I think Mr Brantley does not like himself much less most shows that open . Something he raves about I would avoid as it is probably as boring as ****
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
Something he knocks immediately goes on my must see list as most of what he has panned we loved & those he loved we were mostly ho hum
Which show got the last true rave from Mr.Brantley, or has he never given one?
and what is his background? Is he just a bitter former actor who couldn't make it?
Leading Actor Joined: 3/6/05
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.
Bitter people can be used to describe most critics. They cannot create so they must destroy
We are off to see Little Women. Since he did not like it, I assume we will throughly enjoy it. We shall see.....
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
Stand-by Joined: 8/30/03
I agree with Brantley the vast majority of the time. Sometimes he writes with cynicism and certainly has reviews with less than beautiful writing, but he is a professional who recognizes and acknowledges talent and does not let subpar contributions to a show get away with it. He gave raves to "The Producers" and "Twelve Angry Men," which certainly deserved them. From what I've heard about Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, it does seem like they are trying way too hard and indulging with gratuitous easy laughs. Also, it seems that the plot is very unbalanced and formulaic. I think I'm still going to see it because despite being imperfect, it still seems like a really fun show and I really like the cast. But Brantley knows what he's talking about and he's one of the few critics who's opinions I respect.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
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.
I dont USUALLY have a gripe with Brantley's reviews, but in my opinion, he was wayyyyy off with "DRS".
Leading Actor Joined: 3/6/05
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
Stand-by Joined: 8/30/03
It doesn't matter that DRS and TP don't have too much in common in terms of plot (although as a matter of fact they do: two con men, the experienced one mentoring the unexperienced one, a leggy blonde, a major scheme which backfires but reinforces their friendship), they are undoubtedly of the same spirit of irreverence and unbridled comedy. The difference is that while TP rejuvenated that spirit, which hasn't been seen on Broadway in a while, DRS conspicuously tries to conform to it. TP has that special essence that makes a show truly unforgettable, DRS is only the sum of its parts. Listen, TP was incredible, and just because DRS doesn't quite reach that level doesn't mean that it isn't a very, very funny show. But it shouldn't try so desperately to follow in TP's footsteps and explore the originality and spirit in its own story.
Leading Actor Joined: 3/6/05
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
Here's as many shows off the top of my head that Brantley gave a rave to:
Hurlyburly
Wonderful Town
Side Show
Noises Off
A Number
Dame Edna: Back with a Vengeance
Reckless
Pardon My English (Encores)
I Am My Own Wife (He reviewed it Off-Broadway; when it transferred, Bruce Weber reviewed it and also raved)
Long Day's Journey Into Night
La Boheme
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/5/04
He also raved for:
Movin Out
Chicago (both with Ann & Bebe and with Melanie Griffith)
Democracy
Shockhead Peter
Avenue Q
Aunt Dan and Lemon
Rent
Bring in da Noise
Gypsy w/ Bernadette Peters
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.
SticktoPriest: you summed up everything I was thinking of. Bravo! Really, don't put Brantley and Rich in the same sentence. Also with Rich it didn't take you a week to figure out whether he liked the show or not. For a brilliant rave by him, read his review for "Angels in America", and by far the best pan ever written "Moose Murders". Rich is brilliant.
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 with Ben Brantly about 90% of the time. I think Ben Brantly is discontent with the way Broadway Theater is going. Meaning, turning into multi-million dollar spectacles. It isn't necessarily about the art-form of musical theater; it is about the entertainment experience. Obviously, this trend has been going on for a long time, but Ben Brantly is trying to do his part in making sure his view of art, (which happens to be mine) is still represented on Broadway. So, it is obvious he would rave about shows like AveQ, I am my Own Wife, Movin' Out. They are groundbreaking musicals that further the art form of theater.
I have liked things Ben has given mixed reviews. Wicked is one of my fav. musicals, I love La Cage, and do enjoy big, budget breaking musicals, but give me a good new concept musical over a revival...
/rant
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....
Saw Little Women today
Not the greatest thing we ever saw but not the worst. On a scale of 10, we gave it an 8 . Foster was great & McGovern was good but underused. The music, with the exception of a few numbers, was serviceable but not exactly memorable. Entertaining but not something to stick in your mind a few days after
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/5/04
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.
You bring up a point which I was thinking about just this evening. To be respected in their job, it seems to me that critics are pretty much required to dislike a certain (relatively high) percentage of what they see, and the "better" the publication they write for, the more critical they must be. I often think that critics feel the NEED to pan a goodly number of shows, and that they go to the theater with that in mind. I generally go to the theater expecting to enjoy what I'm going to see, and fortunately (unlike critics) I don't need to see shows I wouldn't expect to like. Critics (and some posters on this site) have a different mindset I think. They go to the theater looking for things to criticize. I feel kind of sorry for "critical" people (like Mr. Brantley) who so often have something to gripe about when they leave a theater rather than leaving it with a smile on their faces.
Videos