Critics No Longer Tony Voters

Last night, the Tony Awards management committee announced that the so-called "First Night" critics -- the ones who (in theory) attend and review shows based on opening nights -- will no longer be eligible to vote in the Tony Awards process. The reason, according to a New York Times report, is that "...the committee concluded that it was a conflict of interest for journalists to vote on Tony contenders when they have a platform to champion a show in news and entertainment media."

So, who's left to vote for the Tonys? Producers, theater owners, publicists, actors, writers, designers, and other union and committee members. You know, the people who have absolutely no conflict of interest. As Robert Diamond, editor-in-chief of BroadwayWorld.com, tweeted last night shortly after the announcement, "As if voting for the Tony Awards needed to find a way to make the process even more insular/biased."

The Tony Awards have really never been more than a thin marketing ploy. (When was the last time the season's best musical actually won Best Musical?) However, as Diamond intimates, this decision brings the voting process in the wrong direction. There were only 800 or so people who voted for the Tonys before this decision, and now there will be only about 700, a reduction of about 13%. And one of the worst kept secrets in the industry is that many of those voters don't bother to see all the shows, although they are supposed to before voting in any particular category. Some shows in recent seasons have seen fewer than 1/3 of the eligible Tony voters show up to see the show. In addition, we're now even more likely to see skewed results: shows with larger casts and crew are even more likely to win because they have more people involved in them to vote, and fewer overall voters to offset that bias.

According to Adam Feldman, critic for Time Out New York, the idea that critics have a conflict of interest is "thin stuff indeed." He writes, "If anything, critics are among the voters least compromised by conflicts of interest, and most likely to vote objectively and fairly for the work they judge to be best." So why did the Tony committee really make this change? Feldman offers this rationale: "...[C]ritics, and indeed criticism, are inconvenient to the modern theater marketer: Old-fashioned in our insistence on quality, unreliable in our support for expensive projects and less necessary in light of the diffusion of information in the Internet age."

Cynical, to be sure, but I'm not so sure he's inaccurate. What do you think, dear reader? Is Feldman right? Is this part of a tacit marginalization of the critical mass? Or is this just sour grapes on the part of the slighted?

Comments

[Monica]

I agree with the first part of the quote you have from Feldman. I would have to say that critics are less compromised by conflicts of interests than a theater owner. Hypothetically, wouldn't a theater owner rather vote for a show in a theater he owns because that would potentially sell more tickets?

The second part, I'm not so sure about. If they're trying to push out the critics in the 'diffusion of information in the Internet age,' why not allow the audience to pick their favorite show via interactive voting?

[stmigrliwe]

Chris, more info, please on this comment (which I'm trying remember, having switched screens): When was the last time the best musical won the award for best musical?

Which shows are you thinking about?

[ccaggiano]

Steve, that comment was, of course, subjective. IMHO, the best musical rarely wins the Tony. Some recent examples:

2009 Winner: Billy Elliot. My choice: Next to Normal
2008 Winner: In the Heights. My choice: Xanadu
2007 Winner: Spring Awakening. My choice: Grey Gardens
2006 Winner: Jersey Boys. My choice: The Drowsy Chaperone
2005 Winner: Spamalot. My choice: Spelling Bee
2004 Winner: Avenue Q. My choice: Avenue Q
2003 Winner: Hairspray. My choice: Hairspray
2002 Winner: Thoroughly Modern Millie. My choice: Urinetown
2001 Winner: The Producers. My choice: The Full Monty

So I was being a tad hyperbolic. There have been two recen examples of the best musical winning Best Musical. But my larger point is that the Tonys aren't a referendum on objective quality. The winning show is usually the one that the voters think is the most marketable on Broadway and, even mire important, on the road.

[simon]

Having said all that ... it is slightly incongrous that critics WERE voting in the tonys (I didn't know they were, and ... I'd imagine before this storm blew up, very few people did).

Critics don't vote for the Oscars, Emmys or Grammys (which are, rightly or wrongly, considered the pre-eminent awards for film, television and the recording industry). So why were they being included in the Tony voting?

Frankly, it'd be nice to get a bit of perspective on who ARE Tony voters at the moment. If it is just a bunch of producers and their lackeys... yes, it's pretty silly and pointless. But ... well, the arguments so far haven't made it clear who IS doing the voting.

And ... well, things like "best musical" are, inevitably, a subjective judgement (I really don't think there is such a thing as an objective quality judgement, myself... I know you disagree, given you teach a course on it, but still...).

So when you're saying "The best musical didn't win best musical", you're really saying "my favourite of the musicals didn't win best musical" (and I think in a couple of cases, you've picked musicals for your choice which are a clear case of "playing to the musical theatre nerds" (Drowsy Chaperone and Urinetown) rather than stuff that has a general-paying-public bias). Which is a different thing.

[Todd Wallinger]

Simon has an interesting point. Critics and other journalists don't vote for the Oscars, but they do have their own awards--the Golden Globes--which have dramatically increased in prestige and prominence over the last few years.

Likewise, newspaper-based theatre critics already have their own awards--the Drama Desk Awards. And bloggers now have the ITBA Awards. Maybe we should be putting more effort into making these awards more well-known and respected.