Brantley exemplifies insufferable chutzpah of critics- Page 5

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 7:08pm

I didn't know you were joking at all. Obviously, since you were joking, my post is not valid and no offense should have been taken.

I do not read the Post. I browse Riedel's column on Wednesdays and Fridays via the internet, and once in a while I pick up a Daily News when I'm out and about, because I like that they put two crossword puzzles in each issue, and I'm addicted to crossword puzzles.

I subscribe to the Times and read as much of it as often as I can.

The only reason I defend the News/Post is because many people read those newspapers (as opposed to The Times) because the articles are shorter with bigger print, and for a lot of people on the go, it's easier because it doesn't come with 5 sections a day, and it's easier to fold up. That doesn't mean they don't read the Times, and it doesn't mean they're stupid because they read the News.

In fact, reading the Times doesn't mean you're smart either. It doesn't even mean you have good taste. People prefer what they prefer - and their choice of newspaper has nothing to do with preference in theatre.

[Hawker]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 7:33pm

"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..."

I respect your humility but in my opinion it does, unless the "anyone else" is a savant with an innate ability to instinctively know what it has taken you 30 years to learn.

Let me give an example. A few years there was a string quartet Masterclass given at Juilliard. I cannot recall the guest lecturer's name. The four students played certain pieces. During one, the lecturer, an accomplished cellist, said something like this:

"Let's just stop right here. Some years ago I was discussing this passage with Pablo Casals. He had been fascinated by it and invested quite a few years in trying to find actual writings of Bartok about this piece. Ultimately, he discovered a correspondence to a friend wherein he felt that at this point Bartok was trying to find a way to give the piece a more "brooding" sound."

The instructor then told the cellist to adjust her wrist or something and extend the duration of that single note. The cello made a distinctly differant sound which gave the piece the melancholic tone Bartok professed wanting.

How would it be possible for someone who may have observed 1,000 string quartets but who never played the instrument, composed for a quartet, or formally studied string quartets to have the same body of knowledge as someone who has lived the life of someone who played a stringed instrument at the highest level?

It is indeed true that one need not be a chicken to smell a rotten egg as Dick Cavert once quipped to Ann Margaret but it seems to me that critics are largely responsible for making it an axiom of their practice that one need not practice an art such as drama, music, or sculpture to understand it completely enough to express "expert" opinion.

I really doubt that an actor such as Sir Derek Jacobi believes the critic for the Independant based on nothing more than reading or observation understands enough about the actor's craft to criticize an actor's performance in any profound way.

I have watched hundreds of football games in my life, invested years in the understanding of the game, and still only see the most superficial elements of what is happening on the field. I'm certain I could write a very persuasive and elegant piece on why the Houston Oilers made a calamitious mistake in passing up Reggio Bush, but the scout who passed on him could take my piece, no matter how elegant my writing, and rip it to shreds, just as you could probably eviscerate the argument of someone who has only written about theater but never been involved in it "on both sides of the footlights."