#1
Posted: 4/13/10 at 7:50pm
Brantley Chimes in on N2N Pulitzer
#2
Posted: 4/13/10 at 7:51pm
Sorry....here's the link
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/theater/14drama.html?src=twt&twt=nytimesTheater
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/theater/14drama.html?src=twt&twt=nytimesTheater
#3
Posted: 4/13/10 at 9:09pm
These critics just don't get it, do they?
The award is for the best play, not the "most daringly innovative," the most off the wall, the most obscure, the most arcane, the most stick-your-finger-in-the-eye-of-the-bourgeoisie.
The best play, that's it.
The award is for the best play, not the "most daringly innovative," the most off the wall, the most obscure, the most arcane, the most stick-your-finger-in-the-eye-of-the-bourgeoisie.
The best play, that's it.
#4
Posted: 4/13/10 at 9:30pm
Critics love to think that they are so above the curve and while I admire the decision to pick works that are more obscure, they appear so childish and petulant when they write diatribes like this. N2N is a groundbreaker for sure. I'm sorry that it isn't as sophisticated as depression treated with vibrators, but it certainly has a lot of people feeling intense emotion and talking about theatre.
Brantley is such a tool sometimes.
Brantley is such a tool sometimes.
"The sexual energy between the mother and son really concerns me!"-random woman behind me at Next to Normal
"I want to meet him after and bang him!"-random woman who exposed her breasts at Rock of Ages, referring to James Carpinello
#5
Posted: 4/13/10 at 9:57pm
And this is coming from Ben Brantley, the champion of Next to Normal. Glad he voiced his stand, even as an apparent fan of the show. His opinion is quite valid.
~Steven
~Steven
#6
Posted: 4/13/10 at 10:57pm
I don't always agree with Brantley, but I always like his writing and somewhat agree with him in this case. I think people in general have an unfortunate inclination to think that as something becomes more popular, it seems shallower.
#7
Posted: 4/13/10 at 10:57pm
I'm sorry that it isn't as sophisticated as depression treated with vibrators
And yet In the Next Room is a more accurate portrayal of psychological treatments than Next to Normal.
After Eight, thank you for being so over-the-top absurd in your posts that people don't even have to respond to make you look bad.
And yet In the Next Room is a more accurate portrayal of psychological treatments than Next to Normal.
After Eight, thank you for being so over-the-top absurd in your posts that people don't even have to respond to make you look bad.
Like a firework unexploded
Wanting life but never knowing how
Wanting life but never knowing how
#8
Posted: 4/13/10 at 11:22pm
"And yet In the Next Room is a more accurate portrayal of psychological treatments than Next to Normal"
As a mental health professional, I politely disagree. In both shows the treatments are heightened for drama, but the emotional core is very truthful, more so in N2N. Plus, I think "In The Next Room", which I liked a great deal, is about sexuality not mental health.
I think critics think the "edginess" of a show like The Vibrator Play make it more worthy, when N2N is clearly resonating for more people.
As a mental health professional, I politely disagree. In both shows the treatments are heightened for drama, but the emotional core is very truthful, more so in N2N. Plus, I think "In The Next Room", which I liked a great deal, is about sexuality not mental health.
I think critics think the "edginess" of a show like The Vibrator Play make it more worthy, when N2N is clearly resonating for more people.
"The sexual energy between the mother and son really concerns me!"-random woman behind me at Next to Normal
"I want to meet him after and bang him!"-random woman who exposed her breasts at Rock of Ages, referring to James Carpinello
#9
Posted: 4/13/10 at 11:37pm
All I got from that article was, "Some people feel differently from me, and that makes my inner Bitch come out."
Put it back in.
Put it back in.
#10
Posted: 4/13/10 at 11:43pm
Thanks so much for posting this, I agree with Brantley! I'm a photojournalist with some interesting Pulitzer experiences--I actually won one I wasn't nominated for--and didn't win but was a finalist for work I did that was actually much more deserving. So my colleagues and I really live and die by some of these decisions, even when they don't make sense to us. But the difference is that when the Board overrules the juries for our awards, at least we newspaper people know that they're almost all esteemed journalists and journalism educators. (Although that said, I don't believe there are any editorial cartoonists or photographers on the Board, so we do wonder about that!)
I can only imagine that in the arts categories, the frustration for the jurors and for the finalists who may be brushed aside is a lot more acute...because in this case, they're making very important decisions about music and poetry and plays. At least they chose N2N, which whether you love it or not, breaks ground in presenting a musical about mental illness on Broadway! But as Brantley implies here, it might be wise for the Board to defer just a bit to the opinions of experts that they've appointed to make career-altering decisions...especially in the non-journalism categories. Or maybe put some folks from the arts on the Board itself?
I can only imagine that in the arts categories, the frustration for the jurors and for the finalists who may be brushed aside is a lot more acute...because in this case, they're making very important decisions about music and poetry and plays. At least they chose N2N, which whether you love it or not, breaks ground in presenting a musical about mental illness on Broadway! But as Brantley implies here, it might be wise for the Board to defer just a bit to the opinions of experts that they've appointed to make career-altering decisions...especially in the non-journalism categories. Or maybe put some folks from the arts on the Board itself?
#11
Posted: 4/13/10 at 11:52pm
Didn't all these people bitching about "middlebrow" NEXT TO NORMAL winning the Pulitzer thrill at f**king RUINED of all things taking it last year?
#12
Posted: 4/13/10 at 11:55pm
"actually much more deserving"
As if it's not subjective.
As if it's not subjective.
#13
Posted: 4/13/10 at 11:57pm
N2N is absolutely "middlebrow." Just as Next Fall is, for the record.
#14
Posted: 4/14/10 at 12:02am
I hate the mentality that when something becomes "mainstream" it loses validity. The L.A. Times article was a full out whine session; it was extremely catty.
Updated On: 4/14/10 at 12:02 AM
#15
Posted: 4/14/10 at 12:07am
Of course, "highbrow" does not necessarily mean better.
Updated On: 4/14/10 at 12:07 AM
#16
Posted: 4/14/10 at 1:50am
"N2N is absolutely 'middlebrow.' Just as Next Fall is, for the record."
For the record of what? Your disdainful opinion?
Noted.
And forgotten.
For the record of what? Your disdainful opinion?
Noted.
And forgotten.
#17
Posted: 4/14/10 at 5:46am
I don't subscribe to the belief that just because a play or film wins a ton of awards that it's necessarily 'the better' show/film. I also don't subscribe to the belief that just because a play or film doesn't win any awards that is necessarily a bad show/film.
I just know that I like what I like and Pultizer or no Pulitzer N2N is one of my favorites.
I don't 'get' why Brantley is wasting precious newsprint on his whinefest.
I just know that I like what I like and Pultizer or no Pulitzer N2N is one of my favorites.
I don't 'get' why Brantley is wasting precious newsprint on his whinefest.
#18
Posted: 4/14/10 at 5:54am
"After Eight, thank you for being so over-the-top absurd in your posts that people don't even have to respond to make you look bad."
You're entirely welcome. Always happy to oblige someone as gracious as you.
You're entirely welcome. Always happy to oblige someone as gracious as you.
#19
Posted: 4/14/10 at 6:25am
I just think it's sad that everyone has to rain on N2N's parade. They won, end of story. Why qualify it?
#20
Posted: 4/14/10 at 8:02am
I thought the whole point of musical theater was that it is middlebrow, that is reached across the board and brought in the elements from all kinds of performance art. The argument could be made that any musical that has ever won a Pulitzer is middlebrow, because there will always be theater "purist" who will not accept any musical to be on the same artistic level as a straight drama. Talk about making a mountain out of molehill.
#21
Posted: 4/14/10 at 9:26am
"Critics love to think that they are so above the curve and while I admire the decision to pick works that are more obscure, they appear so childish and petulant when they write diatribes like this. N2N is a groundbreaker for sure."
agreed and also agree with all of Q's posts. that is how i feel about critics, regardless or how revered.
agreed and also agree with all of Q's posts. that is how i feel about critics, regardless or how revered.
"it's a dirty little war"
#22
Posted: 4/14/10 at 10:22am
Critics love to think that they are so above the curve and while I admire the decision to pick works that are more obscure, they appear so childish and petulant when they write diatribes like this.
I think you just described everyone on this message board.
~Steven
I think you just described everyone on this message board.
~Steven
#23
Posted: 4/14/10 at 10:33am
Wow...
People who are attacking Brantley: He enjoyed Next to Normal, he actually is happy it won. He is just sympathizing with the jury, since the same exact thing happened when he chaired the jury.
Imagine if you were asked, because you are considered an important person in the theatre world (playwright, academic or critic), to give your opinions on the best written plays of the year, and then your choices are completely ignored by people who acknowledge that they are not experts in anything except journalism.
Once again, he is not attacking Next to Normal, he is sympathizing with the jury.
People who are attacking Brantley: He enjoyed Next to Normal, he actually is happy it won. He is just sympathizing with the jury, since the same exact thing happened when he chaired the jury.
Imagine if you were asked, because you are considered an important person in the theatre world (playwright, academic or critic), to give your opinions on the best written plays of the year, and then your choices are completely ignored by people who acknowledge that they are not experts in anything except journalism.
Once again, he is not attacking Next to Normal, he is sympathizing with the jury.
David walked into the valley
With a stone clutched in his hand
He was only a boy
But he knew someone must take a stand
There will always be a valley
Always mountains one must scale
There will always be perilous waters
Which someone must sail
-Into the Fire
Scarlet Pimpernel
#24
Posted: 4/14/10 at 10:39am
Right on, jacob. Ben's been burned once before, isn't it a human reaction to chime in the way he did? Who wouldn't want to defend their point of view after their esteemed opinion was rejected?
~Steven
~Steven
#25
Posted: 4/14/10 at 11:02am
"Imagine if you were asked, because you are considered an important person in the theatre world (playwright, academic or critic), to give your opinions on the best written plays of the year, and then your choices are completely ignored by people who acknowledge that they are not experts in anything except journalism."
Yes, I am sure that their egos have taken a beating.
But the question here is one of grace and class.
The committee knew the rules of the game before they accepted the job. If you don't like the rules of the game, don't play the game. Don't wait till after the game is over and start whining about how unfair the rules were.
They knew that their role was merely advisory, and that their choices could very well be passed over, since it has happened several times in the past, and as recently as a few years ago. They knew all this beforehand. But they accepted the job under these conditions. If they found these conditions unacceptable, they shouldn't have accepted the job, pure and simple.
But now to start badmouthing a process that they agreed to is really shoddy, no matter how badly their egos are bruised.
Yes, I am sure that their egos have taken a beating.
But the question here is one of grace and class.
The committee knew the rules of the game before they accepted the job. If you don't like the rules of the game, don't play the game. Don't wait till after the game is over and start whining about how unfair the rules were.
They knew that their role was merely advisory, and that their choices could very well be passed over, since it has happened several times in the past, and as recently as a few years ago. They knew all this beforehand. But they accepted the job under these conditions. If they found these conditions unacceptable, they shouldn't have accepted the job, pure and simple.
But now to start badmouthing a process that they agreed to is really shoddy, no matter how badly their egos are bruised.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95