Brantley's take on "The Frogs"; "The Frogs" take on Brantley- Page 2

[bta212]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 4:18pm

Margo is right on. (Our icons suggest we are destined to think alike....).
Most of the current critics show little breadth or depth of historical reference, lousy writing skills and a sad level of participation in the hype-driven celebrity-worshipping version of criticism.

Unanimity of opinion on the part of the critics may be indicative of a broad-brush idea ("The Producers is funny") but subtlety of thought or perception? No.

[bta212]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 4:19pm

Oh, and I didn't like "the Frogs".

[nystateomind04]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 4:20pm

while we are on the subject of critics hurting shows, could someone enlighten me on the story of why "caroline, or change" was not re-reviewed when it moved to broadway? i believe i read that there was some backstory to it, and i don't believe i found a review by mr. brantly, last i checked. i try not to put too much stock in any critics opinions, but i have to admit that i've been guilty of checking the times review before seeing shows, now and then. to be honest, i respect margochanning's opinion more than brantly's anyway, so i may just stick to the board for my reading before i get tickets from now on (not that every opinon here is an educated, well-expressed one, not by ANY means () but some are) Updated On: 8/2/04 at 04:20 PM

[midtowngym]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 4:26pm

Margo--i nominate you as a theater critic--calling Rupert Murdoch... You seem to be more qualified than most of the theater critics i've read.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 4:41pm

The Times official policy is that they don't re-review shows that move from off-Broadway to Broadway, unless there are major cast changes. In the case of CAROLINE, Aisha de Haas replaced Adriane Lenox as the Moon and one of the kids was replaced, but on the day after the Broadway opening, the Times simply ran a Critic's Notebook piece on page 3 (a couple of mildly positive paragraphs about the show that sort of read like a review) as a sort of compromise. Behind the scenes, apparently there was a great deal of tension -- Arts editor Frank Rich loved the show (he's always been a major Kushner supporter) and wrote glowingly about it in his Sunday essay. He also ran a couple of features on Kushner and Pinkins. Brantley was less enthusiastic about it (the quote from his original review was something like, the show was "too good, to be good" -- whatever the hell that means). Since Rich couldn't order Brantley to write another, more positive review -- and it wouldn't have looked good if Rich, former lead critic himself, had just written his own rave and ran it on that Friday -- they compromised with the Critic's Notebook piece.

Personally, I wish Rich would just fire Brantley and take over reigns himself. He's a great writer and personally, I love his taste (he was a major champion of Kushner, Ludlam, Guare, et al; he was one of the few major critics to give "Dreamgirls" an unqualified rave, and, was a major supporter of "Sunday In The Park," which never would have survived as long as it did without him coming up with a new feature story on the show whenever sales were lagging and it was in danger of closing).

Updated On: 8/2/04 at 04:41 PM

[Mamie]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 5:43pm

"The fact is, there is better writing on this board some days than what we now put up with from some of the major dailies and weeklies -- clear, to the point, with a lucidly expressed opinion. Some of these so-called journalists should take note."

This is a fine example. Brava Margo!

[Caravaggio]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 6:21pm

"With most of today's critics, Brantley included, you can finish reading one of their badly written ramblings and at the end still have no idea whether they liked the show or not, (or what specifically was bad or good about a show that lead them to their non-opinion)."


Thank you for that, Margo. That pretty much sums up Brantleys take on THE FROGS.

Remember when THE VOICE referred to him as 'the Bambi of Broadway' because he was THEN considered to be (overly) nice in his reviews? He was contrasted with 'The Butcher of Broadway', Frank Rich, whose witty asides seem mild indeed to the personal and nastiness of the current crop - call that the JohnSimonizing of criticism.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 6:45pm

"With most of today's critics, Brantley included, you can finish reading one of their badly written ramblings and at the end still have no idea whether they liked the show or not, (or what specifically was bad or good about a show that lead them to their non-opinion)."

I absolutely agree. I generally try and read all the reviews I can find the day after a given show opens, especially when it is one that I able to get into Opening Night for myself. The problem is, I have never once read a Brantley review which, by the end, shows what he actually thinks of the show. I generally get the impression with many a reviewer, that what they do is try to find many an analogy or comparison to something else instead of actually coming out and stating an opinion. The very fact that the reviewers rarely ever unanimously agree, just shows how subjective reviewing really is.

Generally speaking though, I don't know a lot of people who actually read the reviews. I do, and obviously the rest of you on here do, but the average theatergoer who comes into town and hangs out on the TKTS line doesn't really seem to be that well informed. Yes, I do think that the critics are a good thing to have but I don't think that one can base whether or not he or she wants to see something based on them. I think their purpose should be more of what you read just to see what someone else thought.

Updated On: 8/2/04 at 06:45 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 9:47pm

The thing that I remember most about Rich was how beautifully he could capture a theatrical moment using mere words, so artfully painting the picture -- the feeling, the sound, the visual -- that you felt as if you were there in the theatre experiencing it yourself. It was eloquent, but it was also old-fashined reportage, in the tradition of Brooks Atkinson and Harold Clurman and Elliot Norton of the Boston Globe -- old school newspapermen who earned their stripes as regular reporters writing about fires and robberies and police corruption etc... before they got assigned to the theater beat and discovered that they had a knack for it. They had developed all the basic journalistic skills and knew how to tell the story of any "event" to a reader and they used those same tools to explain in detail not only the facts, but the sensations and visceral details of the theatrical happening that they had just witnessed. They have few present day equivalents.

You also got the sense, from the pains they would often take to explain their reactions to a show, that they really cared about the theatre and the future of the artform. Eliot Norton was famous for tailoring his reviews in the Boston Globe (usually for shows out-of-town trying to "fix" themselves before they got to New York) towards the creative teams. On occasion, he would even actually sit down and have meetings with the directors, playwrights, composers, etc... and give them advice (often heeded) about how to improve their shows. Neil Simon has said that the only time in his long career when a critic actually helped him, was when he was in Boston with "The Odd Couple" and having third act problems. The first two acts were perfect, but the play was dying in the third. He rewrote it every day for every performance and nothing was working. Then Norton's review came out in the Globe in which he said something to the effect that the show was great for two acts, the third act wasn't working, and then asked in his review, "Why not bring back those charming Pigeon sisters for Act Three?" Simon read that, wrote a big third act scene for the Pigeon Sisters and the rest is history.

Rich is another who really went out of his way to champion shows he believed in. For all of the criticism that Rich used to receive about being the "Butcher of Broadway" because a negative review from him had the power in some cases to close a show (not always, as he often pointed out), I'm sure many of those same producers and theatre professionals would love to have him back after all these years of Brantley. I remember during a 60 Minutes profile of him, when asked about the whole "butcher" thing, he said that the only responsibility he felt was to his readers -- that theatre tickets are too expensive and many people relied on him so they could decide whether it was worth plunking down $40 (the top price in those days) for a ticket. His reviews were written so expansively most of the time that you really could decide for yourself whether a show sounded like something that you would enjoy regardless of his ultimate opinion of it. I went to see a few of the shows that he panned, simply because his description of them made them sound so interesting (and I invariably, ended up agreeing with his ultimate assessment that the shows weren't very good).

This current crop of critics, for the most part, seem to care nothing about the artform of theatre. Shows are either all bad or all good with nothing in between. Most distressing is that they are ill-equipped to evaluate what they are looking at, making idiotic proclamations filled with factual errors and a clear lack of understanding regarding the history of theatre and stagecraft -- acting, directing, design, text, music, etc... Present them with a play that isn't wrapped up in a tidy little bow, that is at all challenging or experimental or attempting to perhaps break a bit of new ground, they simply dismiss it, wholecloth, as a failure and not worth anyone's time.

Works before their time have always had this problem. Atkinson said of WAITING FOR GODOT "don't expect this column to explain [it]. It is a mystery wrapped in an enigma." But then the clearly puzzled Mr. Atkinson at least had the where-with-all to continue "But you can expect witness to the strange power this drama has to convey the impression of some of the melancholy truths about the hopeless destiny of the human race." He went on to praise the cast and direction, made some valid interpretational points and then said "theatregoers can rail at it, but they cannot ignore it." Wow, a critic smart enough to recognize the value and importance of a very difficult piece who rather than dismiss it because he can't fully comprehend it in one sitting (totally understandable in 1958, when unlike today, he had an hour or so to make sense of what he had seen and write a review of it), he praised what he could understand and was open enough to give the benefit of the doubt to the rest. That's why they named a theatre after that man (and Walter Kerr; we won't ever see a Ben Brantley or Clive Barnes or John Simon Theatre on Broadway .... or anywhere else for that matter).

Donald Lyon of the Post (who once said something to the effect that he didn't think that Edward Albee had the ability to write about "complex" subject matter) and Margo Jefferson, second-stringer for the Times (whose lukewarm review of the terrific play "Intimate Apparel" is the main reason the show didn't have a longer life in New York -- ridiculously saying that the estimable director Daniel Sullivan "is a mechanical director. His blocking is efficient, never organic, and props are always used predictably") were both "relieved" of their posts recently. I do hope, for all our sakes, that this is the beginning of a trend.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 10:38pm

Get the popcorn!

[MusicMan]

Posted: 8/3/04 at 2:11am

Feingold is not only the best critic on the beat these days but also one who understands and loves musicals and can critique the form intelligently. Terry Teachout of the Wall Street Journal also provides honest and insightful coverage of the theatre scene, with a particular appreciation of musicals. His articles, including IS THE MUSICAL COMEDY DEAD? and STEPHEN SONDHEIM'S OPERAS, available online, also provide additional food for thought. Other essays of Teachout's have been collected in THE TERRY TEACHOUT READER. Mark Steyn, a British journalist and author of BROADWAY BABIES, SAY GOODNIGHT!, displays remarkable critical acumen in THE NEW CRITERION. I strongly recommend everyone here to read his brilliant, fascinating, and disturbing double review of ASSASSINS and A RAISIN THE SUN in an article entitled RAISIN' CAIN (available on THE NEW CRITERION site).
Heilprin and Lahr too often have championed works that I have found are unworthy of the praise lavished upon them so I am less inclined to rely on them. But the three gentlemen mentioned above display the scholarship, erudition, discernment, taste and experience to which I refer earlier. Updated On: 8/3/04 at 02:11 AM

[SamIAm]

Posted: 8/3/04 at 9:04am

It is interesting that one of the things that the recently fired Times critic, Jefferson, was accused of doing was pontificating and telling the creative team how to improve the show. While this was sometimes done by critics in the old days, the relationship with the Broadway community was a different one and these critics often HAD some theatrical knowledge and background.

Not to say that there aren't a few good critics out there today but the concept of a great review is gone the way of USA Today and the sound byte. A review that allows the audience to see, hear and feel the show without even going while still giving them the credit that they are intelligent enough to make their own decisions seems to be passe. Critics write for the short attention span -- get to the point and tell us whether we should like or the show or hate the show. It's truly a ashame because I used to love to read Rich and Norton and, though I didn't always agree with them, I appreciated their use of language and their intelligence and analysis. Now, when I read a review, I feel like I'm digesting a burger with fries instead of a culinary masterpiece prepared by a wonderful chef.

[Caravaggio]

Posted: 8/3/04 at 9:06am

I find Lahr usually spot-on. His writing is filled with affection for the theater. His biggest problem is that he cannot resist giving away major plot points, so its better to read him AFTER one sees the show.

Steyn is not stupid, but while he assails the "left-wing" Broadway world, he has his own agenda, fortified by a deep-seated loathing for both Sondheim and homosexuals. The first is actually interesting to read even as one might heartily disagree with it - but the latter is contemptible.

Conservative critics like Hilton Kramer can be fun to read and I find mysellf agreeing with him a lot (particularly on contemporary art) and cherfully disagreeing with him when it comes to any art earlier than the beginning of the twentieth century.

Updated On: 8/3/04 at 09:06 AM

[MusicMan]

Posted: 8/3/04 at 10:08am

Steyn questions (as he should) why someone as knowledgeable about the musical theatre form as Sondheim should remain intent on subverting rather than embracing its opportunities for audience engagement and feeling. A fair question. And his review for ASSASSINS correctly reveals the hollowness of conception and idea behind that show. As far as agendas go, Steyn is a helluva lot less self-serving than the pompous, self-inflating Frank Rich. Updated On: 8/3/04 at 10:08 AM

[Caravaggio]

Posted: 8/3/04 at 10:11am

What is your take on his homophobia?

[MusicMan]

Posted: 8/3/04 at 11:25am

It's not a perception that ever occurred to me. Or, more accurately, one that I recall having. Updated On: 8/3/04 at 11:25 AM

[Caravaggio]

Posted: 8/3/04 at 12:37pm

Gee, I guess you must have skipped his chapter in BBSG entitled THE FAGS, where it is quite evident that he is exceedingly uncomfortable that Broadway is a haven for gay men and lesbians.

I found myself astonished that such loathesome hatred could appear in a work obstensibly on the Broadway musical.

Hardly a shining example of the "taste" and "discernment" you find in him.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 8/3/04 at 2:11pm

Since it's been five years since I've read BROADWAY BABIES, SAY GOODNIGHT!, you'll have to forgive me if I don't remember it. But, apparently, it made less of an impression on me than Hemingway's comments to Gertrude Stein about homosexuality in A MOVEABLE FEAST which I read 20 years ago and were a defining moment for me (which I can specifically recall to this day) in my understanding of Papa's deep insecurities about his masculinity and a harbinger of his suicide.
That said, criticism needs to be a passionate act. I much prefer a literate critic who can analyze and write, such as a John Simon or Mark Steyn, who make clear their own humanity and their prejudices, however outrageous, to a panderer who plays it safe or pretends to be objective. Updated On: 8/3/04 at 02:11 PM

[SamIAm]

Posted: 8/3/04 at 2:31pm

MusicMan, as you said: Steyn questions (as he should) why someone as knowledgeable about the musical theatre form as Sondheim should remain intent on subverting rather than embracing its opportunities for audience engagement and feeling.

I PERSONALLY FIND SONDHEIM'S WORK COMMUNICATES A LOT OF FEELING TO THE AUDIENCE. WITNESS THE EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO MANY OF HIS SONGS THAT TOUCH CHORDS, LYRICALLY AND MUSICALLY, WITH MANY MANY PEOPLE AND MANY PERFORMERS WHO CONTINUE TO RECORD HIS SONGS ON SOLO CDS.

As to this statement: A fair question. And his review for ASSASSINS correctly reveals the hollowness of conception and idea behind that show.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN CALL ASSASSINS A HOLLOW CONCEPTION OR IDEA. IT IS DISTURBING AND ASKS SOME EXTREMELY DIFFICULT QUESTIONS. I DON'T FIND ANY HOLLOWNESS IN THIS CONCEPT UNLESS YOU THINK THAT UNDERSTANDING THE HUMAN PSYCHE AND ITS DESCENT INTO VIOLENCE TO ACHIEVE RECOGNITION IS A HOLLOW CONCEPT. IN WHICH CASE FREUD AND OTHER ANALYSTS HAVE WASTED A LOT OF TIME ANALYZING AND WRITING ABOUT THE SUBJECT.

And finally: As far as agendas go, Steyn is a helluva lot less self-serving than the pompous, self-inflating Frank Rich. I AM HARD PRESSED TO SEE THAT ANY CRITIC IS LESS THAN SELF SERVING. THEIR JOB IS TO CRITICIZE SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK AND TO DO THIS THEY MUST BELIEVE THAT THEIR OPINION IS IMPORTANT AND INFLUENTIAL. IF THEY ARE NOT SERVING THEMSELVES IN ORDER TO EARN A PAYCHECK AND ATTRACT READERSHIP FOR THEIR PUBLICATION, THEN WHO ARE THEY SERVING? MANKIND?

[SamIAm]

Posted: 8/3/04 at 2:36pm

I find Steyn's statements that indicate 'Broadway is a haven for gay men and lesbians.' a great shock. Are you trying to tell me that there are a lot of gay people in the theater? I am shocked...shocked, do you hear me?

Seriously, if this guy really is pushing this idea in print, then the statement that was made on this thread that people should respect someone for having the courage to express their opinion cannot apply. I DO hate people who pretend to be objective and aren't and I respect people who have the courage of their convictions, but this kind of thing is not opinion...it is bigotry and cannot be applauded by anyone as 'opinion' or 'point of view'

[MusicMan]

Posted: 8/3/04 at 5:43pm

Most of Sondheim's work speaks to me also (less so after SWEENEY TODD, however). But, unlike Rodgers and Hammerstein, Lerner and Loewe, etc., it still remains caviar to the general public, which, I believe, is Steyn's point.
The 'insights,'as such, of ASSASSINS are of the most facile, simplistic and obvious kind. And as there are no characters of any substance with which the audience can identify, psychological observations are pre-empted by comedy shtick, which presents these contemptible losers as hilarious. Swell.
As for THE FAGS, until one of us reads (or re-reads, in my case) the article to see exactly what Steyn has to say, there's no point in arguing this topic. However, I suspect that, provocateur tho he may be, Steyn is more likely to credit gays for their accomplishments in musical theatre and lament their losses to AIDS rather than belittling them.

Posted: 8/3/04 at 5:52pm

Once again Margo is right. The last generation critics (Atkinson, Kerr and even Gussow) wrote interesting reviews and feature articles that people enjoyed and admired. they earned their stripes and whether they wanted it or not, became powerful voices in the theater. The theater was taken more seriously than it is today. I remember wearing a jacket and tie to the theater for crying out loud.

The media scope was much narrower than it is now. Today There are newspapers from Toronto, magazines with varying demographic readers, TV networks - national, local and cable - all want a say in what they audiences think they want to hear. And everybody has a gimmick to command attention.

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 8/3/04 at 5:57pm

"they perform an invaluable function in our society."

I don't think society would be any worse off.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 8/3/04 at 7:17pm

Tommyboy, what's stopping you from wearing a jacket and tie to the theater today?

[bythesword84]

Posted: 8/3/04 at 8:32pm

Just because other people aren't wearing a jacket and tie to the theater doesn't mean you can't tommyboy, start it back up again. Maybe people will follow.