James Franco Calls Out Ben Brantley- Page 2

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 12:48pm

"I can't help but feel that Brantley wrote his review before he saw the show."

But that can be said for so many shows that he reviews. Which is part of the problem.

Posted: 4/17/14 at 12:48pm

Well, Franco wasn't getting nominated anyway, as O'Dowd got better reviews across the board, they are both lead actors, and it's a really stacked season for Best Actor in A Play. But while O'Dowd and the play itself could still get nominated, I do think a NYT pan makes a big difference between a nomination and a win. With Brantley on board, they could have been frontrunners to actually win. That's out of the question now. Which shows the power of the NYT.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 12:50pm

Franco made a mistake in taking it down. What he said is absolutely true.

[haterobics]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 12:50pm

I do question letting critics see the shows before opening night. It gives them more time to craft and ruminate, whereas if they just saw the opening night show and were on deadline to write a review, they would actually write about what happened onstage, no?

You let Brantley see it days in advance, then he has too much time to tinker. Of course, if you think he writes much of it in advance anyway, then this wouldn't change anything.

Updated On: 4/17/14 at 12:50 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 12:53pm

If a critic had to write a review for the next mornings paper, things might be different. Old Ben might have to write about the show instead of trying to show people how clever he thinks he is. Ben is a legend in his own mind.

[mrsyaj]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 1:04pm

Most creative people probably shouldn't read their reviews at all. Critics exist to entertain the readers of their publications, not to make fair and tactful observations. But at its best criticism is an art form in itself and Franco has just demonstrated he's no goddamn writer.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 1:07pm

While I agree that Brantley is a terrible critic, I think an actor doing this is pretty childish. He's making a nice paycheck, the show is selling well, it's a limited engagement. Be happy you're employed, ignore the bad reviews, get on stage with integrity, and continue to deliver a performance you're proud of. It's hard to have any respect toward Franco for this, at least for me...

[lovebwy]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 1:13pm

Mr. Roxy, I disagree that he made a mistake taking it down. Even if you want to rebuke a critic, you don't do so by calling him "a little bitch" in a public forum. It's unseemly.

That said, I find Mr. Franco to be extremely attractive, and would let him do anything he wanted to me.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 1:16pm

We will agree to disagree about it.

Waiting for an actor to say something similar re the little twerp Riedel.

[Addison D.]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 1:18pm

I think that if Franco's complaint is that Brantley's review is not thoughtful, well-reasoned or properly considered--all of which I think is true--calling him a 'bitch' and an 'idiot' and saying that "everyone" "hates" him is hardly the thoughtful, well-reasoned or properly considered argument to support that complaint.

I generally agree that performers "should not" respond to critics, but I certainly understand the impulse to do so. Franco is uniquely positioned to voice the hurt feelings and outraged sensibilities of a larger community of actors who can't afford to make an enemy of the NYT theater critic.

The "inaccuracy" or tone-deafness of many of Brantley's reviews are not the result of his being a "bitch" or an "idiot", in my opinion. The opportunity to express an insightful, contrary opinion has been missed.

Updated On: 4/17/14 at 01:18 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 1:25pm

Franco is exactly the right person to say this.

After Mice he returns to film where Brantley cannot touch him. Many actors today are saying secretly or out loud what Franco said needed to be said. Someone had to take the Joker like grin off his Brantley's face. An actor who regularly works in NY theater would be committing career suicide to say this even though a majority think it.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 1:31pm

"I do question letting critics see the shows before opening night. It gives them more time to craft and ruminate, whereas if they just saw the opening night show and were on deadline to write a review, they would actually write about what happened onstage, no?"

It cuts both ways. Sometimes you do want a critic to ruminate and sometimes you just want an immediate response.

For example, Frank Rich saw Speed The Plow and gave a decent review to Madonna. After many people wondering what Madonna had done to Rich to get that review, he had to walk back his review and admit she wasn't as good as he had originally thought.

Plus I also wonder if there is wisdom in reviewing opening night. The production team has pushed so hard to get a show open that many times opening night is running on sheer adrenaline and may not be a representation of the show once it settles in.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 1:35pm

It worked well (reviewing on opening night) for many many years .

Posted: 4/17/14 at 1:48pm

Franco isn't the right person to say this, mainly because he lacks the credentials of a great stage actor. He's a dilletantte film actor/student/writer/polymath making his Broadway debut as if it's something to cross off his bucket list.

Haven't "theatere folk" been grumbling for a couple of years about entitled film stars coming to New York and taking over. Now one of these entitled film stars, with barely any stage experience,is throwing a tantrum, when he's not treated like a King by critics. It's just not a good look any way you slice it. You'd need someone like Kevin Spacey (a big Hollywood star with lots of stage cred and previous experience) to call Brantley out, for it to really resonate. Spacey could have done so in 2007, when Brantley gave him a pretty harsh review for A Moon For The Misbegotten. But Spacey is a theatrical pro and veteran and knows that bad reviews come with the territory.

[artscallion]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 1:53pm

The problem with doing something like this is that it draws attention to the review. Most of America probably wouldn't have read or seen the bad review if Franco hadn't pointed it out to them. So now middle America not only is looking at a bad review of the play, they're also seeing big baby behavior from Franco. Not all publicity is good publicity in my opinion.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 1:54pm

"Someone had to take the Joker like grin off his Brantley's face."

wut

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 1:54pm

Big difference between bad reviews that come from critics and bitchy ones that come from "reviewers"

Many movie stars are actual good actors and can handle Broadway. One is not exclusive of the other.

[Addison D.]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 2:10pm

Franco cannot be both a 'Polymath'--an expert in many fields--AND a 'dilettante'--someone who dabbles in many fields with no commitment or expertise. Those two characters are precisely exclusive of one another.

Unless you have direct, personal knowledge of Franco's intentions, I consider the notion that appearing on Broadway as just "something to cross off his Bucket list" to be pure speculation.

Lacking any actual knowledge of Franco's inner feelings, why not be more generous and assume that he worked hard to do his best, with full consciousness of the privilege that being on Broadway represents?

Updated On: 4/17/14 at 02:10 PM

Posted: 4/17/14 at 2:20pm

Well, I do believe Franco is really good at a few things (hence the polymath), but reading the other day that he's had 31 different jobs in the last couple of years, leads me to believe that he's at least a dilitante in several of them. With Franco, I don't actually believe the terms are exculsive of one another

He likes doing a lot of different things, maybe to find out what he's best at. I dunno. If someone told me that James Franco's next job was to be an Astronaut, i woudn't be in the least bit surprised.

[Addison D.]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 2:23pm

^^^ Fair enuf. Maybe he IS capable of being both...lol.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 2:24pm

I say good for him. I hate the idea that actors don't get to have an opinion. If that's what he felt like saying, then why not? The fact that I agree with him entirely (save for Brantley's priceless, 100% accurate review of BULLETS OVER BROADWAY) doesn't hurt.

[HighFlyingAdored97]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 2:32pm

I don't know who annoys me more - James Franco or Ben Brantley. Brantley seems incapable of writing a coherent and insightful review. Franco should wake up and realize he isn't very talented and that he NEVER stood a chance against Rylance, McKellen, Stewart, or any of the other leading men this season.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 2:38pm

And, to think, somewhere Michael Feingold is trying to find freelance work...

[NotTheComfyChair]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 2:42pm

Mr Franco could be getting angry at a lot of people.... Will he call them all out?

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-cm-of-mice-and-men-review-20140417,0,6448706.story#axzz2zAcXy0eF

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 2:49pm

"Even if you want to rebuke a critic, you don't do so by calling him "a little bitch" in a public forum. It's unseemly."

Says the person who called Woody Allen a disgusting, racist, pedophile in a Bullets thread? Right.

Is it just me, or is the supremely douchey side of Franco starting to outweigh his surprisingly insightful side? They've been see-sawing for years, but it seems one side is starting to win. If he's going to pen uber-pretentious editorials defending Shia LaBeouf's "performance art" (barf) and make viral videos mocking Kanye and Kim (fine with me!), then he should show a sense of humor or learn to roll his eyes when a critic makes some very mild critiques of his work. Not to mention, responding to a New York Times theater critic by calling him a "little bitch" on Instagram looks... dumb.

Updated On: 4/18/14 at 02:49 PM