| BRANTLEY on ROCKY: a disingenous joke of a review | |
| Posted by: | BroadwayLouBlaze 05:14 pm EDT 03/14/14 |
|
| |
| So the reviews this morning are mostly dismissive shurgs, with plenty of quotes and a couple or three raves. Exactly what was to be expected. The producers knew this would happen so did several investors that I am know of. The one exception of course is Brantley's shameless, sadly self revealing, somewhat embarrassing(for him), overkill pan of the show. So, I recently realized that since working in this industry since 1974, I have seen literally EVERY new Broadway play and Musical as well as every Broadway play revival that has opened (including several shows that closed in previews)for the past 40 years. I have missed a total of 4 musical revivals. Not something I set out to do exactly....but thems the facts. To draw an even finer point... what that means is that I have seen such all time calamities as Late Nite Comic, Heartaches of a Pussycat, Senator Joe, Little Prince and the Aviator, Carrie, Almost an Eagle, Moose Murders, Into the Light, Rockabye Hamlet, 16oo Pennsylvania Avenue, the list goes. My point being I have seen the absolute worst that Broadway has offered since 1974. Those shows are the kind of Shows that elicit the kind reaction you see from Brantley in his review of Rocky. As bad as he wants Rocky to be....it just simply isn't in the league of the aforementioned shows. And the tone and temperament of his notice is exactly in line with the kind of reviews the shows I mentioned received. There is something deeply disingenuous about this review and for that I reference his opening remarks. He says that at 10:10 (when the fight begins) that the audience "wakes out of its couch potato stupor." Ok, as it happened, I was at the same performance as Brantley. Saw the man come in. Saw him take his seat. I know and he knows the audience was in anything but a stupor." I mean come on...he knows that. So, simply put, this is a lie. He is absolutely misreporting what was happening at the event he covered. Now I get what he is doing here. It means for this to be a somewhat figurative statement.... and yet he also what to imply something literal....that the audience was bored. And with that comment it is very clear to me that Brantley is not so much interested in reviewing what is on the stage of the Winter Garden as he is in hurting the shows chance at success. Why bother you ask? Well, this is where things get a little embarrassing. He is actually, I feel saying more about his position as the Chief New York Times critic than anything else. Hear isa show that comes in with "blockbuster potential." These tend to be big, expensive money printing machines that do not need clearance from the Times in order to succeed. Now, it is very likely that Brantley knows that the shows box office receipts during ROCKY'S preview period have shown that the musical may not be the sure fire hit many (not all but many)seem to feel it will become. Now I do not know for a fact that he has seen these numbers but it is certainly likely he has. Critics are not dummies and they absolutely are aware of the "buzz" on a show before they go in. Not saying always. But for something as high profile as ROCKY yeah they know before they go in what the "lay of the land" is so to speak. Look at the TITANIC reviews as point of fact. The show in early previews, hell even late in previews was pretty dreadful. This is a case where they knew what they, in theory, knew what they were going to say before they even set foot into the theater. So, I think TITANIC is a good case of prejudgement/overkill. At any rate, back to Brantley and his ROCKY review. The role of the Critic really has not changed that much since he became the NY Times first stringer. However, the influence and clout of his role in this industry has greatly dimished over the years. With the advent of social media, internet opportunities an the industry getting itself up to speed in the marketing game, the New York critics are of less importance then they when I first started working in 1974 as a publicist. The general game plan until, I don't know...the mid 90's was pretty straight forward. Take out an announcement ad. Full page for a musical, half page to full for a play, do a few dog and pony shows for the press, print your window cards, place a few ads, do a promo mailing, place NY Times ABC listings and then.....wait for the TIMES review. Now I am generalizing here but that, give or take was how the game was played. Not really that much different now Just more nuanced. The opportunities to capture your audience today are now endless. You can reach people in ways you never could. Broadway, though still on a major learning curve, is taking advantage of all the new media, etc. The days of a shows fate resting on a Time, Newsweek, Daily News, New York Post and (the mother of them all) NY Times review are simply no more. Today readership is down, critics are losing their jobs. And Brantley started just before this happened. It has been during his tenure that the role of the NY Times critic has gone from "the most important opinion" to "just what one guy thinks." Actually it is not quite that extreme. But I hope you get the point. Certainly, everyone wants a great review from the Times. That is certainly a big deal. However, it is no longer a deal breaker or maybe I should say, no longer a "show closer." No one wants to lose their power. It has to smart a little and with his ROCKY review Brantley makes it clear that he ain't goin' down without a fight. Maybe he can, if not destroy, certainly put a little hurt on the quote-unquote soon to be "blockbuster" at the Winter Garden. Maybe that fancy boxing show is not critic proof after all. And by God, Brantley says to himself "I don't like it! I am gonna pull out every lame reporter trick in the book. I just told your midddle- class demographic that the audience was bored" Well, OK Ben, calm down. there is just one little problem here. You are lying. That is just simply a lie. The way it is written, he using an old literal vs. figurative trick that lazy, hack writers and low rent lawyers use. So look, and I know this is getting rather long winded, i don't have a horse in this race. Personally, I happen to think that ROCKY is a pretty spectacular entertainment from beginning to end. Yep, its a musical and the score, with the exception of three numbers, is a very real liability here. But for me it is a classic David/Goliath story and a fine example of how to translate a film onto the stage. The story is well told with characters that I care about. How many musicals just simply do not know how to tell their story. How many musicals are populated by characters that you simply care nothing about. ROCKY actually has four characters that I truly connected with. The staging I found compelling, adventurous, inventive. So for me, (and again, the score is a real problem) ROCKY is solid piece of musical theater construction as well as a very moving, old fashioned, galvanizing entertainment. If you want to make a case against the show, fine with me. With that score, It is not hard to do. As I said earlier, the producers knew the critics were not going to go for it. ROCKY represents the very kind of a show, through its branding,ad dollars and basic entertainment value makes the critics opinion irrelevant. They hate that, of course. If the show was as bad as Brantley suggests, which would make them as bad as the shows I mentioned, the other reviewers would have been just as vitriolic. With the TRULY awful musicals that is always the case. The reviews do not range from bad to dissmissive shrugs and there are certainly no raves(Of course now someone is going to point out that Barnes of the Post liked CARRIE. To which I say, there is always someone gonna love ya.) So... I have gone on too long. I will wrap it up. Brantley hates ROCKY. Fine. Ok. But that bold faced lie right at the top, suggests that he is reacting, in part (notice i said, IN PART)to issues that do not have anything to do with what is on stage. He don't much matter any more. He was supposed to be king. He was supposed to rule the kingdom and someone took away the little prince's thrown. That can't feel good. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | NY Premiere of Catherine Trieschmann's ("crooked," "How The World Began") " ... - Official_Press_Release 05:19 pm EDT 03/14/14 |
| Next: | RETHINKING SOME OF MY ORIGINAL POST - BroadwayLouBlaze 10:23 am EDT 03/15/14 |
| Thread: |
|
All That Chat is intended for the discussion of
theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)
Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.
[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Restaurant Revue | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]
Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 0.009307 seconds.