James Franco Calls Out Ben Brantley — Page 4

"Steve, are you suggesting that Rich's Carrie review is inaccurate? Because it wasn't."

Not at all, although I've never actually had the pleasure of seeing Carrie. I'm just pointing out that those who think Brantley is too harsh and are pining for the NY Times to appoint a new head critic could end up with someone who is even harsher. And I do prefer Rich to Brantley because I think Rich is a far better writer.

Updated On: 4/17/14 at 11:59 PM

"With this rebuttle, Franco pretty much reduced himself down to the level he has put Brantley at for the negative review."

Much, much lower. The guy's a joke. My friend is a professor at NYU, and he said Franco was a complete nightmare while enrolled there. He acted like they should be honored with his presence, even though he never went to class or did any work. Ugh.

Critics shouldn't be immune to critique, though I do agree with the previous poster about the veneration of vulgarity. I'm kind of sick of it when I'm not engaging in it myself.

"Brantley 1, Franco 0"

Bob--You appear to be scoring this match on the same curve that Franco allegedly demanded from his NYU professors.

I'd give Franco a negative number--I think he's worse off than he was before he opened his yap.

---

My goodness--what a dummy spit. If you can't take the heat stay out of/off the stage.
Take it like a man, suck it up, and keep your mouth shut unless it's what the author wants you to say.
Should I edit that as it reads as if I'm directing a porno? Nah!

Updated On: 4/18/14 at 02:22 AM

If I were Brantley, I'd be more offended about Franco saying he should be writing for Gawker.

---

"I guess a negative review from the NYT hurts the play's chances with the Tonys though, which is probably bugging Franco."

Brantley raved/gushed over "Matilda" last year but "Kinky Boots" won the Tony for Best Musical so don't see the point.

Mmmmnnnn...dogs.

---

Updated On: 4/18/14 at 10:38 AM

Brantley should have responded with this:

I would never defend Brantley in his chosen profession; he's a complete mediocrity, as are all the daily reviewers. I would only identify Feingold as a real critic. But then, I found Rich to be a mediocrity (and still do - there's nothing in his Op/Eds that ever seems profound or more insightful than anything I could hear at a good party), along the lines of most "pundits" - Andrew Sullivan, Arianna Huffington, etc. (as opposed to actual abominations like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter - people who can not only not write well, but have their heads attached weirdly).

None of the daily reviewers has ever or could ever actually do anything successfully in the art forms about which they pretend to be expert or au courant. None could ever write or direct or design or act (although most of them probably wanted to at one time or another). And yet, they pretend to know something about art that makes their opinion worth paying attention to (and paying for).

So a mature artist should never, ever, ever acknowledge anything a reviewer says about them in public. It elevates the reviewer to their level, which is just a stupid thing to do.

Updated On: 4/18/14 at 12:24 PM

No matter whose side you take on this, you have to admit Brantley was a bit surprised that there would be any fallout from one of his reviews. He is the one usually doing the ripping and the bitchiness so someone having the audacity to do this had to come as quite a bit of a shock.

---

"...most actors don't read reviews...."

On what planet?

I actually find Frank Rich often profound as a general political and cultural commentator.

And I see no reason why James Franco shouldn't be as protected by the First Amendment as Ben Brantley.

My beef with the NYT is its decades-long refusal to admit its status as the lone paper of record in one of the leading theatrical centers of the English language. Why not have multiple reviewers (as the paper did when the longer Sunday review was written by someone else)? Why not rotate reviewers more often?

I'm sure there are other solutions, but the TIMES, in my opinion, should at least own the fact that they hold a status with regards to American theater for which there is no true equivalent in other art forms (not even the prestigious Review of Books, though I suppose the latter comes closer every year).

Updated On: 4/18/14 at 07:14 PM

"I actually find Frank Rich often profound as a general political and cultural commentator."

I agree. And the stuff he's written about Sondheim is fascinating.