This 'Whore' is a Real Bore - nypost.com

[Corine2]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 9:50am

https://www.broadwayworld.com/l.cfm?id=47758
What is up Clive Barnes Butt? That is what I want to know.
Laugh Whore is a very entertaining show, his impersonations are killer.
I have seen this show twice and it was not enough.
I loved it.
The Times gave it a great review as did the Daily News and Theatermania.
Laugh Whore is not boring. I JUST WISH he would do Dame Edna, talking about her Vagina. Updated On: 10/25/04 at 09:50 AM

[Bobby457]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 10:23am

I am SOOO glad you posted this Corine! I am sorry, but I think Branes is just a frustrated wannabe actor.

His reviews are ALWAYS so cutting and NOT critizisms....there are just mean.

[Corine2]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 10:26am

I have to say how much I loved it.
Even though he refused to do DAME EDNA.
Mario, do Dame Edna's VAGINA.
Think how funny that would be.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 10:30am

Well, basicaly he said he didn't care for that type of humor. I'm sure he knew what kind of show it was going to be so I'm surprised he even went. Personally, I can't wait to see it and that review only made me and I'm sure thousands of other homos want to rush out for tickets.

[Corine2]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 10:36am

The guy I am dating did not get a lot of the humor. But he loved my hearty laughs.
And me screaming:
"Do Dame Edna- Talking about her vagina."
He still makes fun of me for that.
Then again he did not know who Dame Edna was.
Talk about dating a straight boy!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 11:33am

Barnes may be many things, but a "frustrated wannabe actor" is not one of them. He's been a major dance and theatre critic for over 50 years (including a decade-long tenure as the lead theatre critic at the Times). Perhaps, he's been on this beat a bit too long (I often see him asleep during shows he's supposed to be reviewing) and certainly should be contemplating retirement sooner than later, but, love him or hate him, he is nevertheless one of the most knowledgeable critics around.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 11:38am

I don't agree with Barnes about a lot of things, but Margo's right there- he isn't an idiot or a wannabe actor who went into criticism instead. That's such an easy and specious accusation to make of any critic you don't like, isn't it?

He pointed out that the audience liked it, but it wasn't his cup of tea. He also said why. That's more than plenty of critics bother to do. Updated On: 10/25/04 at 11:38 AM

[Corine2]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 11:39am

He may be a talented writer, but how could you think Laugh Whore was a bore?
The man has more energy then the energizer bunny.
I want to know what gives him his energy.
Pass some to me.

I love Mario! Updated On: 10/25/04 at 11:39 AM

[Plum]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 11:42am

Barnes said Cantone was energetic and talented- but he still didn't like the show. Don't take it as a personal insult. :)

And only the headline writer said it was a "bore." This is the pun-happy Post we're talking about.

[Bobby457]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 11:47am

Well, I often wonder what makes critics, critics....where is the experience? have they ever been on stage and know what its like from start to finish...to have to audition in front of the hardest critics around....casting directors and directors....

"Opinions are like a$$holes....everyone has one!"

[Plum]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 11:52am

Oh, god. Not the "if you haven't done it, you can't talk about it" argument.

It's old, and it's invalid. What makes a good critic good is his or her education level, writing ability, and articulation. A good critic doesn't need to have spent one second on stage. They do, however, need to know about music, dance, design, acting, and stagecraft, and be able to talk about them as they relate to the show they're reviewing.

In other words, opinions are a dime a dozen. Opinions that are backed up with educated reasons why are damn rare.

[Bobby457]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 11:54am

Like I said Opinions are like a$$holes....everyone has one!

[Plum]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 11:58am

You're implying that any asshole can be a critic. Not true.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 11:59am

Not sure what got Barnes the job to begin with over a half a century ago, but he's seen every great, not-so-great, and down right awful play/performance in NYC and London since the 1930s (I'll never forget his review of Stockard Channing in a revival of Little Foxes a few years ago in which he compared her to his memories of Tallulah Bankhead in the original back in 1939). Whether or not he was qualified for the job to begin with, he certainly is now.

Critics like George Bernard Shaw, Walter Kerr and Michael Feingold (to name three) have also been acclaimed playwrights in their own right, giving lie to the whole "those who can't do" knock that critics often get. While experience and qualifications vary among the current critical fraternity, Feingold, Barnes, John Lahr, John Heilprin, Isherwood, Brantley, Winer and a few others generally seem to know what they're talking about, whether you agree with them or not.

Updated On: 10/25/04 at 11:59 AM

[Bobby457]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 11:59am

NO...Im implying that everyone has an opinion....

[Corine2]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 12:00pm

I would love to see his Brooklyn review.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 12:10pm

Barnes gave it One-and-a-half stars and said:

WHEN you walk out of a musical humming the costumes, you know that show's in trouble.

For though "Brooklyn the Musical" is a modest little show, it has, as Winston Churchill remarked about something else, an awful lot to be modest about.

Admittedly, the show, which opened last night at the Plymouth Theatre, has its heart in the right place. The correct placement of its other organs is more disputable.

The story is a story within a story — which here becomes a folly surrounded by a falsehood, wrapped up in a bad idea..........

The bad idea here was trying to combine the mood, look and feel of "Rent" with that of "The Fantasticks" to make a hit.

But "Rent" and "The Fantasticks" had great stories, great music and great lyrics. Here, the book, music and lyrics by Mark Schoenfeld and Barri McPherson are not great — though the music, which uneasily straggles between soul and Andrew Lloyd Webberesque anthem — is better than the banal lyrics."




Clive Barnes' Brooklyn Review

Updated On: 10/25/04 at 12:10 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 12:13pm

I love the "humming the costumes" line. Don't particularly like Barnes, but I like that line.

[sean martin]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 12:14pm

My favourite Barnes line was much in the same vein as his assessment of BROOKLYN: when CAMELOT opened, he wrote that you go out humming the sets and costumes.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 12:15pm

Yeah it's VERY old line -- it may even pre-date Barnes.

[sean martin]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 2:29pm

Well, I got around to reading the review. This is just my take; YMMV, okay?

Barnes is one of those critics, like Simon, who thinks, rightly or wrongly, that Theatre in New York should be better than just facile jokefests, and I tend to agree with him. Sure, there's room for the tourist-only mindlessness of MODERN MILLIE, but at least it had production values that made up for an otherwise pretty lame show (my apologies to those who feel otherwise, but hey, calls 'em like I sees 'em). Still, the point is that, in Barnes' opinion, New York theatre should be the best out there, and LAUGH WHORE, as charming as it may be, is no more Broadway material than... well, BROOKLYN.

I mean, c'mon, if I want facile gay humour, I can probably get far better from a night at Marie's Crisis and not have to pay ninety to a hundred bucks for the giggles. But I think Barnes may be onto something in his critique. Is this really and truly Broadway fare? Or is it just dressed-up cabaret with no venue?

[Corine2]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 2:58pm

It is pure fun and I will see it again.

[Benzy92]

Posted: 10/25/04 at 4:09pm

Clive Barnes has been very nasty lately!