Re Ben Brantley

Which show got the last true rave from Mr.Brantley, or has he never given one?

This ranks up there with the most egregious abuses New York Times theater critics have engaged in. Upon reading Brantley's review of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, I recalled the time in 1983 when Frank Rich wrote an outrageously devastating pan of the sensational On Your Toes revival.

im not a brantley fan. however i think ISherwood is honest and i hope he is promoted and brantley dies a horrible death..

he he

---

Oh please, this is just Roxy's SAME TIRED OLD MANTRA. (Second only to "Ah, my old nemesis, Namo. Whatever I say you have to attack me.") If you've been around for years, you've heard this story before.

He laments how predicatable critics are, but what could possibly be more predictable than his always going to see the shows that got panned and loving them. We know, we know, the sponge in Dance of the Vampires was "a hoot." We know, we know, the critics HATE Wildhorn and therefore he must be good.

---

One of the things which irked me about Brantley's review were his mentions of The Producers. These two shows are not in competition with one another and have nothing in common except that they basically deal with con men. Certainly they are both flat out musical comedies, but the situations and locations are totally different. The Producers was not brought to my mind once while watching Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.

Why Brantley was holding up The Producers as some kind of yardstick when evaluating Scoundrels is something which will have top be explained to me.

Another point which Brantley brought up concerned the "vulgarity" of Scoundrels. He wasn't alone among critics in this objection. I'm frankly astonished that any theater critic in New York would take umbrage at the tame antics and language which were part of the show's humor. Does Brantley watch what passes for television entertainment? Does he see music videos? Does he overhear conversations taking place on the streets of New York? Those are far more vulgar.

He's seriously going to tell us he was offended by what he saw or heard at Dirty Rotten Scoundrels--after The Producers!! It's not like The Producers was subtle.

Updated On: 3/6/05 at 02:52 PM

Considering the sources Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is based upon,--the 1988 film and 1964's Bedtime Story--I think anyone would have a difficult time saying it was a by-the-numbers steal of The Producers.

Of course, any work which rejuvenates a genre or furthers one can be seen as setting standards which other works following in its wake may attempt to emulate. If there is a certain "formula" which is found to work and be popular, using it as a model is not stealing.

I find your chacterization of Scoundrels as "desperately" seeking to be a Producers-wannabe as rubbish. The work can fully stand on its own two feet. It's interesting that Brantley could not match the score up song-for-song with The Producers. Scoundrels was clearly not trying to sound old-fashioned in the music department, something The Producers absolutely cannot say. And perhaps Brantley would care to explain why most find The Produces wanting after Lane and Broderick are no longer around to jack the work up. It just isn't "the same"--something most great shows are able to overcome.

I know you've said you haven't seen the show yet. I'm sure you will go with an open mind. This is where Brantley's overt accusations about this show are dangerous. He's possibly poisoned people's thoughts about Scoundrels. I can hear some folks right now coming out of the show saying, "Well, it's good, but it's no Producers..."

Updated On: 3/6/05 at 04:31 PM

Riv great post!!

I think he agreed to take over from Frank Rich only after he signed an agreement to continue to be as negative in his reviews as his predecessor

Don't EVER compare Brantley to Rich. Ever.
Rich may have not liked some shows other people loved, but he knew his stuff and gave you REASONS, laid out in black and white, why he didn't like the show. And he raved about shows that became legendary and influetial when the other critics didn't "get it" at first. Rich saw things that other critics overlooked, both bad and good, and was most times right on the money.
Rich knew the landscape of theatre like the back of his hand, where it had been and where it was going and what it needed to get there Yes, he was harsh at times, but he knew his stuff and was a brilliant critic.

---

Updated On: 3/6/05 at 05:20 PM

I'll probably get shot for this (and I really don't care ), but I agree with Brantley about 95% of the time. Although, his "DRS" review was way off.

I agree as well. I find Brantley to be the most consistant reviewer with my tastes. I understand what Roxy is saying, but there's a difference. A theatre critics job is to critique the show and every aspect of it - including THE SHOW itself - book, music, etc. TABOO was my favorite show last year, and he gave it a very terrible review - understood. The show WAS terrible, but there's a difference between enjoying a show and that show actually being GOOD. So while he may not have said anything good about LITTLE WOMEN (among others,) I found all his points accurate and I agree with them. But I still managed to enjoy the show. I think sometimes people forget that. If anything I said made any sense....

---

I'd give LITTLE WOMEN a 6 or 7. Good, not great, a forgettable score and by-the-numbers book. Has an audience, a definite appeal, and I wish it well, but I can easily think of 100 better shows -- and I'd reserve the 10s, 9s, and 8s for them.

---

I agree. I would definitely give LITTLE WOMEN a 6 or 7 as well. There are very few shows I would give a 10 to - and none of them are on Broadway right now.

---