Brantley exemplifies insufferable chutzpah of critics- Page 2

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:43pm

I do find it fascinating that a NY Times review has less effect on the outcome of a Broadway show's success in recent years. It used to be that a pan in Times meant an almost certain closing notice posted in the near future. They had SO much power. This is not the case in today's world. Several long-running, hit shows on Broadway did not receive a positive review from the Times.

The "Times" they are a-changin'. And Brantley is definitely entitled to his opinion... even if he points out, as in this specific review, that the audience on the whole seemed to love this show. I find it refreshing that people are paying less attention to what he has to say, though. That's as it should be, whether it's a rave or a pan, or somewhere in between.

It's true with film criticisms lately, too. People seem to be more interested in what "people" think, not the critics.

[EugLoven]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:43pm

I give my toe-nails more attention than I do Brantley's reviews.

[Hawker]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:43pm

I could care wether a critic likes a show or doesn't, just don't tell me how I should respond to it emotionally--which he is doing in this case. If he wants to label it just this side of dinner theater, that's what he gets paid to do, and it's his right.

Furthermore, whether it's Simon, Weiner, Brantley, or Barnes, when do you ever get the kind of really penetrating insight that helps you comprehends a show's shortcomings or appreciate its nuances as you do with virtually every director's commentary on almost any DVD?

All you generally get from these people (who are admittedly excellent journalists) are op-eds comprised frequently of references to previous works, the occassional bon mot, and the palplable feeling that they are being condescending.

I wonder why it is, if they are so enamored of the art they they don't take a few years off and pen a piece themselves.

Could it be a variation on the aphorism that "Those who can't, teach": Those who can't act, sing, dance, direct, or write but would like to become critics."?




Updated On: 5/2/06 at 01:43 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:50pm

Hawker --- I agree with you about this: I don't offer MYSELF up for criticism as an audience member when I go see a show. He's out of line with those comments. His job is to criticize the show on stage, not the folks sitting in the orchestra and mezzanine. Save that for a society column on a different page.

The stupid part is that he's (not so very) subtly thumbing his nose at the very people that buy his paper and give him a reason to have a job. "The masses" at large. Not too bright, if you ask me.

And EugLoven---That is as it SHOULD be!

Updated On: 5/2/06 at 01:50 PM

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:52pm

I think we're talking about the difference between "entertainment" and "art". Some shows aspire to be entertaining, that's it. Some shows aspire to really adhere to the art aspect of it. Most shows waver in between; something that's good art may be good entertainment, something so overwhelmingly entertaining can be crafted so well that it's considered art.

Brantley, and a lot of the critics out there, seem to go from the "art" side. A well-crafted show is considered to be better "art" than a show that is highly entertaining.

I'm not defending either side. But you almost wish a good reviewer would spend half the article talking about art and half entertainment. I think it's just not the way it works nowadays. If it's entertaining, word of mouth holds it. If it's good art, the reviews hold it.

(end oversimplification of argument)

[Hawker]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:54pm

Thank you, Best12bars. That was my point. This guy was fundamentally saying, despite the clever attempt at versimmilitude, "The audience's reponse was disproportionate to what was really being performed on stage."

That's utterly egocentric. Drop your draws and urinate on the show if it suits you but on the audience for having a good time?


Updated On: 5/2/06 at 01:54 PM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:58pm

OH MY GOD.

Let's not get into this "you shouldn't criticize unless you can do it yourself" argument - it's one of the dumbest notions I've ever heard.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:59pm

So only actors should work as critics? Wow, I would hate to read some of those reviews...

[Sleeper2]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 1:59pm

If we did, the posters on broadwayworld would number about 12.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 2:01pm

No Bobby - not just actors.

In order to be able to effectively critique (or review) a work, you must be: an actor, a singer, a dancer, an orchestrator, a set designer, a lighting designer, a director, a composer, a lyricist, and a stage manager.

[BobbyBubby]

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

When they do have actual theatre people review shows, everyone will just complain that they're bitter that they can't get work.

Who would you people prefer write these reviews? Steve Sondheim, Hal Prince, and Barbra Streisand?

[munkustrap178]

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

No. Sondheim can critique lyrics and muisic. Prince can direct overal production and direction. Streisand can critique book, lyrics, acting and singing.

We still need to find someone who can do everything.

[Calvin]

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

Mel Brooks

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 2:15pm

But he's not a set designer!

The search continues!

[Calvin]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 2:17pm

Tommy Tune?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 2:18pm

Closer...

[Calvin]

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

Betty Comden...

[munkustrap178]

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

I'm starting to think that such a person doesn't exist.

Sorry, Hawker.

[Hawker]

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

I disagree. It's one of the "self-apparent" truths of those who engage in criticism--and its pretty much limited, curiously, to the arts. The court system, in its infinite wisdom, does not allow expert opinion unless the critic has demonstrated expertise in their field, independant of that field being architecture, medicine, or taxidermy.

Art criticism, however, seems open to anyone capable of a certain glibness, a capacity for obscure reference, and perhaps an insatiable capacity to read.

Any layperson can be right eventually, and a few can express their opinions in entertaining, articulate ways but as every farmer knows, even a blind pig can stumble on some corn.

It is now my opinion after many years of observing both, that theater critics are little differant than those "draft gurus" that grade team's selections of college players. They can make very convincing cases for their opinions, predicated on no end of minutia, but at the end of the day, they never played the game, but have convinced themselves and others that they possess as much or more insight than the people who actually have track records in their profession.
Updated On: 5/2/06 at 02:25 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 2:29pm

Though he's not fond of corporation created Broadway (Disney), this serious art preference vs. comerce taste thing doesn't remotely wash with Brantely. Again, Brantley is no more predisposed to respond to a PIAZZA (ambitious score, serious subj) than ALL SHOOK UP (juke box + book). He's perhaps more respectful of the former's goals, but when he isn't entertained, whether at PIAZZA or SPAMALOT, he says so.

But this thread was begun as a discussion of Brantley's very specific taste, effectiveness and track record It has evolved, as many do, and now seems to be weighing the general impact of critics in general. Fine, but they are two different things. Some of us can love theater criticism, and still find Brantley, specifically, maddeningly inept and even inadequate to the daily challenge (NY Times), as I did in the Three Days of Rain review.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 2:29pm

Law, medicine, etc. are completely different. You're making yourself look really dumb here.

Anyone can learn and understand law. Study, memorize, take tests, go to school, study some more, memorize some more.

There aren't "rules" and "laws" when dealing with any art. The knowledge as far as law and medicine are concerned come in the way of TALENT when comparing it to the arts.

To say that you must be able to do it yourself before you critique it is hilariously naive and ignorant.

[PK2]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 2:39pm

Personally, I agree with his review for TDC.

I enjoyed the show and thought it was very cute. I love 'Man in chair'. Without this role, this show will be really really terrible. 'Show Off' number made me laugh so bad. It was the only song that I remember. Other songs are forgettable for me. Compare with other new musical this year, this is on the top. I have not seen Jersey Boys.

I don't always agree with Mr. Brantley but I do take his review seriously. He hated TL5Y but I loved it and saw it 5 times.

Regarding Spamalot, yes it is absolutely forgettable for me.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 2:40pm

Same here.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 2:58pm

"Without this role, this show will be really really terrible."

I agree... and without Mama Rose, "Gypsy" would REALLY suck. So would "Evita" without Eva Peron.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 3:02pm

Is that relevant?