Is it time for Brantley to retire?

what do u think?

---

What's wrong with Brantley? I think he's fine.

---

I don't get why people so consistently hate Brantley. He's not a writer the caliber of Rich or anything, but his opinions are perfectly valid. I don't agree with him often, but he's a competent enough critic. And really, does the NY Times really matter anymore? The way it used to?

TT

---

I think Brantley is an excellent critic, very tactful. And Isherwood balances him out. I like them both. It's not like we're talking John Simon here. Brantley and Isherwood are great for The Times.

---

Updated On: 3/17/06 at 09:15 AM

Aw- no! I love this man's writing and his reviews. If I had my way, he would be working at the Times forever.

---

Wow i thought i was gonna be the only person saying... no he shouldn't be cause he is always right in his reviews!

yay i'm not alone....

i heart Ben

I find him to be generally incompetent, but then again all of the critics other than Michael Feingold of the Voice are. He has no background whatsoever in theatre or music or dance -- never studied, never trained, and prior to the Times never worked as a critic for any of them (he was a movie reviewer for Women's Wear Daily).

That's the reason he makes the same mistakes so many of his fellow critics do when it comes to assigning the responsibility and blame and/or credit for what works and what doesn't in a given production -- most of these idiots seem to get confused between whether it's the fault of the writer, director or actors -- something that SHOULD be Theatre Criticism 101, but still baffles these people.

That's the reason that any show with a harmonically complex score -- from Piazza to Violet to both Wild Parties to The Last Five Years to Caroline -- seems to confound him. He gives good write-ups to Sondheim, but then he's not completely stupid -- he knows that consistently panning Sondheim (whether he actually understands or appreciates him or not) would be a one way ticket to a pink slip. He seems much more comfortable and happy with scores with "easy" melodies.

He also has a petty streak, indulging in the most juvenile bitchy, snippy sorts of put downs one would expect from the queens at showtune Mondays than from the Times main critics' chair. And let's not forget his endless celebrity/diva-worship from Melanie Griffith (recall he gave her her only rave) to Chenoweth. He also frequently commits the ultimate reviewer's sin -- vagueness. Many times you can finish a review of his -- with all of it's contradictions and inconsistencies -- and have no idea what he really thought of a show or whether he thinks it's worth seeing or not.

While I continue to read his reviews (he is the voice of the Times after all), his opinions have little credibility to me and yes, I wish he and the vast majority of his critical fraternity -- Barnes, Kissel, and Lahr especially -- would be forcibly retired and replaced by people who know what they're talking about.

---

Updated On: 3/17/06 at 10:44 AM

Whether you agree with Feingold's opinions or not (and I disagree with him all the time), he's a true scholar of theatre as well as a working professional in it. He's a respected translator (he wrote the translation for the last Broadway revival of Threepenny Opera among many other shows), dramaturg, and lyricist and currently functions as literary manager and dramaturg for the acclaimed Theatre For A New Audience. His knowledge of theatre history, classical to contemporary, is vast and deep (he's been reviewing for the Voice for over 35 years and his memory of downtown theatre especially goes back to its beginnings in the 50s). He's the only theatre writer that I ever actually learn anything from and stylistically he's a joy to read. Brantley and the rest could take a page (or 50) from his book. although he's in a different class altogether from all of them.

---

Updated On: 3/17/06 at 10:59 AM

Why do people LOATHE John Simon? Because he hated a show you loved?

I think John Simon was the greatest theatre critic or our time.

---

He must be a veyr happy man

Margo's take on Brantley sums up my feelings exactly. I agree about his vagueness--he sometimes seems intentionally noncommittal, which rather than a chord struck for balance/fairness just sounds incomplete and half-baked. Like homework done the night before. I don't detect enough real analysis--a point of view that he can stand by.

Very subjective: And I personally tire of his unabashed near obsession with the golden age of broadway musicals. Anyone forced to sing a power ballad, no matter what the quality of the song or singer (the AIDA gals, Idina) pretty much earns his scorn or dismissal. The two extremes both piss him off -- PIAZZA and WICKED. He cannot accept any evolution in the form, any pop, operatic, or alternative music influence, and his recent over-stated appraisal of PAJAMA GAME is a recent example. I felt him straining to adore it simply because of the era it came from.

I always thought his non-stop promotion of the Donna Murphy Ruth did not help WONDERFUL TOWN's cause. He so oversold the professionalism she brought to a moderately entertaining production. (I always called it a "Berkshire Theater Festival performance".) I never saw the magic that he saw, and agreed strongly with Ken Mandlebaum that Murphy never came close to finding the Roz Russell-esque comic zeal. I hate to reopen that old debate, but listen to Russell on her album, then Murphy--which one makes you smile?

But for my money, he overrates many things, and always oddly. Latest example: RABBIT HOLE. He saw a wildly different play than I did. And I didn't dislike it.

---

Updated On: 3/17/06 at 11:47 AM

If the Times had any brains when it comes to arts coverage, they would have hired Michael Feingold a long time ago.

And while we're on this subject, anyone want to join me in exhorting any ONE of the New York papers to hire Margo as a critic?

---

Barnes is a better critic and I respect his opinions much more.