Pamina Devi and Rembrandt
I must say that I was quite disappointed by Tuesday’s performance of the Magic Flute. I’m sorry for those who felt otherwise. When I read the synopsis of this foreign fairy tale, I was expecting more from the play. I had anticipated more entertainment out of this production. The dances were monotonous and I did not feel engaged at all. It also seems to me that they abridged the story in order to make time for more dances. These dances are a recurring theme. This actually coincides with the documentary that we watched in class. Since these dances are central to Cambodian tradition and culture, it is to be expected. Another little problem I had with the production was that they put too much subtitles in the background. This distracts the audience from actually watching the actors (or should I say actresses since it seems as though all the roles were played by women) dance. I thought that they should have taken that away. If Ms. Shapiro put so much emphasis on dancing, then it would not make that much sense in displaying text that was rather difficult to read. Instead, they should have left us, the audience, interpret their movements. Another little note I noticed was that the names of the actors were changed. I guess that this is also natural since names are significant and they represent something in their language, such as a bird or the sun. I was actually remarked by how synchronized their dances were. Each little movement was flawless. I also noticed that each dance represented an action. For instance, the Sun god (I forget his name) simply moved his hands around to embrace Pamina Devi instead of simply hugging her. This is a stark contrast to other musicals in which the actors speak the words or act them out in a more conspicuous manner. You could say that it was an interpretive dance that lacks a little freedom. I have to say that this was my most favorite aspect of the play- not the dancing itself, but how it was conducted and its purpose. I also enjoyed the transition in scenery to point out the change from day to night or when Noreak was in his lonely world. However, my cheif qualm with this production was the ending. It was too anticlimactic. In Mozart’s rendition, the main characters, who represented the Anima/Animus or Yin/Yang complex, had to walk the path to truth or enlightenment/nirvana before they could be with each other (or complete each other). I found more meaning in that ending rather than the one presented in the Cambodian production. When I saw the ending in this play, I was disappointed. “Is that it? No conflict?” It was over too quickly. I think that there was little to no negotiation between traditional art forms and new ones. As mentioned before, the performance relied heavily on dancing. As we saw on the documentary two weeks ago, dancing was central to lives of the cambodian women of the Pol Pot era. This reverence is reflected in that performance. There was also Buddhist influence in the performance with the relationship between the prince (I forget his name as well) and Pamina Devi representing the unity of the soul or “oneness”. Even Noreak and Nory (see how their names look alike) represent that as well. On the other hand, Zhang Huan did alter between these two types of art. On one side, he did engage himself in nature with the lake and mountain performances. On the other side, he also grabbed attention by attracting an audience and adding shock value, thus pushing the boundaries of society. With the play, however, I did not see any “progression” or new ideas. If someone else has, then that’s fine too.
On Wednesday, we saw some of Rembrandt’s prints. I have to say that I was expecting to spend the entire time looking at the exhibit rather than hearing a lecture. I was impressed by Ms. Nadine Orenstein’s thorough knowledge of the prints and works of art. I was surprised that the college had a vast archive of works. I knew that it was big, but not that big. I was also surprised that the museum kept records of something so seemingly trivial as baseball cards and postcards, but it definitely is organized. I was impressed by the prints themselves. I have an idea of what they are and how they differ from paintings and drawings, but I am still not sure. I appreciated the amount of detail that went into these prints and how they are different as there are different “remakes” of the same work. (i.e. the crucifixtion of Jesus) I was also surprised by the different media that artists choose to do their works on. (i.e. parchment, copper plates, etc.) Overall, the presentation of these prints was remarkable. I also have a more profound understanding of the kind of responsibilities that Nadine Orenstein’s job entails. It not only involves knowing the works of art, but it also involves preserving them as well. These prints were done centuries ago, but they still look new and fresh. Theese curators go through a great deal preserving them such as placing them in “filter” paper since, as Nadine stated, they are vulnerable to light. I am impressed that they also have to travel with the works in order for them to be intact. This kind of engagement is also seen in Em Thea’s field of work. As a dancer herself, she has to make sure that her pupils perfect the art of dancing. She has to make sure that every movement is perfect and that it reaches finesse. Not only that, but she also pays deep reverence to the spirits so that nothing bad goes wrong. In addition, she also takes care of the props such as the “giant’s helmet”. To that extent, she spends most, if not all her time passing on this gift. This is also an example of how personal and engaging art can be to people.