Inspired by an important and lively discussion sparked by one of Gibbs Cadiz's Facebook status updates, I'm posting an article I wrote for Rogue Magazine, which published a very slightly edited version of it last February. As an inactive reviewer who has experienced having one of his own works reviewed, I thought I was in a decent position to share my thoughts on the subject: reviewers.
Magazine and newspaper readers normally find them in the entertainment and lifestyle pages, praising a newly released movie or panning a recently closed stage production. Authors, artists, and actors often check them out, curious to know what they think about their latest work. What they say can stroke one’s ego at a given moment or leave another feeling as if stabbed in the gut the next. Some call them critics; others snarkily call them criticizers.
Appreciated or not, art/book/film/music/theater reviewers do not only draw attention to the ever-evolving works of art (or lack of it) being presented to the public, but also offer a closer and more informed view of these works. This view magnifies the qualities these works have, both positive and negative, for better or worse. Not too many people would bother to do that. Some of those who do honestly shouldn’t have bothered at all.
One of them is the reviewer who writes as though he or she is writing a bad book report. You’ll spot him or her devoting most of his or her review to retelling the story of the film or play he or she had watched. Worse, he or she does so in a way that discourages the reader from watching what could be a good movie or stage production. Why watch when the review practically narrates the whole plot? Highlighting the work’s merits becomes nothing more than an afterthought. The result? The review inadvertently highlights its own flaws instead.
Then there’s the reviewer who you may think is a PR hack in disguise. Ever read a review so glowing in its praise that it hurts the eyes? A review so generous with superlatives, you’d think Santa Claus wrote it? Worse, a review touting a singer to be better than, say, Lea Salonga; or a filmmaker, for example, to be the next Lino Brocka? Reviewers can be as subjective as they like, but the real ones won’t write press releases and pass these off as reviews.
Gratefully, many reviewers today write responsibly and thoughtfully. They don’t only point out what’s good and what’s not in a given work, but also explain why. Problem is, some do so as if giving a lecture or a sermon. You’ll sense it in the way they craft their critique, in the cool and impassive tone they adopt. They chide when singling out flaws. Their reviews may be sensible and smart and tactful to a fault, but these also lack bite and an engaging voice.
On the other end, you have those who review the way an academician or a priest might, but with a condescending and dismissive attitude. They’re sometimes among the first in line at the box office, waiting for their complimentary tickets. Even before their reviews get published, they would log on to their Facebook or Multiply accounts on occasion and bitch about the show they had just seen. Not a good idea. Dagger stares, imaginary bullseyes on their backs, and raised eyebrows sometimes appear as they pass by, and they usually shrug it off.
Not all reviewers are like that, though. Several manage to find a pleasant balance in reviewing a particular work’s worth, or the absence of it. They often appraise fairly and intelligently, probing a book or movie or a play with a sensitive eye without sounding too scholarly. They assert their opinions confidently and firmly without coming across as bitchy. In person, they appear warm and unassuming. In print, they often seem particularly credible.
But to me the most compelling reviewers prove to be those whose voice, whose point of view, is so distinctive and strong, it shows in the reviews they write. Whether or not their readers agree with them, they keep them engaged. At their best, they even manage to convince a reader or two—more, in some cases—to see the work they reviewed their way. Magazines and newspapers could frankly use a few more of them.
Love them or loathe them, reviewers don't only let people know which works of art are worthwhile. They also provide certain ways of seeing things that readers may have otherwise missed.
