So when I was writing my blog about which movie affected me the most, I had not looked ahead in the syllabus to see what the next couple of blogs would be about; so naturally, I already answered the part of the question that addresses which portrayal of New York City was my favorite and which I found to be the most truthful.

I enjoyed The Muppets Take Manhattan the most, simply because it was, in my opinion, the most truthful. This film depicted that New York City is not always what everyone thinks it will be; the streets are not paved with gold, people are not throwing money at you, and success does not always come right away, if it comes at all. You can get mugged and sometimes not get any help from anyone. You might have to work in a grimy diner just to stay in the city, making no progress. There is a chance that you can succeed, if you meet the right people, that is.

The Muppets Take Manhattan tore down the common misconceptions about New York City, but did so in a comical way. For that reason, the film might get overlooked, however, just because a film has a whimsical tone and makes use of a couple of puppets here and there, it does not mean that it should not hold as much merit at a film like Wall Street.

Now speaking of Wall Street, I have decided that, since I accidentally already wrote about my favorite portrayal of New York City, I will share my least favorite portrayal: Wall Street.

Don’t get me wrong; it was a great movie. Did I get a special kind of happiness watching young Charlie Sheen? Of course. But was this portrayal of New York City the most truthful? Probably not. Some people who have never visited New York City but have watched this film might believe that every aspect of Wall Street was true and form opinions based on this one depiction of the city.

The film plants the idea that the rich stockbrokers of Wall Street made their fortunes through cheating a lying. Gordon Gekko is the embodiment of this. Gekko even teaches Bud Fox to do this. This is specifically juxtaposed against the good, hard-working blue collar workers, like Bud’s father, Carl. Carl is portrayed to be a very honest hard-working man who finds himself on the short end of the stick as a result of the rich stockbrokers’ actions.

Of course, the “the rich people are liars and cheats and don’t deserve their wealth” and the “the middle class guy actually works hard for a living and deserves the wealth” ideologies are easy to believe when one is in the position of the Carl-type people, but they are not always true. People can believe whatever they want, but not all wealthy people get rich by screwing over the little guys and not all middle class workers are as honest as we might want to believe. There are rich people out there that go out of their way to help those less fortunate and there are middle class people who make it a point to find ways to take the easy way out.

Moreover, New York City is not just a bunch of stockbrokers and airplane company workers. There are populations of people who are just not represented in Wall Street. As comical as it is, at least The Muppets Take Manhattan represented a wide range of people, from waitresses, to construction workers, to producers, to college students, to department store workers. A movie like Wall Street could really discourage people from coming to New York City in search of success.

Through all the movies I watched this semester, I was able to collect different glimpses of life in New York City. None are perfect, but they are like the different windows of a house: each provides a different view.

Okay, so I read a lot, and I get very attached to the books that I read. When I hear that one of my favorite books is being made into a movie, I , to quote The Rocky Horror Picture Show, “shiver with antici………..pation.” But part of me also dies; to be more accurate, that part of me is probably tied to the back of a pickup truck and driven through a field of glass shards. And that is all because I KNOW that they will find a way to screw it up.

I thought I was safe for a while after I watched Catching Fire and The Fault in Our Stars, but then it happened: The Giver was released. 

Lois Lowry’s The Giver was one of my favorite books when I read it in the fourth grade, and it was still one of my favorites when I read it again in June. I was so excited when it was being turned into a movie because I was so convinced that a director would not mess with anything that was so perfect. I was wrong, clearly.

The protagonist of the novel is a twelve year old boy named Jonas and he becomes the Receiver of Memory in his “utopian” community and all that jazz. I will assume that we have all read the book so I won’t go into detail to avoid making this too long (if you want to go into detail, you can ask me because I have a lot of feelings).

I was in the movie theater all excited for it to start and when it did, I kinda had a “ummmm what” moment. The boy playing Jonas did not look 12; they raised his age to 16. I’m not going to lie, Brenton Thwaites did a great job and looked really good playing the part- oh, so thats why they raised his age. They wanted to be able to sell the character to a bigger audience, because what 16 year old girl is going to look at a 12 year old boy and think “omg marry me, please!” Not only did they kind of remove the extra layer of innocence resulting from the age of the character by raising the age, but they added a love interest! Sure, Jonas has some thoughts about his classmate Fiona in the book, but it was never actually explored; Fiona was there for a second and then we all kind of forgot about her. But in the film, they had a whole secret romance going on! All I could think was, “HOW DARE YOU.” The whole plot was altered just to make the movie more Hollywood with a Twilight-esque forbidden love. I also question why Taylor Swift and Meryl Streep were in this movie. Okay, I admit that I hate Taylor Swift, but so many more people could have played the part of Rosemary better. And Meryl Streep’s character was not even in the book! It was interesting to see the point of view of the Chief Elder, but was it necessary? Meryl, you let me down; it is Mama Mia! all over again. These big celebrities were just thrown into this movie to draw in more people and make more money.

So basically, for me, The Giver was my personal definition of “selling out.” Every change was made just so the creators of the movie could make more money off of it. I personally believe that this movie would have been immensely successful without all of these changes because the book was a great quality read that so many people love. So thank you, Philip Noyce (the director of The Giver) for killing one more part of me. The story was perfect before you came in and threw it into a blender and turned it into your really-good-book-and-Hollywood smoothie.

So I probably could have just said that “selling out” really is “selling out” when the end result of the art work is more disappointing than what it should have been, but this was so much more fun.

Now I should note that the movie was actually really great; like I cried like a baby because it touched my soul. But it just would have been better if they kept true to the book and did not sell out for the money.

P.S.- You should read The Giver if you have not already, and there are 3 more books in the series and they are fantastic.

I’ve watched a lot of movies in this class over the semester, but it is hard to say that I was really affected by any of them. Did they offer contrasting views of New York City? Yes. But did any of them really change my life? Not really.

Now if I am being asked which movie I liked the best, the answer is simple: The Muppets Take Manhattan. Hensen’s 1984 film is a cut above the rest, in my opinion.

First, who can truthfully say that he or she does not enjoy a musical, especially one with puppets? The musical quality of the film lends a whimsical tone that the others movie lack, what with their murders, unnamed cats, and crazy cab drivers.

Next, Miss Piggy. Miss Piggy is a fantastic character who, while she is a wacky puppet, can serve as a role model for any girl. She does not allow herself to fall victim to cat-callers on the street, she chases down a thief all on her own when no one lifts a finger to help her, and she looks fantastic doing it all. And let’s not forget that she sings a song about how she wants to be a mother but will also master every career known to man and tricks Kermit the Frog into marrying her. Miss Piggy will not be confined in any gender boxes; that is important for young girls to see.

Finally, I felt like The Muppets Take Manhattan was actually one of the realest films I watched this semester, despite its being a goofy comedy, at least regarding people who want to make it big on Broadway. The gang, just out of college, thinks that they can make it on Broadway in just one day when they are discussing the locker situation, claiming that “It’s only for one night; we’ll be on Broadway tomorrow.” But then, they are rudely awakened to find that it is not actually that easy. They end up having to all go separate ways and take terrible jobs just to support themselves. I think that is really realistic because it is really representative of all the young people who come to New York hoping to become famous. The muppets could have been successful on Broadway right away and the film could have just shown them struggling during the production of the show, and that would have been much more unrealistic. This movie also does not shy away from showing the less-than-perfect parts of New York City: the cat-calling construction workers, the thief in Central Park, and the jokes about rats in the restaurants. It is really important that the director did not depict a perfect New York City because the only impressions some people get of other cities are from movies, so it would be almost cruel to lie to people and make them think that this city is a wonderland where the streets are paved with gold. Lastly, this movie shows the audience that, sometimes, people find success by luck; sometimes you just need to meet the right person with the right connections. That truth might be tough to hear, but it still is the truth.

So, maybe The Muppets Take Manhattan did affect me the most in a way. It confirmed some truths for me about New York City and provided powerful influences through characters that people need.

Side note: Did anyone else find it really disturbing that the Swedish Chef guy had human hands? That kind of messed me up for a few minutes.

*The title quote is from Habanera, one of Carmen’s arias.*

I had really high expectations for my most recent trip to the opera to see Carmen because opera was nothing really new to me; I sing opera and I had seen other operas before, including Hansel and Gretel, The Little Prince, and Carmen once before. So when I heard tickets to the opera that I would not have to pay for, I thought to myself, “sign me up!”

Since I had seen Carmen before, I hoped to focus more on the different aspects of the performance, rather than my subtitles and the plot. Okay, so I admit that I did turn my subtitles on, but I promise that I was not watching them the whole time (just like seventy-five percent of the time…). However, since I did know what was going on, I got to appreciate the costuming, scenery, and (my personal favorite) the music.

I really loved the costumes; especially the peasant/gypsy character costumes and Carmen’s outfits. Being up in the “family circle,” it was hard to actually pay attention to the details of the costumes, but I will comment on what I could see. The costumes at the gypsy party scene (which I will talk about later), were so fantastic. I cannot say that I have ever seen any actual nineteenth century Spanish gypsies, but the actors’ styling was exactly what I would have pictured in my mind. I looked up a picture on the Metropolitan Opera House’s website, and they had a great picture of those costumes. I was amazed to see that, although they looked so simple from where I was sitting, the costumes were actually very intricate and detailed. And Carmen’s costumes. Wow. I just want to point out that I was extremely amused that she took off one piece of her costume in every scene she was in. I thought it was funny, but that might just be me. Anyway, I just thought Carmen, played by Anita Rachvelishvili, looked fabulous, and you could tell she knew it. The costumes were perfect for the character, but I guess they would have to be because they would not pay a costume designer to do a so-so job. Her costumes were sensual without being extremely revealing and just beautiful. Especially her last dress. Wow. It was just stunning. Plus, she was being thrown around in it and everything, and not once did she trip over that train. Obviously, I really liked the costumes.

I was mystified by the scenery. First, I want to talk about the curtain with the red rip (I do not really know what I would call it). I thought it was very interesting visually, but I do not really know what the intention of it was. Maybe I missed something, but if anyone else figured it out, please PLEASE let me know! But even though I did not know what it was all about, I still enjoyed it. At the very least, it gave me something to talk about. Moving on to the main scenery. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was all the same structure, just rotated depending on the scene? Either way, it was really impressive because it looked so real. I thought it was a great idea for the whole thing to rotate, especially since the brief pauses between the acts were, as the name would suggest, very brief; it probably really cut down on scene-changing time, compared to if the structures had been removable instead.

I feel a special kind of happiness when I talk about the music in Carmen, and I do not just mean the singing. Clearly, the orchestra was the real MVP of the night. I was able to pick out individual instruments, but none of them were to obvious that they upset the blend of sounds. I did think that the orchestra overpowered the singers a little bit at times, but I wasn’t even mad because the accompaniment was beautiful. I said I would talk about the gypsy party scene, so here it goes. I especially loved this scene because the music did not just come from the orchestra. The actors on stage were doing a dance where they would clap and stomp their feet and it really captured my interest because it was not exactly aligned with the music so it added a little something extra to the performance. I believe that it was the first scene after a brief pause or intermission (but I could be wrong), so it helped refocus the audience’s attention on the performance. The soloists were definitely amazing. The man who played Don Jose had such a beautiful voice; when he started singing, a quiet “yas” escaped me. Personally, I thought there was more to be desired from the woman who played Micaela; I sometimes could not hear her well and I was not as impressed as I could have been. Maybe that is just coming from me, being a soprano myself, and having heard many other soprano opera singers. I don’t know, her voice just sounded very typical to me, but a man sitting one row over from me was really enthusiastic about her and kept shouting “Bravo!” every time she appeared on the stage. I was extremely appreciative of the bass voices and the soprano 1 voices in the chorus; the bass voices because I do not come by too many of them and I love basses, and the soprano 1 voices because they had such control over their voices and did not sound strained at all on those high notes. So shout out to you guys. And finally, Carmen. Thank you, Anita Rachvelishvili. Rachvelishvili played the part perfectly. If I had to imagine the voice that would be perfect for the part, it would be hers. She had such control over her voice and such a beautiful voice quality. And I do not remember which aria it was in, but she did this fantastic crescendo, then decrescendo, then crescendo again, ALL IN ONE BREATH. I was envious at that point, since my breath control is terrible. There was just nothing I disliked about her. The music in general was just on a whole other level, for me. It was just so amazing, I felt like I wanted to be up there singing with the performers.

I feel like I need to talk about the character Carmen. She knows she is a hot mama and she is working it to her advantage. She literally had men on their knees for her. Carmen was using her womanly charm to getting stuff done and messing with all the men. Basically, I aspire to be her. I just really admired that she, in the words of Miley Cyrus, “can’t be tamed” by any man. Before she was killed she triumphantly declared that “Carmen was born free and she will die free.” What a woman.

The opera is a great experience, which is definitely not just for an older crowd. Of course, when I was asking two elderly women which building the opera was in to make sure I was going to the right place, they condescendingly pointed me to the middle building. With that said, I think that young people might only get turned off by the opera because of the elderly audience members who are trying to keep it for themselves. They almost make you feel like you do not deserve to be there in a way; they look at you with an air of superiority as if any “youngster” is an uncultured swine and they act as if you are personally inconveniencing them by being there. They must be at war with themselves over the fact that there are children in the opera. Overall, I was shocked to see that there was a significant population of younger people at the opera, not counting the student groups.

But is opera a dying art form? I think not. Personally, I think there are more people studying opera now than in recent years. At Queens College, we have the Aaron Copland School of Music, where vocal majors train in classical music (I cannot confirm that for instrumentalists, as I do not actually know any). Performing arts high schools teach opera. There is at least one ten year old girl on some talent show every season who sings opera. To me, that does not sound like an art form on its way out.

The gypsy costumes/party scene I was talking about. I got this image from the Metropolitan Opera House website. Please note that this is from a past performance of Carmen.