Skip23 said: "Doncha love BWW? Any chance for snarkiness is welcome at any time.
Loudon was great because, not only did she nail all the comedy, she added an extra wackiness/weirdness/craziness to the portrayal. That was her trademark. That's why she didn't work in Ballroom or Sweeney. Too much eccentric energy for those shows.
But I also saw her in Kander/Ebb's Over and Over at Signature in DC, and she was able to show her crazy side. Hilarious. Even though the show was a stinker.
Interesting point there. The only things I did see her in were Ballroom and Sweeney Todd which, from what you observe, were not the best vehicles for her style of performance. I will say, she sounds like a real trouper and was often considered the best thing in bad shows, so it's nice that Annie's great success became her great success, too.
I don't think I can handle the children wondering why Loudon was the cat's pajamas.
YouTube her. Yeah, she can chew scenery, but she was also perfectly capable of pulling it back and delivering.
Much like a Debra Monk, she's in the category of performers who can stand solo on a stage and bring the house down. I can't say that about a lot of younger musical theatre folks today. They're pretty. They have great smiles. They're well-trained.
BenjaminNicholas2 said: "I don't think I can handle the children wondering why Loudon was the cat's pajamas.
YouTube her. Yeah, she can chew scenery, but she was also perfectly capable of pulling it back and delivering.
Much like a Debra Monk, she's in the category of performers who can stand solo on a stage and bring the house down. I can't say that about a lot of younger musical theatre folks today. They're pretty. They have great smiles. They're well-trained.
But they're bland."
More BWW snark. However.....
Children? If I saw her in Ballroom and Sweeney Todd, that would be 40 years ago, which hardly qualifies me as a child. BTW, instead of using YouTube I actually saw the woman perform in 2 of her most prominent roles, so I think I'm qualified to have an informed opinion. You are also dismissing all younger performers in the exact manner that you are chastising other people for not admiring Loudon, i.e., that they just don't know or understand. It's so contradictory.
As great as she was ...and she was off the chain great...it was a supporting role and should have been nominated as a supporting role. . I always thought it that had it she been nominated in the correct category both Andrea and Her would have won Tonys ! Please do not think I am knocking her performance or ability but the show was not called MIss Hannigan...it was Annie and that was the lead ...not Hannigan..It is something I still don't understand
bryan2 said: "As great as she was ...and she was off the chain great...it was a supporting role and should have been nominated as a supporting role. . I always thought it that had it she been nominated in the correct category both Andrea and Her would have won Tonys ! Please do not think I am knocking her performance or ability but the show was not called MIss Hannigan...it was Annie and that was the lead ...not Hannigan..It is something I still don't understand"
That's a fair assessment. I think industry people were so thrilled for Loudon's success that they were just all in for her. But the Tony's have a history of nominations in the wrong category. Tom Bosley won featured actor in Fiorello for playing ... Fiorello. Tammy Grimes got the featured actress award in Molly Brown for playing ... you guessed it, Molly Brown. The year before Loudon's win, George Rose won best actor for playing Eliza's father in MFL, the same role Norbert Leo Butz got a featured nod for last year.
Still, Loudon's performance is legendary so I think it's an okay decision.