Brantley exemplifies insufferable chutzpah of critics- Page 4

[Hawker]

Posted: 5/3/06 at 1:52pm

This is not a debate about great shows--and I don't think POTO is. I'm not even a Sondheim fan but I think he got as close to you can get to great with "Sunday in the Park".

What I'm suggesting is that critics, by and large, blow smoke up the publics butt trotting out nothing more than opinion as some sort of artistic gospel.

The current Bradley review of "Chaperone" I think is a perfect example of the charade. The guy sounds like the character of Reg from Monty Python's "Life of Brian".

Brantley. This is not far removed from exuberant dinner theater

TDC Fan #1: You did acknowledge it had an "ingenious narrative framework, Ben. I never saw that at Billy Bob's on Route 66.

Brantley. I'll give you that. It it is framed ingeniuosly.

TDC FAn#2. And you did say Bob Martin's performance was entrancing.

Brantley. O.K. I did. But except for the ingenious direction and Bob Martin's performance what else is there about this show that lifts it above dinner theater?

TDC. FAn#3. Well, there is Sutton Foster. You did say she performs gloriously.

Brantley. Sure, sure, sure. But--except for the ingenious narrative, the entrancing performance of Bob Martin, and Sutton Foster's glorious interpretation of her character, I don't see much in this show.

TDC Fan#4. You can't forget Show Off", Ben. When was the last time you said anything like a song in a show "lifted an audience into a helium paradise of pure pleasure."

Brantley. All right, then. Except for the ingenious narrative, the entrancing performance of Bob Martin, Sutton Foster's glorious interpretation of her character, the audience being lifted into a helium paradise of pure pleasure, what's to like about "The Drowsey Chaperone" that is worth all the hype.

TDC FAn#5. You did describe the Manin the Chair as a "vital addition to the gallery of Broadway archetypes."

BRANTLEY. I did. But EXCEPT for the ingenious narrative, the entrancing performance of Bob Martin, Sutton Foster's glorious interpretation of her character, the audience being lifted into a helium paradise of pure pleasure at times, the character of the Man in the Chair going down in theatrical lore as a "vital addition to the gallery of Broadway archetypes" what the hell is so special about the Drowsy Chaperone?

TDC Fan#6. Well, Ben. you did call it the season's sleeeper.

Brantley. Oh shut up.

[FindingNamo]

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

And scene.

[munkustrap178]

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

What was the point of that?

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 5/3/06 at 3:01pm

There are Theater Critics who are there to offer criticism pointing out weaknesses in the show's construction and execution. And there are theatre reviewers who are there to advise readers whether a certain show is worth spending their valuable time and money on.

I am a theatre reviewer. I have been a theatre reviewer for 27 years now.

A small handful of shows I have seen over those 27 years are in the 5-star must-see-at-any-price category.

A similar small-is group would rank in the 1-star (or less) stay-away-from-this-garbage cetegory.

The rest - the vast majority - fall somewhere in between from really good to passable time wasters to weak shows with a notablle element or two. This group is most frustrating because you have a sense that with a little more work, and a little more attention to detail the production could be sensational.

So when you read reviews, try and consider the points the author is raising. Sometimes we interpret negative comments as an attempt to tear a show down when in reality the writer is trying to spotlight areas where the work could be stronger, so that possibly (hopefully) future shows will not repeat the same problems.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 5/3/06 at 5:48pm

[Opening Scene: Man In A Chair, wearing wool cardigan and comfy slippers, is seated by his computer. Newspapers litter the floor around him. An autographed head shot of Sutton Foster hangs above his CD player. MIAC is holding a brandy snifter with one hand, while the other merrily taps on the computer keys. MIAC turns to audience]

MIAC: Hello! I didn’t see you come in. I’m sitting here reading all the first-night reviews of my favorite new musical, THE DROWSY CHAPERONE! And so far everybody just loves it - TheaterMania, Broadway dot com, the Associated Press, Variety, even that frumpy Howard Kissell! Of course, there are a few old grumpies like Clive Barnes, but nobody reads him anyway so he doesn’t count. {sigh} I am SO glad that nice Michael Riedel put the cat amongst the pigeons with that sweet column of his inferring that my little show is the Tony frontrunner! I just thank my lucky stars that the Tony’s don’t count Off-Broadway, or we’d really be in the fudge. Well, tough noogies to YOU MISS Ebersole! Hah! Now…I’m just waiting for one last review to come in…{Turns and leans in towards computer, peers intently at screen)

[DroswyChaperoneFans #1 thru 6 enter stage right, tiptoeing. All are very cautious and quiet]

[MIAC startled, and wild eyed, pushes computer away, smashes brandy snifter to ground.
Lets out a blood-curdling scream of pain and horror]

DCF#1: I guess Brantley’s on line.

MIAC (screaming) BEN DID’NT LOVE IT!!!! HE called it HIGH-END SUBURBAN DINNER THEATER!!!

DCF#2 (runs over, looks at screen) Gee…and he’s only on the second paragraph, too!

[MIAC gets up throws chair across the room, tears at his hair] EVERYBODY ELSE LOVES THIS???! WHY DOESN’T BEN???!!!

DCF#3: Because, like, Kristin isn’t in it?

DCF#1: There’s no Sondheim referencing?

MIAC: (frantically pacing the floor, waving his arms about) But even WORSE is that he pokes FUN at all those people that LOVE the show by describing them as ‘withering houseplants that after weeks of neglect have finally tasted water again!’ Who does HE think he IS!!! {stamps foot)

DCF#4: Maybe he was just kinda saying the all the other new Broadway musicals this season, like, suck.

DCF#2: REALLY suck.

DCF#1: And people are, like, so desperate for ANYTHING that's halfway decent.

DCF#6: Like when you really are dying for a Haagen-Dasz cone but all you can get is a Mister Softee.

DCF#5: (scrolls down computer screen) Hey, Man In A Chair. Brantley isn’t ALL bad news! He describes Sutton’s big number as lifting “the audience into a helium paradise of pure pleasure!” HELL-OO, Mr. Pull-Quote!

DCF#6: Yeah! And Sutton’s awesome! Who couldn’t love her?

DCF#4 (whispers) Jacques Le Sourd.

DCF#6: Ooops. Jerk.

DCF#3: Keep him away from BroadwayStars, there’s a link to it there. And for Gods sake, make SURE he stays away from Bloomberg. If he reads John Simon’s opening paragraph, he’ll have a coronary.

MIAC: [banging head against wall] But he calls the songs “Forgettable” and that “the cast members don’t quite grasp what they’re sending up!” Don’t you SEE??? EVERYBODY IS SUPPOSED TO LOVE THE DROWSY CHAPERONE! AND BEN DIDN’T LIKE IT!!! WHAAAAHHH!!!

DCF#2: So why are you so upset? So many other critics loved the show.

MIAC: [turns and spits in anger] THEY don’t MATTER! Only the TIMES matters. ONLY BEN MATTERS!!! MORE PEOPLE READ BRANTLEY to decide what to see than all the others put together! Every housewife from Bar Harbor to Seattle looks to BEN BRANLEY for what show to see!!! It's only Ben! Only Ben! He's the ONLY MAN WHO MATTERS!!! IT’S NOT FAIR!!!AAAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!

DCF#6: Yeah, but Ben really hated MILLIE and it won the Tony!

DCF#1: (sotto voce).... but it still didn’t recoup…

DCF#2: At least he didn’t describe his DROWSY experience as being trampled by circus ponies.

MIAC: {heavy breathing, chest heaving) I’ll bet Oprah gave him a BMW!!! Or he was paid off by the Jersey Boys!!! HOW DARE HE DISMISS THE DROWSY CHAPERONE?!!! {rolls on floor, pounding it with his fists) He's just...JEALOUS! Jealous I tell you!!!

DCF#3: Wow, I haven’t seen him this upset since that last tangle with TheEnchantedHunter.

DCF#4: Don’t go there. Just…don’t.

MIAC: {covered in sweat, he staggers over to liquor cabinet, opens bottle of brandy, downs it from the bottle) ALL critics who DON’T ABSOLUTELY ADORE my LITTLE SHOW are to be DISCOUNTED and DISMISSED!!!! HA! I’ll bet BEN BRANTLEY can’t do a cartwheel in a cast!

DCF#2: Hey…Look for the silver lining..

MIAC: (suddenly composed, turns to audience) SALLY. Nineteen Twenty. Jerome Kern, Music. Lyrics: Buddy DeSylva. Introduced by Marilyn Miller. New Amsterdam Theater, 561 performances. You were saying?

DCF#2 (continuing) …at least Brantley didn’t go all LESTAT over it. He liked some things about it and didn’t like others. You know, like most of those crazies who post on those chat boards. Except for, uh, well…a few of them. You know, DOWSY still could pull it off and win the Tony. It does have an original score.

DCF#3: That reminds everybody of something else. Really OLD shows like MILLIE. Only it's not as dramatically taxing.

DCF#2: And it sticks to targets people know like CATS and Elton John and doesn't freak them out by mentioning weird insidery stuff about PORTOFINO or HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS or whatever happened to Wynn Murray. It's smart enough to stay middle-of-the-road dumb.

DCF#4: And the title character reminds everybody of Vera Charles. Everybody loves Vera!

DCF#5: And it’s one of those winking-to-the audience, self-referencing Valentines to musical theatre that Tony voters everybody gets warm and gushy over, you know, [title of show], Musicals of Musicals.....

DCF#1: (whispers) Dummy - those shows don’t count. Off-Broadway, remember?.

MIAC: (much calmer,and suddenly smiling) You know…you guys are right. Positive word of mouth might very well win out over mass-market meanies like Brantley. The DROWSY CHAPERONE may well triumph come Tony night!

[DCFs heave huge sigh of relief. DCF#6 ambles over to computer, looks at screen]

DCF#3: Howdoyou like that! Reidel says they are STILL trying to get Oprah to host...

MIAC [screams in terror] WHAAAATT???!!!! (DCFs scatter. Blackout.}

Updated On: 5/4/06 at 05:48 PM

[Hawker]

Posted: 5/3/06 at 9:49pm

Updated On: 5/4/06 at 09:49 PM

[Hawker]

Posted: 5/3/06 at 9:53pm

Frontrowcenter2:

Sorry, if I offended you. Ioften have only two speeds: on and "whoopee" and fail to differntiate between the particular and the general.

There are obviously very perceptive, enlightening critics who do theatergoers a great service. There are probably just as many who whose ends are less noble.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 12:11am

You did not offend me. I am just pointing out the perspective.

A teenager who comes in NYC for a weekend, sees POTO, WICKED and SPAMALOT may think they saw 3 fantastic shows.

A critic who has seen these plus everything else running would know that these 3 titles rank pretty low of the scale of current running shows.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 7:07am

There is intelligent discourse, there is polite disagreement, and then there is mud wrestling. Geez, guys, either get a room a duke it out or be done with it. I haven't heard this much 'yeah, but...' since George Bush debated John Kerry.

Posted: 5/4/06 at 8:00am

So The Times and The Post give The Drowsy Chaperone a "thumbs down." Not good.

[DG]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 9:15am

Master - that was masterful. Thanks!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 11:19am

is there any truth to the rumor that your post was optioned by oprah to be a sketch on the tony telecast?

[uncamark]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 12:10pm

So The Times and The Post give The Drowsy Chaperone a "thumbs down." Not good.

If this thread has proved anything, it's that a Times rave doesn't mean a hit show anymore. Much like Manholia Dargis or Tony Scott can make an arthouse indie perhaps turn a profit and get wider distribution, Brantley and Isherwood's main commercial influence is getting off-Broadway and regional shows noticed. It's been proven too often lately that a Broadway show can become a hit without a Times rave.

And has the Daily Rupert ever sold a ticket? Murdoch thought hiring Barnes would bring his clout with him--didn't happen. The community may love reading Reidel the same way yuppies devour Page Six, but that's not selling tickets. Post readers are not theatergoers.

Posted: 5/4/06 at 12:26pm

uncamark said:

"Post readers are not theatergoers."

That's simply not true. I've attended a lot more theatre than most of you and I don't mean I've seen WICKED 47 times

[uncamark]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 12:30pm

You may go to shows, but I bet the majority of the yups who consider Page Six a guilty pleasure or the Queens housewives who just consider it a pleasure haven't gone to a show lately, unless they got tickets for "Three Days of Rain"--and not because they appreciate the nuances of Richard Greenberg. :)

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 12:38pm

Anyone who reads the Post or the Daily News for news is stupid and should not be allowed anywhere near a theatre.

[uncamark]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 12:48pm

The News is better than the Post simply because it has that gritty working-class New York authenticity to it that the Post is too shallow to emulate.

My last trip to NY a couple of years ago, I saw the last preview of the Ionesco one-acts at the Atlantic. Of course the Times reviewed it. So did the Sun, or what neocons buy to hide the Post behind. Of the tabs, only Newsday reviewed it. Make of that what you will.

[rflpfl2]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 1:01pm

What I really got from the review, which I found insightful, and rather accurate- was that he wasn't really criticizing the audience.
Rather he was commenting on the fact- that we as an audience are really desparate to find something original and good up there on broadway- and that even a show, which perhaps in a season of strong musicals wouldn't be such a success with audiences on broadway, is getting good response because so much out there recently hasn't been able to really satisfy.
It's almost like if you're eating McDonalds every day- and suddenly you go to Olive Garden- and are like "This is Five Star Cuisine". Yeah- you may enjoy it- but only because you've been eating Big Macs everyday.

[Hawker]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 2:10pm

The past few years Broadway has offered Avenue Q, Spelling Bee, Doubt, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Wicked, The Jersey Boys, Light in the Piazza, 700 Sundays, a critically and publicly lauded revival of "Sweeney Todd"--what am I leaving out?

That's hardly the Dollar Menu at McDonalds. It's not Le Bernadin or Cafe Gray, either. TDC is, for whatever reasons, resonating with a lot of people--theater goers who can also speak glowingly of having seen "Don Carlos" and "Guys and Dolls" in The West End.

Brantly's belief that the primary reason theater goers are flocking to this show is because they have been recently wandering around a desert of theatrical arridity is specious at best; a not very clever attempt to trot out a theory to justify his incomprehension that this show that doesn't fit into his convenient pigeon hole of what should draw such audiences to a show and result in a predominance of ovationary reviews.

[sweeneyfan]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 3:34pm

I write criticism for the Baltimore page of this website, and I have been accused of all that you accuse Mr. Brantley of, and have been embraced for the same things. (Feel free to read my stuff – the reviews of the national touring companies might be of more interest to those of you not from my neck of the woods). An avid reader of the BroadwayWorld message boards, I read with some personal interest to the arguments over the quality of Ben Brantley’s review of The Drowsy Chaperone, and more specifically, his inclusion of perceived jabs at the audience itself. I will not argue about Mr. Brantley’s writing, but I will address one point brought up in the thread. That argument that “those who can’t act (sing, dance, design), write criticism” is as ridiculous as the saying that is based upon. Just like it takes a special, knowledgeable person to teach, so too, does it take an experienced theatre-goer with a great deal of knowledge to critique. By critique I mean a thoughtful, informed judgment of a piece, not a diatribe on how hard-working the cast is (they all should be), or how a popular actress is getting ripped off because she isn’t as good in one show as she was in another (Idina in Wicked or Rent is not the same as Idina in See What I Wanna See – she’d be the first to say so…it’s called acting in different roles, and reactions to different roles are to be expected.) While I will not justify my inclusion on press lists with a witty regurgitation of my resume, I’ll suffice it to say that having done all of the different jobs in the theatre realm (both sides of the footlights) combined with nearly 30 years of constant theatergoing makes me no more qualified than anyone else, but it does make what I have to say more informed than say someone who thinks they “know theater” because they’ve seen Les Miz, Phantom, Wicked and Mamma Mia! Sit through the bad (The Best Little Whorehouse Goes Public), the misunderstood (Passion), the way before its time (Grind), and the occasional guilty pleasure (Little Women, Teddy and Alice, Smile) along with the Tony winners and popular hits, then you can speak with some authority.

When you are a critic, you have been given a certain degree of authority. To compare a critic to a fan posting about their beloved “Cheno” or the pros and cons of the 4th standby for Sutton Foster is unfair to both critic and fan.

Back to Brantley for just a moment, I understand his inclusion of audience response (I often include it myself) as a gage for comparing his response to theirs. I also agree that perhaps the snotty attitude of his words was poor at best. After all, I’ve seen dinner theatre shows that were better than their Broadway counterparts (Millie at Toby’s Dinner Theatre in Columbia, MD puts the Broadway and touring companies to shame) and I’ve been a part of an audience so in love with what I am seeing that I’ve responded euphorically, even though the critics hated it – I’ve seen Mamma Mia! more times than I’ll admit in a public forum.

I think the real concern here should be that some critics automatically dismiss shows that are meant only for entertainment, or the overall inability of some critics to recognize that all shows have good points and bad points, but only focus on the bad. Of course, a lot of fans posting here on BroadwayWorld are guilty of the same thing. Love popular shows, but give the challenging ones a shot, too. And remember, whether or not an actor is nice at the stage door has NOTHING to do with the quality of the show or the performance they gave, or the ability of a replacement to be as good if not better than Sutton, Idina, Kristen.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 3:41pm

EVeryone who ready the Daily News or the Post is too dumb to be let near a theatre?

That's one of the most innane, assinine comments I've ever read on this board. And that's saying a LOT.

[uncamark]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 3:46pm

Well-spoken, sir.

Perhaps Pauline Kael's remarks are still something to consider: "The review is the only journalism in the movies--the rest is publicity." Same could be said for theater.

In fact, I expect that the dreams of the theater PR people is that they could find their own versions of Earl Dittman, Paul Fischer, Shawn Edwards, Susan Granger and all of those other quote whores whose names you see on movie ads.

And how come there seem to be two movie quote whores now at WBAI? The only movies I thought Pacifica people liked were preachy documentaries shown at Columbia or NYU--and that the last play they saw was "I'm Gonna Kill the President!" (since they consider even the Public capitalist bourgeois claptrap).

[DG]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 3:48pm

Munk - I'm pretty sure the inclusion of the smiley at the end of B-singer's post indicates he was joking around.
Updated On: 5/4/06 at 03:48 PM

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 3:49pm

That's funny, because, for me, the most asinine and condescending post *I* ever read was how Rent changed a certain poster's homophobic boyfriend's total outlook on musicals and life, as well as that certain poster's subsequent backpedaling and defense of said comment.

And it was a joke. you know, those things YOU always tell people not to take so seriously when you say them.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 3:52pm

A little addendum:
For those who find the Daily News or the Post (I'm certain YOU must read the Post religiously, Munk) to be reporting real news, I point you to today's New York City newspaper headlines:

Post: "Hell Can Wait: Moussaoui to Rot in Prison"
Daily News: "He'll Rot in Hell, Burn in Jail"
Times: "Moussaoui Given Life Term by Jury Over Link to 9/11 "

Now, which headlines sound like sensationalized tabloid reporting and which sound like actual news journalism?