it isn't a black-and-white review. He liked her. He didn't love her as Rose, even though he was expecting to.
- I think that sums it up perfectly. I almost feel like Patti is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. If she steamrolls through a role.. belting, screaming, etc etc - she will get criticized. If she takes a more earthy approach - she still gets criticized.
re:brantley's bipolar review: "Ms Lupone has given us a human Rose, with doubts and a nagging tug of self-awareness. But once you introduce such traits into Momma Rose, the air starts to leak out of her"--i couldn't disagree more vehemently. Once you introduce the above traits mentioned into Rose, you get a 3-dimensional portrayal of a flawed human, not a one-dimensional monster. I believe Patti's Rose is the most human, touching, comical, horrifying Rose--the most complex Rose I've ever seen on stage. Which is why, Rose's Turn is a shattering performance, shattering in terms of nerves and nerve. I find this review very confusing. It's very "Go away, Come here" I've seen this musical many times, but I felt as if I were seeing it for the first time, as it was meant to be. Pretty Definitive for me. You felt there was a real connection between the characters/actors onstage. Often people use a single word to describe what each actress playing Momma Rose has embued her with: ie, Bernadette: sexuality, etc etc. I loved that Patti's performance could not be characterized with a single word. This musical gave me goosebumps--and in more theatre going years than I care to mention, that happens rarely. I hope theatre-goers will not be swayed by this review. This is a show for the ages!
I find it funny. Brantley gave a passionate rave to Bernadette, who was fabulous, while others were mixed. Here, he is a tad mixed on Patti, but everyone else loves her.
I can't help but feel like I jinxed Patti for Ben. Just this afternoon, I was telling my dad, "you better order tickets fast, cause after the review comes out in the New York Times, they're gonna be gone."
I respect Brantley. But I really find his review awfully written. It really felt like he didn't put much effort into it. And he never states how he REALLY feels about it. He starts negative, then states what he likes - then he is negative again.
^ I think that some one who uses really three times in a five sentence paragraph and seems to have little grasp on how to punctuate a sentence should comment on "awfully written" they "fins" Ben Brantley's review.
In my lifetime, Brantley has been my favorite Times critic and I respect his opinions, but I really think his review for this was very poorly written. I agree with ljay 100%.
Murray seems mixed to positive. Looks like he is in agreement with Brantley. Notice how Murray also starts off as if he's going to rave and then he goes downhill a bit.
- And you would know I have no literary style from reading one of my posts on a message board?
No. Actually, for many months I have found your posts to be unbearably arrogant and poorly composed. It is not one post but, instead, your entire body of work that has lead me to draw this conclusion.
Besides, don't you have a Gwen Verdon statue to dip in gold... or some helpless Xanadu fan to make fun of... or something better to do than to respond to my shameless and unnecessary taunts?
I think to say Brantley didn't like her is unfair.
Hmm.... If one takes the review alone, as it stands, I might agree, somethingwicked. But I think it's easy to underestimate the effect a headline can have on a reader. And this one is: "Whatever Happened to Momma Rose?" The fact that the headline takes a dig at Patti, coupled with Brantley beginning and ending negatively — to me, it indeed does have the effect of 'Brantley didn't like her.'
