Is it time for Brantley to retire?- Page 2

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 6:33pm

Barnes's critics always make sense. He was probably the only one that agreed with me about Toni Braxton in Aida.
"As is the way of modern Bway and its lumbering megahits, the musical now has a cast completely different from the original. Enter R&B diva Braxton, who has confidently taken on the role of Aida. The 35yo who tried out her Bway chops a few years ago
as Belle in B&B , is one hell of a singer. She looks pretty good, too" -Clive Barnes-

[keatonbynumbers]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 6:40pm

I don't tend to look for scholarly theatre discussions in the Times, I reckon.

I think the reason Brantley doesn't bother me is because I think he does a fine job of that thing I learned to do in my review/criticism class a few semesters back--he gives good, vivid descriptions. When he feels a certain way, he tends to be a little too opinionated, but mostly, I think he's inoffensive and very good at describing his experience.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 7:01pm

I have been reading Brantley for over ten years now and I think that he is not only an excellent writer but of very good taste. True, he does have a very old-fashioned sensibility, but let's face it, he's not writing for the type of person who tends to be a member of BWW.com.

That said, looking over some of Simon's quotable quotes that Margo supplied, he certainly was/is an a**hole, but it could be argued that the only difference between him and many other theatergoers is that he was actually allowed to print what he was thinking in a national magazine. Many of his opinions were probably pretty valid, but as I recently told Mr. Simon through an email, there's a difference between what you might think to yourself or say to a friend and what you might print a review. There is a line that separates "harsh" and "cruel," and Mr. Simon definitely crossed it many, many times.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 7:03pm

*However, it is clear that some of the thoughts he had were just plain evil...

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 7:04pm

well...i agree with the baritone, after all he is just another person going to the theatre like any of us, but we just get to know what he thought.

[Lamc16]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 9:49pm

I loathe John Simon because he doesn't like ANYTHING! He's horrible. Notice how everyone prior to Margo had only good things to say about Brantley. Hmmm...

[perpetualanticipatio]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 10:10pm

Yes it is time. I spent $180- on Rabbit Hole based on his review and feel totally ripped off. The Times critic should keep the consumer theatergoer in mind and keep their emotions in check.

[isntitromantic]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 10:15pm

Why did the Times every hire Charles Isherwood in the first place? Did any of you gays read his book on the late JOey Stefano? Going on and on about the poor dead boy's ass in this film and his ability to take 4 in that film? Isherwood sounds like a freak from way back -- he was so smitten with this poor dead porno star. And now he's second stringer for the Times? Loss of credibility all around.

[Lamc16]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 10:29pm

No, perpetual, a critic's job is to CRITIQUE the show, which is what Brantley did, whether or not you agree with him.

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 3/17/06 at 10:32pm

Critics don't critique solely for the theatre goers.

They critique from their own point of view, and a reader and audience member has to decide whether or not the critic's critique of a certain show warrants them seeing it (balancing it with other reasons to see it, like a certain performer or playwright they like, etc)

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 3/18/06 at 1:32am

perpetualanticipatio--

You should never go to a show just because one critic liked it (even if it is the NY Times critic). Personally, I read several reviews of a play before I see it, especially if it's expensive. The opinion of just one person should never have so much influence.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 3/18/06 at 3:27am

Yes...totally...never buy tickets just becuz a critic raves about a show. Follow your own instincts.
Lamc16, what i was saying!!! no one said anything negative until Margo said she/he agreed with me.
Margo for the New York Times as the new critic!

[Lamc16]

Posted: 3/18/06 at 2:51pm

Yes, but nobody follows until Margo leads.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 3/18/06 at 3:58pm

The only thing I get from Brantley's reviews is a sense that he is a deeply angry, and bitter man.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 3/18/06 at 4:14pm

That is the same feeling i get, like he is jaded, probably they should get someone who really enjoys going to the theatre.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 3/18/06 at 5:22pm

exactly, i swear, he sounds like he hates his job in every review. Like he wishes, with all his heart that he was doing anything but getting paid to see theatre.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 11:13am

Okay, this is a little off-topic, but it's along the lines of critiquing/reviewing, so I thought it would be okay to put it here instead of starting a new topic.

In a review what exactly should one interpret when the reviewer says: "The orchestra played almost continuously throughout the show," and says nothing else about the orchestra. Does it mean he wished they didn't, he thought it was good they did, told himself oh I should say something about the orchestra and just wrote that, or added that to make a maximum of words? None of us really know what to make of that comment.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 11:31am

I don't think you can accurately interpret something like that without seeing it in context. It's possible you'll never be able to figure out what he meant, but place it in the context of the tone of the rest of the review.

Brantley, as the "big" critics seem to go, is fairly young. So I think this is all sort of moot. While I think he has a really bitchy edge, as most probably do, he's not often wrong. I mean, is this claim that maybe he should retire based on the fact that he doesn't often give raves? Is there all that much for one of, if not THE most powerful critic to rave about? I think he's jaded, at least a little (probably more) but aren't MOST of the critics who ever have anything constructive to say?

What's striking me here is this notion of what makes a "good" critic. Someone who agrees with you? Someone who loves absolutely everything and therefore gets people to see everything, keeping the theatre alive? Someone who gives his opinion, positive or negative and lets it have its consequences? Honesty? I don't really like when people insist that a critics job is to pan everything. One of my favorite actors -- also, in my humble opinion one of the smartest people I have ever met -- (I paraphrase) once said that critics do what they do because they love the theatre, and they want to engage in discussion about it -- or, that goes for the good ones, anyway.

I mean, here:

Barnes's critics always make sense. He was probably the only one that agreed with me about Toni Braxton in Aida.
"As is the way of modern Bway and its lumbering megahits, the musical now has a cast completely different from the original. Enter R&B diva Braxton, who has confidently taken on the role of Aida. The 35yo who tried out her Bway chops a few years ago
as Belle in B&B , is one hell of a singer. She looks pretty good, too" -Clive Barnes

This is absurd. Isn't this the guy who's nice to everybody? Or is he the one who always falls asleep? Did he watch her performance, or just neglect to notice that she can't act to save her life? He makes sense because he agrees with you. Noted, but also... mildly absurd. That's not the only thing that matters when you're assessing a review; at all. By the way, he IS a critic. His criticISMS make sense. In the eye of the beholder.

The critic should keep the consumer in mind? I'd love to know how one proposes that be done with something so completely subjective as theatre is. It's not like evaluating a product that either works effectively or doesn't.

John Simon is... a lot of not-good things, but he is a brilliant writer.

Updated On: 3/19/06 at 11:31 AM

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 12:16pm

Well, here's it in context. The part about the six-piece band playing almost continuoulsy...Again, pretty confusing, especially considering the context, where nothing else at all is mentioned:

...
"Dave Shapiro, who also directed the entire production, was a scene stealer as a nearly mute drunk.
The harmonically difficult opening number, “Fugue For Tinhorns,” was handled effortlessly by Levy, Baratta and Robert Kiernan. “Marry the Man Today,” a duet between Adelaide and Sarah, was given a lighthearted touch.
Jennifer Badamo, Fran Geier and Sherry Markowitz share credit for choreographing the dances, among which “Bushel and a Peck” was neatly tapped and “Take Back Your Mink” had a lot of pizzazz. The title number and “Sit Down, You’re Rockin’ the Boat,” were inexplicably static.
Musical director Rhea Arkin kept the six-piece band playing almost continuously.
Linda Cashman showed an artistic eye in providing set designs that worked wonders on a jewel-box-sized stage.
Pauline Baratta coordinated the costumes, which lacked the noisy plaids that traditionally adorn this show but had a classiness all their own.
Special kudos to the stage crew for making the many set changes rapidly and assuredly.
Remaining performances at Marathon Jewish Community Center (245-37 60th Ave. in Douglaston) are on March 18th and 25th at 8:30 p.m. and March 19th and 26th at 3 p.m. For further information, call (71 428-1580. "

https://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1862&dept_id=525912&newsid=16318952&PAG=461&rfi=9

Updated On: 3/19/06 at 12:16 PM

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 12:39pm

Emcee--

You bring up an interesting point. One may dislike a certain critic because they often disagree with him. But is it a requirement for a critic to reflect the tastes of his readers? Maybe not, but I think that the BEST critics are ones who do. For example, while Brantley has a very upper-middle class sensibility, those are the kinds of people he's writing for. I imagine that the mainstream Broadway audience (that is, middle-aged ladies with too much time and too much money) would tend to share his opinions. Therefore, he's doing his job well. On the other hand, people who don't fall into that category can still enjoy his reviews, while perhaps taking his opinion more with a grain of salt.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 2:48pm

As I stated before, I disagree with Michael Feingold all of the time, but that doesn't matter to me at all. He's still far and away the best critic working the New York theatre because his opinions are arrived at from a deep and thorough knowledge and understanding of the artform. He knows exactly what he's talking about and is a pleasure to read because of that. And I can read one of his reviews and because he's generally so thorough in his analysis, I can decide for myself whether the show sounds like something I want to see or not, regardless of his opinion of it. We can disagree on the subjective points of a particular production, yet even when we do, I find his opinion invaluable.

On the contrary, Brantley often DOESN'T know what he's talking about or what he's listening to and because of that I can't trust his opinion on anything. Yes, I agree with his opinions sometimes, but that's irrelevant. His ignorance of music theory and composition, for one, is scandalous for a man who is the single most powerful voice in the American Theatre. He is the only critic who can close a show or keep it from moving from off-Broadway to on- and there are several terrific and innovative and groundbreaking shows over the years that were poised to move to Broadway (of for a commercial run off-), but when he just didn't "get" it and gave it a mixed or bad review, plans for the move were cancelled and the show closed prematurely.

Compare him to someone like Frank Rich, who not only DID have the ability to recognize when a new, important work had come along, but would use the power of the Times to support it. Rich was one of the very few critics to hail Sunday in the Park with George as a masterpiece (it got mixed to negative reviews from most critics, many of whom are the same idiots who are still working today) and he not only raved about it in his initial review, but then, when it was clear the show was struggling at the box office and in danger of closing, had periodic feature stories written about it in the Times, each of which caused a bump in ticket sales and allowed the show to sustain itself through a decent run. Had it not been for him, Sunday very likely would have closed within a month or two of opening (and had it been yet another massive flop for Sondheim, who knows whether Into the Woods would have even happened -- financing would have been hard to come by).

There are several other examples where Rich was nearly alone in praising a show that his incompetent colleagues didn't "get" (he gave one of the only raves to Dreamgirls -- most of the other critics found it loud and superficial with a mediocre score; he called it a landmark, which it is and 20 years later some of those same idiotic critics NOW admit they were wrong).

The head critic's chair at the Times is so powerful that it can, and has, over the years been able by itself to overcome the negative reviews of all the other papers combined, when a smart, knowledgable, perceptive, passionate advocate for new and groundbreaking theatre has been sitting in it. We, unfortunately aren't so blessed with such a figure at the moment.

Sometimes shows come along that are ahead of their time, that are so different from the typical fare that the average theatregoer and the average critic doesn't fully understand their significance. Many times Rich would be the exception and was able to see what an artist was getting at and he would that rare voice of support for a work that was misunderstood by others -- and history has shown that he was right for doing so. Brantley is just part of the pack of mediocre reviewers who predictably all like the same safe little shows and pan everything else that they don't understand -- which is anything attempting to try something new or different. And that hurts the future of the artform because it discourages innovation and artists trying to put forth their own unique voices and ideas.

Rich (and Kerr and Taubman and Elliot Norton and a few other critics from the past) were passionate supporters of theatre and would convey their excitement in print whenever an important new work would come along, even if it wasn't commercial or safe or had wide appeal. The only thing I've ever seen Brantley get passionate about is Kristin Chenoweth or whoever the latest diva of he moment is. His continued presence in the Times head critics' chair is harmful to the future of the American theatre and it would be a great thing if he were replaced by a truly knowledgeable advocate of the artform.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 2:58pm

But is it a requirement for a critic to reflect the tastes of his readers?

No. Because that's hard to do, when your responsibility is to state your own opinion. But then you get into whether it's a critic's job to rave about what he thinks people will like, or rave about what HE likes, regardless of whether it's going to be a blockbuster, crowd-pleaser of a hit.

I hate to do this, but Wicked. Got mediocre reviews, right? If the critics' jobs were to rave about what the consumers were going to love, it would've gotten raves across the board; it's a huge success.

but I think that the BEST critics are ones who do.

This leads into exactly what I would've said next. I think there's a really fine line here -- their obligation is to write about what they see, and I suppose the objective and the assumption is that their opinion is educated enough to reflect taste of what's good and what's bad. BUT I think that people are foolish in putting a ton of faith in any one critic's opinion -- I think you have to look at a review and not think "oh, he thought it was great, it must be great!" but you have to look at why -- what he likes -- is it the same as what you like? That's the difference.

Updated On: 3/19/06 at 02:58 PM

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 3:44pm

I think the mistake here is that we actually pay attention to what these critics say about shows. Let's be our own critics and ignore what anyone else says about a show.
As theatre goers, we should try to see as much theatre and have our own conclusions about what we see. Unfortunatly what Brantley says can ruin many people's dreams and we can't change that. But we can change our attitude and quit reading what these jaded people sometimes have to say.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 3:56pm

So are you suggesting we just abolish the idea of criticism? We should be our own critics, so everyone should dish out tons of money to see something just to find out if they like it?

How realistic.

I think the institution of criticism is kind of a necessary evil to the art, though. People sort of need to be told what to do, not to say it's a particularly good think. But critics aren't like, inherently evil, or all the devil incarnate.

If they know what they're talking about, they're worth paying attention to.

[Shoshana's Future Ex]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 4:04pm

cool.