Why is The NY Times Rubbing Salt in the Wound?

[macbeth]

Posted: 4/2/20 at 7:14am

Between this and this, it feels like a tone deaf use of their old-fashioned critics to just kick the theatre world while it's down.

[Kimbo]

Posted: 4/2/20 at 8:13am

macbeth said: "Between this and this, it feels like a tone deaf use of their old-fashioned critics to just kick the theatre world while it's down."

Agreed, 100%. The Brantley-Green piece in particular is tone-deaf, nonsensical, and borderline insulting. To frame a piece with the headline “Why Can’t We Have a Tony Awards?”, but then for Green to say that the Best Musical winner should be a show that (as they concede) was already declared ineligible, and for Brantley to insist the winner should be a show that opened less than a week before Broadway was shut down (and which thus most voters could not have seen) is downright idiotic.  

I guess they have to generate content during this downtime to justify their own employment as theater critics, at a time when there is no theater... but regardless, on this the Times is really rubbing me the wrong way. 

[hork]

Posted: 4/2/20 at 11:16am

Kimbo said: "macbeth said: "Between this and this, it feels like a tone deaf use of their old-fashioned critics to just kick the theatre world while it's down."

Agreed, 100%. The Brantley-Green piece in particular is tone-deaf, nonsensical, and borderline insulting. To frame a piece with the headline “Why Can’t We Have a Tony Awards?”, but then for Greento say that the Best Musical winner should be a show that (as they concede) was already declared ineligible, and for Brantleyto insist the winner should be a show that opened less than a week before Broadway was shut down (and which thus most voters could not have seen) is downright idiotic.
 

So, for this playful flight of fancy in which two theater critics name their imaginary Tony winners from a very limited slate of contenders, you're mad because they didn't limit their slate even more just for the sake of realism and fairness? And you call THAT idiotic?

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 4/2/20 at 12:21pm

Everyone needs to calm down. They're only doing what users already do on the various "Tony prediction" threads here. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 4/2/20 at 12:40pm

What hork said.

How this rubs any salt on any wound is beyond me.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 4/2/20 at 12:46pm

everythingtaboo said: "Everyone needs to calm down. They're only doing what users already do on the various "Tony prediction" threads here."

Exactly, they are just doing their jobs. 

[Kad]

Posted: 4/2/20 at 1:17pm

That Tony article is clearly busywork to keep Green and Brantley engaged, but what other option is there? They're critics for an artform that is now in indefinite hiatus worldwide.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 4/2/20 at 3:19pm

This seems like a new verse of the old song about not liking the Times and/or its writers. Some things never change.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/2/20 at 3:31pm

They're doing their jobs, plain and simple.  How easy do you think it is to write about theater when there ISN"T any?

[IAMREADING]

Posted: 4/3/20 at 12:27am

The BB/JG back and forth is fine to me. The article about all the France theatres rushing out incohesive digital content is kind of funny/mean/shady but it does capture a moment in history maybe for a reader who isn't as plugged in to see the digital content boom for themselves.

[kennedy_rose]

Posted: 4/3/20 at 9:14am

dramamama611 said: "They're doing their jobs, plain and simple. How easy do you think it is to write about theater when there ISN"T any?"

Exactly - at least they're keeping the pulse going. And also, a pretty accurate outcome. Notice which shows they did NOT mention, however? That's telling...