News tidbits
Moderator: Germangirl
Broadway: Hollywood Stars Denzel, Franco, Radcliffe Snubbed by Outer Critics Circle Awards
http://www.showbiz411.com/2014/04/22/br ... cle-awards
The article says that neither Daniel nor Rachel were nominated for 'Betrayal'.
http://www.showbiz411.com/2014/04/22/br ... cle-awards
The article says that neither Daniel nor Rachel were nominated for 'Betrayal'.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 47075
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:05 pm
- Location: Germany
I sdidn't expect it either, but as we can see, apart from Ian Mc Callen, no known actor got anything.
The plays direction was too out of the box for the liking of the critics, but important is, that it ways a huge success and people liked it a lot. It sold itsself without ANY promotion, just by the names and it continued to do so after the reviews. It surely was a Tony contender with the talent involved, but then again, THAT talent had their own ideas and they were diffferent,
But I am grateful Rafe didn't get it. THAT I wouldn't have liked.
The plays direction was too out of the box for the liking of the critics, but important is, that it ways a huge success and people liked it a lot. It sold itsself without ANY promotion, just by the names and it continued to do so after the reviews. It surely was a Tony contender with the talent involved, but then again, THAT talent had their own ideas and they were diffferent,
But I am grateful Rafe didn't get it. THAT I wouldn't have liked.
The top notch acting in the Weisz/Craig/Spall 'Betrayal' is emotionally true, often v funny and its beautifully staged with filmic qualities..
OMG GGGermangirl wrote:I sdidn't expect it either, but as we can see, apart from Ian Mc Callen, no known actor got anything.
The plays direction was too out of the box for the liking of the critics, but important is, that it ways a huge success and people liked it a lot. It sold itsself without ANY promotion, just by the names and it continued to do so after the reviews. It surely was a Tony contender with the talent involved, but then again, THAT talent had their own ideas and they were diffferent,
But I am grateful Rafe didn't get it. THAT I wouldn't have liked.
Honestly it makes me both sad and furious! They were so good all of them and Nicholls' staging was brilliant! I absolutely loved it - it was fresh and daring and provocative and interesting! and DC's Robert was fabulous He is SUCH a good actor and I so want to see that recognised!
I am being childish, I know...
PS: Rafe was very very good in creating THE Jerry for Nicholls' vision of Betrayal.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 47075
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:05 pm
- Location: Germany
I am really surprised, tbat mr. Spock didnt get it. From what i read, he got lots of praise.
Rachel was never an option, for her reviews were just so so, and daniels were not all praise, lets say. Bit he sure left his mark, where it counts, when he ever wants to come back.
Purple, i really believe, that his talent is well known in the industrie.
Rachel was never an option, for her reviews were just so so, and daniels were not all praise, lets say. Bit he sure left his mark, where it counts, when he ever wants to come back.
Purple, i really believe, that his talent is well known in the industrie.
The top notch acting in the Weisz/Craig/Spall 'Betrayal' is emotionally true, often v funny and its beautifully staged with filmic qualities..
Emma's part is not necessarily a brilliant one to begin with imo. As I said in my review, I had the feeling that she was a mere catalyst for the relationship between the two men. So it is perhaps a more difficult part to be praised for. That being said, I remember having read (in Brantley's review?) about a Betrayal revival he had seen, with Krtistin Scott Thomas and apparently she was fantastic.
Anyway, I still think the play itself and DC could have gotten some recognition - a nomination (at least). It is also true that for revivals the competition was a tough one: The Glass Menagerie, Waiting for Godot, No man's land to quote just a few of the plays (all very very good).
I suppose that I am a bit frustrated: I want to see him in a good movie other than Bond. And I would like an award.
There! I am done ranting
PS: I still think it is unfair to reject a certain type of staging just because it does not comply with some purist Pinter rules. After all, as one friend put it, Pinter was very provocative for his time - staging him in a provocative way for our time means doing him justice.
Anyway, I still think the play itself and DC could have gotten some recognition - a nomination (at least). It is also true that for revivals the competition was a tough one: The Glass Menagerie, Waiting for Godot, No man's land to quote just a few of the plays (all very very good).
I suppose that I am a bit frustrated: I want to see him in a good movie other than Bond. And I would like an award.
There! I am done ranting
PS: I still think it is unfair to reject a certain type of staging just because it does not comply with some purist Pinter rules. After all, as one friend put it, Pinter was very provocative for his time - staging him in a provocative way for our time means doing him justice.
- CockHargreaves
- Posts: 1932
- Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:20 pm
- Location: UK
Unless he wonders if people came to see him because of his acting skills or beceause of the fact he is Bond I read some nasty posts on the Boradway world forum along the lines "I am curious to see what those Bond fans will understand of a Pinter play...."
whatever
In the end however I suppose that people's admiration for him is more important and sincere than some reviews written out of snobbery or contempt or other unprofessional reason. Even if unfortunately those reviews come form NY Times Because in such situations no matter how well you do, the reviewer will not change his opinion. See also that interview Elaine Figgis posted on the Betrayal page where those journalists were sneering at the "movie stars" coming to Broadway, completely ignoring their serious training and credits in the theatre world.
whatever
In the end however I suppose that people's admiration for him is more important and sincere than some reviews written out of snobbery or contempt or other unprofessional reason. Even if unfortunately those reviews come form NY Times Because in such situations no matter how well you do, the reviewer will not change his opinion. See also that interview Elaine Figgis posted on the Betrayal page where those journalists were sneering at the "movie stars" coming to Broadway, completely ignoring their serious training and credits in the theatre world.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7195
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:27 pm
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 47075
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:05 pm
- Location: Germany
..and Patrick Stewart didn't even get a nod either.
I don't think Daniel is in any way seriously disappointed. I still think, he is doing it for cheer fun and to prove himself - before himself first and foremost.
I don't think Daniel is in any way seriously disappointed. I still think, he is doing it for cheer fun and to prove himself - before himself first and foremost.
The top notch acting in the Weisz/Craig/Spall 'Betrayal' is emotionally true, often v funny and its beautifully staged with filmic qualities..
I don't know about him, but I am dissapointed even though I was expecting that.
The thing is, they are not just movie stars - they are seriously trained actors who also happen to be movie stars. I am sure that those journalists/critics know it, that is why I say that they don't do their reviews/comments in good faith and they will never change their opinion.
The thing is, they are not just movie stars - they are seriously trained actors who also happen to be movie stars. I am sure that those journalists/critics know it, that is why I say that they don't do their reviews/comments in good faith and they will never change their opinion.
I think he's perfectly aware of the fact that many people went to see the play because they wanted to see Bond on stage. Nothing sad, or wrong about that. It's absolutely natural and normal. People paid big money to see HIM in a play, they were interested how Bond would do in a theatre play, they wanted to see him an his wife in the flesh and this motivation is totally understandable and I'd say it's a very good thing.purple wrote:Unless he wonders if people came to see him because of his acting skills or beceause of the fact he is Bond I read some nasty posts on the Boradway world forum along the lines "I am curious to see what those Bond fans will understand of a Pinter play...."
whatever
In the end however I suppose that people's admiration for him is more important and sincere than some reviews written out of snobbery or contempt or other unprofessional reason. Even if unfortunately those reviews come form NY Times Because in such situations no matter how well you do, the reviewer will not change his opinion. See also that interview Elaine Figgis posted on the Betrayal page where those journalists were sneering at the "movie stars" coming to Broadway, completely ignoring their serious training and credits in the theatre world.
There are many members on this very forum, whose first ever Daniel experience was Bond and after Bond they got really interested in his other movies and started exploring and discovering him.
I saw many enthusiastic fans in those stage door vids. Thanks to Bond Daniel became a household name and people might see his movies and other work they had never seen before, never considered seeing and had never been aware aware of before.
That's why I'm always happy when I learn that some of people I know watched a movie just because Daniel was in it, because they were curious to see him in a role other than Bond, but Bond inspired them to do so.
Regarding some idiotic comments like the one you quoted, what can I say? The Internet is full of morons. On that very board I also saw many positive comments, so a few stupid ones don't make any difference. Besides, being a Bond fan doesn't mean that one is not capable of understanding a Pinter play which is not so complicated after all.
I'm really disappointed that Daniel didn't receive a nomination and in this situation I'd be even more disappointed if Spall got one.
I agree with you on the point that some of those critics are simply biased and prejudiced, which I find totally unprofessional. If one is a critic they should be objective and discerning in their judgement, but obviously they are not. At least some of them. I hate pretentious snobbery which makes them diss and sneer at big stars who come to Broadway, instead of attempting to assess their efforts fair and square.
I didn't see the play, so it's hard for me to discuss it, but from our members' reports and many reviews I gathered it was an interesting and innovative interpretation of the play. And the acting was really great. We had those discussions in the Stage Work thread and in the Betrayal one.
Ian McKellen and Tony Shalhoub got the nominations, so the critics abviously DO like some of the big names too.
I agree with GG that Daniel hopefully is not seriously disappointed (although we ARE), the play had a more than great box office, he saw crowds of fans at the stage door every day and I'm sure it was a really good and precious experience for him and Rachel. However, it's a shame that he wasn't properly appreciated and recognized by the critics in terms of nominations. Sad.
Last edited by Alina on Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 47075
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:05 pm
- Location: Germany
Without googling, I wouldn't know who Tony Shalhoub is. IMO of the nominated men, Ian is the only one, who is better known.
I agree, that its Bond, who brought many of them into the theater and it was up to Daniel to prove, that he is more then that. Fair enough.
Critics are snobs and I suppose, it being the biggest hit play of the season was enough of cudoos for them But somehow I think, had Mike made it more Pinter without the experimental stuff, they would have reacted differently. Its like "We know our Pinter and don't you dare, screw with it "
But I am also sure, they have discussed it and chosen to just ignore beforehand those voices and do their own thing.
Like Daniel said "If the pauses don't make sense, don't do them"
I agree, that its Bond, who brought many of them into the theater and it was up to Daniel to prove, that he is more then that. Fair enough.
Critics are snobs and I suppose, it being the biggest hit play of the season was enough of cudoos for them But somehow I think, had Mike made it more Pinter without the experimental stuff, they would have reacted differently. Its like "We know our Pinter and don't you dare, screw with it "
But I am also sure, they have discussed it and chosen to just ignore beforehand those voices and do their own thing.
Like Daniel said "If the pauses don't make sense, don't do them"
The top notch acting in the Weisz/Craig/Spall 'Betrayal' is emotionally true, often v funny and its beautifully staged with filmic qualities..
Ok, I know who Tony Shalhoub is as I love Mr Monk And I'm sure he is generally well known, but mostly due to being Mr Monk Of course he can't be compared to Ian McKellen in terms of his professional record and experience. He's a good actor though.Germangirl wrote:Without googling, I wouldn't know who Tony Shalhoub is. IMO of the nominated men, Ian is the only one, who is better known.
I agree, that its Bond, who brought many of them into the theater and it was up to Daniel to prove, that he is more then that. Fair enough.
Critics are snobs and I suppose, it being the biggest hit play of the season was enough of cudoos for them But somehow I think, had Mike made it more Pintter without the experimentalo stuff, they would have reacted differently. Its like "We know our Pinter and this is not it enough"
But I am also sure, they have discussed it and chosen to just ignore beforehand those voices and do their own thing.
Critics are snobs and often ignorants and if they decide to diss a play just because the director had a slightly different vision from what they were used to, well, what kind of critics are they? Art is about experimenting, it must not stand still in one place, it has to develop and look for new ways and solutions. Its beauty is about being non one dimensional, open to different interpretations and if art critics don't like that, they just don't deserve to be called critics.
And I agree that some of those pompous snobs had probably made up their minds about the play even before they saw it.
Last edited by Alina on Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.