To draw the reader in and to have a successful review, the reviewer should provide some knowledge to the topic at hand to create some type of interest in the reader. It is important for the critic to have a firm standpoint whether it be positive or negative. It is crucial to make clear how he/she feels about the piece being reviewed and to make the reader understand, but not necessarily agree, why he/she feels this way.

In Shuffling and Mirroring In a Sort of Simon Says, Brian Seibert gives a short but descriptive introduction of the choreographer Noémie Lafrance and her previous works. By doing so, Seibert shows that he has an interest and understanding/opinion in the works of Lafrance. Seibert then proceeds directly into a description of the project, ‘The White Box Project’, that he is reviewing. He analyzes the methods that Lafrance uses in this dance piece. Seibert clarifies what he is focused on, “the line between audience and performers should blur”; the way Lafrance depicts this aspect of her work compared to her prior projects. He proceeds to make a stand on how he feels about this method. He says, “But Ms. Lafrance has revolted against traditional ways of presenting theater more imaginatively before. This project lacks the visual stylishness….” and so forth. It is clear that Seibert feels this is one of Lafrance’s weaker presentations. I feel as if I am able to hear Seibert’s voice/opinion while reading his review. The review has its own definite character and standpoint; it is firm and therefore I do not question it. He gives a persuasive pull towards his opinion. Not only do I feel that he is believable, he has made me unconsciously formulate a positive curiousity towards the previous works of Lafrance that he says is distinguished by “visual stylishness”.

In Hindu Mythology Comes to Life in the Streets of New York, I am unclear of the direction that the review is heading towards. Is this review making a negative or positive standpoint? Does Alastair Macaulay feel that “Visions of Forever” was a good performance? How does he make me feel about it? Macaulay starts with a lengthy but somewhat pointless introduction. From the title, I assumed I would mostly be reading about the dance presented by Sutra Dance Theater from Malaysia. However, Macaulay introduces with a lengthy description of the Downtown Dance Festival that had little relation to ‘Visions of Forever’ except that it was the closing program to the festival. When Macaulay finally talks about the performance, he is somewhat contradictory. On one hand he says, “although there are real drawbacks…”, “one big problem was a voiceover”, and “a smaller problem…”. On the other hand, Macaulay compliments that it has “an abundance of color and dance detail” and “depicts Hindu mythology with marvelous costumes”. He also has a lengthy positive opinion of one of the dancers, Ms Govindarajoo, and how his eyes ‘kept singling her out’. What is the point he is trying to make in the end? Is he focusing on the detailed dances and successful Hindu mythology representation or the problems that he points out? Is the performance mediocre or do the positive aspects weigh out the faults?