TABOO review in NY Times

[Cadriel]

Posted: 11/13/03 at 9:27pm

Why does my head always spin after reading Brantley's reviews these days?

-Wayne
TABOO in NY Times

[LC]

Posted: 11/13/03 at 9:32pm

lol...not a good review, but I can see them quoting that headline!

[tkts]

Posted: 11/13/03 at 9:34pm

Use these quotes, Rosie...

"But here it is, still definitely alive, if dazed and confused."

"Mr. Busch's dialogue initially tries to send up the sentimental clichés it winds up wallowing in."

"Because there are so many main characters, none are developed enough for you to care how they feel about one another."

""Taboo," which limped open last night at the Plymouth Theater..."

Ouch!

[MusicMan]

Posted: 11/13/03 at 9:34pm

Mebbe because he's a mediocre writer, personality-free and has no discernible point-of-view or philosophy of theater?

[LC]

Posted: 11/13/03 at 9:37pm

Can't believe this is all he said about Euan Morton:

"Euan Morton, who sings some of Boy George's old hits."

[Cadriel]

Posted: 11/13/03 at 9:39pm

Brantley's just been mean-spirited in his reviews the last month or two. Bear in mind, I haven't seen Taboo yet, but he seems more interested in praising a few performers, bashing the director, and turning a few phrases (less clever than he thinks) than in actually offering a coherent criticism of a theatrical piece.

~sigh~ Is there a book of Walter Kerr's reviews out there somewhere? I feel the need to read reviews with an intelligent, absorbing commentary.

-Wayne

[MusicMan]

Posted: 11/13/03 at 9:44pm

Amen, Cadriel. Yes, there are several anthologies of Kerr's reviews: Journey to the Center of Theater and Pieces at Eight, to name two. If you're in NYC, you can get them at the NYPL at Lincoln Center. Otherwise, try Amazon. Maybe some are on-line. Search Google.

[magruder]

Posted: 11/13/03 at 9:49pm

Kerr kinda had a tin ear with musicals, though. I'm always surprised by the scores he didn't like. In most cases, Frank Rich had a better idea when something interesting was happening in a show's score.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/13/03 at 10:03pm

And what's with obsessing with all of the gossip? He needs to be more concerned with what he is viewing that night--not the bs that came before it.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 11/13/03 at 10:06pm

Right on.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/13/03 at 10:08pm

That's one of the downsides of the chatterati (of which we are some). To think it's become such a dominant element that it gets included in the major reviews is kind of a shame.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/13/03 at 10:34pm

Name said it very succinctly, and I totally agree.

Brantley's subtext has increasingly become a different agenda -- not just to report on/appraise a specific work, but to shape a season, "help" give a direction for the b'way theater as a whole. For example, he knows he is responsible for this WT production, since he zeroed in on the Murphy from-dark-diva-to-light-comic thing, and dutifully, despite the "long shot" header, the Times ran a big wholly supportive piece to keep pushing the show and help compensate for Murphy being sidelined with flu. Brantley also made a point of taking a "side" in the Kristin/Idina debates at these sites. It's stimulating and fun here -- we're mere fans. But he's the CRITIC for the NY Times. His POV wasn't very objective or astute -- entirely ignoring the vastly different vocal/acting demands the roles make on the two women (a critical factor, I think, he said Idina's fans listen to FM radio. As though the actress with her "larnyx of steel" had a vote. As though she would've been given a comic number like "Popular" if she'd had the Chenowethian gifts to warrant it. At the same time, the Times ran not one but two negative "features" on Taboo, one actually reporting on negative feedback from the first preview. The second on Boy George made the show sound worse than "Carrie," which has NOT been the general tone at these boards or anywhere else. This gossipy- tone would've been unheard of even 5 years ago, when the Times used to rise above such Reidel-ian hooha. Clearly, Brantley wants the evolution of B'way to reflect his values,tastes, preferences. It's a theatrial version of the old Paulene Kael thing -- that a critic is equally "creative," and I think it's BS and ultimately toxic.

Updated On: 11/13/03 at 10:34 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/13/03 at 11:03pm

But I loved me some Pauline!

[Peter]

Posted: 11/13/03 at 11:33pm

Brantley is really getting out of control. While Frank Rich was known as "the butcher of broadway", he was about the least biased a critic could be and his writing was always witty. He called a spade a spade, even if he stepped on toes like Stephen Sondheim.

Brantley on the other hand tries to be witty like Rich, but seldom is. You can see the gears working when he writes..in fact, he often tries to copy Rich's style. But more importantly, Brantley has agendas. The New York Times is now in the business of promoting certain talented performers that Brantley would like to think he discovered. When they perform, he doesn't write a review..he writes a love letter.

What was Rosie thinking?...all she had to do was hire Audra MacDonald and at least he would spend the majority of the review gushing over her.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/14/03 at 8:16am

Namo, yeah, I loved me some Pauline, too. Got all her books right here on my shelf. I do go on sometimes, to make some damn point. I shouldn't post on two glasses of wine.

But Brantley pushes a coupla of my buttons. Seeing the Taboo review in print over coffee -- all the CATS references, pu-leeze -- made me look forward to using that section to line my litter box.

Updated On: 11/14/03 at 08:16 AM

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 11/14/03 at 9:07am

Didn't Brantley start out as being the 'Bambi' of Broadway (to Rich's 'Butcher')- Brantley looking at the sunny side more often than not?

The TABOO review would have been much more effective if it were a few paragraphs shorter and tighter.