Review Analysis: “Antigone” — A Classic Lost in the Modern

When you think you have made the mark and you miss it. Here is a quick look at why this fraud’s review is just hot air.

1. Lack of Specific Examples: The reviewer makes broad statements about the play’s shortcomings, such as weak direction and costume design, but fails to provide specific examples to support these claims. Specific instances or scenes that illustrate the supposed lack of believability, the interaction between characters, or problems with the costumes would strengthen the review’s credibility.
2. Focus on Extraneous Details: The reviewer dedicates a significant portion of the review to unrelated information, such as listing various companies and institutions seemingly connected to the people involved in the production. This information is not relevant to the play’s critique and distracts from the main points of the review.
3. Personal Opinions Presented as Facts: While the reviewer is entitled to their opinion, they state certain judgments as definitive facts. For instance, claiming that the lead actress was more interested in her hair than her role or that certain actors “bordered on amateurship” lacks objectivity and should be presented as personal impressions rather than absolute truths.
4. Lack of Balanced Critique: The review focuses predominantly on the negatives and hardly acknowledges the positive aspects of the production. The positive aspects, such as Mariah Burks’ good performance as Antigone or Courtney O’Neill’s well-done scenic design, should have been elaborated on and given equal attention.
5. Unclear and Inconsistent Arguments: The reviewer mentions that the play’s modern approach leads to it getting “lost in itself,” but they do not expand on this statement or provide examples to support the claim. Additionally, they mention the play’s nexus of comparing today’s leaders to those in 442 B.C., but they do not clarify why the play fails to bring this theme forth effectively.
6. Biased Language: The review contains language that suggests a bias against the production, such as stating that the play “never tells us” certain information or that the lead actress “cannot carry her lead role.” Objective language and a more balanced tone would strengthen the review’s credibility

To improve this review, Robert Massimi should focus on providing specific examples and evidence to support his claims. A balanced critique that acknowledges both the strengths and weaknesses of the production would also be more fair and credible. Additionally, the review should stick to critiquing the play itself and avoid unnecessary tangents about unrelated entities.

Theatre