Oddly enough, his rave for Catered Affair failed to recognize Bucchino's songs and seemed to give most of the musical credit to Jonathan Tunkick. That was rather unfortunate.
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/13/05
Rest in peace, Mr. Barnes.
A part of theatre history is gone. Like him or not, agree with him or not ... he was a legendary theatre critic and will be remembered as such. RIP.
But why was he so damned mean in the 60s and 70s?
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/8/07
Get over it jv92. He will be greatly missed.
My thoughts and prayers go out to his family.
Updated On: 11/19/08 at 01:17 PM
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/18/03
Barnes was bitchy in the 60s and 70s because as the chief critic for the Times, he could be.
"Legendary"? Since when?
When Rupert Murdoch at the Post gave him a heap of money and also gave him his job of chief drama critic back (the Times had 'demoted' him to just chief dance critic) as well as chief dance critic, the quality of his work began a long slow slide.
He was grossly overweight, had a rep for drinking and also for sleeping.
And this has been my personal curiousity for about 20 years: could Barnes be bought? I mean quite literally, with money or more likely the promise of a big ad in the Post in exchange for a favorable quotable review?
I know I am not alone thinking along these lines.
Barnes devolved into a slob.
My thoughts and prayers are with his family.
Sad news.
I agree with those who say the lights should dim.
As Amalia said, I may not have always agreed with what he wrote, but I knew he loved theatre as much I do.
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/20/05
Was Clive Barnes a drinker? Are you KIDDING? Now that he's dead and gone, the REAL reason for his dismissal -- is being sugar-coated. Wihout going into the gory details, he was fired because he reviewed a ballet performance that never had taken place. Totally unprofessional and vicious, to the bitter end. Sorry for his family, but defintely NOT sorry that such a malign influence is no longer around to spew his ignorant venom on the theatre. I know this isn't a popular opinion to be saying at this point, but facts are facts and reality is reality. Go ahead and shoot, but the guy was a drunken louse.
So in your opinion, every "drunken louse" should die? This may just be crazy talk, but I thought that it was customary to mourn those who have died, no matter what the cause, not mock them.
Broadway Star Joined: 10/15/08
to clarify:
there are actually different kinds of liver cancer.
drinking can predispose you to the most common kind, hepatoma/hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as causing cirrhosis. cirrhosis itself also predisposes you to hepatoma/hepatocellular carcinoma.
to be back on topic, i thought it was customary to at least be respectful of the dead.
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/20/05
I wasn't mocking him. I don't care how much a person drinks on their own time, but I do get angry when that affects what should be an objective and thoughtful opinion that is going to be read by thousands of readers. It's not fair to the reader, it's not fair to everyone involved in the production and it's not fair to the reputation of the journal for which that individual is working.
Really?
Because calling a dead man a "drunken louse" sounds like ridiculing him to me.
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/20/05
No, I meant it as a serious insult.
Is this really the time to discuss this guy's shortcomings? How important are they really? If it was such an issue someone should have started an 'I hate Clive Barnes thread' when he was alive.
It comes down to this for me; I didn't agree with him everytime, and no he wasn't always Mr.Congeniality, sometimes he sucked and sometimes I thought him an absolute loon. But geez he was a theatre critic. He did his job; and agree with him or not, I thought did it well. Even when I didn't agree with him I enjoyed his writings, at least he was a literate and informed read. Something we don't always get these days.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
Read William Goldman's appraisal of Barnes in THE SEASON. It isn't pretty. "I think Clive Barnes is the most dangerous, the most crippling critic in modern Broadway history and I only hope he is dispensed with before these words reach print."
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/20/05
Thank you, Roscoe. You and Goldman are SO right!!!
My first Broadway obsession was Pacific Overtures. The double whammy of dual pans from Barnes and Walter Kerr insured that the show wouldn't get a run.
But out of nowhere, just several months after it opened, and weeks before it closed, Barnes did a complete turn-around.
He re-reviewd the show, saying it was brilliant! OK, perhaps revisiting a work a decade or two later and revising an opinion is acceptable. But for the most important critic in NY to dismiss a show in January of 2006, and then somehow decide it's wondeful in June is just irresponsible. He effectively killed the show, then went on record saying he wasn't the one responsible for the death.
It was a stupid and lazy move. Of course he had also panned Follies and Company. The Times, and Barnes were supremely powerful back then. To be honest much of what he wrote was haphazzard and without a rigorous critical sensibility.
He was a giant in his field. i disagreed with him a lot but I respected the fact that, unlike Brantley, he actually critiqued something instead of ripping it apart unmercifully .
A big loss .
I find it interesting that the first posting of the NYTimes obit had "dance critic" in its headline (it now just says "critic"). The obit stressed his contributions to dance criticism, and made his theater-criticism work seem more like an afterthought.
(...which is just to say that I'm paraphrasing William Goldman, 40 years later.)
Roxy - you don't think Brantley critiques?
wow, i actually find him to be the ONLY reviewer to give constructive criticism where it's due. i may disagree with brantley at times- who doesn't disagree with critics (more often than not i agree with him) - but he's a fantastic writer who is actually there to review the play in front of him.
Videos