A Note on Donna Seaman

books critic, Booklist & WLUW’s Open Books

Donna Seaman is passionate about what she does; she’s in it for life and she’d do it for free. In a recent round-table on the construction of effective arts criticism and the future of the professional critic, Seaman, a critic for Booklist, details why this is the life for her.

“Passion first and foremost.” Seaman says that this is the crucial ingredient in the recipe for a good critic. The impulse to deconstruct a piece of art is an irresistible urge. Rather than just listening to a song or reading a book, the true critics are compelled to ask themselves, “What does it all mean?” Seaman paints arts criticism in the colors of vocation, rather than mere occupation. These are people who experience their art on a higher level than the rank and file. Even more importantly, true critics have the urge to advocate. They are the zealots, the diehards, and the true believers without whom the dark and dusty corners of the art world would remain dark and dusty. They are the pioneers; they blaze the trails for listening and reading and watching new artists. Why are they able to influence the public’s taste? Seaman explains that, a critic has to be able to imagine many responses, and see the experience in a greater context.”

Passion and self-awareness will lead the true critic to self-education and expertise. Passion for the art will drive the critic to ongoing education, whether formal or informal. This allows one to write with a voice of authority that builds a relationship of trust between critic and reader. Seaman is unequivocal in her assertion that the critic has a responsibility to the reader, to write with integrity and honesty. “When you slam something, you have to be sharp and precise.” In other words, back it up with specific examples. Seaman seems to respect her readers, saying that she hopes they like to be pushed. She is not insular in her approach to her work. She reads the work of her peers, both those she agrees with and those who challenge her. She approaches her work from as global a perspective as one can, when the job is to deliver personal opinions. She says that she is “always hoping for clarity.” Donna Seaman is a critic who cares about her readers, is considerate of them and appreciates the fact that they seek out her perspective.

On the future of professional criticism, Seaman seems as bemused as the rest of the panel. Without the art of editing, online criticism is in danger of losing a good deal of precision of language, not to mention quality of writing. However, it does offer critics the possibility of a more intimate relationship with their readers, as well as offering new critics an open and immediate venue for their work. In the end, Seaman, along with her fellow panelists, agree that, for them, the mantle of critic is one that they will wear as long as there is art to be reviewed.

Reviewing The Review: What Is It Good For?

“Jack Goes Boating” (Directed by Philip Seymour Hoffman, 2010)

http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/movies/17jack.html

“The Town” (Directed by Ben Affleck, 2010)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/sc-mov-0914-town-20100916,0,6220128.column

Why do people read reviews? Why do readers seek out the opinions of one critic over another? What makes for a good piece of arts criticism? The answers to these questions are as varied as those who rely on them in spending their entertainment dollars judiciously. Some may choose a specific critic because they have similar tastes in music, movies, etc. Others may just want a preview of the event before they attend. And there are those who want their opinion of a piece of art given to them. Following are two review reviews and this writer’s take on why they do or don’t work.

The New York Times review of “Jack Goes Boating” begins with a description of a man named Jack whose chubby, child like appearance is in keeping with his seeming inability to master the challenges of adult life. Jack has two friends, Clyde (John Ortiz) and his wife Lucy (Daphne Rubin-Vega), who try to help Jack become proficient in the tasks of daily living. As a reader, I am hooked. I want to know more.

A.O. Scott’s review of “Jack Goes Boating” is literate and erudite. “ Jack Goes Boating” is a character driven art-house film and Scott conveys both of these facts without actually using either of those expressions. Scott knows his reader and respects their intellect. He doesn’t write down to them. While he does point out what he considers the film’s weaker moments, he is objective about how those moments fit into the film as a whole. He never tells the reader whether or not they should see the film. He gives them some context, providing a comparison to the films of Mike Leigh and referencing the title character from the 1955 film “Marty” starring Ernest Borgnine, but in the end he trusts the reader to draw their own conclusions.

Michael Phillips’ review of “The Town” in the Chicago Tribune provides a much less satisfying read. Phillips begins by telling the reader that the film is “worth seeing for the actors.” The fact that he starts with those five words gives the feeling that Phillips is writing from on high; one can imagine him tossing them over his shoulder as he is leaving for a better party. In the remainder of the first sentence he says that the film would have made a “fine, trim early-1930’s studio picture from what's commonly called the pre-Production Code era.” From this description, one might infer that Phillips considers “The Town” outdated and, perhaps, unsuited to today’s audiences. In noting that the era he is referencing is “commonly called” the pre-Production Code era, he is making it clear that he doesn’t think his readers sufficiently educated in film history to understand his reference. With this initial impression of the film and it’s critic, I am not compelled to finish the piece, bad news for the circulation numbers of the critic’s employer.

Phillip’s style is much more informal than Scott’s; he writes to the reader in a voice of jaded expertise. He opens with his five-word summation of the movie, as if that’s all the reader really needs to know, and writing down to the reader. He doesn’t see them as equals in entertainment consumerism. Scott’s review is a journey. He draws his reader in with thumbnail sketches of the characters in “Jack Goes Boating.” It’s only after he has the reader intrigued by and invested in the film itself that he breaks it down into its components as a film. He wants his reader to read the entire piece. He respects his reader and and it shows.