Brantley exemplifies insufferable chutzpah of critics

[Hawker]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 10:53am

It could have been written about any show the public has embraced for whatever reasons--"Wicked", "Spamalot", or "Spelling Bee". However, in his review of "The Drowsy Chaperone" Brantley exposes what many of us have always believed to be true about critics: they believe themselves not merely well-paid, articulate people whose task it is to give us their opinion of a show; many believe it their obligation to tell us how less-enlightened theater goers should feel about a show:

"Without its ingenious narrative framework and two entrancing performances — by Bob Martin as a lonely, musical-loving schlemiel with a hyperactive fantasy life and Sutton Foster as the showgirl heroine of his dreams — "The Drowsy Chaperone" would feel at best like a festive entree at a high-end suburban dinner theater.

But try telling that to the theatergoers who are responding to this hard-working production as if they were withering house plants that, after weeks of neglect, have finally tasted water again. "


Translation: Audiences SHOULD be getting the mild buzz one would get from seeing Robert Goulet play Arthur at Westbury Muisc Fare. Instead they are lapping it up with the same kind of comprehensive enthusiasm worthy only of "The Producers" or "Avenue Q".

In short, paying customers don't really know what they're seeing.

I suppose such a wrap on the knuckles was not unanticipated since this was the guy who described "Spamalot" as forgettable.

Now, "Spamalot" may be described in many ways--some good and some bad--but "forgettable"?

What the hell is wrong with these people? I fully appreciate the opera critic who points out to me that a certain tenor stepped on a line in Act II of Rigoletto. But to tell me how I should respond emotionally to the overall experience?

I'm getting to the point where the joke about lawers applies to critics--you know that asks "What do you call two lawers at the bottom of the sea?" The answer: A good start.

Updated On: 5/2/06 at 10:53 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 10:57am

Now, "Spamalot" may be described in many ways--some good and some bad--but "forgettable"?

I think "forgettable," for critics (and us amateurs alike, it seems), has become less of a term used for accuracy and one more used for insult value.

Updated On: 5/2/06 at 10:57 AM

[LeaGirl]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 11:00am

This isn't in response to any particular show, by the way - I didn't for the record enjoy Spamalot...but...come on. To each his own. And I don't enjoy the insinuations I pick up from some critics that if I'm enjoying something, I'm clearly a tourist with no taste, instead of a city resident who sees at least a show every two weeks.

Eh, whatever. I'd rather trot my lowbrow tastes around town and keep on enjoying my theater and do what I've had to do for some time now - ignore reviews entirely.

In the end, I don't care if they hate or love a show, I just don't like being told that I'm "stupid" or "lowbrow" for enjoying something.

Updated On: 5/3/06 at 11:00 AM

[daredevil]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 11:27am

Brantley seems to enjoy (possibly "relish") his role as audience debunker-antagonist re these plays.
So what does that mean? Is it time for him to step down? Should a critic, if he feels truly annoyed, or atleast out of touch with what is going on in his field, make a final statement and quit?
I havn't seen much of the new work, and some of Brantley's raves, (The Trial of Oscar Wilde comes to mind) have seriously disappointed me. But what is to be done? Atleast you know where he stands, and depending on how you see yourself vis-a-vis him, take it from there.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 11:50am

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Brantley is bitter, anger, immature man who has no clue how to have a good time in the theatre.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 11:51am

I liked his DROWSY review, it was well written, and I agree with most of it.

[NYLG]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 11:57am

Ben Brantley could find something wrong with sex while in the middle of an orgasm...

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 12:11pm

DROWSEY is actually his taste: irony-laden, and precious. But his review is a money review, folks. It will sell tickets. I'll happily take up the Brantley debate about shows and performances he's trashed that weren't his taste.

And though I have glibly pigeonholed him, to be fair, his tastes aren't always predictable. He did damn SPAMALOT with faint praise, at best, and find much to dislike in PIAZZA.

He takes equal offense at anything too calculatedly "commercial," and anyting too ambitiously "artistic." He likes his musical theater pure, circa 1958, with sunny roles for the Chenoweths and Murphys and even Foster (as long as she's not belting power ballads). As for plays, he's all over the map. Mostly, he loathes anything "earnest," -- i.e. with characters who dare to express emotions in italics free dialogue devoid of irony -- but then, he alone found the shallowly hyper-earnest RABBIT HOLE practically Pulitzer worthy. (On that score, while some people should get out more. Brantley should stay in and watch TV. He'd learn a lot from Lifetime.)

Updated On: 5/2/06 at 12:11 PM

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 12:21pm

I agree that Brantley can be a little b*tch sometimes, but remember that he is not writing for your average person. Your average person doesn't go to Broadway musicals (aside from perhaps once or twice a year for a special ocassion). He is writing for New York theatergoers, who typically have tastes very similar to his. Granted, I do think that he could perhaps lighten up a little, but if I'm going to be spending $80 on a theater ticket, it had better be a DAMN good show. And I'd rather he be a little too hard on a show than be too easy on it.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 12:23pm

Exactly. I don't understand some people - particularly on this board - who think everything they have seen is just wonderful. I mean, good for them, but don't make people who find faults in things feel like we're just bitchy.

Posted: 5/2/06 at 12:33pm

They are called "Critcs" for a reason, folks. And I think when he says things like "But try telling that to the theatergoers who are responding to this hard-working production as if they were withering house plants that, after weeks of neglect, have finally tasted water again" he's trying to point out that it's all just about personal preference: "I didn't like it for the reason I will outline below, but the place was packed with folks who loved it, so you might too."

If only the folks on this board could understand that concept as well.

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 12:45pm

I always read reviews. A lot of shows in the past 2 years I have seen in previews. Reviews for me are pretty much just to compare to see if the critics thought the same as I did about a show. I don't see shows, or not see shows, because of the reviews. I see a show because I want to see it. (And I think that goes for most people here) I want to see Hot Feet and Lestat. I have no desire to see Spamalot or Jersey Boys.

[mikem]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 12:52pm

I actually think Spamalot is forgettable. It was amusing at the time, but I barely remember anything about it now. It certainly doesn't stay with me in either a positive or a negative way.

And I think we have all been to shows where the rest of the audience seems to like it much more or much less than we do.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 12:59pm

I believe one of the things that's happening on Broadway - as it is in Hollywood - is a very quiet, but cosmic shift in the business paradigm. With the emergence of the internet and the cell phone and the blackberry, etc. a whole new form of communication is radically changing the way entertainment is measured and the way this measurement is communicated. In Hollywood, the critics have been forced to take a back seat on many occasions when a groundswell of popular support has arisen for movies that were eviserated in the reviews. In fact, Hollywood studios now OFTEN refuse to screen films for the press, something they would never DARE to do in the past. Certainly, many of those films are dogs of the lowerst calibre, but sprinkled through this "library of the works of Alan Smithee" are quite a few high grossers.

The public is beginning more and more to make up their own minds and to hell with the critics.

And this may be the realization that the theater critics are slowly forming - their time is passing; the age of the theater critic as the all-powerful arbiter of taste on Broadway is waning. Right now, many say The Times is the key review, but if show-after-show becomes a hit DESPITE a pan by Brantley, the power of the Times will fade.

And for me, that could come none-too-soon.

Updated On: 5/2/06 at 12:59 PM

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:07pm

Here's my big issue with this board:

People often confuse hard-working performers with good shows. Everyone on Broadway is hard-working, or they wouldn't be on freaking Broadway. Many on this board feel that if an actor looks like they are working hard, then their show should run forever and in for some weird reason, be exempt from theatrical criticism. Nobody is above dramatic criticism, not Sutton Foster, not Idina Menzel, not Disney, not anyone...If they, or their show is crappy, they should be told so. This isn’t a High School musical that is put on for fun and to learn your craft. This is a cutthroat business with shows clamoring to get a Broadway theatre that is sometimes being taken by a crappy show.

If you don't like reviews, don't read them. But they've been around long before us, and will exist long after we are gone, so complaining that they "got things wrong" based on some fangirl mentality about Broadway is doing a disservice to the profession, and yourself.

Enjoy your shows, but don't freak out when people (lot's of people) don't feel the exact same way you do.

It's not any critics job to echo the general public's opinion. He isn't a one man message board. You can complain that critics are bitter, angry, narrow minded, but perhaps, you are guilty of the same offense. Not everyone dislikes a show because they have some hidden anger towards theatre or a performer. Maybe, they just think the show is crappy. Period.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:13pm

WELL SAID!

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:14pm

I will never understand why people get paid to be nasty. Most of the time I think Brantley would enjoy a bare stage and the city making NO money from tourism. I understand he is a "critic" but really a reviewer if push comes to shove..

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:16pm

Why people get paid to be nasty? What are you talking about? If a show sucks and the reviews echo that, what's not fair?

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:20pm

If the show is crappy, shouldn't the review be entertaining? Like it or not, there are many people who enjoy reading bitchy things about bad shows. What's wrong with that? Reviews don't need to be nice for the sake of the ego of a performer or artist involved. They're in a blunt world, and if they can't take the heat, they should get a new job.

Again, it's been going on forever...Read some of Dorothy Parker's reviews! I doubt anyone today would call her bitter. Now she's a legend.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:24pm

i am all for that bitchyness.. but personal attacks are just pathetic. it's theatre not world politics. Brantley in particular mocks performers and belittles them.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:25pm

They put themselves out there! It's just part of the game!

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:25pm

See, I'm going to whip out my old, tired circus pony and crack the whip again.
The VAST majority of what we read when a show opens isn't a critique, it's a review. There's a not-so-subtle difference here but the basic point is that, for the most part, these reviewers are not critically dissecting a piece. The things that are published in print and on the internet are reviews.
To really get the distinction, read, say, the New York Times Book Review and then pick up an ACTUAL literary criticism journal. You'll see the difference.
Among MANY other things, a critical review of a show would be very boring and wouldn't really have much place for these little witty, gay asides that so many reviewers seem to think absolutely required in their reviews of a show.

Anyway, that said, we've beaten it into the ground that reviews serve one primary purpose: to creat pull quotes for a shows publicity campaign. And, further, only the Times reviews seem to hold real weight. Same goes for the Tonys.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:28pm

Most of them know by now not to read reviews if they can't take it. You're acting as if he is leading Broadway performers to a life of prozac and suicide notes...

If you don't like what he says, don't read it! It's not going to change...

[Sleeper2]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:31pm

I am 100 percent with munk on this. Brantley's review captured my feelings exactly.

By the way, he is more than a "reviewer of shows." He is a theater critic -- and I often welcome his opining on the state of the theater.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:34pm

I would respectfully disagree that he's a critic until I actually see a critique of his that is, well, critical in the traditional term.