Critics are truly ridiculous (Mary Poppins) — Page 3

1183, I don't know if you're question was directed toward me or not, but in case it was, let me clarify my earlier post.

I think that critics should write critiques of shows, but I think that they too often allow personal taste to influence their reviews in ways that are unhelpful to the general public. For instance, I'm pretty sure Ben Brantley doesn't like megamusicals. WHich is fine, plenty of people don't. Does that give him the right to trash every megamusical that comes along? No. He might not like it, but that doesn't mean that the thousands of people who read his review won't. It is both my opinion and what I have been taught as a (hopefully) future journalist that a critic's job is to help readers understand whether or not they would like a certain show. Although I've been perhaps a bit harsh toward Mr. Brantley, because he is frequently guilty of this, he does know how to review shows properly, and a good example of this is his review of Jersey Boys. (If you have a NY Times account, you should be able to find it by searching the website.) In this review, he stated the things that he found personally unappealing and critiqued some elements of the show, but he also spoke at some length about the general audience enthusiasm toward it and the type of people who were likely to enjoy it. That way, he was able to express some of his dissatisfactions while still paying tribute to the show's many virtues and without driving people away from a show they would likely enjoy.

There are many people who do not share Mr. Brantley's taste in theater and would much rather see something like MP than a smaller more "intellectual" show, and by completely ignoring their presence, he shows no respect for a significant portion of his readers. Neither Mr. Brantley nor any other critic has opinions that are "invalid" or uninformed, but by promoting their opinions to the exclusion of the likely reactions of the rest of the world, they are, I think doing their readers a great disservice.

Very well said, Popculture. I'm sure you will make a wonderful journalist. And probably a great theatre critiquer. . .There are quite a few people on this site that would do well to listen to what you have just said.
(I'm sure I'll get flak for not saying "critic").

I don't think it's true that Brantley doesn't like "mega-musicals" in general. Not sure how one would exactly define the term these days -- Brantley wasn't the Times critic during the real heyday of the (usually British) megamusical in the 80s and early 90s -- but he certainly gave very positive notices to The Lion King, The Producers, Hairspray, Movin Out and Mamma Mia, as well as the revivals of Pajama Game, Wonderful Town, The King & I, and Kiss Me Kate, among others. And he was hardly alone among the critical community in giving mixed or negative reviews to many of the bigger shows that have come along during his tenure at the Times (Jane Eyre, The Wild Party, Millie, Spamalot, DRS, Chitty, Lestat et al). His less than enthusiastic responses to most of those shows were pretty much in line with the rest of the critical comunity and hardly indicate a particular bias against them on his part. The fact is, most of those shows were far from perfect and his reviews simply reflected that (and mind you, I say that as someone his has never been a particular fan of Brantley as a critic -- while I have often disagreed with him, it hasn't been due to any sort of bias I've detected in his writing).

It should also be noted that, for someone people keep claiming to be so "intellectual" and such a snob, Brantley was anything, but complimentary and actually quite mixed and even lukewarm when he reviewed such "snob hits" as Piazza, Caroline, and most of LaChiusa's shows. Over the years, it's clear that his tastes are very mainstream -- anti-intellectual, if anything -- reserving his highest most effusive praise for light, well-constructed popular comedies such as The Producers, Hairspray, Pajama Game and Wonderful Town and often turning his nose up at more erudite, "sophisticated" fare. Again, I have no idea why some people think of him as some sort of "snob," but having read everything the man has written for the Times since he started a little over a decade ago, I have to say that the label simply doesn't fit. His pans have been reserved for shows that were ill-conceived or poorly constructed, not for shows that were too silly or weren't intellectual enough. Clearly, any man who has such nice things to say about Mamma Mia and Melanie Griffith and writes love letters to Kristin Chenoweth and Donna Murphy is hardly some out of touch highbrow "sophisticate."

---

Updated On: 11/17/06 at 06:04 PM

Critics certainly serve an important role with the ticket prices as high as they are.

What I find totally revolting though are those critics who use their "power" to foster and promote snobbery in the theatre community. People here revel over when Brantley teats apart a show, whereas I see a faded old theatre queen trying really hard to offer some clever quip at a pretentious cocktail party. This has lead I believe to almost a cult of Branleywannabe-ites online who are determined to trash anything that doesnt conform to their idea of theaatttaaa. This kind of thing disgusts me.

There are good critics out there, but I don't consider Brantley one of them. And I believe its just fine to like both Sondheim and Andrew Lloyd Weber.

I was just talking about this today with someone. I hate critics. I don't consider anythign they say as fact.

---

As this thread progressed (would a critic say digressed?), no one has bothered to site specifics in Mr. Brantley's review (as he has been generally lamblasted here).
I read: high-pedigree show. Handsome. Bob Crowley’s spectacular Edwardian set wunder-choreographer Matthew Bourne. bubbly songs. Mr. Jenkins and Ms. Luker are excellent as the troubled spouses.

He gave the show credit where it was due.

Beyond that, he explored for us where the show was going wrong and found it tedious and preachy and questioned its overall appeal to a child based audience. He noted that Mary Poppins in and of herself is poorly defined as a character, found the character Bert smug and the show rather formula driven with a quaint lesson following each bedazzlement.

Some people see the nails while others see the coffin.

Personally, I think he nailed it.

Updated On: 11/18/06 at 10:15 PM

The other issue raised in this thread involves Disney on Broadway. Disney is a corporation with a mission to make a profit through entertainment. The theme park institution couldn't be branded. Euro Disney was a disaster. They were looking for another outlet for all the creativity that went into their movies. Internation sales were fully extended. With each film they have a plot, characters, script, and even song. They exploited the VCR/DVD market to it's fullest.

But whereas Broadway theatre was considered an art form and destination for acting, song and dance, Disney looked more broadly at things, and saw NYC as a destination, much like a theme park. With crime rates diminished, you had an increasing number of things that appealed to families. The typical theatre goer buys 2 tickets. Date night or a lonely business traveler. But a family averages more than double that. You can fill a bus full of retired people and send them to Atlantic City or a Wednesday matinee, but kids often travel in groups or family pairings. They are about weekends, holidays, spring breaks. Families fight dysfunction with indulgence. Disney has built in word of mouth advertising. "If you're in New York, you gotta take your kids to see...LK, B&B, Tarzan (or you're not a good parent)" Mary Poppins is perfect because the parents themselves want to cherish their memories and pass it along to their children and grandchildren. It's good business.

I can understand the uproar over Disney on Broadway for the tried and true, but economically, they know how to gross a $1 million a week a show.