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
