ROCKY Reviews- Page 6

[Theater'sBestFriend]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 11:26am

"I found [Brantley's] reviews last season, in particular, pretty tone deaf."

Interesting, Kad - I'm curious: how so? Can you please elaborate?

[Owen22]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 11:31am

Have to agree with a lot Brantley said. Glad he gave Andy some praise, glad he virtually ignored Margot, and made sure the score was called out on being excessively mediocre. It's not a horrible score, its merely serviceable. These work-for-hire, corporate backed shows all end up having these types of scores. As compared to say, "Great Comet" or "Here Lies Love" or even "Murder Ballad", the contemporary Broadway musical score is less than innovative, bloodless, passionless and unmemorable, from, say "Legally Blonde" on (perhaps even further back). None are really bad per se, but even "Kinky Boots" (which I think is the best of this type) runs in place a lot of the time.

[Steve721]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 11:32am

When critics write reviews that people don't agree with, they try to claim that the critic has ulterior motives--for example, he made up his mind in advance, etc. I think most reputable critics (and Brantley is certainly a reputable critic) just write what they think, which is what in the end they're paid to do. And it's hardly the case that Brantley is alone among the critics in not liking Rocky.

All of the NY Times critics write well, and I'm always interested to hear what they have to say. But I do read other reviewers as well. I don't live in NY, so my time there is limited. If all of the critics trash a show, then I typically would not see that show. But one negative review from the Times would certainly not prevent me from seeing a show I'm otherwise interested in.

Given the nature of the show, Rocky could still find its audience in the same way that Wicked did despite the reviews. However, a musical that has no star and less popular appeal (like Gentleman's Guide) would probably not have survived the reviews Rocky got.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 11:34am

I would not be surprised if old Ben already has a review in mind for Aladdin. Just because he has not seen it and it has not even opened is no reason to prejudge a musical. Then again.....

Margot was just as good as Karl by the way.

Updated On: 3/14/14 at 11:34 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 11:35am

"Ben Brantley is a fantastic writer/critic…"

Oh he is not. He's a lazy writer and barely a critic at all. He displays a limited knowledge of theatrical history and hardly displays critical faculties at all. At the MOST he is a theater chat writer. He never engages in thoughtful criticism. He tends to open with an idea that only exists in his head (a fantasy about what somebody in the audience is thinking, or some such unrelated fabrication) that has nothing to do with anything presented, then he wastes multiple paragraphs on describing the story line, he writes an ode to any woman onstage who grabs his attention for three minutes or longer, then he tries to end with a quip, often based on his introductory fantasy.

AND HE OVERUSES THE PHRASE of coup de théâtre.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 11:37am

"This was a job, if ever there was one, for Frank Wildhorn."

--Jesse Green, New York Magaizne, vulture.com

[macnyc]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 11:39am

Owen22, I think your comments are very astute! Well said.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 11:41am

Cannot believe it but in responding to another post I just saw NAMO'S and I totally agree. Old Ben is more interested in how cleverly he can rip a show than how he can offer constructive criticism. He had prejudged Rocky before he entered the theater. I think he does this with most of the shows he sees. Maybe he thought he was seeing South Pacific and he was surprised Rocky was not it.

The same holds true with Wildhorn. Wildhorn only writes music but that does not stop people from ripping everything he is connected with as if he wrote the whole show, did the costumes designed the sets etc. It is amazing he is wildly successful around the world but NY critics feel the theater going public needs to be protected from him and it is their duty to do so. Critics have Wildhorn shows panned while they are still in a development stage.

Updated On: 3/14/14 at 11:41 AM

[Steve721]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 11:54am

If Wildhorn is off limits, what shows are critics allowed to pan? Or should they just write glowing reviews of everything for fear of offending someone?

[Theater'sBestFriend]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 11:58am

"These work-for-hire, corporate backed shows all end up having these types of scores."

I'm not sure what you mean. "Work for Hire" is the standard contract form and intellectual property arrangement of screenwriters used in Hollywood. The studio controls the script as their intellectual property. That is not at all the case on Broadway, where the creative team's work is sacrosanct and controlled by them. "Work for Hire" contracts are never use on the NY stage; that is a longstanding, fundamental difference between Broadway and Hollywood. Do you have some information that that was different here? Please do share it.

I also don't know what you mean by "corporate-backed." This was produced by a group of individuals that included many veteran Broadway producers. Stage Entertainment is the company of Joop van den Ende, a seasoned European producer. MGM on stage was undoubtedly included as holders of the original rights, not the primary or sole producer as when Disney produces a musical. Again, please do share any basis for saying otherwise.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 12:04pm

To ,Steve

All I am asking for is for critics to have an open mind and not prejudge a show before they review it.Criticism and not snappy words meant to bury a show or show how clever the critic thinks he is.

Don't try to be the spawn of John Simon.

Updated On: 3/14/14 at 12:04 PM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 12:04pm

Namo that is EXACTLY what I think of Ben Brantley as a critic.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 12:09pm

"Old Ben is more interested in how cleverly he can rip a show than how he can offer constructive criticism."

But all the problems I mentioned are present in his reviews of shows he loves too. Which is why I think he sucks.

Now, I realize Frank Rich left the job as Times critic just before the Times reviews had the power to make or break a show, but HE was a great critic and writer. Even when he panned something I loved, I had to admit he laid out his reasons for his response eloquently.

[Theater'sBestFriend]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 12:11pm

"Ben Brantley is a fantastic writer/critic…"

There's a big difference between a critic and a reviewer. A critic has a professional or learned background in the field about which she or he is writing, and relates a piece of theater or other work of art to it. A reviewer has no such special background, only general knowledge. She or he writes a description and expresses her or his naive response as a layperson. A review can be much more arbitrary than a piece of criticism.

My understanding is that the NY Times purposely hires people with no professional or academic background in theater to write about it. (Brantley's background was in fashion, I believe.) He is a reviewer, not a critic.

[jkstheatrescene]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 12:19pm

Well, they certainly haven't wasted any time in putting pull quotes up on the Rocky website... They have plenty to work with. That's what a marketing team's job is...will they deliver a knockout campaign, or will they throw in the towel?

Sorry, had to go there with the boxing lingo...

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 12:19pm

I was wrong about Brantley

Having a background in fashion is perfect experience and credentials for judging a Broadway show. Fashion experience definitely translates into being able to critique music/lyrics, book,scenery, direction etc.

Gee whiz, I think I can become a doctor because as a teen I worked on cars.

[Steve721]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 12:22pm

Well, the NY Times calls Brantley their "Chief Theater Critic". Perhaps they need to change his title to "Chief Theater Reviewer". LOL.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 12:25pm

Theater'sBestFriend- Brantley's dismissive review of Pippin, his strange non-review of Testament of Mary, his effusive praise of Matilda (which spilled over from his review into another piece, which amounted to an op-ed piece about its greatness).

I agree with Namo on Brantley: his reviews are padded with synopsis and description, he foregoes critical analysis and instead just criticizes, he has an actress fixation, and he completely seems to lack impartiality. I understand why some feel he has "ulterior motives" or goes in with a mind made up, because his reviews very often come off that way.

His reviews are never illuminating,they never contextualize, they never seem to have an overall theatrical vision. He relies on either effusive praise or catty remarks- if he can do neither, he just writes.

Updated On: 3/14/14 at 12:25 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 12:27pm

How about "Chief Hatchet Man"?

Only about 5 quotes on website. If they try and get enough quotes for a big spread in the Times they may be serious in trying to put up a fight.. I would go with the quotes on TV plus interviews with people exiting the theater.

I hope Joop and the rest of the producers try and fight for it. It deserves it.

Updated On: 3/14/14 at 12:27 PM

[jkstheatrescene]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 12:37pm

Mr. Roxy -

I totally agree. Man-on-the-street stuff will work well with this. I can only imagine what they'll get as the crowds leave the Winter Garden.

I'm seeing it tomorrow afternoon, and am looking forward to it. Either I'll love it or hate it, maybe in between. But my fear is I may leaving feeling nothing either way. To me, that is the worst way to react to a show.

[Steve721]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 12:39pm

When Frank Rich was NYT's chief theater critic, people said exactly the same things about him--he was known as the "Butcher of Broadway". Any one who holds that job is going to get the same treatment, it doesn't matter who it is or what background they have. It comes with the territory.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 12:41pm

Roma Torre on NY 1 gave it a qualified approval and said the fight scene was alone worth the price of admission

I have disagreed with her at times but I respect her more than I do Brantley. She actually critiques a show and does not go out of her way to be nasty and vicious as Brantley does.

To JKS

You will enjoy it. Let me know after you see it.

[oasisjeff]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 12:42pm

@jkstheatrescene: I think your worst case scenario seeing Rocky is that you will only like the fight at the end. That scene is electrifying, and even most of the people who disliked the show here, and even Brantley, can't deny the fight staging. So, I wouldn't worry about feeling nothing. At worst, too little too late...

I enjoyed the whole night, and hope you do as well...

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 12:43pm

"people said exactly the same things about him"

Yes, but there are obviously widely divergent skills between Rich and Brantley. Now that we are suffering through the Brantley era, I hope all the people who bitched about Rich and couldn't wait for him to leave are happy with the idiot they got.

[jkstheatrescene]

Posted: 3/14/14 at 12:43pm

Mr. Roxy-

I sure will!

PS: Is it a BWW message board no-no to post a link to my blog when I post a full review?