A successful review needs a few key elements in order to persuade readers to trust in the reviewer’s judgment. Readers must be engaged through persuasive language and style, as well as be informed about the subject in review with a thorough yet concise summary of what are the best and worst parts to expect. The reviews, Excavations on Catfish Row by Ben Brantley and A Couple’s Big Break That’s Not So Lucky by Neil Genzlinger, are examples of strong and weak reviews.

Ben Brantley provides the readers with an engaging review of the opera “The Gershwins’ Porgy and Bess” through the usage of strong opinions and a great summary. His main argument is that the adaption of the classic American opera “Porgy and Bess” only shines because of the main singer was able to invoke incredible emotions, while the other singers were sub par compared to her. Also, he criticizes how the construction of the singing parts of the opera and the modernization of the opera did not meld into a smooth experience. In addition to the content, Brantley’s descriptions were superb and persuasive. For example, he described the main singer’s talent by saying “Ms. McDonald’s performance is as complete and complex a work of musical portraiture as any I’ve seen in years.” This is also evident in the final paragraph of the review. He adds credibility to his review by both highlighting the impressive and worst parts of the opera.

On the other hand, the article about the play “Temporal Powers” by Neil Genzlinger, should not have been labeled as a review at all. Genzlinger starts with a attention grabbing opener “What’s the No. 1 thing couples fight about? Money.” However, in the short, 8-paragraph review, Genzlinger spends 5 of the paragraphs summarizing the whole play. He does not reveal the entire plot, but he basically gives theatrical ‘sparknote’ on the general story of the play. He does not delve any deeper into the play, such as important aspects to consider and leaves the reader wondering “what should I look forward to?”

I believe that a review is great if it can persuade a person whether or not to go appreciate the arts. Brantley was able to make me want to watch and not watch the opera through his great description of Ms. McDonald’s singing and criticism of the rest of the play. Genzlinger was only able to tell me what to expect and that it would be a long but rewarding play. What would you prefer to read?

A respectable critic understands what the definition and criteria of a great dance piece. He or she should be able to see artistic value in any performance and relate it to the other works of art if possible to give a deeper insight to the piece. A critic needs to support their complaints or praises with proof and write in a way that reflects the quality of the dance.

In Alastair Macaulay’s The Fluid Human Dance That Is Grand Central, He envisions Grand Central Terminal as a stage where the commuters are constantly “dancing.” As they speed past the “central, four-faced clock,” “every five minutes brings an alteration of tone, direction, pace.” Macaulay picks a very commonplace topic, but is able to view it with a fresh perspective. He states that before the tourists start arriving and pulling out their cameras, Grand Central exudes the vibe of a movie.  Macaulay notices the unscripted, quotidian actions that take place and correlates it to the first movement of Jerome Robbins’s ballet “Glass Pieces.

In Gia Kourla’s Hip-Hop, Folk and Karate Through a Strainer on a Hot Afternoon, she demonstrates her rather lackluster style. She critiques the dancers, and describes how she felt about the ambience. While it was descriptive, I didn’t feel that she had a strong voice in her review: “their technique was spotty, their point shoes dirty, and the fantasy of the numbers was watered down, especially in broad daylight.” She utilizes words like “dancegoer,” “juxtaposed,” and “vignettes.” But among other plain words, it comes across as forced.

Macaulay writes in a more exciting and vibrant voice whereas Kourla is straightforward and honest. Kourla does not appeal to me as much because she skips the essence of the dance by throwing down facts. Usually, the reviews that trigger emotions and express feelings through their writing attract me most.

Seth Schiesel’s review of the video game Child of Eden is a very strong review. Mr. Schiesel starts his review by describing in vivid detail the world that surrounds the character in the video game. In addition to the vivid details, this paragraph contains sophisticated vocabulary and the reader can clearly see that Mr. Schiesel put a lot of thought into writing this one paragraph.

Mr. Schiesel then goes on to describe the plot of the game and the controls. Child of Eden operates with Kinect and Mr. Schiesel does a great job of explaining how Kinect improves the gameplay as well as giving a brief history of Kinect.

Mr. Schiesel’s figurative language combined with his good reporting make this review a great one.

Lang Whitaker’s review of NCAA Football 12 is not a very strong review. Although Mr. Whitaker starts off the review with a story, this strategy is not as interesting and effective as Mr. Schiesel’s. Using figurative language would have made Mr. Whitaker’s review much better. Mr. Whitaker does a good job reviewing the game and providing its history, but his review is just not as interesting as the review of Mr. Schiesel.

First example shifts off an art news story to raise a broader issue.

Informants of History

What? A Shocking headline from the NYTs blazed across my browser last night, “Civil Rights Photographer Unmasked as an Informer” (13 September 2010). The photograph

of the Memphis sanitation workers strikers signs “I am a Man” was taken by Ernest Withers. His legacy as the “original civil rights photographer” was also the subject of a recent International Center of Photography exhibit. On Sept 12—oddly, the same day the exhibit closed—a two-year investigative report was released and published by The Commercial Appeal documenting Withers close collaboration with two agents of the F. B. I in the 1960s. Robbie Brown’s coverage in the NYTs highlights how Withers “provided biographical information and scheduling details to two F.B. I. agents in the bureau’s Memphis domestic surveillance program.”

Ernest Withers

Evidence suggesting that Withers was paid is the most damaging to his reputation. Historian David Garrow, quoted in the article, notes that many civil rights workers who gave confidential interviews with agents were automatically classified as “informants.” Withers passed away in 2007 at the age of 85. In light of these revelations, he is unable to defend himself, a point his daughter Rosalind makes in the article. She views the report as inconclusive.  I tend to side with her skepticism, mainly because the report was just released and the most inflammatory charges in it are making news. My thoughts are stirred by a remark by Brown who writes: “But now an unsettling asterisk must be added to the legacy of Ernest C. Withers, one of the most celebrated photographers of the civil rights era: He was a paid F.B. I. informer.”

Must an asterisk be placed by his name? If he was, in fact, a paid informer for two years while in Memphis, does that diminish his commitment to civil rights? Does his body of work suffer as well? His images of Martin L. King and others are what we “see” when we study the history of the civil rights era. They are part of our collective consciousness. What questions do you raise over his alleged actions? Is this an ethical controversy, an artistic one, both? Does an artist’s legacy rest on the impact of their work or can revelations of unsavory personal conduct transform the experience of viewing art? (S.T)

_____________________________

Second example launches from the subject to take a position about it.

Grounds Zero Performing Arts Center

In a recent article, Robin Pogrebin states that there is now ONLY four months to build the performing arts center in Ground Zero (“Ground Zero Arts Center: Time Is Not on Its Side”).

This is a project that is hopefully going to be accomplished, but a cultural affairs officer says that this project has a narrow opportunity. If in four months, the money needed to build (40 million to secure the project and about 50 million more for costs) the underpinnings needed for the center is not available, then the project will be canceled. It is said that the reason for the performing arts center to be at Ground Zero is because it is the “key to urbanism of the whole district.” It also seems that the project will not be started until after 2013 or 2016 until the PATH station is finished.

A debate is going on whether or not the arts center should move to Liberty Street. It will cost more money than at the World Trade Center (around 300 million).

I believe that the performing arts center should be built at Ground Zero because it is double the money to build it at Liberty Street. At the same time, I do not believe it is fair that they give them such little time to have the money ready. We are gaining a lot if we build the center, not only tourists but New Yorkers will enjoy a new art foundation.

So the question is do you think that it is worth building a performing arts center? Do we really need one at Ground Zero? Should they build it at Liberty Street even though costs are higher? Is it fair giving them such little time to gather the money needed? (Student