"For the awards, both new works and revivals are lumped into a single category, Best Musical. This means that avant-garde innovations compete against tried-and-tested classics, with no rewards for new writing. The brilliant original rock score of Spring Awakening is up against the Open Air theatre's Hello, Dolly!, for instance."
Which is, of course, highly unfair. Hello Dolly!, being an old-fashioned musical comedy written in the mid-60s, is clearly the more radical and culturally transgressive. By comparison a rock musical written a few years ago is merely playing to the cultural mainstream. But I digress.
It is indeed curious. The Critics' Circle awards seem to do the same thing. Presumably the judges of these awards wouldn't think of pitting a new playwright's offering against a Tom Stoppard revival in the Best Play category. The Olivier awards do separate new musicals and revivals but, given that they once gave the gong to Return to the Forbidden Planet over Miss Saigon, they don't have the best track record. Compare this to Broadway's Tony awards which not only separates the awards for new musicals and revivals but also gives awards for Best Book and Best Score.
This shouldn't be too surprising. Broadway invented musicals and it's only right that they should understand and celebrate them the most. I suspect that most judges on British award panels would prefer not to have to spend their time weighing the theatrical merits of Priscilla Queen of the Desert against Never Forget - the Take That Musical. I can't say I really blame them. But to lump new musicals and revivals in the same category seems to deny that musicals even have authors who intentionally create them, as if they are just random happenings brought about by mere chance.
That's a very odd judging standard from the Evening Standard.
