Talk about avoiding the subject. In Ken Jaworowski’s review “Stranger Ship, Stranger Cast,” barely talks bout the play he is reviewing, “Benito Cereno.” “Benito Cereno,” is “based on a novella by Herman Melville, and the play was first performed by Robert Lowell in 1964.” The play that is currently being performed has been directed by Woodie King Jr, but I didn’t find that out until later on in the review. In fact, when I first read the review , Jaworowski said “Mr. King” and I thought he was mentioning Martin Luther King Jr. I missed him mentioning that Woodie King Jr. directed the current production.
I then realized that part of that fault resided in me, but Jaworowski was also to blame. His review described the play and praised Robert Lowell’s version of it, but when it came time to evaluate Mr. King’s version his effort was as lackluster as he described the play to be. He only dedicates four sentences to his review of the piece and goes on to give credit to Mr. King for attempting to resurrect the composition. This need to award condolence to Mr. King demonstrates the high standards Jaworowski holds for Lowell’s piece and how much King fails to measure up to it. I felt as if he were being condescending when he did this because he implied Mr. King’s production wasn’t good enough to be on the same level of Lowell’s.
Another act of degrading the act, aside from mentioning how neither the cast nor the props were properly chosen, was the length of his critique, which was four paragraphs. I was surprised when I finished the review so quickly, because I’ve never read one so short before. Jaworowski showed that he felt the play didn’t need his full attention and opinion because it was so bad. Instead he wrote a few small paragraphs and called it a night.
While this play in running until October 16th at the Flea Theater, I doubt anybody will go based on this account since it was given little effort, as it views the play was given.
Reading your review of the review makes me not want to see this play! I agree that Jaworowski should’ve given a little respect to the play and put more effort into reviewing it. A poorly written review gives off the feeling that the play was not worth the reviewer’s time, much less our time.
i don’t like when reviewers barely review the work they have seen and talk about other things instead
Yeah i agree that this reviewer did not put in that much effort into the review. It’s very annoying when they don’t do their job.
I definitely agree that the reviewer should put in 110% on the quality of work he or she writes. It is perfectly fine to have a negative feeling towards a particular work of art, but it is unfair to lack reasoning. There may be some people who read negative reviews and still decide to see the piece of work, which they end up enjoying very much. So it is important for the reviewer to clearly detail the event as well as give their honest opinion with enough supporting information.
I find it ironic that Jaworowski writes, “Yet even when the suspense wanes, plenty of substance remains,” while his review, as mentioned, clearly lacks substance.
It really bothers me when reviewers don’t put a lot of effort into their reviews. There whole purpose of writing is to inform the public about a specific piece and provide as much detail as possible. When a person reads an article that lacks clarity or substance he gets te feeling that he just wasted some of his time for nothing.
Hey Devon, I agree with you that this review was poorly done. But, like Camille mentioned above I don’t think that a review nevessarily needs to praise the piece in order to be good. A review can convey a negative opinion, however, not without a detailed justification.
Poor reviews are not even worth reading.
Hey Devon, i forgot to comment last week so I just wanted to say that i agree that this review is lackluster. Yet, I do think that the review addresses all the points that are needed in a decent review. My main problem with his review is just his tone. Sure, his job is to review a play and he thought it was bad, but his view was based on already knowing about the play that was revived. Perhaps some people who do not have these expectations may enjoy the play, but he went in with high standards