Cultural misinterpretations are fairly common in today’s time, especially when one doesn’t speak the language of a foreign place with certain fluency. “Chinglish,” a new play produced by David Henry Hwang at the Longacre Theater, sheds light on the translations of mistranslations of one American businessman desiring to be successful in China. In his review, Ben Brantley does an excellent job providing a backstory and particular details that would attract a multitude of people to see the play. He starts off setting the stage and the characters and describing the difference between two societies: American and Chinese. Brantley goes on to mention how language produces not only obstacles but also comic relief and misunderstandings in love. “Take notice of safe: the slippery are very crafty” is one great example of such amusing mistranslations between two cultures.

Although much positive light and feedback is presented within the review, Ben Brantley makes sure to critic minor nuances he found. Unlike other pieces of work Hwang created, such as “M. Butterfly”, “Chinglish” fails to grasp a deeper sense of emotion. The play seems to take a lighthearted approach to language and cultural differences, embedded with an overall sense of comedy instead of heart-wrenching challenges and successes. As a whole, “Chinglish” is a unique production that portrays how people misinterpret and fail to understand the simplicities of a foreign language and culture. With its comical story line and dialogue mostly in Mandarin Chinese, “Chinglish” is a warming and worthwhile piece of art for all to see.

Anita Gates reviewed the “Sistas- The Musical” for the NY Times. The musical is about a family of black women and their white sister in law reuniting for the funeral of their 92 year old mother. During the musical, the women discuss issues that are very important to black women and perform songs about these issues.

Anita Gates says that this musical is good. She says the script and acting are satisfactory but the musical numbers are very well done. She says that although this show is not the best one on Broadway, it is still good and that it is worth seeing more than some other Broadway shows.

Anita Gates’ review seems credible. She seems to have experience reviewing musicals. In the opening paragraph, she mentions two other Broadway shows that, like this show, are targeted toward a specific group. Her reference to these shows lets the reader know that she knows what to expect and that her experience allow her to better criticize the musical. Her review is also well written and succinct, which is good for the reader because it makes her opinion clear.

In his review “Die Young, Stay Pretty, and Watch Your Clock“, Manohla Dargis reviews the new movie “In Time”. This new movie stars Justin Timberlake(Will Salas) and Amanda Seyfried (Slyvia Weis) in a future where time is money, literally. People stop aging at 25 and then are given one year to live. Dragis mentions that this future has severe gaps in classes. Dragis states this extreme gap is obvious as the movie mentions that the wealthy “moves as slow as molasses” because they have so much time. He also states that there is some allusion to fascism and the holocaust. Dragis writes, ” invokes the Holocaust, specifically in the shots of the dead and poor who lie where they fall.”This premise is wonderful and has so many different ways that could make this movie oscar wothy. But, sadly Dragis writes that this movie was a waste of time/money.
I agree with Dragis and I thought that this premise about a future where time is money seemed extremely interesting. The fact that these people had the ability to live forever while some people had to die at asuch a young age. Also, with the fact that this movie reflected the current situation of the World. The poor suffer and struggle to make it through everyday, while the rich are in paradise. These mentions of the holocaust were also one of the several directions this movie could have taken but sadly it went with more of a “couple-on-the-run flick”. I wanted to watch this movie but sadly after reading this review and other reviews this movie is not worth my time.

In his review A Card Game Played With High Stakes, Eric Grode discusses the play”A Felony in Blue, or Death by Poker,” which is being performed at the Nuyorican Poets Cafe in the East Village. From the very beginning of his review the reader can tell that Grode was un happy with the performance. He has a very negative tone and dedicates the first 2 paragraphs to describing the venue and the atmosphere. He tells the reader that the usher is the playwright- director- actor Rome Neal, who is currently playing Tlonious Monk in a one-man show a few blocks away at the Moldy Fig. He also mentions that you can find the owner of the cafe and lois Elaine Griffith, a poet, sitting at the bar. From the fact that he first mentions the play in the third paragraph I knew that he did not enjoy it.

When he finally comes to talk about the play the first thing he mentions is that it has a title “that takes about as long to say as the play does to perform.” The reader can clearly see that he was dissatisfied by the play from the adjectives he uses to describe it. Grode then goes on to give us a brief summary of the play which is about 5 mob bosses who come together in a game of poker to separate their territories. He mentions some events in the play such as a threatening of someone and his eventual murder. He ends off by saying that the play took 45 minutes and that you can go by books and learn about the clubs history at the bar afterwards. These words showed me that he couldn’t care less about the play and that the atmosphere was more intriguing than the performance it self.

If I had any thought in my mind of seeing this play, Grode just erased that thought. He made it clear that this play was a waste of his time and that it didn’t interest him whatsoever. One thing that bothers me about his review is that he fails to provide reasons as to why the play didn’t interest him. He just mentioned that it was very short and that it did not interest him. I believe that he could’ve captivated his audience in a better manner by listing certain things about the play that threw him off

Every critic is tasked with the challenge of balancing critical analysis and personality in their review. A review might seem weak if the critic is overly analytical and boring or if they are overly charismatic but lack purpose. An example of the latter is Jon Caramanica’s review, Giving ‘Sweet Home Alabama’ a Polish Accent. The review is for the polka music troupe “Jimmy Sturr and His Orchestra” and their performance at the Brooklyn Bowl. Caramanica spends more than half of the article giving an unnecessarily lengthy history of the lead singer, Jimmy Sturr. He talks about the awards he’s won, previous works that he’s done with other artists, and a heap of other details that say nothing about the performance. Thankfully, Caramanica finds his purpose towards the end of the article when he mentions the music that was played. He says that the polka was very nicely performed but the band shifts to polka versions of “Sweet Home Alabama” and “The Devil Went Down To Georgia” which turned out fine but was not received with as much appreciation as the other polka songs by the mainly Polish audience. The sad part of the review is that Caramancia makes an excellent point but only discusses it in one out of the ten paragraphs he writes. He then returns to analyzing Mr. Sturr whom he has visible admiration for but nothing more than noting the visible moments of exhaustion in his eyes. All in all, I can take away from this review that Caramanica enjoyed the performance but I am left completely in the dark regarding why. After reading this review I can only take away few general details such as: it was a polka performace, the audience was mainly Polish, the band performed unlikely renditions of Southern American classics. I would suggest that next time Caramanica spend much more time on reviewing the performance instead of giving fun facts and talking about insignificant musings.

In the article “Design for the Poor. (And Yes, This Is Serious.)” Michael Kimmelman writes about an exhibition at the United Nations that showcases designs that could help people living in poverty around the world. The review explains that, while the idea of the exhibition may “sound like homework,” the way its done actually makes it exciting. In the review, Kimmelman also points out that architects need to listen more to their clients to create buildings that will better serve communities in poor parts of the world, which is an important idea that the exhibition is attemping to convey.

I think that this subject is very important and I think it is great that this exhibition was created. There are many people in the world who are living in horrible conditions and are in need of help. The exhibitions not only informs people of ways that people in poor parts of the world can be helped, but it also gets people excited about the idea and may inspire them to come up with their own designs and creations that can help these people.

The article focuses on a few key points, which can be both good and bad. I thought it was good that it was very focused and conveyed Kimmelman’s thoughts in a clear and concise way. However, at the same time it did make me want to know more about the exhibition. Overall, I think this was well-written and did a good job of getting its point accross.

Japan, ever since after World War II, has undergone major change in their culture and lifestyle as its “samurai” spirit merges with the western culture, creating something that is unique of modern Japan. Many books and movies have been trying to encompass an aspect of Japan’s cultural shift, from the epic battles in Tom Cruise’s “The Last Samurai” which depicts the fall of the ancient imperial warriors of Japan and the dominance of western military style, to serenades in Suzuka Ohgo “The Memoir of a Geisha” that takes a nostalgic steps back into what Japanese traditional form entertainment used to be like before and how it changed after the War, and to, the main focus of this blog post, the writings of Haruki Murakami.

The article The Fierce Imagination of Haruki Murakami narrates the strange journey that the writer took while interviewing the fame author of Norwegian Woods. What catches my attention is how the journalist intended to find himself in the middle of a new-york-city-like metropolitan Tokyo like in the many publications that he had read and ended up finding a place that is “intensely, inflexibly, unapologetically Japanese.” This element supports my claim above in a strange manner, arguing that the culture shift between traditional and modern culture is interchangeable through different lenses and mediums, through the movies and real life. What’s even more real about the nature of modern japanese culture is represented in the biography and works of Murakami. He’s a native in the Kobe region who has been immersing himself in American culture since he was a kid; he grew up defying his parents’ wish to become a corporate person and opened a Jazz bar, which he randomly closed up to pursue his writing in a secluded location and in a monkishly regimented lifestyle. In his writing there are countless references of Western culture: “Lassie,” “The Mickey Mouse Club,” “California Girls,” Beethoven’s Third Piano Concerto, Bob Dylan, Marvin Gaye, Elvis Presley, the cartoon bird Woodstock and absolutely no reference about Japanese culture. He even speaks english perfectly with a extemporizing accents, mix-and-matches japanese and american accents Murakami-style.

His readings are one of the best readings you will ever have read in your life, covering a wide range of genres and intensifying one of the most creative and peculiar imaginations you can encounter. His next book, “1Q84,” will be published tomorrow and expected to be THE literary event of fall 2011 like its predecessors “Norwegian Woods” and “The Wind-up Bird Chronicle.” I pre-ordered it 2 days ago and cannot wait for its delivery on the 27th.

And here’s the question I have for you guys: have you ever experienced cultural swap in your life? how did it affect you?

Roland Emmerich, director of Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, and 2012, is coming out with a new movie called Anonymous. This movie brings up the controversy around Shakespeare’s writing. Was he the one who actually wrote all those plays and sonnets? Or did he steal them from someone else like Emmerich’s movie says? This movie pulls away Shakespeare’s reputation and pushes doubt into people’s mind, especially since no one knows what happened in that period and can only base their ideas on recorded text.

I came across this movie from NYTimes.com’s ad. At first I paid no attention to it, thinking it was just another movie trailer, but then I saw that it was about Shakespeare. Learning about Shakespeare throughout my high school years and reading his plays, I was curious to see what kind of movie could one make about Shakespeare! (Not that I hated him or anything.) After watching the trailer though, I was amazed and excited for it to premiere Friday, October 28, 2011. What made me really want to watch this movie was that it made me think about what had happened during Shakespeare’s time and whether or not he wrote all those plays and sonnets.

For those of you who have not seen the trailer yet here you go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHA-7CMCppM&feature=fvsr