Brantley's take on "The Frogs"; "The Frogs" take on Brantley

[Mike3]

Posted: 8/1/04 at 5:14pm

I often marvel at creativity in advertising. Case in point - in a full-page add for "The Frogs" in today's New York Times, one prominent quote reads:

"This musical has the highest concentration of blue-ribbon talent of any show on Broadway!" -Brantley, The New York Times

Now, while it may be true that those words did in fact appear in Mr. Brantley's review of "The Frogs" (sans the exclamation point by the way) anyone who read the review will recall that this is hardly a compliment. It is, rather, a drumroll which culminates in Mr. Brantley's scathing conclusion one paragraph later:

"After dwelling with such craven procrastination on the fine ingredients that make up "The Frogs," I am forced to concede that what should have been a zesty, airy soufflé is a soggy, lumpy batter that never shows the slightest signs of rising."

While I personally found Mr. Brantley's review off the mark, I don't see how the producers of "The Frogs" can call this reponsible advertising.

What do y'all think?

[Matt_G]

Posted: 8/1/04 at 5:25pm

I really enjoyed The Frogs personally and didn't agree at all with that review, so I think it's hilarious that they're using it. If he said it, they can advertise with it.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 8/1/04 at 5:32pm

The marketing, like the show itself, has the whiff of desperation about it.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 8/1/04 at 5:46pm

snipping out the lines that appear to be complimentary and ignoring the rest.

I don't happen to like this kind of advertising but personally I think it's a nose tweak in Brantley's direction and done with a clear tongue in cheek.

As for desperation, the show has sold all subscription tickets and tickets are not plentiful so I don't think they are desperate. Brantley hated WICKED too and they didn't suffer... and there were critics who liked the Frogs (Variety, AP, Reuters). Whether you like the show or not, I think it's going to be around until its October closing

[ProducersFan]

Posted: 8/1/04 at 6:56pm

This happens all the time with advertisements - nothing really new... It's just kind of funny when you catch them in their act. Personally I think it's pretty creative. "When life gives you lemons..."

~Jessica

[MusicMan]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 12:24am

Once again, you need to read your source materials with a little bit more care, SamIAm, as the Vatiety review for THE FROGS reads like this: "...The show doesn't really believe the theater can save mankind, because it hasn't the imagination to look beyond the obvious for playwrights and poets who might actually pull it off..."
Nobody gives a flying leap about THE FROGS.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 12:28am

I give a leap about it, MusicMan. I really enjoyed it. And while my opinion won't be as publicized as a review in the New York Times, I think the reviews from people here on these boards should be taken more seriously than those critics who are paid to pick them apart. Most of us, if not all of us here go to the theatre to sit back, relax and enjoy it. It's not a job for us.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 12:47am

But that's precisely why you're recommendation doesn't carry much weight, MattG. Critics don't just sit back and enjoy it--their scholarship, erudition, discernment, taste and experience influence their assessment of any given show. For these reasons, they perform an invaluable function in our society.

[broadwaystar2b]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 12:50am

Thank you Addison DeWitt

[Matt_G]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 12:51am

Sorry, that's crap. I don't listen to them the same reason I don't listen to film critics. It's one persons opinion. Why people let one person's jaded opinion influence them is forever beyond me. Again, the general public doesn't need their "scholarship, erudition, discernment, taste and experience". They just want to enjoy the show.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 12:55am

Judging from your icon, one can grasp your sensibilities.

'Nuff said.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 12:55am

Excuse me?

[broadwaystar2b]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 12:58am

Completely uncalled for

[DAME]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 1:15am

Totally uncalled for. I love your icon Matt.

[Al Dente]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 8:05am

What's your problem with Frogs Musicman? And what kind of a person does it make *you* if you are calling some of the most reviled people in the business, erudite and discerning? Even people who are consistenly lauded by these "erudite and scholarly" souls consider them to be little more than bottom feeding scum. Also, it is an oft used and time honoured tradition, to take out of context quotes and make them seem like a rave for a particular movie, Television show, B'way show, etc... Why so personally afronted MM?

[SamIAm]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 8:28am

MusicMan you are doing just what the creative team is accused of doing in the NYTimes ad. Taking one sentence out of context. If you read the reviews I pointed to, they were overall favorable reviews. I did NOT say that they thought the show was perfect and each of them (with the possible exception of Variety) had some things to point out that they did not like.

If 'no one' gives a leap about The Frogs, then why all the interest in the threads and why are there still audiences going to the show?

[EddieVarley]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 8:36am

The Frogs is doing what most shows haven't done this season, letting the audience THINK about the entertainment they witnessed, it's an intelligent and unusual work, with a healthy dose of honest laughs thrown in for good measure.

[midtowngym]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 9:27am

Catfight! I like this thread!

[SamIAm]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 9:35am

No one has really taken off the gloves yet...actually I was just thinking that most of this thread has been relatively mature and adult in tone.

Have we turned a corner?

[poodleboy]

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

No not catfight, frogfight.

[Caravaggio]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 11:33am

A critic you agree with shows scholarship, erudition, discernment, taste and experience.

A critic you disagree with is a pebble-brained fool who is completely devoid in intellectual curiosity, taste and doesn't know his a$$ from his elbow.

[midtowngym]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 11:41am

how true how true

[Matt_G]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 11:51am

I wasn't saying I agree or disagree with any critic. All I was saying was that people should go and make up their own minds instead of letting one person they don't even know do it for them.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 11:55am

I have to agree with you, Matt. I do read the critics but I never let them make my decisions for me. Whether I agree with them or not, they are a mild diversion. Who died and made them kings/queens anyway? Some are smart and objective...others are pompous jerks with very little actual theatrical knowledge to back them up...so take it all with a grain of salt.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 4:07pm

"scholarship, erudition, discernment, taste and experience"

OK, that describes Michael Feingold, head critic for the Voice for almost 35 years, who, even when I don't agree with him, I enjoy reading, respect his opinion and even learn from on occasion. John Lahr (New Yorker), John Heilprin (New York Observer) and Linda Winer (Newsday) are also eminently qualified.

That also describes John Simon, who has been reviewing for New York Magazine and other publications since the beginning of time and despite a very impressive vocabulary, has shown himself to be a racist, homophobic, misogynist bigot, who's opinion on anything, least of all the American Theatre, cannot be trusted (at least by me).

That also describes Clives Barnes, NY Post critic and former Times head critic who has reviewed theatre and dance even longer than Simon (since the 50's at least) and seems to be easily confused and gets lost trying to follow most shows (the fact that he falls asleep at nearly every show he's supposed to be reviewing -- I've seen him passed out on several occasions -- is probably to blame). He, like many, needs to retire.

That also described the all-powerful Ben Brantley, who's writing skills are mediocre and who's critical acumen leaves a lot to be desired, IMO. He also is frequently snippy and mean for no apparent reason -- qualities contemptible in a man who has the ability to single-handedly close shows and destroy reputations (unlike any other ctitic in the American Theatre).

That also describes Howard Kissel of the Daily News, about whom the kindest thing I can say is that he's a hack with no influence whatsoever.

Then there are folks like Elyse Gardner (USA Today), Roma Torre (NY1), and several others who are simply unqualified, lacking the experience or scholarship for the job (I once heard Torre actually say on the air, that she "doesn't like the classics" -- and she's a CRITIC? I'd have fired her on the spot)

The current slate of theatre critics is a truly sorry lot -- probably the worst we've ever seen in this city. Bring back the days of Walter Kerr, Frank Rich, Howard Taubman, Kenneth Tynan, Benedict Nightingale -- terrific writers with great analytical skills, experience, a sense of theatrical history and coherent writing styles, which meant the reader could actually ascertain their opinion and the reasons behind that opinion, allowing the reader to determine whether or not he wanted to see a particular show. 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).

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.

Updated On: 8/2/04 at 04:07 PM