Charles Isherwood playing shade to NYT?

[Q3]

Posted: 4/18/17 at 6:18am

I know Charles Isherwood has had rough lately . But does he actually believe his last two reviews or is he just being opposite to Ben of NYT. I understand this is has been a terrible time for him. But do you think he is writing is currently legit or is he just being a troll?

 

I do love Groundhog Day but what ever Ben wrote about Amile or Groundhog he seems to be the opposite. I just found that odd

Updated On: 4/18/17 at 06:18 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/18/17 at 6:24am

And just how would he know what was being said ahead if time just to be contrary?  Why?  What would he possibly gain by it?

[Smaxie]

Posted: 4/18/17 at 6:26am

Ben's feelings for Groundhog Day were not a secret. He approved of it in London. 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/18/17 at 6:28am

And he's also been known to have a change of heart once a show gets here.....so....

[bjh2114]

Posted: 4/18/17 at 9:00am

Ben doesn't often have a change of heart, and he LOVED the show in London.  Not just liked it.  And besides that, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Isherwood were the type of catty queen to have two reviews ready to print just so he could have the opposite of whatever Brantley says.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 4/18/17 at 9:04am

You don't play shade, you throw it.

And for shade to have impact, people have to read your review first. 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 4/18/17 at 9:08am

Isherwood has always been bitter. About everything.

[phan24]

Posted: 4/18/17 at 9:42am

For what it's worth, they both agreed on War Paint

[Kad]

Posted: 4/18/17 at 9:43am

Well, Brantley was far more critical of Sweat and Significant Other, two shows Isherwood had championed off-Broadway.

[AC126748]

Posted: 4/18/17 at 9:49am

I've never been a fan of Isherwood's writing, and I have no idea what his intentions are these days, but the quality of the writing has declined even further since he started writing for this new platform. And the other woman's reviews are virtually unreadable. Isherwood's hiring always seemed like a tongue-in-cheek stunt for this website to get some fast publicity--I wonder how long it's going to last.

[Kad]

Posted: 4/18/17 at 9:50am

I think Isherwood overestimated the worth of his name alone when it is separated from the Times.

[AC126748]

Posted: 4/18/17 at 9:55am

Kad said: "I think Isherwood overestimated the worth of his name alone when it is separated from the Times.

 

"

No question. And it doesn't particularly help that he was never the most well-liked person to begin with.

[uncageg]

Posted: 4/18/17 at 9:58am

wonderfulwizard11 said: "You don't play shade, you throw it."

 

Thank you for the correction. I saw the thread title and immediately opened it to post that it is thrown!

 

[newintown]

Posted: 4/18/17 at 10:06am

Shouldn't we just let him slip into well-deserved total obscurity?

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 4/18/17 at 10:35am

newintown said: "Shouldn't we just let him slip into well-deserved total obscurity?"

^^^ This. ^^^

[helvizz]

Posted: 4/18/17 at 11:06am

Where are you guys reading his reviews now that hes left the NY Times?

Updated On: 4/18/17 at 11:06 AM

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 4/18/17 at 11:08am

helvizz said: "Where are you guys reading his crítica now that hes left the NY Times?"

http://broadway.news/