Is it time for Brantley to retire?

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 3:14am

what do u think?

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 6:04am

He's like 12.

[jasobres]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 7:32am

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

[James2]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 7:37am

He's a good friend of mine. If anything, he should stay on the Times for at least another ten years.

[tophertilson]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 8:08am

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

[Lamc16]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 9:13am

I don't hate him at all. In fact, I find his remarks pretty spot-on most of the time. He's by far one of the most literate and genuinely passionate critics working today.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 9:15am

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

[Lamc16]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 9:25am

Agreed. I loathe Simon.

[Katurian2]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 9:28am

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

[keatonbynumbers]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 9:30am

Yeah, I like Brantley.

(That's what I say when I agree with him, which is often. When we disagree, I'm such a hypocrite, I'm all, "Brantley's a hack.")

I like his reviews and anyway, like someone mentioned, I don't think the Times review has the same significance it used to.

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 9:42am

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

[mominator]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 10:08am

Remember he is a critic. It is his job to point out the good AND the not so good. I do not take his opinion as gospel, but rather with a grain of salt. Most of the times he is spot on.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 10:44am

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

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 10:46am

Agreed, Feingold is one of my favorites.

Brantley every once in awhile dazzles me with a review, but more often then not, he is a total bitch and writes those snippy little two liners.

Also, his infatuation with Kristin Chenoweth is pretty frickin' disgusting...

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 10:59am

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

[jv92]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 11:10am

Yes, it is time for him to go. He gives like 3 good reviews a season.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 11:10am

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.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 11:28am

Simon is a racist, misogynist, homophobe (who once publicly wished AIDS on all gay people after witnessing a gay-themed play that he didn't like) who just happens to have a large vocabulary. Yes, he writes extremely well (I own the 1000 page volume of his collected criticism) and is entertaining and knowledgable about theatre, but he also is outrageously unfair and offensive and filled with hateful prejudices that renders his opinions irrelevant to me. Thank goodness he was dispatched to the far off, impossible to find hinterlands of Bloomberg.com where he and his bigotry finally have the audience they deserve -- no one.

Here are some examples of his close-minded nastiness. I couldn't find many of the particularly heinous examples of his racism and homophobia online that I recall reading through the years (my parents have subscribed to New York Mag from the early 70s on, so I read him every week for decades), since New York Magazine's archives only go back to the late 90s -- he's been unfairly insulting people since the 60s:
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?boardname=bway&thread=476124#1327853

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 11:32am

He must be a veyr happy man

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 11:42am

I do remember reading things he said about Sammy Davis Jr..

I forgot about the whole racist-homophobe thing...I guess I've been more focused on his later work, which has been surprisingly nice and charming even.

I, too, own the anthology of this theatre reviews, and I think it's very informative.

Thanks for the info, Margo.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 11:47am

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

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 11:48am

I have a hard time responding to the question "what do u think?" but I'll offer my opinion anyway.

Brantley is a good critic, but not a great critic. His reviews tend to feature some witty framing device at their introduction or conclusion, but that's their main feature. He knows his own craft (journalism), but he isn't tremendously knowledgeable about any of the crafts he reviews. I agree with Margo that his blame for the failure or success of a production is often misplaced.

So while I'm at it, I will say (for about the fiftieth time) that Brantley and the majority of his peers probably ought to step aside. And who should replace them? Margo.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 11:57am

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?

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 3:00pm

I think Margo is an amazing critic and his/her reviews are usually excellent and even if he didn't like the show, he would still be respectful and not try to discourage people from seeing a show. Margo should be the new critic of the NYT.

Anyhow it cracks me up that i say something and i get nothing but "oh...your wrong, Brantley is the best!" and then Margo says something and immediatly everyone says "Brantley is not that great".

Brantley wrote good reviews about "Bombay Dreams", the same about Brooke Shields and Jennifer Hope Wills in "Wonderful Town", but i usually agree more with Barnes from the Post. I feel like Brantley goes to the theatre with his mindset "im gonna kill this show", i mean, what he wrote about "The Glass Menagerie" was just awful, he was just mean to the director, i didn't get to see the show, but the show probably closed because of his evil review, and that is not fair to the audience or to the show. Or to call Amanda Peet miscast, i don't know, i felt it was a little rude, not saying she is not miscast, but to talk that way about an artist who gives everything onstage everynight, is brutal.

Updated On: 3/17/06 at 03:00 PM

[jv92]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 3:47pm

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