http://gawker.com/5866417/
Anyone else encounter this review and come away with similar thoughts? I thought it was a bit off mark for Brantley to bring up the sexual orientation notion, though otherwise comparisons to Liberace and Judy Garland aren't necessarily unwarranted. Either way, he seems to be on Gawker's 'naughty list,' which isn't altogether a nice place to be.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
ETA I assumed the link was commenting on todays feature Brantley wrote on Jackman, although I too pointed out the creepiness of Brantley's theme in the original thread on the Back on Broadway reviews.
TODAY Brantley wrote an article that expanded on his creepy theme from the Back on Broadway review. Today's piece really grossed me out. Talented writers not dancing along the edge of their own pyscho-sexual fantasies could make something out of his thesis, but that Brantley piece seems to have been constructed out of nothing more than a pile of crusty Kleenexes. I wanted to take a shower after.
Hugh is not alone. I'm as straight as it gets and I also love musicals and I loved Hughs show. We do exist! haha
I think the one sentence that really put it over the edge was,
"...despite - or perhaps because of - his firmly affirmed marital status Mr. Jackman often gleefully comports himself onstage in the manner of what, in less enlightened times, might have been called a flaming queen."
The latent history and stereotypes he's pulling at from, even if Jackman does happen to be bisexual (I'm of the camp he's not though), are generally quite rude and absolutely unnecessary. It reeks with the whole submissive outing that well... shouldn't even exist in 'enlightened times.' With anyone, but especially a man as outwardly well loved by the community as Hugh Jackman is.
Ben effing Brantley should be the last person trying to "out" anyone, considering the fact that he still says he's straight.
"Whaaaaat? You think I'm GAY?!"
Ben effing Brantley should be the last person trying to "out" anyone, considering the fact that he still says he's straight.
He does? I was sure he had come out some time ago.
Pretty sure he's out, since he was on Out Magazine's power list a few years back: http://www.wwd.com/media-news/fashion-memopad/memo-pad-made-men-waiting-time-stitching-up-500928
Well so were Jodie Foster and Anderson Cooper.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
No, no, no, no and again, no. It's neither rude nor unnecessary to talk about somebody's sexual fantasy appeal to ALL genders instead of writing the old cliche about how all the ladies want to have Hugh Jackman and all the men want to be him when in fact many ladies want to be him and many men want to have him and every other permutation we can imagine. What's creepy is Brantley dealing with his own pent up sexual desires and projecting them onto "Hugh's audience."
I have zero problem with writers publishing fantasies about the sexuality of performers, it's the stuff legendary careers are built on. The problem is that a GOOD writer, could pull such a Jackman piece off (sorry) with aplomb and Brantley is not that writer. Hell, the SNL writers cover the territory with such skill and economy in their "Hugh Jackman: The Most Masculine AND Feminine Man in the World" sketches that Jackman appeared in the most recent one. So, OBVIOUSLY this is something he is not ashamed to trade on. What's irksome about the Brantley review and today's piece is Brantley's inability to own it the way Jackman does.
Brantley is channeling Beverly Leslie.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
Here's today's piece in the Times, read it before it's not free.
God, I hate Brantley so effin much for this kind of ****e:
Hugh Jackman Keeps His Pants On
But, oh, what a gap separates Le Jackman and La Garland.
By Brantley's own stereotypical standards, if he wasn't out, he is now. All he needs now is to propose to Liza Minnelli.
What bothers me most, as others have said, is Ben simply isn't a strong enough writer, at least in this piece. It's a useless article that seems to be trying to say something but in fact kinda says nothing at all by the time you get to the last paragraph.
"So there were mementoes from both Hughs. But I never felt he was selling off pieces of his heart, which I assume is equally divided. (Whose isnt?) That organ he keeps to himself, and I suspect that hell live the longer for doing so. "
Wha? He acts like this is some brand new trend. I can think of dozens of actors (usually with a theatre background) who do the same thing. They just aren't as high profile, but the same could be said of Patrick Wilson, for example, easily couldn't it?
The article seems to imply that there's nothing a gay man would find appealing or relateable in, say, the heroes from Oklahoma and Carousel, which I don't think is true at all.
"Technically, you may object, theres only one Hugh Jackman. Hes that strapping, muscle-flexing actor who plays the manly mutant Wolverine in the lucrative X-Men movie franchise. But wait a minute. Isnt he the swivel-hipped song-and-dance man who won a Tony Award in 2004 playing the epicene entertainer Peter Allen in The Boy From Oz?
The point of Mr. Jackmans show which ends its limited, sold-out run on Jan. 1 and is the hardest ticket in New York to come by is that he contains, if not multitudes, then a teeming crowd of two."
Again, wha? He's talking about two vastly different roles he played on stage. That in a one man, very Broadway (and partially Peter Allen inspired) show you see both of those aspects doesn't seem all that shocking, or revelatory to me.
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/28/11
No competent writer would devote four paragraphs to Judy Garland's alleged "love/hate relationship" with her audience (sans a shred of evidence BTW) only to assert that her performance behavior has nothing to do with that of Hugh Jackman, the subject of the article.
I think Brantley is clear enough that he isn't implying anything about Jackman's private sexual behavior. What never seems to occur to Brantley is that maybe Jackman isn't the only one who has moved on from Brantley's half-century-old stereotypes.
Just as an initial side note, I gather Ben never saw him in OKLAHOMA. Woof.
But be that as it may, the bottom line is WHO CARES? Havent we *slightly* progressed past the point when "screaming queen" is an insult? Sweet Jesus, Ben, what would you say about someone like Ben Vereen, who certainly knew how to work a hip or two and no doubt fluttered the hearts of many a gay man back in the day?
I'm seriously just so freaking tired of "gay" and "queer" and "homo" being tossed around like insults when the perpetrator of same clearly cant think of anything brighter to say.
Well said to both those posts. It just seems beyond useless to even write about--particularly since I'm sure the majority of Brantley's reders could care less (and are probably percentage wise more than not, gay).
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/28/11
I do think Jackman's ability to morph from musclebound action hero to lithe song-and-dance man and back again is a wonder of nature (and no doubt much hard work on Jackman's part).
And that ability might have been explored in a thoughtful way.
But it wasn't.
Gaveston--absolutely. As I said for me the main problem is it's just not even an article worthy to be published in one of the major newspapers. It sounds like a random blog post of half formed ideas that go nowhere. I think it's this vague quality which is partly why people are calling the article homophobic (which I do think parts of it can be read as).
It's also short sighted. Partly because few of my friends are theatre fans, I know a TON more gay guys who have crushes on Hugh due solely to him as Wolverine (comic books, particularly the X-Men also of course have a rather massive gay following, anyway--but I doubt Brantley would ever consider that).
It is kinda refreshing and novel to have a celeb like Hugh who seems so open to show these 'two sides" of his persona I suppose--when he's doing promotion for X-Men he never would shy away from breaking out into a, perhaps "gay seeming, song and dance number if asked, etc, whereas in the past often it seems actors feel they have to keep different aspects for different audiences.
(I'm not sure if that makes sense--maybe I'm as incoherent as Brantley was being).
I totally get why some people are offended by Brantley's article. However, being a straight musical theater guy myself, who has long been fascinated by matters of gender and sexual identity, I found the article really interesting.
That said, a piece like this is better suited for a middle-brow magazine, not The New York Times.
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/28/11
Hardly, Eric, you make perfect sense.
This article, coupled with the Reidel piece we discussed a week or two ago, makes me wonder if New Yorkers get any coherent writing on the theater at all.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
Mr. Brantley uses only the image of Wolverine to represent his film work persona, in contrast to the singing-dancing Broadway Hugh. Perhaps he should also visit Hugh Jackman's more serious film work such as The Fountain, The Prestige, the little known Erskineville Kings, and Australia -- to see the dimension of his body of work that is also worthwhile evaluating, as to what inspires him as an actor/performer. There is more to the kaleidoscope of the Jackman talent, Mr. Brantley!
I am hoping that his forthcoming portrayal of the conflicted man, Jean Valjean, will provide the confluence of his multitude of talents - strong acting chops, the ability to project the image of a physically strong and aggressive character, the required singing ( recitatives and solos)- whether as powerful statements or tender expressions of sentiments, and the ability of a man to age and grow more morally strong in the process.
Looking forward to this full use of Hugh Jackman's talents!
Plain and simple -- Brantley isn't saying anything that any gossip columnist on either side of the Mississippi worth their salt hasn't already reported. He just wrote it very obliquely, clearly with a lawsuit in mind.
Whoa. I just read the article. It's beyond creepy; it's positively "sandusky."
I genuinely enjoy reading Brantley's commentary. His Little Mermaid review had a hilarious reference to a store-window designer. This though, I just can't understand, it's a non sequitur and a weird one.
I'm not afraid or offended or in disagreement with his stereotypes I just wander what his intentions were. Does he not want Hugh there? Plenty of other talented "masculine" leading men just brush Broadway off.
Since when was Kanye West a "swaggering macho"?
Videos