Wednesday night our class traveled to the “Walter Kerr Theatre” to see the Broadway production, “The Heiress.” Since I was aware of the plot before attending the play, I assumed that there was little about the play that would shock me. I must admit, however, after witnessing the end of the play I was completely awestruck.

What stood out to me about the theatre itself was its small size, small that is, when compared to the immense size of The Metropolitan Opera House. Once the play began, I noticed that it had almost no set changes. The only things I saw change were the placement of the tables and the different hues of lighting at the windows to signify the moments of day and night in the play. In fact, the lighting could arguably be its own character in the play. In many instances it dictated when the audience should laugh or feel sympathy for Catherine. And ultimately it served for a chilling and captivating ending. The end of this play was what truly dumbfounded me. It paved the way for such mixed reactions I had to Catherine’s actions. At first I believed that she yet again fell for Morris (as Professor Kahan warned us that the play had a shocking ending) which led me to exclaim “What a stupid girl!,” then a few moments later I assumed she was going to kill Morris or perhaps even herself!

A few complaints I had about the plays portrayal were that Morris was more likable than I would have preferred. I would rather I dislike the villain than actually accept him. Also, the lack of the party for Miriam, though not a major issue, was in my opinion missed. One last complaint, was how little time they allowed to pass between Catherine and Morris’ break up.

My favorite moment would have to be the tension that was built as Morris stood outside her door and became increasingly violent and impatient as Catherine would not answer. Her independence and new found wisdom was personified as Jessica Chastain, who portrayed Catherine beautifully, shut the lights off slowly, one by one. This coupled with the shrills of Dan Steven’s (Morris) voice calling for Catherine left the audience speechless.

Ultimately, what I took from this play is that despite how amazing a book is, seeing it in a different medium can lead you to truly ask, which is better the book, or the play?

Today’s seminar consisted of two parts. The first half was essentially our “debriefing” of our feelings about the Opera.  I was surprised to hear that, in fact, the box seats on our level of the balcony were considered to be “good” seats. Though they have more room and the presence of a table, I can honestly say that I would not have switched my seat from the family circle had I been offered one in the box. Professor Kahan stated that this was simply “opera” tradition and “in opera fashion” to have box seats. In this case I would, however, take comfort over tradition.

Another statement made in today’s class that I thought was interesting was that the character of “Liu” in Turandot came into question. Though I felt it disheartening that her death was almost skipped over, I must say that her character seemed to be needed in order to prove to Turandot that this man whom she hardly knows is capable of being loved by another so much that someone would take their life for his. I think it ultimately allowed Torandot’s heart to finally open up enough to let a man like Calif through.

The latter half of class was devoted to our guest spear, Michael Sirotta, whose orchestral composition will have its debut  at this weekend’s “Cultures in Harmony.” Professor Sirotta was a delight to listen to as he was truly passionate about his work. I especially enjoyed how he described the inspiration for his piece. It is amazing that one’s memory could go back so far as to when he was a child on his relative’s farm.  I thought it was interesting that the song “Ofyn Pripetshok” he knew as a child could have such strong meaning. Though the words were about a Rabi teaching little children the Hebrew alphabet… “See now little ones take it nice and slow” it also had a dark meaning; with words similar to saying “when you grow older…you will know the tears that come with every letter..” Professor Sirotta went on to state that this song could be , and for some is, considered the “second Jewish national anthem.” He even gave us a quick listen to what the class will be hearing on Sunday, and I must say that I am looking forward to the SI Philharmonic’s performance of the piece.

Wednesday night was my first experience at The Metropolitan Opera. Everything about the night truly captivated me. From the red velvet staircases, to the extravagant costumes and even the triangular shaped cups at the water fountain; an understatement would be to say that it was an unforgettable experience. When entering the beautiful hall I was automatically drawn to the numerous chandeliers. Their ornate design, immense size and the, later noted, mobility of the chandeliers oozed sophistication. Once seated, I was pleasantly surprised to see the presence of discrete screens for subtitles, available in multiple languages, for the audience to keep up with the plot of Turandot.

As the curtains elevated, we were welcomed to the intricate and ingeniously planned sets that set the tone for Turandot. The beginning of the Opera (as Professor Kahan stated in class) welcomed us to a group scene, with actors that doubled as the choir. The chorus was truly talented, and in my opinion created a character of their own. In fact, it was their reactions to events happening within in the plot, that cued when the us, the audience should laugh, feel pity, and feel sympathy. Overall, I thought the story was well explained by the singing and a true joy to watch.

The orchestra can be summed up as magnificent. Not one scene left my musical wishes unfulfilled. The moments of recitativo were in my opinion when the orchestra stood out the most. And each time, reminded me of how talented they truly were.

Last but most certainly not least, the singers were wondrous. The talent that was emphasized by the multiple arias performed were a joy to watch. All of the soloists’ voices were moving and I was left more then content, particularly when “Liu” sang her high notes. The performance of “Nessun Dorma” was definitely a joy and showed the talent of the singer whom I found to be almost overwhelming (in a good way) at some moments in the Opera. “Calaf’s” character though a bit fickle with his heart, was likable. And I was happy to see that Turandot who carefully guarded her heart, was able to open it up to a man who risked his life for her.

Ultimately, I can say that my first taste of the Opera left me simply wanting more.

On Wednesday’s seminar, the class was introduced to the movie “The Girl with a Pearl Earring,” Professor Kahan showed us clips of the film along with the actual painting that inspired it. The clips of the film were quite intriguing.The simplicity of the costumes and nearly unrecognizable, and understated Scarlett Johanson allowed for the dialogue of the film (or lack there of) to shine through. As Professor Kahan explained the background of the clips, it was quite amazing to see that during the time period the film was based on (circa 17th century) women were only seen as modest and presentable to the public when their hair was under a bonnet. Besides their husbands,no one could, or at least should, see their hair. This reminds me of an essay in Ways of Seeing  where one author describes how in most paintings the appearance of hair signifies sexuality. Therefore, the presence of hair would take away any innocence belonging to the woman depicted. I assume that these head pieces were worn for relatively the same reason.

The class also discussed what we felt about Edward Hoppers style. Whats coincidental is that the topics we are discussing about style in my seminar class, happen to relate to my cinema class, where we are learning how to find “oeuvre”a french term referring to the style of a film directors entire body of work. Much like the “style” we discuss in seminar we recognize what certain repetitions in films say about a directors oeuvre.

Wednesday, our class was also given the opportunity to attend a gallery being held at CSI. Prior to this gallery, Dr.Charles Liu made it a point to speak to us and explain how his love for science and the arts could truly coexist. By explaining that the pieces we were about see were based off this exact idea (where science meets religion) I was able to have a background to the gallery. In most of the paintings I was able to see how the two meshed well together. Ultimately, I enjoy and support how galleries like the Expanding Frames of Reference: Art, Science,and Religion in the Physica Sacra of Johann Jakob Scheuchzer can open up the minds of its spectators prove how two relatively different ideas  can truly coexist.

Wednesday’s Honors Seminar further broadened my approach to looking at paintings. Since beginning this class and reading Ways of Seeing I have noticed a change in the way I view paintings. Rather than simply trying to imagine what the artist is attempting to portray when creating his/her work I take more initiative to see the different situations that could have sparked the artist’s imagination. When examining Hopper’s “New York Interior” I first thought that it depicted a girl who had just returned from a ball and was resting following a  night out. Further into our class discussion, however, Professor Kahan shared her opinion, stating that the painting might have been an image of a girl sewing her dress, perhaps after performing at a ballet recital. The idea that she was a dancer definitely came from the fact that the muscles on the woman in the photo were extremely defined thanks to Hopper’s choice of shading and use of harsh lighting.

Harsh lighting, in my opinion, seems to be a recurring theme with Hopper. For example, in  “Nighthawks” another female figure became the victim to harsh lighting. The woman to the back of the painting looked “clown like” as a result of the fluorescent lighting in the painting, which caused her skin tone  to appear ghostly white. It also exaggerated her otherwise subtle makeup.  Another aspect of Hopper’s style is clearly his love for symmetry in his paintings. In my opinion, it almost appears as though he suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) when creating his works. In almost all of the works Professor Kahan showed us, I noticed a constant theme of shapes in each painting. For example, “Night Shadows” was predominantly vertical, “New york Interior” multiple, vertical rectangles, and “Early Sunday Morning” rectangles. I feel like creating a painting without any recurring shapes would lead to Hopper’s anxiety. In addition to different shapes characterizing Hopper’s style, I think his motif is characterized by emphasizing certain times of day (particularly the night or early morning) and specific settings like street corners. These specific traits are evident in both “Nighthawks” and “Night Shadows.”

In addition to Edward Hopper, wednesday’s seminar consisted of defining the ideas of man vs. woman in regards to each gender’s Ways of Seeing. When we looked at the example of Robert De Niro, what immediately registered in my mind was that a woman could never pull off the “I could hardly care about my image” look that Robert was. Because we have seen him play characters with this precise attitude no one would question it.  Other talented actors like Leonardo di Caprio, for example, would have never attended a film festival looking quite as disheveled. If a talented actress like Meryl Streep were to even attempt the same “look” I am sure it would be front page news.

This double standard toward the appearance of men and women has always seemed to be a part of our culture and though I dislike it, I am sure it will not cease to exist.