NYT Defense: Why Honesty is Well Appreciated

Defense written on Anthony Tommasini’s “Moon as Setting for Earthly Foibles"

(Thursday, January 22, 2010)

No wonder Anthony Tommasini remains the chief music critic of the New York Times today. He grabs attention and posses authority right from the very first few sentences in his review. His introduction is not only unique and bold; it is also informative offering context and perspective of director Goren’s initial idea for the show. Tommasini jumps immediately into his personal opinion in the second paragraph with unimpressed descriptions of the performance: “bizarre sci-fi costumes” and “lame overacting”. This is also where his “but” statement really begins to shine.

His tone is very disinterested as well as passive aggressive and sarcastic. Tommasini uses words such as “eager-to-please” “makeshift platform” and “straining for laughs”. This tone is even clearer when he wittingly dedicates the last paragraph to the planetarium, giving it credit for putting up with the performance. It is obvious in all his negativity that Tommasini felt bad for the audience as well as the actors.

The structure of this article makes Tommasini’s argument even stronger as it offers his personal opinion prior to the summary of the performance. This almost naturally causes readers to look down on the storyline because he tears down so much of its legitimacy in the beginning. This is a particularly clever trick.

Tommasini writes this well-rounded review by including a great amount of evidence on many aspects of the show. He touches on the acting, the singing, the band, the script, the special effects, the costumes, and even the musical score all in a matter of a few concise words. Tommasini is an extremely credible source for doing so, as he has a very strong background in music and theater, graduating from both Yale and Boston University. He has been working for the New York Times since 1997.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/business/media/09askthetimes.html?pagewanted=all