Re Ben Brantley- Page 2

[riv]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 2:24pm

Of course the response you'll get from critics is that if people are going to be asked to shell out $100, the show better be excellent. They'll claim the pricetag justifies the harsh critical eye.

[Tesse]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 2:46pm

Frank Rich's reviews separated the whole from the sum of its parts-- for example, he could blast the book, music, lyrics, and performances in a show, but still admit that he enjoyed himself watching it. Brantley, on the other hand, mostly whines in his reviews, and doesn't seem to enjoy the art form very much. It's sad.

[Sasha3]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 4:58pm

I agree with Ben Brantley 99% of the time.

I think Mr. Brantley's consistent dissastisfaction with the shows on Broadway has more to do with the consistent lack of quality shows being produced of late, rather than with some perceived bitterness. What I've noticed is that the shows he tends to dislike are those which lack originality, focus more on spectacle than on substance, and/or aim to please the lowest common denominator. And I'm with him on that. Bring on something original, inspired, and fearless!

[NYSinger1]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 5:10pm

Sasha, I echo your sentiments exactly.

[riv]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 5:20pm

He is reviewing commercial theater when he is reviewing Broadway product and must always be mindful of that. Commercial theater is meant to entertain a broad spectrum of people, unless we prefer not to have anyone in the seats.

It's all well and good to self-righteously champion "originality" and "inspiration" and "substance" and other high-minded ideals above everything, but not to the detriment of the industry by driving potential practitioners away or destroying careers.

And do you want to know what "fearless" REALLY is? It's sinking $10 million plus into a new musical damn well knowing a Ben Brantley can go out of his way to close you in one night.

[Sasha3]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 6:21pm

*ducks*

*barely misses rocks thrown at head*

Riv, it seems to me that, more than anything, your gripe is with the influence Mr. Brantley wields over potential ticket-buyers and not his champion of ideals for the art. Why should any reviewer have to be "mindful" that Broadway theatre is commercial? It's an art, and just because people also make money at it doesn't mean that reviewers should lower their standards in order to protect mediocre shows from closing.

In fact, you could say the same thing about influencial film critics -- maybe we should also be ticked at them when they bash movies as being unoriginal, etc. because they aren't protecting the art of filmmaking enough.

The argument you seem to be making is that Mr. Brantley needs to be more protectionist than critical, and clearly, that's not his job. You can find those reviews at playbill.com.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 6:24pm

Gee Mr. Roxy, you're shockingly critical of that show. You must not be able to create anything yourself if you would be so negative in talking about the work of other creative people. That must be it.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 6:25pm

Beautifully said, Sasha.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 6:28pm

I know Mr Brantly did not like Little Women

Saw it yesterday. Not great but not as bad as critics say it is.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 6:42pm

So does this fact and all of the examples of shows Brantley liked as well as the very well argued posts that suggest that Frank Rich was in an entirely different category mean you'll be tempering your semi-frequent posts that all critics are hacks and failed creative people and that their only interest is in ragging on perfectly good shows until they close in a desperate attempt to appear powerful? Or not?

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 6:50pm

That's the kind of run-on sentence that Brantley would write.

My gripe with Brantley isn't with his taste in theatre, but with his writing. Why can't his reviews be clearer and more incisive, rather than a foggy bitching about god-knows-what? I read a review by Brantley and still don't know what he liked or didn't like precisely, as his comments are always buried in purple prose and rhetoric.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 7:35pm

Mr. Brantley, like all of us I'm sure, is very passionate about the theater, and when he really likes something, he'll praise it just as highly and with as much enthusiasm as he will dismissively pan something he doesn't like. Aren't most of us the same way when we talk about shows we've seen? And let's face it, the state of Broadway is not very good right now, so how can you really blame him? Also, remember that as an older man, he's writing for his own age group (who comprise most of the people that attend Broadway shows anyway).

[riv]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 12:26am

Sorry for the length of this post, but I need to make a few points.

First of all, talk of film criticism and talk of theater criticism is talking about apples and oranges. There is no film critic nor film publication nor daily newspaper which holds life and death over a movie the way the New York Times does of theater productions here in New York. I don't think there has ever been anything as threatening to films as the Times is capable of being to our theater.

The enormity of the film industry, the fact pictures open across all of America's various regions, the huge marketing machine which movie studios can put in motion, and movies being reported on and essentially hyped by both news and entertainment programs all the time adds up to a tremendously greater ability to make a picture "critic proof" than certainly exists on Broadway.

That being said, let me now move on to the point about musical theater and art. I am quite aware we all like to think of musical theater as being something rarefied. I am as guilty of this as anyone. But it is still a popular form of entertainment first and foremost, one which unfortunately no longer holds the attention of most of the country's--or even this city's--population. This puts it in a precarious situation. Basically, either to become a genre only serving itself and its ardent acolytes, or to attempt to redefine itself in ways which encourage those unfamiliar with it to attend its offerings.

Charges of "standards being lowered" when something isn't perceived as being "original" or "inventive" or "furthering the form" are elitism. There is nothing inherently wrong with elitism, but when dealing with a popular art form, one must realize that every creation should not be required to be held to such fanciful expectations.

We have seen the greatest manifestation of this attitude in the constant derision heaped upon the musicals of Andrew Lloyd Webber over the last thirty years. That's another discussion, but while I am not his biggest fan, I am throughly pleased that he successfully combatted the scorn of those who constantly harped about "higher standards." He was preceived as being merely "commercial" and self-appointed defenders of the high art of musical theater (including most of the critics some of you admire so much) felt he had to be destroyed. Well, he won out and his influence will be felt in the musical theater for as long as all reading this will be alive. In spite of any nonsense thrown about by the New York Times, people paid to see his shows and enjoyed themselves. But that is an exception.

We are no longer in the good old days of New York when there were six or seven dailies covering shows and a pan could be more easily balanced. A knock by Brooks Atkinson was not a death knell. Brantley must be cognizant of this today.

I am unaware of the special qualifications which entitle Ben Brantley to defend us from any barbarians desecrating our musical theater heritage while attempting to entertain people with musical comedy shows in the wake of the smash success of The Producers. I don't want to see post-Producers shows such as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels be viciously accused of being derivative or formulatic or cookie-cutter, therefore unworthy of existance. They're simply part of a long line of traditional Broadway musical comedies, that's all. It is the hatred expressed by Brantley in his review which I am objecting to, not the fact he did not appreciate the show.

If a musical is poorly produced and badly thought-out, such as Good Vibrations, it is one thing. That was clearly not the case with something as professional and glossy as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. Furthermore, to hear a critic so in love with The Producers claim that another tamer show is vulgar is absolutely ludicrous. Brantley's devastating pan of Scoundrels was disgraceful and I can only hope his ill-advised "kiss of death" will be met by only disdain.

Some of you obviously disagree.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 4:43am

riv..... I think you need to chill, kiddo.

Brantley's not-wonderful review of DRS didn't close the show the following morning. He didn't think it was a piece of trash, he just didn't love it with the intensity you do. If you want to compare Brantley's so-so opinion of the show with REAL hatred, read VARIETY's review.

Relax. DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS recieved a better-than-average number of raves. The show will do just fine, it will have a nice healthy run, and it seems that as of now, Butz has a lock on the Tony.

Updated On: 3/8/05 at 04:43 AM

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 5:02am

"Charges of "standards being lowered" when something isn't perceived as being "original" or "inventive" or "furthering the form" are elitism. There is nothing inherently wrong with elitism, but when dealing with a popular art form, one must realize that every creation should not be required to be held to such fanciful expectations."

OK...why SHOULDN'T musical comedy be held to as high a standard as 'legitimate' plays? Why should theatergoers settle for mediocrity (especially at over one hundred bucks a pop)?


How many times have you heard in the last few seasons, "Well, it's a fun show, but the score is nothing to write home about."

Is it so wrong to demand that the score of a musical play be MORE than serviceable?

Updated On: 3/8/05 at 05:02 AM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 6:16am

To Riv

Throughly enjoyed your post & I agree

[robbiej]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 10:15am

Actually, I like Brantley's writing. I can always tell when he likes something (or someone) and when he doesn't...and even when he's a little ambivalent. I DO have a problem with his taste. He seems to adore lighthearted fare when it comes to musicals, but is far more critical of serious musicals (which is his right...I'm just a fan of the burgeoning careers of the likes of LaChiusa, JRB, Tesori and such). I wish he could go further in his praise of the good (there's always good, even in the most flawed of these serious musicals). I do not, however, think he's a hack or a know-nothing.

[leomaxfrank]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 1:02pm

In addition to what robbie said... I just wish Brantley would have actually given Caroline, The Wild Party, and Parade the reviews they should have received. None of these shows lasted more than a few months. If he wants this artform to do what it should be doing - don't pan the brilliant work that has been written in the last 10 years. There has been plenty of it. There just hasn't been much succeeding at the Broadway level. The work itself is certainly not to blame. So who is to blame? LaChiusa, JRB and Tesori themselves know that Brantley reviews certainly did NOT help their show. Maybe it didn't kill them, but it didn't help. Readers will trust what Brantley says about a show that they are unfamiliar with.

Updated On: 3/8/05 at 01:02 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 1:15pm

So I guess we should anticipate a mixed-to-negative review from Brantley for Guettel's "Light In The Piazza," then? While I agree that he's not a total hack, I do think he lacks the musical education and sophistication to be able to grasp and fully appreciate works any more harmonically complex than "The Producers" or "Wonderful Town." It's a shortcoming that is an absolute abomination for the most powerful critic in the American theatre to have and, as long as he's in that chair, it doesn't bode well for future of the musical artform.

[Sasha3]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 3:10pm

Riv, again, the argument you're making is more about Mr. Brantley's (and the NY Times') influence than anything else. And I think that you're overstating that influence a bit.

For example, Mr. Brantley's total pan of "Thoroughly Modern Millie" certainly didn't sound the death knell for that show (although I really didn't like it, myself) nor did it destroy any careers that I'm aware of. If "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" has mass appeal, others will like it and spread the word, and plenty of tickets will get sold that way. Don't forget that word of mouth has a lot of power, too, which is proven by people not attending shows which have received critical acclaim in droves, causing those shows to close (and I can't recall if "Sunday in the Park with George" falls into this category or not, but for some reason, it is coming to mind).

And I will be interested to see what Mr. Brantley has to say about "Light In The Piazza." I am a huge fan of Adam Guettel, and find his composing to be positively brilliant (although I haven't heard the score from "Piazza" yet, I expect great things of it).

[riv]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 3:44pm

I have been asked:

---"OK...why SHOULDN'T musical comedy be held to as high a standard as 'legitimate' plays? Why should theatergoers settle for mediocrity (especially at over one hundred bucks a pop)?

How many times have you heard in the last few seasons, "Well, it's a fun show, but the score is nothing to write home about."

Is it so wrong to demand that the score of a musical play be MORE than serviceable?"---

My response is that I do not consider Dirty Rotten Scoundrels to be mediocre, nor do I believe David Yazbek's score to be merely serviceable. It could have used a stronger ballad for John Lithgow other than "Love Sneaks In" and the big "Oklahoma?" number didn't do anything for me, musically or otherwise. So it's not perfect.

The lyrics are certainly a treat in most instances and I look forward to checking them out more throughly when a cast album is issued. I especially want to re-hear "Ruffhousin' mit Shuffhausen" again, since I had difficulty catching some lines because of Lithgow's mock-Viennese accent.

We must remember that this is only David Yazbek's second Broadway score. I forgive him for not setting the world on fire during his first two attempts. "So far so good" can aptly describe his theater career at this point.

Let's not drive him out and back to pop song writing or film scoring by demanding miracles of him so soon on stage. He's doing fine.

[robbiej]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 3:51pm

Margo,

I'm willing to bet the farm that there will be about 4 paragraphs exalting (rightfully, if her past work is any indication) Victoria Clark and then a paragraph and a half dismissing the show itself.

I have not seen the show. I don't know if I'll care for it (I certainly didn't care for MARIE CHRISTINE, no matter how much I applauded its ambitions), but I know the story intrigues me, as does the little music I've heard.

I'm not up on Isherwood's reviews of the serious musical fare of the last decade. Do we know if he's more receptive?

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 4:49pm

Since he's been at the Times, Isherwood has only given three rave reviews: "Spelling Bee", "Thom Pain", and "Nine Parts of Desire".

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 4:50pm

Not sure about Isherwood's tastes. Heilpern and Lahr are two of the only NY critics who seem to "get it" as far as this new generation of composers. In a better world, Heilpern would have Ben Brantley's job.

Incidentally, LaChiusa, not Guettel wrote MARIE CHRISTINE (Guettel wrote FLOYD COLLINS and SATURN RETURNS).

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 3/8/05 at 5:27pm

Don't know if it's online yet, but in this weeks NEW YORKER Lahr raved about DRS and particularly NLB.

Lahr has one unforgivable flaw as a critic : he either lards his text with major plot points and spoiliers or he gives away the ending. With DRS, he does the latter.