I didn't think Brantley's review was brutal at all!
In general, I've found myself agreeing with a lot more of his reviews a lot more than those I disagree with. And, considering the price of theater tickets these days, I welcome his comments before deciding to make the economic plunge!

Brantley has never made my decision for me yet.

No, andrew8, I did not say that Brantley makes my decisions for me. His opinion, along with thoses of friends, reviews in Variety (which I read regularly) and other reviews, are all thrown into the mix to help me make an informed decision.

I too toss a lot of opinions together before I usually spring for expensive Broadway tickets, and often I read between the lines of Ben Brantley's reviews knowing that what he likes least about some productions is often what I like best. In this review, he says plenty to make me still want to see it.

But while Howard may say the review wasn't brutal, I doubt if Miss Linney would agree with him. Just a couple of excerpts regarding her performance:


". . .which also stars an uncomfortably cast Laura Linney"

"Unfortunately no one else in this revival approaches Mr. Daniels’s level of complexity, including Ms. Linney, a wonderful actress who has been shoehorned into a part out of her natural range and is perceptibly pinched."

I'd call that pretty brutal, although he was kinder to much of the rest of the production and particularly to the performance of Ben Daniels.

Well, in today's Wall Street Journal the headline reads:

"On Broadway, Bright Stars and Dim Casting" and "Freeman, Linney Wrong For 'Country Girl' and 'Liaisons Dangereuses'"

I guess the WSJ likes killing two birds with one stone.

This theatergoer has tix for both ('Country Girl' tomorrow mat) and we shall see. Sometimes a reviewer like Brantley will refer to the original performance and since I may not have seen it in 1948 or whatever (before I was born) that context has no relevance for me and I may enjoy what he did not.

Having said that, I still like to read a positive review, especially when I already have tix.

Perhaps it just semantics, but I don't categorize those comments about Laura Linney as "brutal." Certainly critical. But brutal? No way.
PS: He wasn't the only critic who felt that way about her performance.
PPS: I think Laura Linney is a wonderful actress!

It's amusing to me that Peter Gallagher, an alum of the teen soap opera The OC, is getting the best reviews for The Country Girl rather than the two Academy Award winners! I do pay attention to reviews, but think that reviewers may obsess about things that the theater-goer, no matter how astute, might not. And then we all have our own taste in what we will enjoy--I'll take Richard Greenberg over Tony Kushner any day of the week.

Not really a surprise re Gallagher since he has way more stage experience than the other two.

Agree that you basically have to just read the reviews for some guidance and then decide what you want to take into consideration when buying your tickets.
I also wouldn't say that Brantley or the others who commented on Linney not being right for Les Liaisons were "brutal." Everyone pretty much acknowledges that she is extrememly talented, just miscast this time.

Getting back to Vanessa Redgrave, it would be remiss not to mention her masterful performance in the brilliant production of Long Day's Journey into Night a few years ago....not just listening to her voice but watching every physical movement, whether obvious or subtle, was mesmerizing.

Hey, folks, as an actor, let me tell you that being told you were miscast IS brutal. What it tells the actor is "you weren't able to vary your style or personality to FIT this role. You are unable to play this type of role". Every actor loves to believe he can mold himself into ANY role. Trust me -- those are brutal words to any actor!

Add that you were "perceptively pinched" and insinuate that you looked "uncomfortable" in the role and it is even more brutal.

By the way, if you are proud of your profession and you think you're very good at it, but someone told you that you were totally unsuitable for it, wouldn't you think that was "brutal"?
And before anyone says that Mr. Brantley didn't say she was unsuitable as an actress, let's not forget that an actress's job is to believably play another character.

Anyone who is writer, dancer, artist, musician, or actor lives with critcism and rejection. Most of it uneducated, some of it on point. It is simply a reality.

I have had over two dozen photographic exhibits and have been published. You are accepted and rejected by the most capracious reasons.

I submitted some work to a magazine. They wrote back and requested additional pieces, which I sent. In return I received a letter saying taht they would have published my stuff but were going out of business. I wrote back and said too bad, I was going to take out a subscription.

Well said Patrick!!

What type of photography Aduchamp?

Whatever I find. I am not genre photographer.

C'mon Patrick, my friend....Brantley criticized ONE part that Linney has played, not her entire acting career! I don't have the review in front of me, but I believe that he did make a favorable comment about her overall performance record. One criticized performance hardly ends up destroying an entire career.
Anyway, if an actor isn't strong enough to accept and live with criticism, then he/she should get out of the business!

Howard, you aren't listening to me. I'm saying that when a person THINKS as an actor he can play any role (and every actor DOES think that) and is told that he looked uncomfortable on stage and was totally unable to play any particular role, THAT is brutal, regardless of being told he was great in other roles. If someone told you that you were unable to do your job well, you wouldn't find that "brutal"? Well, her job is playing ANY role -- that isn't herself. I don't expect you to fully understand this if you're not an actor, but being told you can't play any role IS brutal! Essentially saying that an actor is miscast and looked uncomfortable is the same as saying that the actor is LIMITED in the roles he can play. THAT is what no actor wants to hear.

I'm sorry, Patrick, but most actors I know acknowlege that they can't play EVERY role! And, in most if not all cases, to think that you can is unrealistic. And, that goes for the most versatile of performers.
I stand by my comments.

A possible art review from the NY Times:
"HowardR's exhibit of photography was a bust. His previous works were excellent, but his new attempt which he's spent the last year working on -- pictures of architecture -- was totally out of his element. His work showed no understanding of light or feeling or the architectural elements themselves, and the entire exhibit was without artistic merit or feeling, leaving the viewer with nothing to enjoy or ponder."


So Howard, I'm sure you'd frame this review and display it proudly since the critic clearly said your previous works were excellent. And you wouldn't feel that he was "brutal" to your entire year's work which you were proud of. You'd cheerfully say to yourself, "well, I guess I can't photograph everything." Clearly you must have thicker skin than most artists.

But perhaps I have overstated myself with "play any role". What I should have said is that Ms. Linney accepted this particular role because she OBVIOUSLY felt she could play it. Now to be told she doesn't have the acting breadth she thought she had does feel brutal.

As I said, I disagree with you, but you are welcome to continue to disagree with me. And by the way, didn't you (like everyone else) use words like "brutal" or something similar regarding Julia Roberts reviews in Three Days of Rain? As I recall, most reviewers mentioned what an accomplished actress she was, so saying she was like a fish out of water, or whatever else they said, wasn't brutal at all, I guess.

I guess "brutal" is in the mind of the beholder. For my idea of brutal reviews, just wait til GLORY DAYS opens tomorrow.

How I would react to that reviewer's comments would depend, first, on how others (other critics, friends, etc.) reacted. If his/her review was the only negative one, well, I'd probably not be too upset about it, since others enjoyed it. (Of course, the depth of my reaction to any criticms of my work would certainly be influenced by the reputation and/or knowledge of the reviewer/critic.)
On the other hand, if his/her review was "typical" of most or all of the reviews, and since I'm a very pragmatic/problem solving individual, I'd immediately examine the elements of the exhibit with an eye to the criticisms and try to see where I went "wrong." Would I be unhappy? Definitely! Would be devastated? Definitely not!
Hey, maybe I do have thicker skin than you!
P