James Franco Calls Out Ben Brantley- Page 4

[Steve721]

Posted: 4/17/14 at 11:59pm

"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

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 12:02am

The thing is, I don't think people think Brantley is too harsh. It's that he's a bad writer, he doesn't formulate ideas well, he seems to have a relatively modest understanding of theater history, his pieces are often overrun with the tangential, and when he gets hooked on a new diva or a fledgling boy toy he's downright embarrassing.

Rich had none of those failings. And back then, his reviews actually had power. With Brantley is like being dissed by Hermie the Elf.

I saw Carrie, it was as horrible as Rich said it was but I wouldn't have missed it for the world.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 12:03am

"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.

[Steve721]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 12:08am

"It's that he's a bad writer, he doesn't formulate ideas well."

Now that I do agree with. Among all of the NY Times critics, I think Manohla Dargis is by far the best writer; Brantley doesn't come close to her IMHO.

[Idiot]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 12:46am

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.

[FishermanBob]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 1:08am

Brantley responded:

"He told the New York Observer: "I like Franco's work on film a lot, and he didn't disgrace himself on stage. I hope he returns to Broadway some day. And of course he's entitled to say whatever he likes about me, as long as it's not libelous, and somehow I don't think 'little bitch' qualifies."

Brantley 1, Franco 0





New York Observer article Updated On: 4/18/14 at 01:08 AM

[Addison D.]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 1:20am

"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.

[dented146]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 2:21am

I don't believe it is true that Brantley has lost any of his clout over the last several years. His reviews are the first thing much of the public and most of the people on this site look to see.

The sad fact: The Times has world class people with great credentials reviewing the books and someone far less qualified like Brantley, who has enormous power, sometimes playing God and determining the fate of many shows which might not have huge built in mass appeal.

It is irresponsible of The Times. There will always be shows in that position; therefore, The Times critic should be erudite, focused, reasoned, and clear. Brantley is none of those things. He is opaque and rarely specific. Sometimes I can barely understand what he means.

I'm glad Franco made his remarks but I'm disappointed he wasn't more articulate and that he resorted to name calling. He just made Brantley even more famous.

[SweetLips]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 2:22am

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

[April Saul]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 2:34am

Franco shouldn't have responded like that...but I understand the impulse. I find Brantley's reviews so gratuitously snarky and mean-spirited at times that he's not at all a favorite critic of mine. I actually believe there's a way of giving a production a bad review without ridiculing it, and much prefer a critic like David Rooney.

[Kad]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 8:27am

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

[Theater'sBestFriend]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 8:55am

"I actually believe there's a way of giving a production a bad review without ridiculing it."

Agree completely. Michael Musto manages to avoid fawning without being vicious. Hilton Als or John Lahr of The New Yorker are intelligent and thoughtful where Brantley is just tetchy.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 9:36am

"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.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 9:56am

The meanest response to a negative review of Brantley's I ever saw, which made me laugh a lot, came after he trashed Rosie O'Donnell in "Fiddler." Rosie simply posted a picture of his face on her blog. It was devastating.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 10:38am

Mmmmnnnn...dogs.

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

[Brick]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 10:42am

I agree it's people like Franco and Alec Baldwin who are saying what most theatre people already believe.

And it's not simply because he wields so much power. People feared Frank Rich, but they also respected him.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 11:12am

Brantley should have responded with this:

[Steve721]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 12:08pm

I'm sure Rich (whose nickname was "the butcher of Broadway') would be amused that some people want him back.

[newintown]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 12:24pm

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

[promisespromises2]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 5:30pm

Whoopsie. Updated On: 4/18/14 at 05:30 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 6:46pm

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.

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 6:50pm

promisespromises2, did you bother to read the thread?

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 7:14pm

"...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

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 7:41pm

Have you not noticed that newspapers are a dying medium?

I laugh when people think Brantley has power. He can neither make nor break a show in this climate. The last person who could wax Rich, back before the newspaper end times. Fortunately he was a reasonable critic with standards and an ability to articulate them.

Brant let's just a pricier Reidel at best.

And dream on if you ever think a printed newspaper will ever have multiple reviews of the same show.

The world has changed.

[Steve721]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 7:43pm

"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.