Eric Grode review of “Richard II,” “A King’s Verse Fails to Prevent His Decline,” is a wonderful example of what not to do when critiqueing something. Grode fails to go into any detail when describing the show or the performance of the actors. He uses terms like “silver-tongued” and “lead-footed” but does not support these claims with the instances where he felt they were appropriate. He compliments the lead actor, Sean McNall, on his voice and body type being well-suited for his role as King Richard II. He summarizes the show in a loosely woven metaphor that attempts to compare the show to someone finding a genie in a lamp and making his first two wishes before realizing there is no third. After thinking about it, I still haven’t the slightest clue what this means and it would be in his best interest to at least clarify this metaphor with a more realistic description. He also notes that another actor, Chris Mixon, “strikes some enjoyably loathsome notes”and makes strong impressions as a man of conscience.” This is all he says about Mixon and it is laughable that anyone would consider this as a “review.” The entire review appears written in haste and fails to expound upon the Grode’s visible dislike of the show. The bottom line is that a review is not just a critic saying something was good or bad, detailed reasons must be given.

In “Sparkling, Soothing, and Suffering Wordlessly,” critic A.O. Scott reviews the movie “The Artist” and pays it wonderful compliments. He states that “he evokes the glamour and strangeness of silent movies without entirely capturing the full range of their power” when referring to film writer Michel Hazanavicius. The film itself is about a movie actor named George Valentin who is adored by the public during the silent era but his refusal to change with the times sends him into a sad obscurity. While Scott mentions that this movie will be “a feast for film geeks” he also makes a case for it’s all-around appeal. Scott instills a trusting relationship with his readers because even though it is quite obvious that he loved the film, he doesn’t not shy away from pointing out its flaws: occasionally overselling it’s charm and sometimes reveling in gimmickry. Although it aims to be a silent movie, The Artist is not completely silent as it incorporates a wonderful array of music including a score by Bernard Herrmann. Scott finishes his review by saying that that the film is “something less than great” but is an “irresistible reminder of what makes movies great.” This is a confusing ending to his review and it seems as though Scott wants to give his review an ending that conveys his enjoyment but also notes that there’s room for improvement however it comes off as contradictory and confusing. Scott’s review goes into detail and analyses the movie nicely and even makes me interested in seeing “The Artist.”

I appreciate a good comedy. I also appreciate a great message. From Charles Isherwood’s review of “Hand to God,” I think i would appreciate watching this exciting new and odd play.

Isherwood describes the play as a frisky new comedy that takes deceptively innocuous form. This statement alone made me extremely interested in the comedy. “Hand to God” is basically a play about sins and urges of regular people, but the twist is Satan appears in the play – in the form of a sock puppet.

Yet, what really stood out to me about the play was the puppets. In a previous Fresh Paint post, I felt that contemporary theater and new ideas/technologies could be overused and water down performances, but I was wrong. I watched the play/musical “The Love Letter That You’ve Been Meaning to Write New York,” that I was skeptical about, and I loved it. Now, I am ecstatic about the use of puppets in plays, or anything else that would enhance the experience of the play. Technology is the future of modern theater – ranging from puppets to projected subtitles (like in Chinglish), and I fully support it now. Comedy and new techniques are what people should look forward to, which is why Isherwood’s review of “Hand of God” is so appealing.

On another note, as I continue reading these reviews and articles, I find it unnecessary to critique the critics after doing it so many times. I think that the immersion into the arts culture evolved me by creating preferences to certain writers. Whether you’re a Ben Brantley or a Charles Isherwood, I think these Fresh Paint posts changed a lot of us.

Edward Villella has been synonmus with the Miami City Ballet since he founded the company in 1986. Until very recently he served as the Artistic Director and CEO. In Daniel J. Wakin’s article Bitter Departure for Miami’s Ballet Patriarch he describes how this dancing legend is being forced out of the job he loves. As Wakin explains, Villella will be stepping down after next season and although the board has said it is a mutual agreement between them and Villella it seems like he is really being forced out. As waken says “Mr. Villella was forced out, according to recent interviews with his supporters on the board, friends and others familiar with the company.”                                                                                                                                                                                                                            It seems that money has finally gotten to the mind of the board members of Miami CIty Ballet. Art seemed to be the last place were money was not the overlying factor where the company was not run soley based on business decsions. In Arts sometimes something that was not the best business model could still survive because it at leas broke even and all people enjoyed the true beauty of it. Villella it seems is being let go because he had been hurting the business side of the Miami City Ballet. Villella it seemed was as interested in the business side as the board would have liked him to be. The board recently hired  Nicholas T. Goldsborough as the new CEO and he has stated in interviews that he hopes to raise the endowment from around 2 million to up to 30 or 40 million. This new CEO has other ambitious ideas that of course have making money in mind.

It really was a shame to see a icon of any trade pushed out before he is ready, this becomes even worse when he is pushed out because of money. I always looked to the arts as the final place were money was not an overlying factor but I guess the Arts could only fight off having to make money for so long. 

In the production of “Chinglish” that our class recently attended, one of the elements that stood out to me was the use of supertitles. Hence, I was intrigued by Ben Brantley’s article, The Writing’s on the Wall, where he discusses supertitles and their effect on plays, good and bad.

Mr. Brantley begins by saying that supertitles would come in handy when, occasionally, a viewer misses a crucial line in a play. He acknowledges that in “Chinglish,” supertitles were essential and used effectively. Additionally, Mr. Brantley mentions that supertitles sometimes allow audiences to appreciate plays that are written in foreign languages. However, he also goes on to talk about other productions he has seen such as the National Theater of Greece’s “Antigone” and the Berliner Ensemble’s “The ThreePenny Opera” where supertitles only served to confound and distract the viewer.

Personally, having seen supertitles only in “Chinglish,” I thought that they enhanced the experience on this occasion. I agree with Mr. Brantley when he writes, “Supertitles are the de facto stars and the leading comedians of “Chinglish””. Being privy to the translations through the supertitles ensured that I always knew more about what was going on than the characters did. So, I could empathize better with Mr. Cavanaugh. Besides, without the supertitles, the play wouldn’t have been half as funny – after all, who knew that one Chinese phrase, with different pronunciations, could mean anything from “I love You” to “Dead Sea Weed?”

In the realm of contemporary dance, longevity and creativity are essential in order to survive in the industry. John Jasperse, a talented choreographer, knows exactly what it takes to be successful and to attract a large audience. Aside from talent, any performance is based off of people’s level of interest and appreciation of the work.

“Canyon” is Jasperse’s fourth unique production and has received many positive reviews. It took a lot of work and perseverance from both John and his dancers. He mixes the art of the body and the brain to create a “theatrical landscape,” keeping the audience on their toes. This piece of art is purposefully awkward at times and disoriented. It does not follow traditional forms of dance and portrays “works within a work” and disguises of different kinds. Props such as a white box create a sense of obscurity and disorientation as the audience tries to piece together the meaning behind it all.

John Jasperse’s latest dance piece is sure to be one worth remembering. Combined with raw talent and an array of mind versus body movements, he creatively captures the true essence of dance and leaves the audience yearning for more.

In Alcohol Applied Liberally to a Bitterly Busted Life Andy Webster reviews the one- man performance “___ Done Broke,” which is being performed at the Bushwick Starr. He begins by giving the reader a little overview of the play, which is about an alcoholic steelworker named Donny, who “is adrift from his three children.” His life has lost all of its meaning and he turns to alcohol to fill in the gaps.

The reviewer then describes the actor and writer of the one man piece, D.J. Mendel and discusses some his former performances. He devotes about half of his article to discuss this actor without giving any references to the play or the evaluation of his performance in this specific play. This stuck out to me, because instead of discussing the play, the reviewer chose to mainly focus on the actor and his past performances. It sounded as if the reviewer was not so interested in the performance because he hardly mentioned anything about the performance that was intriguing to him.

On one hand I would really enjoy seeing this play because I am interested in seeing how one man would be able to put on a whole play by himself. D.J. Mendel is involved in every aspect of the play, from writing the script to performing it. However, on the other hand, this review gave me the sense that the play is not worth seeing because there is not really anything that sticks out about it.

In White’s review of new movie Immortals he describes director Tarsem SIngh how although this movie is very similar to a previous movie with similar plots “300”. Both movies are action packed historically based movies Immortals is about the greek hero Theseus while 300 is based on the spartans battle at Thermopylae. But White states that Singh has taken a new contemporary style to pay homage to the great story of previous eras. Sigh said that “Everyone is making comic strips, basically.” Sigh says this about the current way movies are made. He believes that these movies are based on comic strips but he wanted to make movies baseed on Renaissance paintings.

In Singh’s new movie a God comes down and fight humans.The war God Ares comes down and rescues Theseus. Obviously the humans were slaughtered and were left as mere patches of blood across the viewers face, seeing as this movie was in 3-D. This is a little strange, I haven’t really heard of movies where a God would actually come down and fight a human. I think that this insertion of this God-human battle is a little strange and doesn’t fit in with greek mythology because it went against the rule to interfere directly with mortal fights. And i personally feel that once the Ares came down the entire movie would be anti-climactic because you would know he would win and triumph. Even though the good-guy always wins, you still wonder aren’t a 100% sure if they will. But, once a God comes down and makes sure the hero doesn’t die then obviously he’s not going to die.

The game Uncharted 3 has finally come out after much anticipation from fans. The game is about a modern day treasure hunter traveling the world to find treasure. The game nvolves shooting, running, and puzzle solving. Uncharted 3 is available for Playstation 3.

Seth Schiesel wrote a review of this game for the New York Times. Mr. Schiesel’s review is a very good one. He lets you know his opinion at the start of his review, so if you do not have time to read the whole thing, you do not have to. Mr. Schiesel calls the game the “finest, most exciting action-adventure movie in years.” to illustrate how effective the storytelling in the game is. Mr. Schiesel tells the readers some of the game’s best moments without spoiling them and uses good figurative language in the process. Mr. Schiesel notes how the game has a difficulty level that is not too hard but not too easy. His one complain is that the game does not leave the gamer much options when playing the game. The gamer just follows the story rather than create it.

Mr. Schiesel’s comments indicate that he is very experienced in the videogame field.HIs insight on the difficulty level and the storytelling show that he has had prior experience with many different games. Mr. Schiesel’s review is a very good and trustworthy review.