James Franco Calls Out Ben Brantley- Page 5

[promisespromises2]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 7:47pm

"promisespromises2, did you bother to read the thread?"

Well, I obviously skimmed the last page. Sorry about that!

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 7:53pm

Clearly people have varied objections to Brantley as a critic.

But for those of you who dislike him because he doesn't like shows, I'm curious how you feel about his favorable Act One review, especially given that he was in the minority.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 8:22pm

There's the fact that nobody can figure out what the hell he's thinking and his bad writing offers no clue.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/18/14 at 8:43pm

Surprised it go so many knocks

Brantley liking it , especially in view of this , is unexplainable.Reminds me of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I think the pods took him over.

[TimesSquareRegular]

Posted: 4/19/14 at 9:43am

My only quibble with Franco's original incisive post has to do with the phrase "little bitch" ...... don't understand why "bitch" needed a qualifier.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 4/19/14 at 9:53am

Sadly, I just don't think this little beetle-person is going anywhere.


Even more sad--the fact that he is one of the better critics in New York right now. We can bitch til the cows come home, but I can't think of another critic--except Feingold--who could better him.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 4/19/14 at 10:17am

If I wanted to really make a stretch here, I could suggest that "little bitch" is an implication of Franco commenting on Brantley's flamboyant tendencies and homosexuality... But certainly no Hollywood actor with many gay friends would ever use that label with this intent, right?

Right?

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 4/19/14 at 10:34am

I loved Ben Rimalower's comment: "My whole week would've been much better had James Franco called Ben Brantley a 'basic bitch' instead."

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 4/19/14 at 1:22pm

I find Feldgold insufferable, I like Ben Brantley he is one of the best critics, however my favourite is Peter Marks of the Washington Post.

Why do the American people bestow so much power on one person, this time the chief theatre critic of the New York Times? When Clive Barnes worked for the New York Times his reviews were very relevant, however when he jumped ship to the New York Post his reviews become irrelevant, why?

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 4/19/14 at 1:29pm

The New York Times is one of the most respected newspapers in the world. I imagine that could be a pretty good reason.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 4/19/14 at 9:44pm

"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....

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

The world has changed."

Well put, Namo. And it's true I tend to think of the TIMES and the NY newspaper world in general as it was when I lived there in the 70s and 80s. But even then there were shows that ran because of a great TV commercial, a bankable star, etc., in spite of a bad review from Barnes or Rich.

I would only quibble that if we take the subset of newspaper readers and compare it to the subset of theatergoers, I suspect we'll find more overlap than we will with the general public.

You're probably right that no newspaper is going to run competing reviews, but I think the real reason (and this does date back to when the NYT was solvent) is that running a second review implies the first reviewer may not be omniscient.

And how do we know it wouldn't work for the TIMES? ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY used to run competing film reviews (I know: bigger audience, more interest) and it was invariably the first article I read. IMO, each review improved in contrast to the other.

But I agree with you: ain't likely to happen at the NYT.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/19/14 at 9:47pm

I find Feldgold insufferable, I like Ben Brantley he is one of the best critics

Ha ha HAAA! First off, assuming you mean Feingold, who is the best critic in New York. Brantley isn't a critic at all. He's a reviewer. And a talentless one at that.