The Need for Awards Season
As a thriving theater community in Los Angeles, we ought to have a real awards season.
I consider the major LA Theater Awards to be the following: The LA Ovation Awards, The LADCC Awards, The LA Weekly Awards, and The Backstage Garland Awards.
I base this simply on the fact that these awards have ceremonies, or at the very least, organized receptions or a public forum to acknowledge the work of the artists who are nominated. I recognize that simply having ceremonies is not the best criteria by which to judge an award, and I will address that next week. But for this week, I want to talk about how we can have an “Awards Season” that offers meaningful awards to members of our community and maximizes publicity.
Currently, we are operating within two different schedules. The Ovations season operates from August to July, and all the other awards operate from January to December. I really don’t have a great preference as to which schedule is better, but I would prefer that this schedule be consistent. It is confusing to have a set-up whereby show “A” can lose the 2011 LADCC to show “B,” while show “B” loses the 2011/2012 Ovation Award to Show “C,” while show “C” ends up winning the 2012 LADCC Award. Currently we operate in a system in which the winner of the 2011 LADCC and the winner of the 2012 LADCC can be competitors for the Ovation Award at the same time. To me, that’s weird.
If all four awards agreed to abide by the same schedule, however, then all shows opening within the same 12-month period would be eligible for all the awards– together, at the same time.
Once we got on the same eligibility schedules, we could then start to plan the awards ceremonies in a way that maximizes the press potential. Put another way, we could have a “season.” For argument’s sake, lets say that all four awards agreed that January through December was the best schedule; the best time frame in which to organize a “season.” This would mean that every year, all four of our awards shows could be produced in February and March. We could then organize the awards ceremonies by prestige: The Garlands would come first, since they don’t include a formal ceremony (the winners are simply chosen, announced, and invited to a reception). The next awards show would be the LA Weekly’s because of the fact that they are hosted by one, specific publication (and the ceremony itself is known to be something of a party atmosphere). Third would come the LADCC’s, and finally, at the end of the season, we’d finish with the Ovations, since they are the most glamorous (and I would argue, prestigious) of the awards shows.
To build this schedule, I would recommend the following:
- Start with the Garlands on the last Monday of January.
- Next the LA Weekly Awards on the second Monday in February.
- Then, the LADCCs on the fourth Monday in February.
- Finishing with the Ovations on the second Monday in March.
Now, I recognize that there are a lot of issues that go into the scheduling of the awards. But if the four organizers got together each year and worked out a schedule that was compatible between them, then whatever they came up with would presumably make sense, as long as it was planned with an understanding of the LA “Awards Season” being a whole– as opposed to four separate, individual awards.
If all four organizers timed their nomination announcements correctly, they could start to manufacture real “buzz” around the awards. The more they highlighted the competitive aspect of these awards, the more opportunity there would for press coverage that extends beyond theater publications.
In addition to settling on a standard schedule, It would also be great if the four award organizers could agree on some basic guidelines that all the awards shows should follow. These basic guidelines will further help to legitimize our major awards.
Here is my wish list of seven basic rules that any legitimate awards show should follow:
- You cannot have even the slightest hint of a conflict of interest or favoritism in any awards show. This means that if someone is a nominee, he or she should not be involved with the organization or administration of that awards show. Nor should he or she perform a service for the award show. He or she should not participate as a producer, director, marketer, or judge.
- The host (or hosts) should not be nominees. Presenters can certainly be nominees, but not the host, as the host provides a different role for the awards show that is more akin to that of a star or a service-provider. Employing a host who is also a nominee gives an appearance of favoritism, which violates rule number one.
- If you are going to include a performance from a production that is nominated in a “best production” category, then you need to allow equal time to all the nominated productions in that category. Allowing one nominated production to perform while not allowing another nominated production to perform, gives an appearance of favoritism. This violates rule number one.
- A producer should be allowed to determine the categories for which his or her production will be judged. Specifically, I am thinking about the acting awards. Producers should have the responsibility of determining who their leads vs. featured actors are, and whether their show should be considered for an ensemble award. And– this goes without saying but I will say it in any case– no show should be allowed to be nominated for both ensemble and individual acting awards.
- If an awards organization wants to be considered legitimate, it must have a clearly defined voting process and employ an independent accounting firm that is responsible for tallying the votes. Lack of funds is not an excuse for violating this rule. If you don’t have an independent accountant verify the results, then the awards organization should not be considered legitimate.
- Each awards show should initiate their voting process before the end of the year. Waiting until the end of a calendar year to begin the voting process is unfair to shows that run in the beginning of an award season, since these shows will likely be further from the mind of the voters. Whatever tallying method is employed, a voter’s opinion should be recorded when the voter has a fresh perspective on the project question. In the best scenario, this would mean voting within a few days following attendance of each performance.
- One winner per category. If we are to call ourselves a professional theater city, then we need to uphold a standard of all professional awards shows. Professional awards award one winner per category. Here, I will quote Colin Mitchell from www.bitter-lemons.com because he sums this up perfectly: “People, let’s be clear about this: the honor is being nominated, the distinction is winning.” (my italics)
Having a defined awards season, in which a group of major awards jointly agree to abide by some basic rules, will elevate the legitimacy of all the Los Angeles theater awards. With a legitimate awards season in place, we will be able to show the country, as well as ourselves, that our awards mean something. This, in turn, will elevate the reputation of LA theater.
Beginning next week, I will start to analyze the individual awards shows and offer specifics as to where I think they each can improve.
[...] Rick Culbertson has an excellent article up at his site Thoughts from a Los Angeles Theater Producer, concerning Theatre Awards here in Los [...]
Hear hear! I am completely in agreement with all your assertions, suggestions and wishes and hope that we can begin to make them reality…except for number 4 in your wish list. Most of the time I’d say it’s pretty easy to decide between submitting an ensemble or individual actors because producers will find that one choice is just clearly a better bet than the other if they’re really interested in having a chance at winning an award. However, there are definitely instances in which an ensemble is doing a fabulous job AND their leading lady and/or leading man are also giving wonderful, noteworthy performances. Why should one have to choose between the two categories if all three are worthy of consideration? I suppose my thought process here hinges on my feeling that an award-worthy ensemble in a theater production is called upon to use a different skill set than the one that’s used to create a compelling individual performance. An award-worthy performance from an ensemble shows a depth of interaction as a living, breathing whole–a synchronicity and chemistry that pervades the group and manifests itself in a collection of moments that would be markedly diminished were any single performer not fully tuned in to the activity and life that exists on that stage. That said, an ensemble can also contain fabulous individual performances that should be given a chance to compete against other excellent individual performances. To me, making a producer decide between ensemble or actor is like making a swim team decide to only compete in backstroke when they have kickin’ freestylers, too.
So who’s gonna contact the awards peeps and get things going?
Ensemble is not the same as chorus. If you can tell who the lead is, then you don’t have an ensemble cast. With an ensemble cast your actors are all roughly equal.
Hmmm. When I was an Ovation voter, I don’t believe that definition of ensemble was supplied, but perhaps I wasn’t paying attention at that little orientation meeting?
Here’s what Merriam-Webster has to say:
ENSEMBLE: a group producing a single effect as a: concerted music of two or more parts, b: a complete costume of harmonizing or complementary clothing and accessories, c (1): the musicians engaged in the performance of a musical ensemble, c (2): a group of supporting players, singers, or dancers.
I think c (2)–”a group of supporting players”–pretty much says “chorus” to me. Also, it’s common for actors in musicals, who may play several supporting characters, to list on their resumes, “ensemble” instead of listing the names of each character they played, anecdotal though that little tidbit of evidence may be.
I generally hate comparing theater and TV/film, but I think the SAG awards have it right. Actors have the opportunity to be nominated for both “Outstanding Performance by an Actor/Actress, etc.” AND for their work as a part of their ensemble with the “Outstanding Performance by a Cast” award.
I don’t know what you plan for your next post, but so far you haven’t mentioned that these awards programs don’t dip into identical pools of eligible productions. Most important, the LA Weekly awards are restricted only to shows in sub-100-seat theaters, eliminating many of the most important and best productions in LA County from consideration and (correct me if I’m wrong, Steven) all shows in neighboring counties. Would you ask all of the awards programs to adopt identical eligibility standards as part of your campaign to coordinate them into one marketable package?
I’m skeptical that any such efforts would result in more press coverage, which seems to be your primary goal. I was a staffer at the LA Times during the years when the editors began losing their interest in coverage of theater awards. This decline also coincided with the increase in the number of theater awards programs — which seemingly made any particular competition less significant, as opposed to the ancient days when the LADCC awards were the only game in town. The arrival of the Internet, with its ability to run the complete list of winners, also made the Times editors less interested in publishing the list in the newspaper. But then maybe you’re thinking of general-interest publications other than the Times? If so, which ones?
I don’t think that the LA Weekly Awards being only for 99-seat theaters is a reason to discount their relevance. The Lucille Lortel Awards in New York are only for Off-Broadway productions, while the Outer Critics Circle are for both Off-Broadway and Broadway and the Tony’s are just for Broadway. Having all three awards is important in New York. I am not concerned about the Weekly’s only awarding 99-seat theaters. As an awards organization, they have the right to determine eligibility, and as long as their methods are fair and clear, I have no issue. I do, however, think that all awards organizations should attempt to coordinate categories with each other so that we have some uniformity. For example, it would be nice if all awards had “best actor” and “best actress” categories. But as long as an organization is clear and fair with the awards they want to present, then it’s up to them.
As to the publicity: I know that we cannot force coverage. But does that mean that we shouldn’t try to better ourselves? Maybe the LA Times won’t cover us, but maybe Playbill, Broadway World and Theater Mania will increase their coverage of us. If we can get to a point where earlier awards can be discussed as leaders of the awards season, indicating possible later awards, then theater publications might have more incentive to write about them. Having an awards season would also provide more reason for people to discuss the awards, which might lead to feature articles (much in the same way we discuss the SAG awards and then the Golden Globes prior to the Oscars).
Wouldn’t it be great if, instead of every blogger and critic posting a meaningless top ten list, he or she actually discussed the awards that mattered? Maybe instead of posting a list, he or she could post their picks based on the nominations. He or she could discuss who was snubbed, who is a surprise, who is a dark horse, who is a sure thing. The more we discuss these types of issues, the more interested readers will be in the outcomes.
I am not naive enough to think that suddenly a ton of press coverage will emerge by simply tweaking this or that, but I am also not defeated enough to think we shouldn’t try.
To clarify the first sentence of my own just-submitted comment, I should have phrased it like this: you haven’t mentioned that there are other eligibility issues, besides the conflicting time frames (which you obviously do mention) — namely, the fact that the LA Weekly awards are limited to a much narrower pool than the other programs because of the Weekly’s sub-100-seat-only rule. Also, I might have mentioned that the Ovations are limited to LASA members — which eliminates South Coast Rep shows, for example.
Oh, I see more what you mean. I do think you have a point, but I still don’t think there is anything wrong with awards organizations setting their eligibility as they see fit. Again, as long as it is fair and clear. And all four do appear to me as fair and clear when it comes to eligibility.
It seems strange to me that South Cost Rep is not a member of the LASA, but to be eligible, you need to be a member. The same is true for the Tonys. You have to be a member of the League. If South Cost Rep wanted to win Ovations, they can join just like everyone else. (And they should join!)
[...] few weeks ago, I posted this post outlining why we need to have an awards season as well as some basic rules that our major [...]