Alec Baldwin Sounds Off on Brantley- Page 4

[Wynbish]

Posted: 5/9/13 at 11:15am

What I've taken from Namo's posts in this thread is that people should possibly set aside predisposed thoughts on Alec and see if he actually could be right about Brantley. If someone else who has not yelled at a daughter, punched a photographer, and played a phone game too long on a plane wrote this piece, what would we think about it then? Or do we want to shoot the messenger?

[dreaming]

Posted: 5/9/13 at 11:25am

You know what? Mr. Baldwin has a point. And I think he made it very intelligently. I think he is right-Brantley should not have the power he does (no one should in this business). The Times needs to get some fresh blood for theater critics. This is ridiculous.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 5/10/13 at 7:56pm

If Ben Brantley has become irrelevant, why do a piece on him in the media?

[Brick]

Posted: 5/10/13 at 8:18pm

I don't think Baldwin's point was that Brantley has no relevance. He was saying what every I've only heard every NY theatre artist I know say out loud, all the time: people fear his review, but no one respect his opinion.

Baldwin points out that this was not true of Frank Rich, and isn't even true of Isherwood.

Updated On: 5/10/13 at 08:18 PM

[Playbilly]

Posted: 5/10/13 at 9:51pm

Nano, Alec keeps pretending he's running for mayor, Trump for President. Both are blowhards, thin-skinned, insecure, and show through their insatiable need for attention, approval and some kind of relevance that they are truly sad people.

Politics? Both tend to be embarrassments to their sides.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/10/13 at 10:13pm

It's true that every interview I've read with Baldwin in the past five years, the interviewers always ask him if he's running for mayor and he always says no. I agree that's exactly like Trump running for President. Identical.

It's also unusual for an actor to crave attention. So you're definitely super insightful to notice that.

[Playbilly]

Posted: 5/10/13 at 10:17pm

I can also see you're kind of a dick. But, doesn't take much to notice that.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/10/13 at 11:26pm

Not sure what you want from me. You were right and I was wrong. Alec Baldwin and Donald Trump are exactly the same. Except Alec has genuine talent. But otherwise they're identical. They are still both demanding to see Obama's birth certificate, right.? Exactly the same. One has a terrific interview podcast with interesting guests. The other has The Apprentice. They're practically twins! One's the voice of the New York Philharmonic. The other shills wealth seminars in suburban motels. Indistinguishable! One puts his name on gaudy buildings. One shills for an awful credit card company and strong arms that company into funding the arts. I can't even tell which is which anymore. You are ohhhhhh sooooo right in your assertions.

[suestorm]

Posted: 5/11/13 at 9:43am

And the winner for post of a year 2013 goes to Playbilly!!

""I can also see that you're kind of a Dick. But doesn't take much to notice that""

LMFAO

[Wynbish]

Posted: 5/11/13 at 9:49am

One has Emmy awards. One is in the WWE Hall of Fame

[PennybankBill]

Posted: 5/11/13 at 2:40pm

Oy gevalt, suestorm. You're like a broken ****ing record.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 5/12/13 at 11:30am

What happened to ignoring the Russian sex worker? I thought we'd decided we weren't going to pay it any attention and eventually it would go away.

Also - Brantley's a dreadful critic. Baldwin has done nice work in the past, but ORPHANS leaves a lot to be desired. Both are wrong. And both are also right.

(That post adds nothing to this conversation. But I felt like saying it anyway.)

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/12/13 at 11:40am

"Both are wrong. And both are also right."

You are really trying to make La Femme Irritita's head explode like that guy in "Scanners," aren't you?

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/12/13 at 11:40am

Talent aside, Mr. "Anger Management Issues" is probably not the best person I can think of to call anybody out. It comes off as sour grapes here from a guy who calls his daughter a pig on a voicemail and gets booted off of airplanes because he won't power down.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 5/12/13 at 11:49am

This is a discussion that needs to be had.


Especially if the rumors are true that Michael Feingold will be looking for a job soon. 17 years is a very respectable tenure for a theater critic. It's now time for the Times to move on.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 5/12/13 at 11:49am

Double post.

Updated On: 5/12/13 at 11:49 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/12/13 at 12:00pm

I think best12bars is the first one to add a very important point to this thread about what *else* might be going on in Baldwin's article.

Borstal, I can't imagine the Times hiring Feingold for a couple of reasons. One is that since the Brantley era, the Times only seems to be interested in theater reviews as opposed to thoughtful theater criticism. The other is that Feingold has regularly pointed out that the current state of Broadway is not a very hospitable place for average New Yorkers. Also, I can't see him sitting through "Motown" and responding in a way that would please the advertising department.

[bryan2]

Posted: 5/18/13 at 8:54am

while I agree with Baldwin that this man has to much power...Frank Rich was also responsible for shows closing and was just as vicious...but he was a Baldwin Fan so that makes it different. Why Baldwin continues to work is beyond me...he publicly treats women and children like crap...not to mention dropping the N bomb on a reporter..the man is nothing...and to add to this he is an average talent..but keeps getting work, it really amazes me...mmm can someone clue me in to why
I always remember the Departed..the worst Boston accent in history it stopped the film when everyone started to laugh when he spoke in a Boston theater when I was watching it

[Dollypop]

Posted: 5/18/13 at 9:16am

Baldwin may be trying to say that Brantley caused the early demise of ORPHANS, but I attended a performance earlier this week and it was packed. I mean PACKED. I'm guessing that most tickets were purchased through TDF. We all WANTED to enjoy the play but at the denouement we were terribly disappointed. Really, what was the play about? It seemed to end exactly where it started. It's hard to tell, though because one of the actors had poor diction and was dropping his voice at key points in his dialogue.

The exit conversation among the theater-goers indicated most people didn't enjoy themselves. Bad reviews didn't do in this production. A mediocre play with uneven performances did.

I'm glad I saw this show, though. Tom Sturridge gave a brilliant performance in it.

[AC126748]

Posted: 5/18/13 at 9:30am

I attended ORPHANS this week as well, and it was decidedly not packed. At least not in the mezzanine, where entire rows were empty or close to empty near the top.

I found the production to be a trying experience. Baldwin miscast, Foster amateur, Sturridge overly actory.