Franco Calls Critic a "Bitch"

[Frankly Rich]

The NY Post is reporting, and showing, James Franco's Instagram response to Benjamin Brantley, the NY Times theater critic, who didn't like Franco's performance in Of Mice and Men.

 

 

(Sorry, I don't know the difference between Twitter and Instagram.)

[Frankly Rich]

Brantley responds: http://observer.com/2014/04/ben-brantley-doesnt-think-little-bitch-qualifies-as-libel/

[bostonman]

I don't care whether it's a celeb or not, I think it's simply bad form to publicly attack a critic for a bad review of your performance. Privately isn't that much better, though I suppose if the critic and actor otherwise have a collegial relationship it might be ok for the actor to discuss it just between them.

 

I recently had one of my own productions reviewed by a local critic who got a whole slew of facts wrong (this was a revised version of a show; her review mentioned a bunch of specifics that were in a previous version of the piece, not ours) - I'm half-wondering if she actually saw the show at all and just made up the review - though that seems unlikely - but either way her writing was entirely irresponsible and insulting and I am still livid about it a few months later. But this is the only time I have ever spoken up about it to anyone outside the production (and obviously I'm not giving any real specifics). I've been tempted to contact the critic and ask her what the hell happened - but I won't do it. I just don't think it's appropriate.

 

Franco should have kept his (allegorical) mouth shut. Period.

[MrMiniver]

What's that line about takes one to know one? Franco is a truly unpleasant and untalented actor who I once had the displeasure of meeting. I wouldn't walk across the street to see him give a free performance. I really don't know what his problem was but seems like he should stick to 17 year old girls or whatever else tickles his pickle. He really makes my skin crawl and there are very, very few who do that

[Cooper]

I think James Franco should pay more attention to the standing ovations he's receiving 8x's a week for his very talented portrayal of "George". The performance I saw was sold out and I'm sure it's because of him.

[foxy]

I admire anyone who can stand on a stage and perform. To me it most take a great deal of courage. I'm sure it must be painful when you have presumably tried to do your best and then feel attacked. Not to defend Franco's lashing back but I sympathize.

[+ WilliamM]

I am glad James Franco chose to appear in "Mice and Men." He's a wonderful actor. But, it's Franco's first appearance on Broadway, and he received good reviews from some critics. I wish Franco had waited 24 hours before saying anything. He might have changed his mind about speaking out. Frankly, I think it was a dumb thing to do, especially to a critic from the Times (but that was probably the point).

[bostonman]

Yes - he should have waited and thought better of saying anything. Burning bridges with a Times critic is really not a good idea. (Plus, as I said, as it's considered bad form to do this in the first place, that's a potential mark against him too. He's branding himself as "difficult" whether he is or not.)

[+ beethoven]

Never start an argument with someone who has a printing press.

[Gar1eth]

Just to clarify- both James and Chris have received some good reviews, right?

 

Reading Brantley over the years- he doesn't seem to like much. I'm thinking my likes are probably too plebeian for him.

 

Gman

[Frankly Rich]

Franco's remark sounds childish, but he is inexperienced on Broadway and no doubt was enjoying his good reviews. That's where he should have stopped. I don't much care for Brantley's reviews either, and don't think he holds a candle to Frank Rich, his predecessor at the Times.

[MrMiniver]

I think James Franco should pay more attention to the standing ovations he's receiving 8x's a week for his very talented portrayal of "George". The performance I saw was sold out and I'm sure it's because of him.

 

Broadway audiences stand every week for Mamma Mia and Wicked as well; it's certainly not the sign of quality. Everyone stands today. I thought his performance as "George" was typical Franco: listless and uninteresting. But "stars" keep selling out Broadway theaters because that's all the contemporary theatergoer is interested in seeing. It's sad, really.

[MrMiniver]

Just to clarify- both James and Chris have received some good reviews, right?

 

Reading Brantley over the years- he doesn't seem to like much. I'm thinking my likes are probably too plebeian for him.

 

Gman

 

As with most critics in any genre, if you read them long enough, you can guess -- around a week before the opening -- exactly what they are going to write about any given show.

[MrMiniver]

Franco's remark sounds childish, but he is inexperienced on Broadway and no doubt was enjoying his good reviews. That's where he should have stopped. I don't much care for Brantley's reviews either, and don't think he holds a candle to Frank Rich, his predecessor at the Times.

 

I'm not really sure, since the death of Howard Kissel, whether there is a single really good critic writing about theater in New York. Maybe Jay Nordlinger and Terry Teachout but that's about it.

[bostonman]

Broadway audiences stand every week for Mamma Mia and Wicked as well; it's certainly not the sign of quality. Everyone stands today.

 

Yup - the standing O is done all the time now, which really makes it unfortunately meaningless. I tend to think that for people who don't go to the theatre all the time, seeing a show becomes a "special event" - an event that costs a lot of money and that may also include dinner and other costly additions - in some respects, I think giving a standing O is a way (consciously or subconsciously) to "validate" the night's experience. And also, for those people that don't see much theatre, they have little to compare anything to, so any perceived decent performance is going to seem amazing instead of the norm. So, instead of just enthusiastic applause being enough to validate a decent show, every performance becomes a touchstone worthy of standing up.

 

And of course, once the seed is planted...once a few people stand...that's a signal for everyone else to follow suit whether they would have otherwise or not.

 

I love being able to give a standing O when I really have been moved by what I have just seen. But I also have to say that one of the most awkward feelings in the world is when I don't feel like I really want to stand, yet everyone around me is standing. Sometimes I admit I get up simply not to have to call attention to the fact that I'm staying seated. And I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels that awkwardness. It's one of those 'group dynamic' things that is really hard to play against. (though sometimes I do indeed stand my ground - or SIT my ground as it were - and stay seated. But it feels like I'm being a party pooper lol.)

[+ WilliamM]

And also' date=' for those people that don't see much theatre, they have little to compare anything to, so any perceived decent performance is going to seem [i']amazing[/i] instead of the norm. So, instead of just enthusiastic applause being enough to validate a decent show, every performance becomes a touchstone worthy of standing up.

 

And of course, once the seed is planted...once a few people stand...that's a signal for everyone else to follow suit whether they would have otherwise or not.

 

I am not sure that's true about the quality. Wonder what other people think. To me, there's so much available to compare on cable and HBO, SHO as well as films, concerts on DVD. Yes, it is different to see a star in person though.

 

I understand your point about theater being a big event simply because of the cost.

[foxy]

The trouble with sitting during a standing ovation is having to look at someone's backside. And usually it's not a pretty one. So I stand up if only to get my coat on. Sadly it's no longer the mark of a great performance and I guess most actors are aware of this.

[Frankly Rich]

The overuse of the standing ovation has been growing. Here's an article lamenting it written back in 2003!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/theater/theater-the-tyranny-of-the-standing-ovation.html

[MrMiniver]

Yup - the standing O is done all the time now, which really makes it unfortunately meaningless. I tend to think that for people who don't go to the theatre all the time, seeing a show becomes a "special event" - an event that costs a lot of money and that may also include dinner and other costly additions - in some respects, I think giving a standing O is a way (consciously or subconsciously) to "validate" the night's experience. And also, for those people that don't see much theatre, they have little to compare anything to, so any perceived decent performance is going to seem amazing instead of the norm. So, instead of just enthusiastic applause being enough to validate a decent show, every performance becomes a touchstone worthy of standing up.

 

And of course, once the seed is planted...once a few people stand...that's a signal for everyone else to follow suit whether they would have otherwise or not.

 

I love being able to give a standing O when I really have been moved by what I have just seen. But I also have to say that one of the most awkward feelings in the world is when I don't feel like I really want to stand, yet everyone around me is standing. Sometimes I admit I get up simply not to have to call attention to the fact that I'm staying seated. And I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels that awkwardness. It's one of those 'group dynamic' things that is really hard to play against. (though sometimes I do indeed stand my ground - or SIT my ground as it were - and stay seated. But it feels like I'm being a party pooper lol.)

 

You're absolutely right on all counts. I have seen standing ovations for some of the worst crap imaginable. If I don't "feel" it, I don't stand. I don't feel pressured. Sometimes you get nasty looks. But I think the standing ovation should be reserved for truly extraordinary performances.

[foxy]

To think there was a time when an audience would stand and throw fruit at the actors when they didn't like a performance.

[hornytwells]

I so agree-everything gets an obligatory Standing ovation these days-regardless of the quality. What is especially annoying tho is if I want to see who is getting applause and their reactions, i have to stand too. Also, stars like Franco get ovations from their movie fans simply because of who they are, whether or not they give a great or a substandard performance in a role. Another problem now is that broadway seems to need star TV and movie actors to fill the house, and parts go to them that would have been better filled by other actors who are not necessarily on TV or in the movies.... its disheartening.

[whipped guy]

Regarding the ubiquitous standing 0... Yeah, as horny says, in order to see you are forced to stand as well. I knew a budding opera diva who always had her family sit in the front row at all her performances. They would jump up right on cue with shouts of "brava! bravissima!" at the conclusion... and incredibly that included grandma who was normally confined to a wheel chair... Yep, she was propped up as well!

[Cooper]

The NY Post is reporting, and showing, James Franco's Instagram response to Benjamin Brantley, the NY Times theater critic, who didn't like Franco's performance in Of Mice and Men.

 

On April 29th, the Tony nominations will be announced. Let's see who gets the last laugh.

[bostonman]

On April 29th, the Tony nominations will be announced. Let's see who gets the last laugh.

 

I think it's going to be a tough category as it is, even without this little fracas. I would expect to see noms for Bryan Cranston, Ian McKellan, Patrick Stewart and Mark Rylance for sure - if anything Franco might be a fifth, but something tells me he wouldn't be in the running even if nominated. We'll see.

 

(A side note - I do think Rylance deserves at least a nomination, but I'm not sure I'll be rooting for him to win. I want a real Tony speech, lol.)

[Cooper]

I think it's going to be a tough category as it is, even without this little fracas. I would expect to see noms for Bryan Cranston, Ian McKellan, Patrick Stewart and Mark Rylance for sure - if anything Franco might be a fifth...

 

As for nominations for best actor in a play, I doubt Franco would receive a nomination, I was thinking of Chris O'Dowd who plays Lenny in "Of Mice and Men". Imo, he gave a Tony performance.