At first, after only reading the libretto and a few online articles, I thought of Don Giovanni as neither a comedy or a tragedy but rather a nice balance between the two. The funny aspects stemming from Leporello and his behaviors with other characters along with the seriousness of the last scene between the Commodore and Don Giovanni made me come to this decision of a mixed bag of comedy and tragedy. I read online somewhere that Mozart actually meant it to be a so-called “dramatic comedy” or “dramma giocoso“: a mix of serious and comic action. This influenced my reading of the libretto, so I went along with the idea of it being a “dramma giocoso” and read it as such. However, after watching the adaptation at the MET Opera, I must say that my view has changed a little bit. Needless to say, the libretto and the opera rendition that we saw are two completely separate entities, but both followed the same story line. It all came down to the reader’s/viewer’s perspective along with the perspectives of those who produced the opera. With that said, I now feel that Don Giovanni is more of a comedy than a tragedy. Indeed, he did have a tragic flaw, which included his stubbornness and disregard for repentance, but the comedic aspects of the opera outweighed the seemingly sudden seriousness of the opera that was reared at the end. I felt that the comedic aspects were present throughout the the majority of the opera, while the tragic aspects only came to light during the end.

In the libretto, there are very evident class differences that are shown. For example, when Don Giovanni thinks he should just be entitled to basically marry Zerlina, a class difference is shown. Also, all of the nobles have “Don” or “Donna” before their names–this is a clear class difference. When Don Giovanni talks to the noble women such as Donna Anna and Donna Elvira, he has a different tone about him that’s separate from the tones he uses to plebeians such as Zerlina. Mozart may have been playing with the notion that nobles are also much more troublesome through all of the relationship problems. For example, Zerlina and Masetto seem to be a perfect couple, whereas Donna Anna and Don Ottavio/Don Giovanni and any other woman cannot have a stable relationship. Perhaps Mozart was trying to show that the lower-class are much more humble and would happily take what they have, while the upper-class cannot accept anything that’s thrown at them.

The music during the performance definitely enhanced the story. I felt that when a major moment was coming up, the music would get more tense. I also felt that the different tempos kept the pace of the story moving with varying flows. At one point the story would be fast-paced and moving, and other times the story would be slow and melodic. The festive parts of the opera also had fun music, which kept me wide-awake.

In my opinion, opera, as an older form of performance, is obviously extremely treasured and high-class, whereas the contemporary performances we viewed could have been viewed by anyone. The opera is expensive! Therefore, it gave off a very aristocratic feel. It was actually quite cool to have experienced that for my first time. However, I must say that I much rather prefer the contemporary performances to the older form of opera. To me, the opera was quite boring; I had to sometimes catch myself from nodding off (Sorry, Donna). I mean, the experience itself was fun, but the opera performance was too long and uneventful for me. Perhaps I have ADD and cannot pay attention for too long, but the opera felt very dragged out. I understand that this is the way an opera is meant to be, so I am appreciative of the opportunity we had. The skill of the performers is obviously astronomical. However, the opera just isn’t for me. The contemporary performances just keep my attention for a longer period of time, and there are more “ooh’s” and “ahh’s” that keep me interested and amazed.

If we tried to harmoniously blend the trials and tribulations of the families who experienced the Dust Bowl with the current mortgage crisis that has been inflicting the entire nation as of late, we would probably get something close to the Builders Association’s “House/Divided”. Directed by Mirianne Weemes, “House/Divided” seeks to juxtapose the famous Joad family from John Steinbeck’s highly renowned The Grapes of Wrath with today’s financial mortgage crisis. Weemes and her colleagues produced this piece by incorporating media straight into the performance itself. This means that during the performance, scenes from real video clips were used as well as live videos of the actors and actresses speaking. These types of media were intermingled into the live-action play itself, and in all honesty, I’d have to say that it created too much tension and confusion for me to keep up with.

In saying that I did not like the media intermixing with the live performance, I am siding with the Phelan perspective from Dixon’s Liveness. Phelan’s perspective says that the media should be kept separate from live performance because it detracts from the piece as a whole. On the other hand, there is also the Auslander perspective which basically says that media and live performance can work fine together. In fact, Auslander states that “Dance + Virtual = Virtual”. This shows that Auslanders considerably favor media in live performances. However, in “House/Divided”, I believe that the media side only made me more confused. I didn’t even know the performers at the end of the play! By using media heavily in the piece, Weemes did layout a lot of information that could have otherwise been unknown, but with too media, the play became more diluted, and I felt like it was more a television documentary with some living people performing on the side.

I am not aiming to bash “House/Divided” because I am probably too uninformed about both the Dust Bowl and the current financial crisis to even have a say. However, from an outsider’s perspective who doesn’t know anything at all, I must say that I did not truly grasp the concept of “wrath” or anything of the sort. I wouldn’t go so far as to completely side with the older woman who first commented during the after-show talk; however, I would say that the older woman’s point was valid. I mean, the play as a whole was enjoyable– the props were nice, the see-through house was cool, and the use of media was very modern– but I cannot say that the play as a whole was successful.

In Lewis Hine’s photo Playground at Mill Village there seems to be a group of kids playing a game of baseball within the confines of two buildings. There are a few spectators, who are mostly children, and there is also laundry hanging above. A few aspects about this photo drew me in. The movement of the boy in the middle contrasts the stagnant on-lookers, and the boy adds depth by pitching to someone in the back. The depth of the photo is also aided by the diagonal lines of the buildings and of the street. It makes me wonder what else is in the background of the photograph. The children in the front who seem to be looking at the photograph allow for more depth; they indicate that the photo isn’t all 2-dimensional. Then there are the articles of clothing hanging that create opposing lines from the  buildings and children’s sight lines. The clothes cut across the photo in interesting patterns that are visually pleasing.

The rule of thirds is applied here as well. The darker building on the right side is the heavier third with darker, more saturated colors. Then there is the boy who is pitching and the clothes that constitute the second third of the photo. Lastly there is the whiter,  lighter third on the left side. So, I’d have to say that color is key for this photo; it allows for the rule of thirds to be applied.

I plan on using the rule of thirds in my photo. I also think that black and white photos are more interesting as well. So I will aim to use third party apps such as instragram in order to make my photo look accordingly. On my phone itself, I plan on using the grid lines that come with camera app. This will allow me to find lines within the photo, and hopefully this will make for a successful photo like Lewis Hine’s Playground at Mill Village.

Analytic post-modern dance strayed from the modern movement of the mid-twentieth century and instead brought the audience a type of dance that was void of two major modern dance characteristics: musicality and rhythmic organization. Not only that, but analytic post-modern dance tended to leave out dramatic phrasing, contrast, and resolution. The new wave post-modern dancers/choreographers were more interested in minimalistic ideals and images that showed the actual movement of the dancers; they were interested in the sense that the dance “is what it is”. Dance, to them, didn’t have to be structured or flamboyant, instead, dance could have a cool, down-to-earth attitude that can still convey powerful messages.

Twyla Tharp transcended the image of post-modern dancers by returning to a more structured choreography, making way for the contemporary dance genre of today. She  stripped dance into the core value of dance instead: movement. Twyla Tharp did away with any sound accompaniment that might distract the viewer’s attention from the dance itself. She also took dance outside the theater, staging it in such spaces as the staircase of the Metropolitan Museum of New York City and New York’s Central Park (ask.com). In doing so, Twyla Tharp, along with other post-modern choreographers of her time, broke away from the modern dance movement and created something she believed was necessary for a broader dance appreciation.

This is a review of “Einstein on the Beach” scored by Philip Glass and directed by Robert Wilson.

“Einstein on the Beach” runs through Sunday at the Howard Gilman Opera House, Brooklyn Academy of Music, 30 Lafayette Avenue, at Ashland Place, Fort Greene; (718) 636-4100, bam.org.