HOW TO SUCCEED... Reviews- Page 4

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 11:14am

I think Gad (from Book of Morman) will be pushed to supporting and will likely win it. Wins for anyone else in the cast would be due to weak catagory (supporting actress) or just a general sweep for the show itself.

[Patash]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 11:26am

Regarding whether Mr. Brantley's review was cruel and nasty or just good writing, let me say that I realize many critics (Mr. Brantley included) love to come up with clever put downs -- it's part of what they do to set them apart.

But surely anyone here who is an actor would have to agree that some of his comments were just plain mean, and if actors weren't required to have very thick skin, such comments should be enough to make most people give up their career.

He could have said, "Daniel came to the show untrained." But instead comparing him to Dancing with the Stars, he chose to say, ". . .teaching some unlikely non dancing celebrity. . . to star in a big Broadway musical." It's one thing to call the guy untrained, but quite another to dismiss him as "unlikely" to start with. Can we say "mind was made up"?

He could have commented that Mr. Radcliffe was stiff in the role and wasn't sure of himself. But any actor would cringe at being told "you can almost hear an unseen coach's voice whispering. . .telling him when to do what."

It's one thing to say that an actor was uninspiring in the role, or even dull or bland. But "the prevailing blankness of Mr. Radcliffe's face" is probably the biggest insult to an actor since "She ran the whole gamut of emotions from A to B."

Of course, as a critic Mr. Brantley has the right to say those things, but I can't help wonder if he didn't jump to hyperbole for the sake of being clever. After all, he did give Mr. Radcliffe a 6 out of 10 -- but these comments seem more aimed at a 1 or 2 out of 10.



Updated On: 3/28/11 at 11:26 AM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 11:32am

Brantley is clearing taking aim at what *he considers* to be a lackluster revival being produced solely because of the interest of a star, that *he perceives* to have marginal musical theatre chops.

Feels somewhat of a cautionary warning making it clear that the Times will hold Hollywood fueled productions to no less of a standard when it comes to Broadway expectations.

[egghumor]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 11:32am

Bash me to your heart's content for not having seen the show, and try to find it in your heart to forgive me for no longer living in New York. As far as Tony nom predictions, I'm basing my prediction regarding Radcliffe partly because of what others have cited regarding Equus; better reviews for that one and the same or less competition in that category at the time. For decades, I (like most theater queens) predict what will be nominated for Tonys. I engage in this friendly competition with a long-time friend. I discovered an interesting thing... I actually have a far higher success rate in my predictions now that I no longer see as many shows. During the years when I saw “everything” my prediction skills were naturally skewed because of shows/performances I personally loved. Now the endeavor is more academic and unbiased as it is basically “blind.”

[Patash]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 11:50am

Yes, Michael Bennett, I think you hit the nail on the head. His review ground a few axes as much as it critiqued an actual show.

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 11:59am

Michael Bennett, I think you're right: Josh Gad probably will be left in Featured (where he presumably is right now, because he's not above the title), and the show will petition to have Andrew Rannells eligible for Leading Actor.

As for Brantley, the pertinent phrase is what 'he perceives' to be lacking in 'musical theater chops.' Frankly, THE worst performance I've ever seen of a movie star on Broadway was Melanie Griffith in 'Chicago.' A real train wreck. And yet Brantley raved about her. Go figure. Like most reviews, they often reveal more about the reviewer, than the show itself.

[broadwayjim42]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 12:12pm

Reading the last paragraph of the USA Today review, I'm reminded of Raquel Welch in "Woman of the Year." She may not have been the best singer, dancer or actress, but the joy eminating (sp?) from that stage was palpable. She was clearly having the time of her life and made the show that much more fun.

Even if Radcliffe isn't God's gift to musical theatre, I'm hoping to see that same joy on April 23.

[hyperbole_and_a_half]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 12:23pm

Brantley's review is spot-on, especially this sentence:

His [Daniel Radcliffe's] effortful performance is sure to stir maternal instincts among women of all ages (and probably some men too) and comradely protectiveness among his fans.

Exhibit A: this thread

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 12:31pm

So it can't mean that the people defending his performance actually LIKE his performance? Most of the reviewer (professional and amatuer alike) certainly do.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 12:40pm

bjh2114

Daniel Radcliffe getting a Tony nomination in "The Sean Hayes spot" made me blow orange juice out my nose. Thanks for brightening up my breakfast.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 12:42pm

not that I care a bit about anything a review has to say, but I do agree that Radcliffe (and everything else about this production) is "6 out of 10." It's a real Velveeta slice of a show - everything processed and bland.

Trouble is, we so rarely get 9 or 10 out of 10, most people are perfectly happy to settle for 6 (and convince themselves that it's more).

[Brick]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 12:47pm

"Feels somewhat of a cautionary warning making it clear that the Times will hold Hollywood fueled productions to no less of a standard when it comes to Broadway expectations."

And yet, there's that famous Melanie Griffith review... And the Julia Roberts one where he waxed poetic on her beauty... And the one....

[adamgreer]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 12:50pm

Despite the pan from the NY Times (admittedly the most important review), the show still received an overall average of B+ on Stage Grade, which is pretty strong.

The overall reviews for the show were pretty good, with a number of raves and plenty of pull quotes. I can't imagine the producers are that disappointed today.
Stage Grade How to Succeed

[Almira]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 12:56pm

His [Daniel Radcliffe's] effortful performance is sure to stir maternal instincts among women of all ages (and probably some men too) and comradely protectiveness among his fans.

So it can't mean that the people defending his performance actually LIKE his performance? Most of the reviewer (professional and amatuer alike) certainly do.

I think there is a sense that there are those cheering on and rooting for Radcliffe rather than Finch. Which, like watching Dancing With The Stars, in and of itself can be entertaining... like watching your favorite team in a high profile sports event.

That's how I read the review.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 12:57pm

The Melanie Griffith thing is different - first of all, there were a lot of people who thought her performance was wonderfully, bizarely great - not just Brantley - and that was a star stepping into a long running show --

That's not quite the same thing as a 15 million dollar musical revival being built specifically around the talents of a young movie star.

I have a hunch Brantley is sensing that these kinds of productions may be a growing trend and is staking his policy now before next season's revival of Kirstie Alley in HOW NOW DOW JONES

[newintown]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 12:58pm

I think everyone realizes that reviews and pull quotes for this production are utterly irrelevant. The show will sell for as long as the cute movie star is in it. If Justin Bieber or a Jonas brother replace him, it may continue to sell.

[Christoph]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 1:04pm

I have tickets to this and am actually looking forward to it now based on the reviews. I saw the last revival with Matthew Broderick - I liked the show although it seemed dated and I thought Broderick - who was overly nebbishy - could have been better. I saw the movie with Robert Morse and, while I enjoyed the film, I find Morse very lounge lizardy in the lead and was not bowled over by him. Maybe he seemed better back in the 1960s, but I don't find his work in the film charming at all. It will be interesting to see a fresh take on the lead role since I have found the lead in this show problematic. As far as Brantley, I actually bought a ticket to see Chicago again based on his over-the-top rave of Melanie Griffith's "performance". I am sorry, but the man lost all credibility with that rave and should have been run out of town on a rail.

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 2:01pm

The Melanie Griffith 'thing' isn't that different. Like Radcliffe, she was making her musical-theater debut on Broadway. And even though she was going into a pre-existing show, you can bet that the choreography was adjusted/tailored to her strengths (or weaknesses). So it just comes down to a critic's taste. And either you agree with them, or you don't. Brantley panned Radcliffe, but there were many more critics who praised him.

'How to' isn't the first show to come to Broadway to showcase a star, nor will it be the last. Brantley's review isn't going to stop that, any more than his pans of jukebox musicals have stopped others from bringing them to NYC. And so it goes ...

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 2:22pm

“I think if we're honest, we know that another actor of Radcliff's limited theatrical skill and musical talents could never have won this role. It's all about Radcliffe and capitalizing on Potter's popularity.”

The VERY reason I said you shouldn’t compare Patti LuPone to Danielle Radcliff. Patti is a trained musical theatre professional. Daniel was given this role because he’s popular with the young kids. His last role (his first on Broadway) didn’t even win him a Tony nomination.

No comparison.

[Almira]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 2:34pm

I agree, TheatreDiva. Without the POTTER phenom behind him, he wouldn't have even gotten a callback... let alone the role.

Not an apt comparison.

[hyperbole_and_a_half]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 3:19pm

So it can't mean that the people defending his performance actually LIKE his performance? Most of the reviewer (professional and amatuer alike) certainly do.

What it means is that some fans will have trouble reading negative reviews of this show or its lead without getting acutely defensive, calling the reviewer a bully, or deriding the criticism as "not constructive."

It also means that some people only like this show because of Mr. Radcliffe's involvement, rather than the actual quality of the production. Of course, nobody would ever admit to that!

[Play Esq.]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 3:25pm

IMHO Brantley is spot on. The second I walked into the Al Hirschfeld Theater and saw the stage curtain, the first thing I thought was "Oh no...another 'Promises, Promises.'" I was displeased to realize how correct that premonition was.

To its credit, I will say that John Larroquette was very good.
Updated On: 3/28/11 at 03:25 PM

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 4:23pm

I agree about Laroquette, Play Esq. The sly way he DOESN"T do the choreography in "Grand Old Ivy" because it's too much bother (are you listening Mr. A?) is hilarious. He has a "you've got to be kidding" attitude that is perfect for this production.

However, now that you've mentioned the show curtain, the countdown begins until someone asks for a photograph.

[musicalman2]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 4:50pm

Big rave from Wall Street Journal, apparently posted online early
Wall Street Journal review

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 5:38pm

"And that brings us back to Mr. Ashford, who with "How to Succeed" establishes himself as one of the best comic choreographers on Broadway today"

His choreography IS laughable.