even more interesting that you assume that the S.O.’s opinion is worthless. (Perhaps BECAUSE “she’s” a woman?). What if the judge is a woman and the S.O. is a man? What if both are theatre professionals? THEN would their opinions be worthy of your attention, and therefore be allowed here?
3) Although you say “It’s fine to have this dialogue here…that’s what blogs are for..,” you apparently also seem to have arrogated to yourself the right to choose which comments are acceptable and which are not.
4) Finally, from your first post: “shear” means “cut”; you’re thinking of “sheer,” as in “sheer ignorance.”
Sara, I have no affiliation with the HH awards and have never been a judge of DC theatre (other than in my own mind). But I have to respond to your claim that the HH awards are without value. Your support for that premise and my reactions follow:
(1) The HH awards ceremony is a fun party. – Perhaps true, but irrelevant.
(2) The HH awards do not get covered editorially outside of DC – Not true. I’m not sure what you mean by “editorially” but a quick Google news search shows articles about the nominations in Variety, Playbill, Broadway World and others. But, then again, it’s a regional award, so how much national coverage do you expect?
(3) The HH awards do not add prestige – Not true (as best I can tell). I’m not a theater professional, so I can’t tell whether a HH nomination or award gets you better work. But I can tell you that I frequently see HH nominations and awards mentioned in Playbill bios, even with well-known stars, such as Bill Pullman, who received a nomination in 2006. Further, the prestige of the awards, especially outside of DC, is not something the HH organization has full control over. It is only by achieving success outside of the DC market that DC theatre can grow its national reputation. As an example, the Alliance Theatre has produced world class theatre in Atlanta for years, but it was only after the success of “The Color Purple” that they won their regional Tony. That’s why DC exports like “Rooms” are so important. You need to give people a really good reason to pay attention to any theatrical production, let alone in some other part of the country. As the prestige of DC theater grows, the prestige of the HH awards will grow. But even now, they serve a useful purpose. Imagine how Eric Schaeffer’s then-fledgling Signature Theatre might have turned out had it not won those back-to-back best musical awards in 1992 and 1993.
(4) The HH awards do not include a nominal cash award – True, but I’m not sure why they should.
O.K. It’s fine to have this dialogue here…that’s what blogs are for…..and outside of the previous entry of Mrs. We Can’t Spell Anonymity and her unnecessary opinion of Les Mis (no wonder her partner can’t be sold on her opinion)…..what everyone should be concerned with is that we, or any other city, need to be happy we still have a vibrant theatrical city. That could change, based on current economic conditions…..we could easily be writing in next year saying “My…we’ve lost fourteen theaters in one year!”
But keep up the conversation…it’s all good!
As the significant other of Hey Anonynony, above, I can verify that he or she takes the job quite seriously. He or she will not share his or her opinion (or listen to mine(, no matter how much badgering, tempting, or teasing I engage in, until the ballot is cast.
Because of her or him, I get to see a lot of great theatre for free, and sometimes there is indeed more icing than cake. I was very excited to see Signature’s “Les Mis” but was left somewhat cold by the performance itself, although I thought the sets and lights were quite well done. On the other hand, I find myself humming tunes from “The Happy Time” 6 months later.
I think, perhaps, that reducing performances and designs to a number on a scale from 1 to 10 does exactly that: diminishes them from art to a very simple equation that can’t help but add up incorrectly at times.
I was thinking about it some more and I’m particularly struck by the significance of what Michael Bobbitt has just accomplished. Those were the first three nominations in Adventure Theatre’s long history. And each nomination was in a category (direction, choreography, and ensemble) that suggests outstanding production values as a whole, as opposed to the fluke of a singular strong performance. This may very well mark a sea change for the 58 year old theater company. Perhaps a new slogan is in order: “This is not your grandfather’s Adventure Theatre!”
I’ve looked over the rules, and I think I’m in the clear in posting this: I am a current Helen Hayes judge, and I don’t agree with many of this year’s nominations. In fact, I’m very disappointed that some extraordinary shows and companies were not recognized. Some of the ones that moved me the most were completely shut out, and others received scant or inappropriate recognition. Other productions/performances/designs/direction that I felt were all icing and no cake received nominations. I guess it just goes to show two things (at least): 1) art is subjective, and 2) people can be fooled into thinking that a show has something to say just because of high production value.
Further judge education would probably help, and perhaps more monitoring of the judges at performances. I take my job VERY seriously, as is encouraged by the HHA, and I think HHA would be unhappy to know that not all judges behave as they should. It really is a great organization, and despite my feelings about this year’s nominations, I am proud to be associated with HHA.
For my part, I’m going to continue to judge as fairly as I can and recognize theatre that moves me, has something to say, and illuminates some truth. I hope those smaller productions and companies out there aren’t discouraged; they are doing excellent work and make valuable contributions to both the DC theatre community and the individual lives of theatre-goers.
Maybe some of you should settle down. You like the nominations when you agree with them….you dislike them when you don’t. Aren’t you being as subjective as any judge? And awfully transparent….I might add. It’s the same with reviews…you agree…you disagree….your friend got ripped a new one…your friend got heaps of praise…blah, blah, blah. And while this topic of small vs. large continues….size matters. Of course good work is done at small theaters….always has been, always will. But those small theaters, while not having to worry about pleasing large subscriber bases (because they don’t have them)…can choose riskier material. It’s a fact. And another fact is the small theaters, the non-union actors, designers, ADs, etc…would like nothing more than to be “big”. And you can’t get there by side-stepping small, unprofessional, amateur, etc. If any of those small theaters, actors, designers, really deserve the praise you’re so eager to provide, they will eventually get it through shear determination, talent, time, etc. Separating awards only adds to the problem….jump in the pool everyone…life on the wicked stage…..or find another vocation. Lordy!
Sebastian you said that you were “utterly astonished by the lack of recognition of the mastery presented by works such as Signature’s Cripple of Inishman and Forum’s Last Days of Judas Iscariot.” Believe you meant Signature’s “The Lieutenant of Inishmore.” The “Cripple of Inishman” was done in D.C. a few years back but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a Signature production.
I’m with you on most of your original posting! I think the ends are frequently hilarious and sometimes bleakly ridiculous, despite a great push of means. And I loved and miss the Mary Gs. And I tried once to organize an alternative awards. And amen to the notion that it’s hard to tell what it would mean anymore to get an award.
I just was responding to that one part of the post that said “the organization . . . do[es] hardly anything to . . .” and so on. I was just trying to separate the organization from the judges — obviously not entirely, symbiotic blah blah, but, as Eddie Izzard puts it, “a little crowbar separation, please” to an extent that allows us to be very exact in our discussion of problems and solutions. I’d like to see how the organization would do with a pool of 100 qualified judge applicants to choose from.
Kathleen, I don’t doubt that every person involved in HH is enthusiastic and devoted and thoughtful. But do the meager ends justify these noble means? I think that in the final analysis, the HH awards system does not actually accomplish anything more than an expensive, fun party where talented theater people wear lovely clothes and kiss and mug for photos.
I don’t mean to smear HH’s work in the schools or with kids, which may be great (I assume it is, I’ve just never been exposed to it). I just think the HH awards, if they ever stood for anything, don’t stand for much now. DC’s theater scene is artistically excellent on so many levels without the need for artists to compete for these awards, which:
– do not get covered editorially outside of DC,
– do not seem to add to the prestige (and therefore, hopefully, more and better-paid work) of theater artists whether working in DC or elsewhere,
– do not contribute directly to anybody’s bottom line since the award is only recognition, and contains no cash prize.
Each year’s HH Awards process and ceremony cost, in my flippant estimation, about seven times too much money and effort to raise and to spend, for so little apparent benefit to any artist or company in DC.
The HH organization busts its ass to increase excellence and visibility in DC theater: they are constantly re-examining the rules and tweaking them to see if one year the result might be something that reflects the diversity of styles, the different types of excellence, in the community; they have schools programs that increase visibility of theater among young people and also nurture the next generation of theater artists out there; they invite artistic directors to assist in the selection of judges and they take very seriously (I promise you. I’ve been there) the input of each year’s committee of artistic directors, any one of whom can nix an applicant for anything in his or her answers which seems biased or demonstrates any inability specifically to evaluate the components of theatrical performance (as opposed to just gushing based on personal preference). The organization has never demonstrated – in my opinion anyway, in going on 11 years of running an HH eligible company that has gotten one nomination in that time so imagine how biased I could be if I wanted! – anything other than passionate enthusiasm for theater and an abiding desire to “get it right.”
The judges they end up with? Meh. I’ve seen ‘em fall asleep (and that judge was an artistic director of another theater), show up late, say inappropriate things to the actors after the show, and openly gawk at the cruelty of a scheduling fate which has landed them for 2+ hours in a black box and in the unpleasing, pinching grip of un-explicit story-telling. These are the left-handed perks of being a pretty unknown artistic director: people say the most stupid crap right within earshot.
The solution is that more artistically savvy people need to apply to be judges. Hate this year’s list? Send in your name. Even if you work for a theater you can end up a judge (you just can’t judge that theater’s shows).
We go to about three dozen shows a year and there were some nominees that we missed. It’s just not possible to keep up with all the wonderful and diverse productions in the Washington area.
Oh, thanks John L. I was suprised because I thought he was talking about that 2 man Guttenberg show…I thought they were for real for a second. 🙂
Good for Rooms. The nominations are well deserved. Some others? Yeah, not so much. Perhaps with this incentive, MetroStage will actually start doing real theatre with artistic integrity again and not the revues they have been giving us as of late.
I think the more important questions are. Why do we run out of booze and food at the HH party? Its not like they don’t know how many are showing up.
As for the nominations and the awards Its all just a matter of opinion so don’t worked up about it.
Bring back the Mary Goldwater Awards! They recognized the work of DC’s smaller theater companies and artists on an annual basis. Too bad that Theater Lobby decided to close up shop in 2006. It was a great ceremony and a real celebration of what I enjoy about theater in DC. Also, each award came with a CASH PRIZE (admittedly small), directly supporting artists and their work, and that to me represents the ideals of theater support.
HH amounts to nothing more or less than the city’s Theater Prom in my very biased opinion. The awards ceremony is a fun night for theater professionals, but the HH organization and its awards do hardly anything to increase the excellence of theater in DC or its visibility outside of DC, and therefore I think the awards are pretty hollow.
Darla – Yes, as indicated above, Rooms A Rock Musical is about to open up Off Broadway. Rooms pretty much hit the jackpot last night, with nominations for Leading Actor in a Musical, Leading Actress in a Musical, Best Director, Best Musical, and Best Original Play/Musical. I’m sure it was worthy of best supporting actor/actress and ensemble noms too, but with only a two person cast it was at somewhat of a disadvantage in those categories. 🙂
Theatre in this town is anything but tried and true and safe…especially now with smaller companies on the rise, producing fiesty, risky work.
I’d just like to congratulate the work of the nominees, and also express my disappointment with the HH committee playing it tried and true and safe yet again.
He’s talking about a two person musical… Rooms from Metrostage
Theatre Fan – What “little 2 man musical” are you talking about? Is there a show from DC going to NY?
I think the number of nominations racked up by Signature and Shakespeare Theatre Company year after year clearly show that there is no level playing field. And it is even more clear when a middle-of-the-run, satisfy-your-subscriber-base show at a larger company receives more awards than a challenging inspiring show at a smaller one. I guess in the end my comments come out of how floored I was to not see Judas Iscariot in other categories. I read that show’s reviews, if the community and beyond agreed it was one of the most profound theatrical experiences they’ve been part of ever, then why is it not up in the nominations for say director or resident production? The Canadian Embassy award looks like a messy afterthought for these poor little companies.
Opps.When I commented earlier today I neglected to notice that Tim Treanor had written this article, and I thanked Joel. Tim and Lorraine deserve huge thanks, and I want to acknowledge and thank everyone at DCTheatreScene for all of the contributions they make to the DC theatre scene. It requires a huge amount of up front and behind the scenes work (kind of like theatre!), and they all make it possible for everyone to be up to date on what is happening AND have a forum to comment as well. Thank you to Tim and Lorraine for your commitment to all of the DC theatres. As evidenced from the Helen Hayes nominations last night, we have a lot to be proud of (and there will always be oversights in the nomination process-heaven knows I’ve been there a few times!) but the commitment of everyone involved to further enhance and acknowledge our collective accomplishments cannot be disputed.
Sebastian – I actually think the idea of recognizing Non-Equity Theatre Companies with a separate awards ceremony is a terrific idea. I can hear people’s arguments about it already though. By having a separate ceremony aren’t you saying they are not on a level playing field. Not my argument, but I can understand both sides of the argument. I also agree that the judging pool should change year to year. Looking at this year’s judging pool, it is almost exactly identical to last years.
On more thought: If NY theatre has the Tonys and the Obies. And film has the Oscars and the Independent Spirit Awards. Why shouldn’t DC theatre have a program that almost exclusively celebrates and recognizes non-equity professional theatre? This wouldn’t be out of disdain for the Helen Hayes Awards, but out of a need and desire to bring awareness to these companies. Anything to help those DC theatres who cannot depending on million+ dollar operating budgets.
John L, I do greatly apologize for not clarifying my position. While I do believe these shows have earned their Helen Hayes org praises, I stand strongly behind the idea that the nominations year after year seem to reflect a certain judging pool demographic. I don’t think this is an absurd thought. Did the amazing work of Mr. Skidmore’s cast in Inishmore not earn a nod because the judges might thought the work to be too bloody perhaps offensive, did Forum’s enlightening production of “Last Days…” not earn a Resident Production nod because the seats for the very long play were not as comfortable as say the ones at the Harman Center? Or was it b/c the costume budget was perhaps a 10th of that for STC’s Romeo and Juliet? I do not think I am being revolutionary in this thinking. “Judas Iscariot” is just one of the examples that year after year seems to reflect this idea that the Helen Hayes organization might need to re-educate their judges…perhaps maybe even be more selective in their pool or reach out to younger audiences.
Are you sure Adventure Theatre had the smallest budget in the DC for that one show?
And look at Adventure Theatre, a theatre with probably one of the smallest budgets in DC, and it walked away with three nominations.
Those big budget snobs (ie Signature, Studio, Woolly) all started out as small fledgling companies. Signature performed in a garage. Woolly performed in a Jewish Community Center. They received numerous nominations because they were deserved. The actors and designers all earned their nominations. Synetic is the perfect example of a small company that has proven itself as a company that does phenomenal work. When these smaller companies prove themselves to be deserving then they are usually nominated. All the companies you named above have been nominated in the past. I agree some shows got the shaft (ie. Judas Iscariot)… but I saw alot of shows this year including performances at Catalyst, Forum and Journeyman and while these companies are doing solid work they weren’t necessarily as strong as in recent years. I honestly believe for the most part the judges did a good job this year.
Sebastian,
You are bright smart individual and I commend you for your taste in theatre. HH gives smaller theatre the crums because that is the way the deck is stacked and as has been seen in the past HH judges can’t seperate quality from spectacle.
I used to think that would change. This years results tell me that my faith in the power of small theatre is misplaced and that HH judges are and will continue to be big budget snobs.
DCepticon
As an avid theatregoer, a non-artist, and member of a younger generation (born in the early 80’s) I must say that I am utterly astonished by the lack of recognition of the mastery presented by works such as Signature’s Cripple of Inishman and Forum’s Last Days of Judas Iscariot. I am grateful for the vigor, vitality and creative audacity these shows have exhibited and these companies continue to produce. It is unfortunate that the smaller theatre companies do not receive the recognition that the larger-budget professional companies sweep up year after year at the Helen Hayes. There are a number of instances in the 2009 list where I would personally trade the nominees for a couple of those unrecognized in their respective categories whose work would much-better deserve such recognition. My two suggestions are these, either we educate your judges on the nomination process by suggesting that more money does not necessarily mean a higher creative standard or the smaller companies join to officially recognize the amazing work that is coming out of Catalyst, Forum, Rorschach, Journeymen, Theatre Alliance and so forth. I also get the impression that the judging pool is not as diverse as the HH org might suggest.
It is notable that despite Signature’s 39 nominations it received none for “Glory Days,” which had a January 2008 premiere. While it is wonderful that that show was given an opportunity to try to make it on Broadway, hopefully the New York crowd will understand that it did not necessarily represent the very best DC theatre has to offer. As a long-time fan of DC theatre, I’m rooting for that wonderful “little two person musical” to do well next month so that more of our friends up north can come to appreciate the magic that is created every year in the country’s second-largest theater market.
Thanks Joel. We are thrilled with the recognition given our little two person musical, Rooms, in the company of such large musical productions elsewhere. And what perfect timing with Rooms in rehearsal right now in New York, scheduled to officially open March 16. Everyone in New York is buzzing which I think is great for all of Washington theatre.
And with all the attention on Rooms let’s not forget Janice Lorraine’s nomination for Cookin’ at the Cookery and her amazing Louis Armstrong.
I’ll see everyone on April 13 and congrats to all of Washington theatre.
All and all this is a surprisingly good list. I’m usually upset with the Helen Hayes nominations, but I think this year’s nominations were pretty dead on with a few exceptions. I would’ve loved to have seen Bobby Smith and some of the supporting players nominated for their work in Jerry Springer. And no choreography nomination for Springer? That was some of the best I’ve seen on a DC stage in recent memory. I’m also baffled as to the exclusion of Forum’s phenomenal production of Last Days of Judas Iscariot. How can a show be given so much praise and be virtually shut out of the nominations?