Don Giovanni is universally considered one of Mozart’s best operas. A major part of this charm is the fact that it can be viewed as both a tragedy and a comedy. There is no correct classification to this opera, since it effortlessly transitions from joy to sorrow and back, within the span of a moment. Thus, it is up to each individual viewer to decide what the performance made him/her feel.

Personally, I view Don Giovanni as a comedy. This opinion, though, was only established after actually seeing the opera. Prior to watching it, upon reading its libretto, I was certain that the opera is in fact a tragedy. That is, because it both started and ended with death: first the Commendatore’s, then Don Giovanni’s. Such morbidity provided the opera with a gruesome and depressing tone. The fact that Don Giovanni continually deceived and exploited women didn’t help brighten up the mood, since it made me lose faith in his humanity and compassion. However, experiencing the libretto, rather than merely reading it, completely changed my perception of the opera. The bright costumes, upbeat melodies, exaggerated acting, and of course – Laporello’s witty remarks, all managed to embed some lightness and joyfulness within the otherwise-heavy plot. I left the opera house in a rather good mood, which would definitely not have been the case if Don Giovanni were a tragedy. The performance still managed to convey themes such as betrayal, gluttony, lust and vengeance, but it did so by incorporating comedy and keeping the audience engaged.

Another aspect of Don Giovanni is the fact that class differences were quite evident in it. Even though there were characters from both the noble and peasant classes, these characters didn’t interact equally and were well aware of their rights and limitations. This was most evident with Don Giovanni himself, who used his high class as justification to dehumanize noble and peasant women alike. Moreover, he practically abused Laporello, his servant, by making him an accomplice of his womanizing ways and even putting his life at risk. The best representatives of the lower class, though, were Masetto and Zerlina. They were supposed to symbolize pure young love, but even this unique bond was shook by Don Giovanni’s selfishness and impulsiveness. He sought to steal Zerlina from her fiancée, knowing full well that his lavish lifestyle would charm and blind her. The second romantic relationship in the opera – that between Donna Anna and Don Ottavio was quite different from Zerlina and Masetto’s relationship. It’s quite interesting how opposing these two dynamics are. In a way, it seems that nobles’ love is more “powerful” than a peasant bond, since Don Ottavio was simply obsessed with his fiancé Donna Anna, and was willing to unconditionally wait for her no matter what happens. This wasn’t quite the case with the two peasants – as soon as Masetto saw Zerlina with Don Giovanni, he wished to leave her. So, it seems that noble and peasant relationships in this opera are everything but similar. The only part of the performance where some class equality was evident was its very ending, when all of the characters were standing together, celebrating Don Giovanni’s demise. He seems to have been their uniting force.

One simply cannot discuss an opera by Mozart without mentioning the music in the performance. A major part of the reason my Don Giovanni reading and viewing experiences were so different was the instrumentals and vocals of the opera. The actors’ voices were absolutely enchanting, while their accompaniment was superb. I was thoroughly impressed by Mozart’s melodies, since they perfectly coincided with the opera’s plot. Morbid and heavy scenes, such as Don Giovanni’s death, were accompanied by low, dramatic and ominous music, while funny and happy scenes, such as Laporello’s dressing up as his master, were accompanied by fast, joyful and light melodies. This juxtaposition of different musical styles enriched the performance, set the mood for the audience, and enhanced each actor’s talents.

My overall experience of viewing Don Giovanni at the Metropolitan Opera was one I shall never forget. It was my first time ever going to the opera, but surely not my last. As I was watching it, I couldn’t help but be mind-boggled by the fact that people were enjoying this exact opera over two hundred years ago. This sure puts modern entertainment in perspective, since it teaches teenagers such as myself the value of timeless talent and music. Most other performances we viewed in this class were modern, so it was quite refreshing and mind-opening to watch an opera. Of course, contemporary forms of self-expression are crucial parts of our culture, and for that I deeply respect them. The main example for this is the first performance we’ve watched together – RoseAnne Spradlin’s  “Beginning of Something,” which was absolutely revolutionary and unforgettable. It is hard for me to decide which performance I enjoyed more – Beginning of Something or Don Giovanni – but what is clear is that they are each beautiful in their own ways, and should both be celebrated.

Don Giovanni, to me, has always been a perfect blend of comedy with tragedy. The overall storyline with Don Giovanni ‘s downfall was a tragedy. This incredible opera ends with the dragging of Don Giovanni to hell by the statue of the Commandatore as consequence to his crimes. The different sexual encounters that Don Giovanni has with the women, leading them to seek revenge, and the violent death of the Commandatore makes this opera rather grim. However, there are many comic scenes with Leporello, who I felt stole the show. His reminders to Don Giovanni of his immoral actions come in a manner of funny recitatives and arias. His close relationship with Don Giovanni allows him to say many things with no restraints and therefore, he takes the opportunity to utter many humorous remarks.

The class differences in the libretto I thought were due the naming of the characters and the way that the lower class characters talked to the higher class characters. The lower class characters were only called by only their names such as Zerlina, Masseto, and Leporello rather than Don Giovanni, Donna Anna, Donna Elvira, and Don Octavio. Also, the lower class characters spoke formally to the characters of the higher class. Leporello, even though a close friend of Don Giovanni, spoke to him with rather respect. The same went for the way that Zerlina and Masseto spoke to Don Giovanni. They had respect for the nobleman even though Masseto knew what was going on. Also, the manner of speaking for lower class characters usually consisted of more repetitions in their arias or lines, which also went with the music.

The blend of comedy and tragedy is reflected in the music of Mozart, displaying the incredible skills that people admire of Mozart.  There are quick tempo, short repeated melodic phrases accompanying Leporello’s arias and witty remarks. Contrasting the comedy, there were long, ominous tones for the music for scenes such as the graveyard scene and the statue of the Commendatore dragging Don Giovanni to hell.  The music enhanced the opera’s emotions and cued the viewer in on all the different characters in a specific scene.  Also, when characters had arias (the long emotional monologues), the music was successfully able to capture the emotions whether humorous like Leporello’s catalogue aria or enticing like Don Giovanni and Zerlina’s aria of “ La ci darem la mano”.

I enjoyed the opera in its entirety with the costumes, grand voices, orchestral music, and incredible staging and effects. This version of Don Giovanni wasn’t the best in my opinion because even though the characters’ voices and the music was incredible and stayed true to the opera, the acting and staging was not as convincing to me. There wasn’t a flow or a nice movement through the scenes and the acting felt a little too stiff.  With that being said, the opera in general compared to the other more contemporary performances we have experienced during the seminar was much more extravagant. The experience of actually going to an opera and viewing an opera added to the grandiose performance with dressing up and viewing the beautiful opera house. The other more cotemporary performances were more focused on what was on that stage and how we felt about what was being presented to us rather than where we were watching the performance or the etiquette of watching the performance. Also, we had more or less expectations of the opera while for the other contemporary performances, anything could’ve happened.

Initially, after reading the libretto, I saw Don Giovanni as a tragedy. Although Leporello served as a comic foil to the character of Don Giovanni, providing many light moments to break the tension, it seemed the greater themes made the story more of a drama. The libretto tells the story of a tragic hero, a womanizer whose pride and reckless, self-centered behavior ultimately causes his downfall. Throughout the story, Don Giovanni deceives and betrays many women and acts selfishly at the expense of others. Betrayal, jealousy, and revenge are dominant themes that seem to ultimately triumph (with Don Giovanni’s condemnation to death for his wicked deeds).
However after seeing the opera, complete with music and actors who added another dimension to the story, I found the story to be much more comedic! There were moments where I actually found myself laughing out loud, especially at Leporello’s side comments. The plot seemed all the more obscene and ridiculous, with characters running back and forth in the madness of it all. Relations between the characters—Don Ottavio’s undying devotion to Donna Anna, Zerlina’s back-and-forth jig between the romancing Don Giovanni and the envious Masetto, and Donna Elvira’s relentless attachment to Don Giovanni—seemed all to be a bit outlandish and definitely amusing. Then there were clearly comical scenes (like Leporello’s switch with Don Giovanni) that were there for the mere purpose of entertainment. Together, all of these scenarios and relationships played out by the performers, accompanied by music, made the plight of Don Giovanni seem like much more of a comedy than tragedy!
There were definitely class differences reflected in the libretto when you compare the relationships of Donna Anna and Don Ottavio versus Masetto and Zerlina. Donna Anna was a wealthy woman who Don Ottavio dotingly followed, whereas Masetto didn’t fawn over Zerlina in the same way. Their relationship was more straightforward and simple; neither worshiped one another and they were together for their modest love for one another. Don Giovanni emphasized the stark differences between the aristocracy and the underclasses. He acted as an entitled aristocrat, doing as he pleased and taking all women as if they were subject to his will and needs. Even though he was so “fair” and “generous” to take women of all shapes, ages, and classes, he generally acts greedily and lustfully towards women (and Leporello too!), as if his wealth justifies his domineering attitude.
The music did a good job of conveying the many characters, moods, and interactions, pulling one scene into the next. The music was used to create both comedic and dramatic atmospheres, depending on the context. For instance, Donna Elvira’s aria was high, long, and trailing, helping to convey her longing for her seducer. Leporello’s solo was light and fast paced, with a lively, storytelling melody –adding to the humor of his aria. The Comendator’s arrival was booming and dramatic, with slow, deep and thundering tones to convey his dooming message to Don Giovanni. Romance, comedy, bitterness, sadness, and misfortune were all conveyed through the music, with its varying pace, harmonies, and range. Mozart used a very dynamic approach in his compositions to make them carry the quickly shifting moods of the story.
I really enjoyed seeing an opera to contrast the many contemporary performances that we saw throughout the semester. I like that it was in many ways over-the-top and impersonal to the audience because it was more of a spectacle. Rather than trying to engage the audience or make us experience some kind of complex emotion or message, its purpose was simply to entertain. And because it is older, there were more standards that it had to conform to. But this is not necessarily a bad thing. Its structure, its drama, it flamboyant costumes and its grandiose music created a kind of complete experience that I really enjoyed. Sure, I wasn’t emotionally or intellectually engaged, but the opera presented a great story in a magnificent setting with lavish visual and audio accompaniment that are interesting to take in and be overwhelmed by. It is always great to see something different to find an appreciation for the captivating elements of each unique kind of performance we saw.

The Builder’s Association production of a House/Divided created a parallel between the financial crisis of the present day and the Great Depression of the past. They took the two events and intertwined them with each other, allowing the audience to see the similarities between the two events. During the shifts in time, the large house in the middle of the stage was used as a way to bring the audience back to the period of the Great Depression. It even became see-through, so that viewers would be able to see clearly what was happening. A large digital screen was used as well, with different screens popping up as the performers were chatting into the computer screens. In short, House/Divided was so rich with media that it became a little suffocating; in fact, it overshadowed the performers to the point where I don’t remember any of the performers.

After this performance, I lean more towards Phelan’s view. Live performances feel more real when it isn’t cluttered with media and technology. However, I don’t completely agree with Phelan, nor do I completely agree with Auslander’s view. There are certain times though, where media can truly enhance the performance – in that aspect, yes, I do agree with Auslander. However, there has to be a certain balance between enhancing the performance and completely consuming it. In this instance, I feel like House/Divided was consumed by the media that was supposed to enhance it. Like the woman who strongly disliked the production in the discussion after the show, I feel like there wasn’t enough of an emotional aspect to the performance. To me, it was more informative rather than anything else. I didn’t feel the wrath that I felt while reading the book; I just felt a bit blank and confused. Without media in this performance though, I feel like it would have been a bit harder to understand, and a bit harder to transition between the different time periods. In this case, media aids in this performance, but as I stated before, House/Divided really did clutter the performance with media.

After watching the Builder’s Association’s production of “House/Divided,” I feel like I have a new prospective on media in performance. The performance was filled with media, using it as the set, but also as a featured character. The presence of media in the mortgage crisis was a pivotal difference from the Depression era, to which this financial era was compared. The Depression era was brought into the story using the classic novel “Grapes of Wrath,” by John Steinbeck. While in that time the story of financial wo was spread by this novel, something everyone in that time period read and felt deep in their core to ring true with themselves and their surroundings, this era uses media to explain their troubles. All over the news, media announces the very personal struggles of the millions. Whether on the televised news, the papers, blogs (another revolution that is only used very lately), or radio, the pain is everywhere in the media, while in the Depression era there was less ability to spread news, as there were fewer media through which the news could travel.

The play compared this financial crisis to the Depression, which is not a far leap. But an additional difference that was made is the presence of corporations. These are businesses which often employ thousands of workers – workers who rarely have any choice to do anything but their job. There is no opportunity for kindness. As mentioned in the after-show discussion, the scene in which the cruel man from the Depression times lends the poor mother a nickel for sugar would be impossible in this era. The workers at big corporations could not offer assistance unless there are commands from higher up. It is much like soldiers often have no idea what they are doing when they work in an operation, they merely listen to their commander for orders, hoping that those above them know what they are doing. 

This play reinforced my support of Auslander, that is, media can enhance performance. I think that the idea this play was using, bringing in media to show the difference between the individual story and the massive companies, was brilliant and stark. On the other hand, much like the woman who fervently argued against the play’s ability to reach the audience, I think that the production could have been pared down quite a bit to emotionally connect with the audience. This follows the Phelan view, and though the play utilized media well, I think there needs to be a balance so that the audience is not over-stimulated.

Meira

It is clear that the Builder’s Association attempted to create a play where media have a pivotal role in the storytelling. They sought to present the plights of Americans during the Dust Bowl in the context of the modern economic slump. The presence of media was very evident in “House/Divided”. Images and live video feed of the performer was often projected onto the stage throughout the performance. Media was used in other interesting ways as well. In the performance, narration of The Grapes of Wrath was provided in the form of prerecorded voice audio. The actors also had to actively spin the reel for the narration to play. Although these dynamic forms of media were put alongside the live acting in order to enhance the performance, the play did not completely succeed in this respect.

As Auslander suggests, media can be used to improve the experience of live performance if used correctly. However, in the case of “House/Divided”, media only served to distort the already confusing plot of the play. Although media was used in surprising and interesting ways, it still took away from the performance. I do not necessarily agree with Phelan’s view that media should be kept separate from performances, but in this case, he is right. The premise of the play was seemingly nonintuitive and hard to follow as it jumped back and forth from the past to the present. The addition of media only added to this confusion, and as a result, I was lost. I would have understood “House/Divided” better if it had been presented in a more traditional fashion, free of media.

House/Divided was definitely a unique experience, but, honestly, I was too drawn into the content of the performance to note any differences mediatization may have brought about.  The fact that this mediatized performance was happening live seemed, to me, just like any other ordinary live play, dance or theatrical performance.  My take on the issue of live vs. virtual coincides with the mesmerizing effect any present event can have on an audience. In that sense, I agree with Phelan’s argument that a “performance’s life is in the present”, but that the essence of visualizing the event in the present place and time isn’t adulterated with the addition of media; it is rather enhanced.

Builder’s Association’s House/ Divided was really an amalgam of film and play.  As the actors played out their parts, some of them were projected on the screen for dramatization.  This kind of projection on screen is comparable to live concerts that make visible the important parts of the stage to the audiences sitting farther away. I think that the Association brought the book, Grapes of Wrath, alive in that they added a narrative voice and chronicled the journey of the Joad family to California in the wagon by providing images of the fields and sky on the screen. Had this been done without the projection of images, we would have only seen and heard the actors’ dialogue. So, mediatization actually captured the crucial voice of the narrator that dominates most of the book. Auslander does make an important point about the use of modern technology being inevitably incorporated into the performances. The present economic crisis wouldn’t have been depicted properly if media weren’t used. For example, the news anchors reporting the status of stock markets and the green screen with numbers associated with the market couldn’t have been accomplished without the use of technology. We even saw in Pina Baush’s performance the projection of waves on the screen in one of the segments. Builder’s Association was just displaying “behind-the-scenes” actions by having on stage the people in charge of making sound effects and the projections.  Even though I think Phelan rightfully points out the essence and effectiveness of live performances, I also agree with Auslander’s argument of performances reflecting the contemporary world that is, today, dominated by technology of the media.

“House/Divided” focused on the parallels between the modern housing and financial crisis and the 1930’s Dust Bowl, crops crisis, and Great Depression. It alternated between the Joad family from John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath who, forced off their land by the bank, were forced to travel westward, facing death, poverty, and starvation; and the everyday families who now face foreclosure at the hands of irresponsible banking institutions. Each portion was heavy with personal as well as national tragedy.

Though both portions of the performance were heavy with multimedia, it was also mixed in with live, human performers. Live actors portrayed the Joad family, the bankers, and the families facing foreclosure. There was a huge, transformable house as a prop in the center of the stage. However, the media elements were prominent. Interview videos, booming music, and projections on top of the house of everything from a dilapidated modern house to the fields of the Midwest gave the blank canvas of the house a character and a story. Stock market tickers and telephone calls, as well as video conferences and large projections of the actors’ faces were also used.

I am strongly in the Phelan camp when it comes to the debate over media and “live” performance. I believe that media, while creative and sometimes beneficial to a performance, can ruin the live aspect of the work. Live performance is a privilege; it is sacred and unfiltered, unlike mediatized performance. The audience gets more of an experience with live than with mediatized performance. However, the directors took an Auslander view in this performance. Auslander believes that mediatized performance is just as “real” and “live” as truly live performance.

In this performance specifically, I felt that the media often overpowered the actors. While some of the media added to the emotional resonance of the piece, such as the compelling music and the telephone calls, other elements such as the voiceovers, the interviews, and the projections of the actors’ faces seemed to overshadow the human element of the work and made the characters mere digital images. The piece lacked the visceral connection to the human tragedy that truly occurred in both eras.

Nevertheless, though I was less than enamored with the mediatized section of the performance, I felt that there were some very strong elements to the piece that truly made me appreciate my home and my family. By placing the Joads in comparison with the modern housing crisis, it really hit home the idea that these types of tragedies still occur and are still affecting America. The post-performance discussion gave us a good look into the writers’ and directors’ minds and I gained a lot of insight into the theory behind this type of performance, which borders more on conceptual performance art than a play. The performance was a good experience in terms of my views on the “liveness” of medaitized performance. Though I am still strongly for Phelan’s view that live performance is more “true” than mediatized performance, I can see that some elements of media often help to enhance the performance.

Dixon writes of Auslander’s conviction that when an audience sees media and live performance combined, the mix does not create a dichotomous viewing experience, but that rather the two (media and live performance) blend and mesh. However, Auslander elaborates, it is true that one overpowers the other; as he says, “Dance + Virtual = Virtual.” I agree that media sucks in all other forms of performance and mediatizes them (acting also, not just dance, which Auslander focused on), as happened in “House/Divided.” In “House/Divided,” which employs live performance, recorded footage, digital ticker tape, and real-time live electronic projections of the performers, it really did feel as if the media overwhelmed the live performance and performers. Ausler makes an interesting conclusion (actually using an original thought of Phelan’s as the basis for his argument–he reversed her statement logically) that recording live performance metaphorically transforms it into television. This is a very accurate portrayal of how I felt watching “House/Divided,” especially when there were both performers and media present onstage; I felt that even though I saw the actors right there in front of me, they were but cogs in the media performance.

This play made me agree even more strongly with Phelan that there is nothing quite like a pure live performance. Even when I saw an actor moving and speaking, if that actor was recorded and projected onto one of the screens on stage, he or she felt less real, was less powerful. “House/Divided” proved to me that, indeed, recordings are not comparable o live performance, and that, as Pelan says, “Performance’s independence from . . . reproduction . . . is its greatest strength.” Though I very much enjoyed “House/Divided” and hope to see more performances like it in terms of media incorporation, I have gained a new appreciation for purely live, technology-free performances.

“House/Divided” compared the story of the Joad family from The Grapes of Wrath with the modern day financial and foreclosure crisis through the use of live performance and media.  The Joads were a family who was forced to leave their home and land in Ohio and travel to California to find work and a new life.  Their task is not very simple because they must also deal with death as well as little pay.  The modern day portion of the play consisted of someone being kicked out of their home and the financial workers and others involved in the crisis.  It also showed documentary-type interviews with people who lost their homes or were involved in the foreclosure process in some way.

The play involved aspects of live performance and media.  There were actors present portraying the Joad family as well as actors depicting a modern day man suffering from foreclosure and the people working in the financial and police departments.  There were also some physical props involved.  On the other hand, media was involved heavily in this performance.  The house was taken into the two different time periods with projections of houses in various conditions.  In addition to the videos of interviews shown, a loop of stock market numbers and images of the dustbowl were projected.  At other times, projections of the actors’ faces were shown larger on screen.

I tend to take a more Phelan approach to this situation because I do believe the live performance is livelier, more realistic, and overall a different experience than media.  Phelan says that a performances life is in the present and that media in any form makes the performance something different.  In my experience, I believe that live performances evoke more emotion from the audience.  Still, in some circumstances, I think it is possible to use media to support the live performance while not taking away from it.  In “House/Divided,” however, media was so much of a component that its creators had taken a more Austlander approach.  Austlander believed that media was just as “real” and important as live performance.  He used the analogy, Dance + Virtual = Virtual, and he supported this equation.

Ultimately, “House/Divided,” was a unique experience even though it was not the same as a completely live play would have been.  I think the use of media in some aspects was very original, for example the initial entrance of the house’s projection was great.  Although I do prefer a performance with more live aspects, I do not completely agree with the first woman who spoke in the discussion session.  Although the audience was not completely invested in a fleshed out storyline, I left with a feeling of appreciation my family and the house we are fortunate enough to have.