Mr. David Frum gets off to a strong start in his review of “That Used to Be Us,” by Thomas L. Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum, a book about the current state of the American nation and economy. He begins the piece, Does America Have a Future?  by providing the backdrop in which the book is set, the premise of the book and a bit of history about the authors thus managing to garner a small amount of interest in the reader. However, as one reads the two-page article, nothing much is said even though there are a lot of words.  Mr. Frum lists numerous examples from the book throughout his piece, seemingly trying to make different points about how the authors depict the current state of America and yet the reader comes away at the end of the piece knowing hardly anything more about the book than what he did at the beginning. This, in my opinion is the biggest shortfall of the review as it fails to provide the reader with enough information about different aspects of the book for the reader to form an opinion. Throughout the article he makes only a single point about the contradictory nature of the book which results from Mr. Friedman and Mr. Mendelbaum being “frustrated optimists” failing until the end to convey a final and decisive opinion. At the very end of the piece, Mr. Frum introduces an entirely new point about the authors being in support of the American elite, a point that seems to be based on personal opinion rather than any direct examples from the book. In the confusion, both Mr. Frum’s and the authors’ viewpoints are lost and the reader is left unsatisfied.

            On the other hand, Janet Maslin’s review of Candice Millard’s “Destiny of the Republic,” a book on former president James A. Garfield’s life and legacy and his place in American history, is engaging, to-the-point, well-written and comprehensive. In other words, Never Seeking the Presidency, Yet Swept Into Office Nonetheless is an excellent review that tells the reader all he/she needs to know to be able to decide whether or not to pick up Ms. Millard’s book. There is a clear viewpoint that is conveyed throughout the piece along with a rousing recommendation of the book that seems sincere and unbiased. A critic’s viewpoint can either be positive or negative, what matters is that the reader get a clear understanding of the critic’s opinion of the work along with additional information that might help the reader form his own opinion, either in agreement or contradiction to the critic’s opinion.  Ms. Maslin’s review does all of this as she uses many intriguing details from the book to strongly recommend “Destiny of the Republic” to her readers. 

In his review, New York Exhales With Mahler’s ‘Resurrection,’ Symphonic Salve, Anthony Tommasini describes the New York Philharmonic’s 9/11 memorial concert. Before he begins to talk about the music he gives the reader a back-story to the performance. This gives the reader a less formal relationship with the author and allows for a friendlier and more relaxed read. There is a part where Tommasini uses musical jargon such as “sonatta-allegro movement” and “quiet tremolos” and while this serves as proof of his knowledge of music and easily understood by a true connoisseur, it was hard to follow. Thankfully most of the article is not in “music-speak” and conveys his passion and understanding of the concert to everyone reading the article and not just to the musically competent. Tommasini’s use of words like frenzy, lustrous, ferociously, and cataclysmic give the reader an understanding of the depth and gravity of the emotions he felt listening to the concert. His review is positive but he is not afraid to point out a few shortcomings in the end. Overall, Tommasini seems like someone who lives and breathes music so his opinions on it are not only interesting but also informative and trustworthy.

The author of Capturing a Yearning Fit for a Prince, Vivien Schweitzer, takes a different approach in reviewing “Music for a Rash Prince — Favorite Composers From the Court of Charles the Bold in Medieval Burgundy” at Bargemusic. Her article is significantly shorter than Tommasini’s and severely lacking in flair or personality. Schweitzer talks about four pieces from the concert each with a one-sentence description of the music and a related factoid about the composers. All in all, it is difficult to even broach the subject of whether or not Schweitzer instills a sense of trust because she doesn’t say much at all. Her review was slightly informative but very dry and boring.

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?

Neil Genzlinger and Ben Brantley have different ways of reviewing plays. In Neil Genzlinger’s review of Temporal Powers, he starts off with a question that introduces the problem within the play. By introducing this problem, he creates an opening to provide an example of where this problem can be seen, giving him an opportunity to introduce the play Temporal Powers and the company that created it. Genzlinger then takes a step into the past and brings up another play with the same writer, director, and company. This gives readers a sense of credibility as a play reviewer because it shows that this is not the first play he has seen, so he knows what he is talking about. Genzlinger then gives a summary of the play, including bits of dialogue directly from the play and the characters (along with the actors and actresses that play them) in Temporal Powers. To conclude his review, Genzlinger tells the audience that the true nature of the main cast is shown, that they overcome their obstacle, and that the play was “a rewarding one.”

Ben Brantley reviews the play Cymbeline, he starts out by vaguely describing the play. He then continues on with themes of used repeatedly by the writer (Shakespeare), but tells readers what the Cymbeline is most known for. Then he begins to describe the stage, the acting, the cast, and gives information about the people working with the play. In his review, Brantley discreetly provides his opinion of the play, telling readers that the play is one that has not been modernized and that it is exactly as it should be in the way it was written by Shakespeare. Doing so, he subtly hints to readers that he approves of the play.

Both writers give reviews that I believe are credible, but in some way I find them both to be not creditable at the same time. Genzlinger’s review is mostly a summary of the play which makes me doubt his review because he could have just read a summary of the play and not have seen it. However, I liked how he immediately caught my attention with starting his review with a question. Brantley’s review contains descriptions of the play and much comparison with other plays by the writer, but does not tell readers what the play is about. By using too much comparison of other plays by the writer, I began to doubt his review because as a reader I did not understand how the plays were similar besides the writer reusing themes in his plays.

Both writers had aspects I enjoyed about their review; however, I thought Genzlinger’s review was stronger than Brantley’s. By providing a summary of the play, my curiosity of what happens in the end of the it made me want to watch it. With no description of the play, I had no interest to watch the play, which is why I find Brantley’s review weak. I believe that a review should peak a reader’s interest so that they would be interested in watching the play.

A Play That Will Not Come to Dust While It’s a Troupe’s Lucky Charm  is a review by Ben Brantley of the play “Cymbelin.” Ben begins his review by giving a brief overview of the play by using phrases like, “bringing elaborate battle scenes to life,” and “organically blending music into the action and fluidly evoking shifts of time and scene.” The diction that Brantley uses makes the reader get a good feel of the play. His explanation makes me want to get off my computer, take the train to Manhattan, and go watch “Cymbelin!” He continues his review by talking about aspects of the play like the various aspects in a Shakespeare play, the set of the play, and the cast. In the end of his review, he lists things about that play by using phrases like, “there isn’t,” “there weren’t,” or “there’s none of.” Although the things he lists are positive about the play, the phrases that he uses gives the review a negative feel about the play.

 A Couple’s Big Break That’s Not So Lucky is a review by Neil Genzlinger of the play “Temporal Powers” and while this play sounds more appealing than “Cybeline,” the review kills it. Unlike Brantley, Genzlinger just gives a plot overview of the entire play without any opinion of the play and the acting. The summary of the play makes his review a very dull one and inferior to the review of Brantley.

Every person has his own likes and dislikes.  These preferences give each critic his own personal review and every reader his personal judgment of a review.  For example, my partialities caused me to favor Subversive Tongue and a Sharp Focus on Identity Politics by Eric Grode over No Search for Profits, but Troupe Finds Hits by Patrick Healy. 

            In Eric Grode’s review he opens with “IF Caryl Churchill, Franz Kafka and Ali G were to goof around one night and play their music too loud until the Department of Homeland Security came knocking on their door, they might emerge (eventually) the next morning holding something like the script to “Invasion!”  This subjective and opinionated statement inspires, to me, an interest to further read the article.  Those statements show that Eric Grode had some sort of connection to the play.  When someone watches theater show, they expect to develop some sort of connection so they won’t be sitting for hours counting the minutes to pass by.

            Contrasting Eric Grode’s, Patrick Healy displayed no connection to the play causing his review to be less appealing.  He opens with“WHEN artists at the National Theater here began creating their World War I drama “War Horse” five years ago, they placed cardboard boxes over the heads of actors to imagine stand-ins for the show’s horse puppets, which were still being designed.” To me he turned something relatively funny into a dull fact.  He barely touches upon the ideas surrounding the play and talks, instead, about the monetary issues of the National Theater.  This type of review contains no emotions or relation to the play.

            To me theater is all about the emotion.  When actors act they have to display emotion, which in turn creates new emotions in the audience.  Eric Gorde showed emotion with his opinionated observations, but the same cannot be said for Partick Healy and his factual statements.  For that reason I felt Eric Gorde’s review was the better of the two.

The review of the “Ingres at the Morgan,” by Rosenberg beautifully integrated the history of his life and the paintings in the exhibition. Also, She described why the painter, Ingres drew them and what personal strife or happiness was occurring during that time. Right from the first sentence it felt as if the artist was telling the story of his life. The reviewer also takes lines from a letter that was sent to his fiancé, which brings more life to the character of the artist. “I roll over in my bed, I cry, I think of you constantly. … I will find it impossible to stay even perhaps a year.” This quote form the article displays the artist’s personal problems during his trip to France. The line manifests his emotional sadness at not only being away form his fiancé but also from the fact that he has been receiving negative reviews for the Parisian critics.

The review of The Art of Dissent in 17th-Century China: Masterpieces of Ming Loyalist Art from the Chih Lo Lou Collection by Cotter was a little more detailed but went to deep that Cotter began talking about the history more than the artworks. The exhibition covered several artists during this time period so it was harder to sympathize with their problems because they were so many different stories. The reviewer points out that the artist Huang DaoZhou drew the painting “Pines and Rock” which had the inscription “Even if I turned into rock, I wouldn’t become obstinate” Yet the arist clearly goes against what he wrote and remained obstinate, clearly not following his own advice. DaoZhou is faced with a choice to whether remain loyal to the old dynasty or change to the new one. He choses to remain loyal to the old dynasty knowing that it will result in his death. I thought the second one was a little drawn out and felt a bit trite. The article was more of a history lesson than an art review. The review of Ingres also used history but it was a little more interesting because it was written more like a novel than a history textbook.

Critics have only one purpose in life; that is to write reviews about certain topics. However, among all these critics, there are ones that especially captivate the reader and some other ones that are really dull and slow. The way a reviewer reviews something is very important as it can truly show how good something is.

By starting off with a lot of descriptive adjectives, a reader can already tell that the review will be a good one. A Play That Will Not Come to Dust While It’s a Troupe’s Lucky Charm by Ben Brantley displays how a good review can really compel the reader to watch something. He starts by complementing how the play showed the headless corpse scene. Ben continues to say how the plot of “Cymbeline” was told in a way that was easily understood. He praises how all the actors are true and display no type of facade. He also comments on how the actors don’t “goof around” like some of the other plays he has seen. Ben concludes his review by saying that even the props on stage contribute to a great play’s success.

One thing about a bad review is the summarizing a play. A Couple’s Big Break That’s Not So Lucky by Neil Genzlinger has a lot about the plot. Throughout the entire review, he talks about “Temporal Powers'” plot instead of reviewing the quality of the play. He also includes a few lines from the play itself. However, the quality of the play is only said in one sentence without an elaborating.

As you can see, a good review is leagues from a terrible one. The first one was very descriptive and full of criticism of the play. However, the second one only summarized the plot which doesn’t tell readers how good the play actually is.

The reviewer, Robert F Worth, opens up engaging the audience and sparking their curiosity by asking simple, yet deep questions regarding the rebellion in the Arab nation and the rise of a new generation in the novel, The Anatomy of a Disappearance, written by Hisham Matar. In his review, “A Libyan Author Writes of Exile and a Vanished Father”, Worth carefully selects his words and nicely incorporates some of the author’s personal history to make the book seem more powerful, appealing, and relatable to the readers. Through the use of descriptive language, Worth has the ability to paint visual images- depicting one boy’s struggle to cope with his kidnapped father and living in the Arab world. By having exposure to other Arab writers whom have written about the “cruelties of dictatorship”, Worth establishes a sense of credibility and prior knowledge- strengthening his review in a positive light. His sense of passion and deep interest in the novel attracts the reader’s attention. He also includes enriched quotes from Matar’s piece of literature and continues to enthusiastically provide a detailed review. Not overly praising the heartfelt novel, Worth makes mention of the qualities missing from the novel but leaves the reviewer to decide whether or not the obstacles are overcome and problems resolved.

Meanwhile, David Frum begins his review, “Does America Have a Future?”, of the novel That Used to Be Us- How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back, written by Thomas L. Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum, in a completely different approach. Through the use of short, distracting sentences, Frum fails to grasp the readers’ vital attention within the first paragraph of his review. In addition to lacking eloquent diction, a lot of attention is placed on personal opinion as David Frum tries to draw the reader into reading the novel. The main points are lost in political jargon mixed with judging notions. As the reader continues to browse through the review, the fluidity, passion, and interest is lost. David Frum possibly tried to delve into a different method when writing his review, but ended up falling short- causing the reader to move on to another review.

A piece of artwork can sometimes be difficult to interpret and to understand what the artist was truly trying to get through to the viewer. A review helps gives a new insight to the artwork, allowing the viewer to appreciate the art in a different light.

When you view the pieces of artwork in “The Art of Dissent in 17th-Century China: Masterpieces of Ming Loyalist Art from the Chih Lo Lou Collection”, you feel a sense of serenity about them. The paintings are so gentle looking; you would not expect any turmoil to be happening behind the scenes. In Holland Cotter’s review of The Art of Dissent in 17th-Century China: Masterpieces of Ming Loyalist Art from the Chih Lo Lou Collection, he gives us historical information about the time period of when the painting was created. These serene paintings and poems do anything but echo the events of the 17th century in China. The Manchus were invading and the Chinese were forced to choose between the old regime or the new regime. Many artists stayed loyal to the old regime, committing suicide and dying with the old regime, or starving themselves as a mean of peaceful protest. Suddenly, the fine lines of the Chinese artwork don’t seem serene anymore.

When the paintings are obvious to what the artist was trying to get through, the reviews help to confirm what you were thinking. In Karen Rosenberg’s review of Ingres at the Morgan, she explains each of the expressions on the person being painted’s face. The portrait of Guillaume Guillon-Lethière shows that he is a confident man and very well off by the clothes he wears in the portrait. Rosenberg’s historical information about Guillon-Lethière confirms our interpretation of this artwork.