TABOO review in NY Times

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

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

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

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.

---

Right on.

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

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.

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.

---