Ben Brantley

[CapnHook]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 12:27am

Why is Brantley the one to watch for? What makes his opinion so desired and cherished? I don't get it...

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 12:30am

The NY TIME'S chief drama critic always holds the most weight.


They can do wonders to a show; or destroy a show.
Updated On: 3/28/08 at 12:30 AM

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 12:31am

well, I think first and foremost he's writing for the New York Times, which is generally one of, if not the, most respected newspapers in the country. a glowing review from the Times is key for boosting sales.

he was also one of the very few to give Patti a lukewarm review for the City Center production, so it's a really big deal that he's raved about the Broadway transfer.

[courtnyj]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 12:35am

Just wanted to post so we'd have four Patti avatars in a row.


But seriously, it's the New York Times. His review gets the most exposure. I look forward to seeing it in the paper here in Seattle when I wake up tomorrow morning! Updated On: 3/28/08 at 12:35 AM

[Not Barker, Todd.]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 12:38am

And ONE Arthur Laurents!

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 12:40am

It's not so much who he is as it is who he writes for. If Brantley and another major critic were flipped, Brantley wouldn't still be the big one to watch; it would be whoever wrote for the Times.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 12:42am

So it's just the Times title -- good. Just making sure that I didn't miss something, like, you know...some sort of declaration that he was the god of theatre...

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 12:47am

I really don't think NYT has as much power as it did two decades ago. I mean, Passing Strange got a rave in the NYT and look at how it is selling. I really think that we view it to be the most prestigious, but it doesn't have nearly the effects that we think it does.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 12:50am

I don't think he's trained, or anything, if that's what you're asking. He's got a BA in English and really loves the theater; his start in journalism was in fashion.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 12:51am

Neddy, I think that's because there are lots of other outlets now that impact public opinion -- like, say, the internet.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 12:52am

I think he has been kidnapped and that review was written by someone else.
It didn't seem like him at all.
Am I being paranoid?
Yes they can get quotes and use them but a rave from the TIMES ain't what it used to be.
He loved SIDESHOW, and I believe the only thing he liked about WICKED was Cheno. (and she didn't win the TONY)

[courtnyj]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 12:52am

TV appearances and commercials sell tickets now.

A poster said in the review thread said he/she saw Brantley at the show Tuesday night with a big smile on his face. Updated On: 3/28/08 at 12:52 AM

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 12:57am

Emcee- Exactly. I really think that the AP has more of an impact than the NYT.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 4:27am

He just has a BA in English and used to be a film critic.
It really has absolutely nothing to do with who he is (look who Clive Barnes is writing for now), it's about the NYTimes, nothing more, nothing less. I do enjoy his reviews better than Isherwood's though, probably because he is more queeny.

[scaryclowns223]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 8:59am

He's a brilliant writer though, some of his language is really beautiful/vivid.

[bertandrew2]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 9:02am

I love how, since Brantley loved Gypsy, that everyone is now all "Wow that Brantley is amazing--yes yes!" -- yes when he pans something, its another story.

[James885]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 9:52am

I will say this - I enjoy reading his reviews, even though I may not agree with him all the time. When he loves something (as he clearly loves this Gypsy) he really really raves about it and it gives you a sort of warm fuzzy feeling to read, but when he hates something and really pans it, those reviews can be so entertaining! His review of The Little Mermaid was one of the funniest reviews I've read. He's like the only who can make me laugh reading theatre reviews.

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 10:09am

Here is a question....Would you say The Times had more of an impact when more New Yorkers were going to the theatre? My friends in New York tell me less and less New Yorkers go to the theatre. I know a good friend of mine moved there 4 years ago and he has only seen 3 shows. When he lived here in Denver, we used to go to the theatre all the time. I know years ago, when I lived in Phila., The Times was the review I would look for. Just wondering.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 10:09am

BertAndrew--can you please stop being an asShole just for one day?

Why don't you step away from the computer and do something useful and productive?

Like stand underneath a construction crane or something.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 10:27am

Brantley more queeny than Isherwood? I'd say they run nip and tuck on that issue.

[broadwayjim42]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 10:35am

I have a BA in English and really love the theater....

Is the New York Times in my future?:)

[ThatBroadwayBitch]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 10:39am

Does anyone have a picture of him? I always imagined him to be ruggedly handsome...

[broadwayjim42]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 10:42am

I hope you're kidding....

He's very....ummmm....lippy

ETA....you are kidding. Thank Christ. Updated On: 3/28/08 at 10:42 AM

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 10:48am

He's an okay reviewer, WAAY too much of a starf**ker, tho. Michael Feingold--even though I don't always agree with him--is still the best NY theatre reviewer.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 3/28/08 at 10:49am

Rugged, no; handsome, are you kidding?