In place of Wednesday’s Seminar class, we went to see The Heiress on Broadway.  I have been to many Broadway shows before, but this was the first time I went to see a Broadway play that was not a musical.  I really enjoyed it.  I think the story was portrayed very well, and it did not stray too much from the actual story in the novel.  That was one of the main things I liked about the show – they didn’t for example, take the powerful and “sad” ending, as some people would call it, and turn it into a happy ending where Catherine takes Morris back and they marry and live happily ever after.  That would have been slightly disappointing.

While I thought the overall show was very well done, there were a few things I noticed that I think could have been done better.  For example, Dan Stevens, who played Morris Townsend, made Townsend a little too likable.  He made Morris Townsend seem too nice and too genuine so that, at certain times, I, as the spectator, almost felt bad for Morris and wanted Dr. Sloper to accept him and have Catherine take him back.  I think he could have been portrayed as a bit more conceited and deceitful.  In addition, one of the lines given by Dr. Sloper that we studied in great detail in class was not delivered too well, at least in my opinion.  There is a very powerful quote, at the beginning of the play, by Dr. Sloper: “Is it possible that this magnificent person is my child?”  In the novel, this line is delivered with sarcasm and irony.  In the play last night, I didn’t think David Strathairn delivered that line with enough sarcasm.  He seemed a bit too light-hearted and humorous.  Finally, Catherine was played very well by Jessica Chastain.  However, she was a bit too monotonous.  Every time she spoke, her tone was monotonous and it was almost as if she spoke in fragmented sentences.  I know Catherine was not supposed to be very intelligent or witty, but when I imagined Catherine, I always imagined her with emotions and feelings, and at least able to articulate herself.

My favorite part of the play was the ending.  It was absolutely incredible.  The last 15 minutes kept most of us on the edge of our chairs because it was so suspenseful.  We all knew how the book ended, but there was something about seeing it played out in front of us that made it much better.  Jessica Chastain portrayed Catherine so

Today’s Seminar started with us discussing our thoughts and opinions of the opera Turandot, from last week.  Everyone seemed to really enjoy it, and we each had our own favorite particular aspects, whether it was the music, the sets, the costumes, the conductor, or the singing.  We did have a discussion about the purpose of the character Liu in the opera, because to most of us, she seemed like a pretty pointless servant girl character, who eventually died for someone who barely took the time to notice her.  This led to a discussion about how characters in a performance, especially an opera, often stay true to the societal standards of the time and place.  For example, Turandot was set in China hundreds of years ago, and in the Chinese culture of that period, servant girls were there simply for that – to be servants, and their personhood was essentially insignificant and worthless.  So when Liu killed herself out of love for the prince in the opera, to us, it seemed cruel and heartless, but to the other people in the opera and to audiences who saw the opera during the time it was set in, this was not unusual.  In fact, it was expected and accepted.

The conversation revolving around Liu and different acceptable societal roles led into another conversation about socially acceptable music.  Sometimes, music from other cultures can be used disrespectfully and can become a sort of cliché, for example the way we all know the stereotypical “Chinese music” that we learned from cartoons and movies.  This can be considered “racist” in certain contexts and uses.  Turandot is an opera that uses mostly Italian music, but there are hints of Chinese melodies and music, especially when Liu is singing.  This is NOT considered “racist.”  On the contrary, it fits into the story and the composer is introducing something exotic to American audiences like us.  Being an opera composer can be slightly difficult, as a composer has to try and achieve balance between introducing exoticism and not creating a story that is too exotic, and can be misunderstood or taken offensively.  I found this conversation interesting, since I had never even considered this musical aspect, aside from the fact that it was strange watching Turandot being performed in Italian when I knew that the setting was in China.

For the last hour of class, we had a guest speaker, Michael Sirotta.  He is a world-renowned composer and is in the Music Department at the College of Staten Island.  He has just completed his first major orchestral symphony, Fantasia Pripetshok, which will be premiered on Sunday, October 14 by the Staten Island Philharmonic.  Sirotta has always been a lover of music, but he discovered about eighteen years ago that he wanted to take a simple Jewish folksong, Oyfn Pripetshok, and use its simple tune and melody to create a symphonic masterpiece.  Oyfn Pripetshok is a folksong that opens with a description of a rabbi teaching his students the Hebrew alphabet and then uses that simple scene as they key to the national survival of the Jewish people throughout the centuries.  It is a beautiful song, and sometimes referred to as the “second Jewish national anthem.”

What Sirotta did was take Oyfn Pripetshok and create variations of the one tune in order to make it into a piece of music that could be played by an orchestra.  Once again, being a composer is a very difficult role because the composer has to be able to strike a balance between the type of music that is doable for the orchestra performers and the type of musical sound the composer wants to achieve.  This is all taken into account when creating a theme and variation of a tune or melody.  Creating a variation means that you take a tune of a piece of music that has been written and embellish upon it, make it more fancy and in a sense, more difficult to perform.  Usually, it will follow a pattern where the actual tune is played, then the first variation is slightly different, but you can still sing and hear the tune, and then the second variation is completely different, unrecognizable in comparison.  This was also quite interesting to me, because of course, I had heard classical symphonies before, but I had never realized that this is sometimes the pattern they follow.  To be honest, I listened to two symphonies over the weekend and thought them to be long and repetitive, which is what happens when a composer creates a variation of a simple tune.  Before we left class, we listened to a piece of Sirotta’s newest symphony, Fantasia Pripetshok.  It was a beautiful piece of music and from the short piece
I heard, actually appealed to me much more than the other symphonies I listened to this weekend.  I am looking forward to hearing this piece of music played live on Sunday by the Staten Island Philharmonic, and to expanding my mind to understand and enjoy yet another genre of music.

On Wednesday, October 3, our Seminar experience was to take a trip to see the opera at The Metropolitan Opera House.  Professor Kahan and Professor Monte took all of us to go see Turandot, composed by Giacomo Puccini, which is being performed at the Met during the months of September, October, and November.  Turandot tells the story of a Chinese princess who refuses to allow any man to marry her, for she fears being dominated by another human being.  She has devised a system over the years to prevent any man from marrying her.  When a suitor appears, seemingly with the intention to “woo” her and marry her, he is first met with three riddles to solve.  If he can solve these riddles, then he may have the honor of courting and marrying Turandot.  However, if he does not, Turandot has him beheaded.  She has devised such riddles that she knows can be solved by nobody, therefore, she will never have to marry anyone and can be independent, responsible only for herself for her entire life.  Her best-laid plan, however, is shaken with the appearance of Calaf, who remains “the Unknown Prince” until the very end of the opera. He is able to solve all three riddles and thus forces Turandot to face her fears of marrying and being eternally bound to a man.  Ultimately, he is able to convince Turandot that his purpose is no to dominate or conquer her, but to love her.  Her “icy wall” melts, and she learns not only how to love someone else, but that there are people who are genuinely good people, who want to love her, if only she would let them and trust them.  The theme of learning how to love and trust gives way to a happy and gratifying ending.

Turandot was my first opera, and it was definitely an amazing experience.  At first, we were in the last rows of the highest section; the sound was as clearly defined as if you were in floor seats, but while the view was incredible, there were still parts of the stage that were not clearly visible.  During the first intermission, Professor Kahan told us that she was going to scout out seats in the first few rows on the floor level.  I decided to go with her….and I was so glad I did.  I was able to get a seat in the 3rd row…I had not only a perfect view of the stage, actors, costumes, and sets, but the orchestra was right below me.  So I was at my first opera…in the 3rd row…seeing an outstanding performance.

The only part of the opera that disappointed me was the performance of “Nessun Dorma“.  After seeing the videos of Luciano Pavarotti performing this piece, it seems that other performances dim in comparison.  Tonight’s performance of “Nessun Dorma” did not really match that of Pavarotti.  However, I did very much enjoy the piece performed by Liu before she takes her own life.

All in all, the opera was definitely a more than satisfying performance.  I was very excited to go to the opera and I was not disappointed.  Two weeks from now, we will be attending the Broadway production of The Heiress and I am looking forward to another amazing performance.

Today in Seminar we continued to discuss the importance of style in an author’s work and the importance of the different “ways of seeing” when analyzing artwork.  I have to admit, this has been not only an informative and eye – opening class for me so far, but it has been interesting and new, and I enjoy going to class.

We first viewed some clips of “The Girl with the Pearl Earrings”, during which we saw on screen what has been happening for most of us in our Seminar class.  One of the main characters, a young girl who befriends an artist, begins to see the world in a new light, and realizes that not everything is black and white, that there are multiple ways of seeing things, it all depends on a person’s own perception.  From that, we continued our discussion from last week regarding the style of Edward Hopper.  After hearing other people’s opinions, I think that Hopper has a very interesting way of portraying different scenes of American life.  He seems to take real objects and real instances and transform them to be something menacing and dark, and in conjunction with my own idea, realistic.

This leads me into my thought for the day after sitting in Seminar.  I truly enjoy learning and analyzing different styles of art.  I think it is an interesting and fun experience to see things through someone else’s eyes.  When we see a work of art, we are seeing what the artist created through that artist’s eyes, his or her perception of the world.  Whether we like it, dislike it, find it menacing or light – hearted, it is an escape from our own reality and our sometimes narrow ways of seeing things ourselves.

After our discussion, we listened to a lecture by Dr. Charles Liu, who, in so many words, passed on the wisdom that while people usually dedicate their lives to studying a particular field or subject, that does not mean that they have to only study and enjoy that one subject.  A person can learn about, take interest in, and excel in many different areas of life, areas that sometimes overlap or complement each other.  We then saw Dr. Liu’s words put into reality at the Art Exhibit in the Performing Arts building.  It was a collection of paintings by Johann Jakob Scheuchzer.  This man seemed to take religion and science, and their two different yet not – so – different ideas and combine them in his paintings in order to get his point across.  My favorite of his paintings was #3 in the gallery, which depicted the power of the sun.  You never really think of the sun as being so powerful and yet, to stop and truly reflect, you find that there are all sorts of natural powers that are not obvious, but that exist in our world.

It seems that today’s class wrapped up our discussion of different “ways of seeing” when analyzing art.  I know I have definitely learned much from this experience, and I can only hope to use this experience in order to keep an open mind about the world around me.

In today’s Seminar class, we first discussed the argument Men vs. Women, in relation to how they are viewed in society and the different standards men and women are held to.  Men seem to be given much more leniency when observing their appearance, especially if the person in question is seen in a certain light and has a title or persona attached to him or her.  Take Robert DeNiro as an example.  We viewed a photo of him at this year’s Tribeca Film Festival and I noticed aspects of his appearance that I had never really taken note of before.  His face showed signs of aging, his hair was long and wavy, and while he was dressed presentably, he didn’t appear to be overly dressed for the event.  In our society, because he is a celebrity, and this is his style, it is acceptable for him to be seen in public in this manner.  A woman who appeared in public in a similar fashion would not be respected in the same way and would most likely be frowned upon.  I had never thought about appearance in such detail before, but after examining Robert DeNiro and The Mona Lisa (which are obviously two totally separate ends of the spectrum), I realized that it is much more socially acceptable for a man to be seen in a style such as Robert DeNiro’s, whereas a woman, whether in the age of Mona Lisa or today, is always expected to be in her best attire and looking more than simply presentable.

This subject of style was then related to artists, most specifically to the artist Edward Hopper.  We looked at 12 of Edward Hopper’s paintings that are on display at the Whitney Museum of American Art.  Many of Hopper’s paintings are realistic and universal, relatable at many different levels of society.  The first painting we looked at, American Landscape, depicted a house in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by farm animals and grass.  Such a scene is not unlikely to find in America, even today.  It was probably more common in the 1900’s, but in certain areas of the country today, you could still find abandoned-looking houses, surrounded by forest, wheat, and animals, and it is a common way of life for some people.  In his 1921 painting, New York Interior, we saw a young girl, most likely a ballerina, sitting in her bedroom, possibly sewing a piece of clothing.  The bedroom consisted of a bed, painting, door, and a fireplace.  Most of us noticed the fireplace right away, and commented on the fact that it is not uncommon to find a fireplace in people’s houses, even today.  The fireplace appeared to be classic, and very in touch with the scene.  There was nothing very out of the ordinary about the painting, and it depicted easy identifiable objects and actions.  One of the final paintings that we discussed in detail was Hopper’s painting, Self Portrait,1925-1930. This painting depicted a man, dressed casually yet presentably, with a look on his face that seemed to express puzzlement or curiosity.  He was alone, looking at something that was not shown in the painting, off to the side.  His mannerisms and appearance was similar to that of Robert DeNiro, which we had discussed earlier in the class.  His clothing was slightly wrinkled, and he seemed to give off the persona that he was “just another guy, like everybody else.” The analysis of this painting brought us back to the original question of, “What is Edward Hopper’s style?”

I think Hopper’s style has very much to do with realism and everyday life.  Even in Hopper’s other paintings that we observed, Night Shadows, East Side Interior, Early Sunday Morning, and Seven AM, I think there are aspects in each of those paintings that people can relate to.  For example, in Night Shadows, anybody walking down a deserted street late at night will most likely be walking briskly and quietly, just hoping to make it from Point A to Point B safely and without any disruptions.  Hopper’s style seems to be about creating depictions that are universal, that can be easily seen and related to during any time period and in any location.   I really enjoyed looking at and analyzing Hopper’s paintings and choosing the realistic and common aspects that could be found in each of them, things I could relate to and understand.  I think looking at his art and analyzing it helps to give me a deeper appreciation for artists and the time they put in to creating their own unique works of art.