Charles Isherwood calls Cate Blanchett names

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 3/20/06 at 10:57am

It isn't pretty, folks. Makes me sort of dislike Isherwood (who I previously respected).
link

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/20/06 at 11:00am

Yeah, I read this over the weekend. While I also had problems with the production and Blacnhette's performance, Isherwood's over-the-top, overheated overreaction is just plain silly. "Scandalous"??? Please.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/20/06 at 11:19am

Don't blame Blanchett. This director is notorious in Sydney. She also tried to play one of the roles herself, attempting to cut one of the original actors for the New York run, until a campaign in the Australian press to "out" her scheme put a stop to it.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 3/20/06 at 11:20am

Well if Rathnait says it, then it must be true.

[Garland Grrrl]

Posted: 3/20/06 at 11:25am

sheeesh! what a maroon. no play is ever sacrosanct. plus, i must also object to his condescension that supposes the standing ovation at the end is due to the audience's bedazzlement at cate's glamour. also, rather than attempting to curry favor with the audience, i found cate's interpretation repellent and very un-movie-star-like.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 3/20/06 at 11:27am

I agree 100%, Garland. It refused to pander to an audience who wanted to "feel for her." For me, it is a more truthful to Ibsen's thrust.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/20/06 at 11:36am

Well, Bobby, since as I pointed out, it was a campaign in the press, it's really not that hard to prove nor disprove.

Back to the thread.

[Calvin]

Posted: 3/20/06 at 11:37am

Question: What was the point of this if Brantley had already reviewed it?

[Garland Grrrl]

Posted: 3/20/06 at 11:41am

sometimes the other critics write about a big show later in the run for some "feature" type thing. and of course, cate blanchett's name gets attention -- and flinging sh*t at her and being personally "disappointed" in her (sorry mommie -- i won't ever come home late again) gets attention. who is the pandering wretch here, Hissywood?

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 3/20/06 at 11:45am

I think my problem has to do with the pompous attitude present in every single one of your posts. Ah well, I guess the break was nice while it lasted.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/20/06 at 11:47am

Pot.

Kettle.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 3/20/06 at 11:49am

Oh honey, it'd take me lifetimes to catch up to you.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/20/06 at 11:50am

Good Lord.

Back to the thread.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 3/20/06 at 11:58am

My bad, I thought you loved when threads became all about you. Just trying to do my part for your cause.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 3/20/06 at 12:58pm

You're both pretty.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/20/06 at 1:00pm

Thanks, dear. So are you.

[ChrisLovesShows]

Posted: 3/20/06 at 1:44pm

Anyhoo, REALLY back to the thread...

When I started reading the feature, I thought he was about to make a great point about artistic integrity. What had Kate done that was so horrible, I wondered. Had she missed dozens of performances? Locked herself in her dressing room? Been cruel to a fan at the stage door? Had a tantrum in the first act and stormed off the stage? No, she had simply given a performance that Isherwood really loathed. To equate that with irresponsibility in a medium as subjective as live performance is arrogant, smug, and utterly ridiculous.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 3/20/06 at 2:01pm

that review was really bad, i haven't seen the play, so i can't agree or disagree...but after reading the entire review, i was more confused than anything.