| Brantley's Contempt | |
| Posted by: | BestFriend 01:15 am EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| Ben Brantley's appraisal of Mike Nichols in Thursday's NY Times begins: "When the lights are dimmed on Broadway Friday night in honor of the director Mike Nichols, who died on Wednesday at 83, the neighborhood where he plied his trade for half a century will feel even darker than usual." "Even darker than usual," eh? How could anyone use such an occasion as an opportunity to express contempt for a community he covers? How gratuitously cruel to do so at the moment of its bereavement. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Brantley's Contempt | |
| Posted by: | Budinsky 03:13 pm EST 11/21/14 |
| In reply to: | Brantley's Contempt - BestFriend 01:15 am EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| I'll agree with others below that you've misread--willfully or otherwise--Brantley's opening sentence. If you want to find genuine contempt by Brantley, I would suggest you search for his "Appraisal" of Lanford Wilson -- a contemptible, ill-informed and heartless piece of writing. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| What I've been waiting for all day... | |
| Posted by: | broadwaybacker 04:41 pm EST 11/21/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley's Contempt - Budinsky 03:13 pm EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| Is to see BestFriend come back on and cop to having misinterpreted Brantley's remark. Even if mis-read or mid-understood originally (and who among us hasn't done something similar on occasion), just own it. It's really OK to say that you made a mistake. Trust me, I've made way more than my share. So...? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: What I've been waiting for all day... | |
| Posted by: | larry13 07:28 am EST 11/22/14 |
| In reply to: | What I've been waiting for all day... - broadwaybacker 04:41 pm EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| If you do a search for BestFriend, you find that this was her/his ONLY post recently. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: What I've been waiting for all day... | |
| Posted by: | Ann 08:58 am EST 11/22/14 |
| In reply to: | re: What I've been waiting for all day... - larry13 07:28 am EST 11/22/14 |
|
| |
| And what do you think that means? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: What I've been waiting for all day... | |
| Posted by: | larry13 11:00 am EST 11/22/14 |
| In reply to: | re: What I've been waiting for all day... - Ann 08:58 am EST 11/22/14 |
|
| |
| That it's unlikely that broadwaybacker will read an admission from BestFriend that (s)he made a mistake. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: What I've been waiting for all day... | |
| Posted by: | Ann 11:22 am EST 11/22/14 |
| In reply to: | re: What I've been waiting for all day... - larry13 11:00 am EST 11/22/14 |
|
| |
| I don't follow that logic, though it may very well happen. Aside from that, I personally don't feel the poster needs to make such a statement. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: What I've been waiting for all day... | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 11:38 am EST 11/22/14 |
| In reply to: | re: What I've been waiting for all day... - Ann 11:22 am EST 11/22/14 |
|
| |
| well if we eliminated all statements that the poster didn't "need" to make, you'd be out of business, but it seems reasonable to me for someone to point out that the failure of a poster to respond to being called out on an error can simply mean that the poster does not come here very often (rather than some moral failure based on not owning one's mistakes)... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| A willful misreading | |
| Posted by: | MockingbirdGirl 01:33 pm EST 11/21/14 |
| In reply to: | Brantley's Contempt - BestFriend 01:15 am EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| As has been noted below, it will be darker than it usually is when the lights are dimmed because of the loss of this theatrical luminary. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: A willful misreading | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 01:45 pm EST 11/21/14 |
| In reply to: | A willful misreading - MockingbirdGirl 01:33 pm EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| Of course. If Brantley had written, "with the passing of Mike Nichols, the Broadway theater district will be even darker than it usually is," THAT would have been an expression of contempt. But he never would have written that. He very clearly referenced the the traditional, honorary dimming of the lights, which makes a very different point. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| A Not Very Convincing Willfull Misreading (n/m) | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 01:36 pm EST 11/21/14 |
| In reply to: | A willful misreading - MockingbirdGirl 01:33 pm EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| at that. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: darker? | |
| Posted by: | Guillaume 09:55 am EST 11/21/14 |
| In reply to: | Brantley's Contempt - BestFriend 01:15 am EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| With all the new video screens that play 24/7 this neighborhood is never dark. Maybe he has glaucoma or something and needs a vision check. If anyone hasn't been to Times Square in the last couple of days, make time in your theatre trip to watch the ENORMOUS 8+ story video wall that was unveiled and now spreads the entire block on the east side of the Marriott Hotel along Broadway running an ad for the real estate industry, of all things that doesn't need promoting. It's got computer animation that runs a show for about 5 minutes or so. The size is overwhelming. I can't even imagine what the cost would be to run an ad there, but if your show was on that wall there is no way anyone for many blocks could miss it. I hope the Met's opening night broadcast is on there next year. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: which way to the Marquis ? | |
| Posted by: | SidL 10:27 am EST 11/21/14 |
| In reply to: | re: darker? - Guillaume 09:55 am EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| GOOGLE will be the exclusive advertiser on the screen in a few days.(for a few months, I believe) Hard to believe the Marquis Theatre will no longer have a presence on the "Broadway" side. I do like the way the new entrance reinforces the two neighboring theaters by creating a theatre row effect. The Nederlanders must be bummed they no longer have that "free" advertising in the middle of Times Sq. | |
| Link | Marquis |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: which way to the Marquis ? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 10:33 am EST 11/21/14 |
| In reply to: | re: which way to the Marquis ? - SidL 10:27 am EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| 1. what makes you think it was "free"? 2. considering that there is no evidence suggesting the exposure sold any meaningful number of tickets to a remarkable number of flops, why would they be bummed? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: which way to the Marquis ? | |
| Posted by: | SidL 10:46 am EST 11/21/14 |
| In reply to: | re: which way to the Marquis ? - ryhog 10:33 am EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| well that's why I put quotes around FREE it was free advertising when broadcasts ( CNN & ABC) flashed to whatever played at the Marquis on rocking New Years Eve | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: darker? | |
| Posted by: | Ann 09:58 am EST 11/21/14 |
| In reply to: | re: darker? - Guillaume 09:55 am EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| Reporters have guessed that it's over $2.5 million for four weeks of advertising. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: darker? | |
| Posted by: | Guillaume 11:19 am EST 11/21/14 |
| In reply to: | re: darker? - Ann 09:58 am EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| that's cheaper than I would have guessed! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: darker? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 10:19 am EST 11/21/14 |
| In reply to: | re: darker? - Ann 09:58 am EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| Interesting comparison would be 4 weeks of advertising on that scale in the NYTimes. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley's Awe | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 08:39 am EST 11/21/14 |
| In reply to: | Brantley's Contempt - BestFriend 01:15 am EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| You are reading it in a way it is clear he did not mean. No contempt for anything nor could any reasonable person, who had anything in their head except stirring shit, think there was. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Brantley's Contempt? | |
| Posted by: | pierce 01:50 am EST 11/21/14 |
| In reply to: | Brantley's Contempt - BestFriend 01:15 am EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| That's not how I read Brantley's statement. I got the sense that the night will be "darker than usual" (remember, they're dimmer the lights at night) because of Nichols' absence, and the awareness of how his Broadway shows brightened the evenings - and days - of so many theatergoers. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley's Contempt? | |
| Posted by: | NewtonUK 10:19 am EST 11/21/14 |
| In reply to: | Brantley's Contempt? - pierce 01:50 am EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| I agree, Pierce. Nichols was a titan on Broadway, and his loss is deeply felt. In 43 years he directed and/or produced 29 Broadway shows. The one we might forget, is that he produced the original ANNIE. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley's Contempt? | |
| Posted by: | pierce 04:08 am EST 11/21/14 |
| In reply to: | Brantley's Contempt? - pierce 01:50 am EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| Correction: "They're DIMMING the lights as night" | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley's Contempt? | |
| Posted by: | Thom915 12:28 pm EST 11/21/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley's Contempt? - pierce 04:08 am EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| I think contempt is way too strong a word. He pays tribute to the "luminosity" which he says was characteristic of Nichols work ethic rather than some of the corporate style presentation of production he sees today. I think he is overreaching (not unusual in such a tribute) but it is in praise of Nichols not an attack on any particular sector of today's Broadway theater nor on the industry as a whole. It is a way of saying he will be missed and not likely replaced in today's world. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley's Contempt? | |
| Posted by: | davei2000 10:04 am EST 11/21/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley's Contempt? - pierce 04:08 am EST 11/21/14 |
|
| |
| Yes...in other words- ...the neighborhood where he plied his trade for half a century will feel even darker than it usually does when the lights are dimmed. Because he was so important, obviously. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
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 | Sound Advice Upcoming Releases CDs/Books/DVDs, etc. | 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: 0.184861 seconds.