A solid, unsurprising winner. Nice to see it go to a female playwright (and an African-American female, only the second such in Pulitzer history.)
Gina Gionfriddo's "Becky Shaw" would have also made a good winner...just thank goodness they didn't give it to "In the Heights" (aka Sesame Street in the Barrio) which doesn't even remotely deserve to be finalist - a fluke that doesn't often happen at the Pulitzers.
Posts: 2803 | Location: New York, New York | Registered: August 08, 2003
It's a good question, pacinofan. The show has changed considerably since its Off-Broadway run (believe it or not it's a bit better), but that sort of thing doesn't usually matter.
Posts: 2803 | Location: New York, New York | Registered: August 08, 2003
I believe any play by any american playwrtite is eligiable at any time. The play does not have to be currently in production hence that Rabits Hole won two years ago even though it had left broadway the year before.
Originally posted by LostBoy2003: I believe any play by any american playwrtite is eligiable at any time. The play does not have to be currently in production hence that Rabits Hole won two years ago even though it had left broadway the year before.
Any new play by an American that recieved a production in the U.S. in the calendar year under consideration is eligible.
The reason "Rabbit Hole" ended up winning the Pulitzer so long after it played is because that was the first year they changed the eligibility calendar.
It doesn't explain why "In the Heights" was eligible when it premiered during the previous Pulitzer year...though the show did change for Broadway somewhat, to consider it a completely new show is absurd.
I still don't get it.
Posts: 2803 | Location: New York, New York | Registered: August 08, 2003
