Brantley exemplifies insufferable chutzpah of critics- Page 3

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 3:05pm

Yes it is. If you take away the main character "protagonist" from any show, it's not very good.

[PK2]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 3:05pm

I like to add a little more.

I don't know Mr. Brantley personally so I cannot speak for him.

However, I do get bored by Broadway recently year. Sweeney Todd was a refreshing moment and made me excited the way I used to love the magic of theatre.

I must say that I was asked from many friends for opinion about different broadway shows because they know that I saw a lot of theatre. For many Broadway shows in recent year, my answer is 'It's just another show. Nothing special'. It's not that I cannot give it more detail on what I like and what I disliked. It just doesn't seems worth to mentioned them.

[munkustrap178]

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

The point they were trying to make was that the only entertaining part of the show is when Bob Martin is on stage.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 3:08pm

That, I DON'T agree with... but to each his own.

[PK2]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 3:10pm

best12bars - That's not what I meant. Other than the leading role and the book, I think music and lyric are one of the key parts of memorable musical as well. I did fine the music in this show is just not good at all. Show off number was fun and still stick with me.

Again, I do enjoy the show and love to see 'Man in Chair' again. He made this show adorable. They can cut all the songs and the charm will still be there.

[PK2]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 3:10pm

find - not fine. sorry.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 3:15pm

I thought the score sounded EXACTLY like a forgotten musical score from the '20s. Nothing more, and nothing less.

When a score accomplishes what it set out to do, I consider it a success. This is a succesful score (both music and lyrics).

[andyf]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 3:20pm

Is anyone else as entertained as I am by the fact that this whole thing stemmed from an overall positive review of a pretty well loved and definitely upbeat love letter to Broadway?

Updated On: 5/2/06 at 03:20 PM

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 3:22pm

Updated On: 5/2/06 at 03:22 PM

[PK2]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 3:24pm

If this show happened to have a memorable music, I would be able to say that the music is so memorable because it was presented by Man in Chair’s opinion. We observed his opinion and his story. The music should be very good and very memorable.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 3:41pm

If the (fictional) show was THAT good, don't you think we all would have heard of it? It's not supposed to be a very good show... it did well in its day, and has been forgotten by the masses over time. It's not Show Boat, or Good News or Leave It To Jane. Not even close. It's one of Man In Chair's favorite shows, not the world at large. That's why the music and lyrics work so well. He admits that parts of it are just terrible. That's what is so funny and touching. He's rooting for this mediocre show "that time forgot." It holds a special place in his heart. I would think more of you could relate to that.

Here's an interesting comparison: If you pull the music out of Drowsy and just concentrate on its music and lyrics, they are ordinary and fine at best, but not brilliant at all. In context, however, they ARE brilliant. That's what is so unique about this show. Seeing everything through Man In Chair's eyes. So, when you talk about removing what is unique about a show, I can only scratch my head and wonder why you'd want to do that.

By contrast, and this is my own personal opinion (ready for a lot of crap from it, too)... "Follies," another show coming from a similar "era" musically has (song for song) a brilliant score. But you put it in context within the show, and the entire sum of it is overwrought and heavy-handed, which is why that show hasn't been very successful despite numerous efforts. Each song (on its own) is a minor masterpiece, but add them all together and it just doesn't work very well. And God knows they've tried.

So, for me, "Follies" score does not succeed (for the overall intention of the show), where "Drowsy's" score (song for song, no match for Follies) succeeds beautifully, in context.

But since we're talking about a piece of theatre, I think the overall sum would be the issue here... not wondering whether we'll be hearing any of these songs in the "cabaret canon" anytime soon.

[InfiniteTheaterFrenzy]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 3:50pm

I very rarely agree with Ben Brantley, but I have to say, I certainly thought Spamalot was forgettable.

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 4:18pm

Well put best12.

[Hawker]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 8:03pm

Dumb, perhaps, to someone who clearly enjoys writing criticism.

Try this: pull up ANY review you choose to from the hundreds written about it--including literary criticsm in your library's copy of Twentieth Century Literary Criticism--of "To Kill a Mockingbird", then invest two hours or so viewing the commentary of Alan Pakula and Robert Mulligan on the DVD.

What you will discover is that the collective analysis of critics over the course of 40 years did not provide a slice of the compelling insight into the film that the director and producer did in two hours.

Not ONE crtic (and for reasons I will not speak about I've read just about every review on the 'net about this film) picked up on key moments of the film the director and producer felt essential to the film's success; not one critic spoke of the work of a supporting character lauded by the director; not one critic isolated the two words spoken by the character of Scout that made the whole thing work in their opinion.

As I said, you clearly enjoy writing theater criticism very much and for someone, I'm guessing, who doesn't get paid to do it, you seem better at it than many people cashing big paychecks who do it for a living.

Still, the more criticism I read, the more I talk with directors, actors, producers, and those who create sets, the more convinced I become that critics, no matter how articulately they express themselves, only perceive the most superficial aspects of a work.



Updated On: 5/2/06 at 08:03 PM

[Hawker]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 8:09pm

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

Actually, yes. If it were possible I'd prefer someone like Sondheim or Leonard Bernstein educating me from his otherwordly vantage point about the intricacies of a show, just as a prefer a guy like John Madden or Troy Aikman helping me see what is actually going on during a football game that I cannot see.

Bob Costus might be great talking about the overarching drama of an olympic event but I'd sooner prefer hearing Peggy Fleming analyze a skater's performance.


Updated On: 5/2/06 at 08:09 PM

[luvwicked]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 8:27pm

I don't want to think about Brantley having an orgasm. That's just wrong. At any rate, I think he's one of the grumpiest people in the entire world. I don't care if he writes well. He's just a big bully.

Well, it leaves one to wonder: is it true that critics are really those who have failed in the field they're criticizing? Hmmm...

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 8:44pm

I still haven't forgiven him for Piazza.

[Hawker]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 8:52pm

"Anyone can learn and understand law."

Really. Then explain the "rule against perpetuities" to me--a legal concept so incomprehensible that a lawyer can botch a will because he misunderstood the rule and not be liable for professional negligence.

But, notwithstanding your lack of respect for the rigors of the study of law,who is being naive when they suggest art lacks any rules? They may not be as rigidly formulated, preserved, and documented as legal constructs but there are "laws" that exist in art. How do we know this? Because the artist is constrained by limiting factors. A composer wrting an opera, for example, is restrained, by the limitations of the human voice. Dramatically, there are rules that govern proportionality, the necessity of sufficient character development--the list of inarticulated rules and the work to understand them is humbling, lifelong, and clearly beyond the reach of most human beings. Of course, someone might not believe there any rules and feel free to capriciously opine on things based on whatever criteria justifies their emotional response to a work of art.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 5/3/06 at 1:14am

A little perspective here.

These reviewers see everything: the great, the good, the mediocre and the truly awful. They are not rabid theatre fans that automatically like everything. They are often well schooled in theatre history, and had seen a majority of the classic plays and musicals from Broadway's history.

So, with that in mind we are asking a critic who has seen first-rate productions of CAROUSEL, MY FAIR LADY, CABARAET and SWEENEY TODD to assess SPAMALOT. First off, SPAMALOT (Tony awards and popular acclaim aside) is not on the level of Broadway's great musicals. Nor does it reach the second tier of good shows that are entertaining but little more.

Yet lately far too many of these third level mediocre shows have been praised to the high heavens and attracting huge audiences at the expense of the better shows. We have a generation on board here that actually think shows like WIKED, SPAMALOT and PHANTOM OF THE OPERA are good shows. No! You like them because you enjoy them but they are not state-of-the-art in their writing or execution.

I am not advocating that everyone here become bitchy show queens (and we have quite a few of them already) who think they are oh-so-sophisticated when they rip every show to shreds and never have anything positive to say about any show. What I do want to encourage is a little more analysis and little less fawning fandom.

For $100 + a ticket we can and should demand a lot more!!!

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 5/3/06 at 1:17am

I love you frontrowcentre2!

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 5/3/06 at 1:33am

Thanks!

And I love you and all my "friends" here at BWW!

[DG]

Posted: 5/3/06 at 1:37am

Hawker - you advocate a creator being available to interpret their work, but that should be what the work does itself. And art exists as it is interpreted, not necessarily as it's created. All critics supply is a professional observer's viewpoint. If all of those critics didn't pinpoint something the creator didn't intend, then my guess is that their intention didn't translate into the finished piece.

[Hawker]

Posted: 5/3/06 at 11:29am

Well, then, it's all come full circle. In your opinion the person who brings their personel history to POTO and finds it not merely entertaining but very moving is contributing to an act of malpheasance against theater in the larger view because the incredibly huge body of people who simililarly enjoy the show are usurping audiences that could find their way to "Parade" or "Light in the Piazza".

Like Brantley, you are attempting to dictate how a theatergoer should respond to a show by suggesting a show like POTO is objectively "mildly entettaining" rather than the very moving piece it is for many.

I don't get it. I don't get how one could attempt to decree from one's personel what another should find praiseworthy

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/3/06 at 11:32am

The way I read what he wrote is that people who are really hungry will eat just about anything. Don't know why you are taking it so personally.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 5/3/06 at 1:18pm

In your opinion the person who brings their personel history to POTO and finds it not merely entertaining but very moving is contributing to an act of malpheasance


If you like POTO that's great. Enjoy it as much as you want. I feel that while it has some good elements (music, staging) the book and lyrics are very weak.

YOUR personal history may make the show resonate for you, but it in no way improves the quality of the writing. You are the one adding layers of subtext that the authors never bothered to weave in.

Like Brantley, you are attempting to dictate how a theatergoer should respond to a show by suggesting a show like POTO is objectively "mildly entettaining" rather than the very moving piece it is for many.

NO... I am not interested in controlling how people respond to a given show. What I am encouraging is people to stand back and analyze the show: what it does well, what it can do better.

Just because YOU like a show does not automatically make it a great show!