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.

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.